The Matilda Effect in science: Awards and prizes in the US, 1990s and 2000s

Social Studies of Science

Volumn 42, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 307-320

  Lincoln, Anne E ^a   Pincus, Stephanie ^b   Koster, Janet Bandows ^c   Leboy, Phoebe S ^d  

^a SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Society for Women's Health Research   (United States)

^c Association for Women in Science   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

awards; gender; ghettoization; implicit bias; Matthew Effect; prizes; science; universalism

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AWARDS AND PRIZES; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SEX DIFFERENCE; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; SOCIOLOGY; UNITED STATES; WOMEN'S RIGHTS;

AWARDS AND PRIZES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PREJUDICE; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SEX FACTORS; SOCIAL SCIENCES; UNITED STATES; WOMEN'S RIGHTS;

EID: 84858190956     PISSN: 03063127     EISSN: 14603659     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0306312711435830     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Barres BA.Does gender matter?.Nature. 2006;442:133-136.
2. Blank RM.The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing: Experimental evidence from the American Economic Review.American Economic Review. 1991;81 (5): 1041-1067.
3. The Declining Significance of Gender?. Blau FDBrinton MCGrusky D, ed. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2006:.
4. Budden AE,Tregenza T,Aarssen LW,Koricheva J,Leimu R,Lortie CJ.Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors.TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution. 2008;23:4-6.
5. Carnes M,Geller S,Fine E,Sheridan J,Handelsman J.NIH Director's Pioneer Awards: Could the selection process be biased against women?.Journal of Women's Health. 2005;14 (8): 684-691.
6. Correll S.Gender and the career choice process: The role of biased self-assessments.American Journal of Sociology. 2001;106:1691-1730.
7. Correll S,Benard S,Paik I.Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty?.American Journal of Sociology. 2007;112:1297-1338.
8. Drentea P.Consequences of women's formal and informal job search methods for employment in female-dominated jobs.Gender & Society. 1998;12 (3): 321-338.
9. Fiorentine R.Men, women, and the premed persistence gap: A normative alternatives approach.American Journal of Sociology. 1987;5:1118-1139.
10. Frey BS.Awards as compensation.European Management Review. 2007;4 (8): 6-14.
11. Goldin C,Rouse C.Orchestrating impartiality: The impact of 'blind' auditions on female musicians.American Economic Review. 2000;90 (4): 715-741.
12. Granovetter M.The strength of weak ties.American Journal of Sociology. 1973;78 (6): 1360-1380.
13. Granovetter MGetting A Job: A Study of Contacts and Careers. second edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1985:.
14. Grant L,Ward KB.Gender and publishing in sociology.Gender & Society. 1991;5:207-223.
15. Greenwald AG,Nosek BA,Banaji MR.Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2003;85:197-216.
16. Heilman ME,Haynes MC.Attributional rationalization of women's success in mixed-sex teams: No credit where credit is due.Journal of Applied Psychology. 2005;90:905-916.
17. Horwitz SK,Horwitz IB.The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: A meta-analytic review of team demography.Journal of Management. 2007;33:987-1015.
18. Lincoln AE,Pincus S,Schick V.Evaluating science or evaluating gender?.American Physical Society News. 2009;18:8.
19. Long JS,Fox MF.Scientific careers: Universalism and particularism.Annual Review of Sociology. 1995;21:45-71.
20. McLeod P,Lobel S,Cox T.Ethnic diversity and creativity in small groups.Small Group Research. 1996;2 (27): 248-264.
21. McPherson JM,Popielarz PA,Drobnic S.Social networks and organizational dynamics.American Sociological Review. 1992;57 (2): 153-170.
22. Merton RK.The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered.Science. 1968;159:56-63.
23. National Academies (2006) Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Washington DC: National Academies Press.
24. Reskin BF.Including mechanisms in our models of ascriptive inequality.American Sociological Review. 2003;68 (1): 1-21.
25. Reskin BF,Roos PAJob Queues, Gender Queues: Explaining Women's Inroads into Male Occupations. Philadelphia: Temple University Press; 1990:.
26. Rossiter MW.The Matthew Matilda effect in science.Social Studies of Science. 1993;23:325-341.
27. Rudman LA.Self promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counter-stereotypical impression management.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1998;74 (3): 629-645.
28. Steinpreis RE,Anders KA,Ritzke D.The impact of gender on the review of the curricula vitae of job applicants and tenure candidates: A national empirical study.Sex Roles. 1999;41 (7-8): 509-528.
29. Trix F,Psenka C.Exploring the color of glass: Letters of recommendation for female and male medical faculty.Discourse and Society. 2003;14 (2): 191-220.
30. Tsui AS,Gutek BADemographic Differences in Organizations: Current Research and Future Directions. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books; 1999:.
31. Wenneras C,Wold A.Nepotism and sexism in peer-review.Nature. 1997;387 (6631): 341-343.
32. Xie Y,Shauman KAWomen in Science: Career Processes and Outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2003:.
33. Zuckerman H.Stratification in American Science.Sociological Inquiry. 1970;40:235-237.