On the gender-science stereotypes held by Scientists: Explicit accord with gender-ratios, implicit accord with scientific identity

Frontiers in Psychology

Volumn 6, Issue MAR, 2015, Pages

  Smyth, Frederick L ^a   Nosek, Brian A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Diversity; Gender; Science education; Science workforce; Stereotypes

Indexed keywords

EID: 84926633484     PISSN: None     EISSN: 16641078     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00415     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Association of American Medical Colleges (2013). Total Graduates by U.S. Medical School and Sex, 2009-2013. https://www.aamc.org/download/321532/data/2013factstable27-2.pdf
2. Association of American Medical Colleges (2014). Age of Applicants to U.S. Medical Schools at Anticipated Matriculation by Sex and Race/Ethnicity, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. https://www.aamc.org/download/321468/data/factstable6.pdf
3. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
4. Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2007). Why aren't more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
5. Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2010). Sex differences in math-intensive fields. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 275-279.
6. Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2011). Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 3157-3162.
7. Chang, M. J., Sharkness, J., Hurtado, S., & Newman, C. B. (2014). What matters in college for retaining aspiring scientists and engineers from underrepresented racial groups. Journal of Research in Teaching Science, 51, 555-580.
8. Cheryan, S. (2012). Understanding the paradox in math-related fields: Why do some gender gaps remain while others do not? Sex Roles, 66, 184-190.
9. Crowley, K., Callanan, M. A., Tenenbaum, H. R., & Allen, E. (2001). Parents explain more often to boys than to girls during shared scientific thinking. Psychological Science, 12, 258-261.
10. Cvencek, D., Meltzoff, A. N., & Greenwald, A. G. (2011). Math-gender stereotypes in elementary school children. Child Development, 82, 766-779.
11. Dasgupta, N., & Asgari, S. (2004). Seeing is believing: Exposure to counterstereotypic women leaders and its effect on automatic gender stereotyping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 642-658.
12. Dasgupta, N. (2011). Ingroup experts and peers as social vaccines who inoculate the selfconcept: The stereotype inoculation model, Psychological Inquiry, 22, 231-246.
13. Diekman, A. B., & Eagly, A. H. (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of the past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1171-1188.
14. Eagly, A. H. & Steffens, V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 735-754.
15. Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123-174).
16. Eccles, J. S. (2007). Where are all the women? Gender differences in participation in physical science and engineering. In S. J. Ceci, & M. W. Williams, (Eds.), Why aren't more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence. (pp. 199-210). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
17. Elliott, R., Strenta, A. C., Adair, R., Matier, M., and Scott, J. (1995). Non-Asian minority students in the science pipeline at highly selective institutions. (Final report of NSF Grant RED 93 53 821).
18. Galdi, S., Cadinu, M., & Tomasetto, C. (2014). The roots of stereotype threat: When automatic associations disrupt girls' math performance. Child Development, 85, 250-263. doi:10.1111/cdev.12128
19. Gallagher, A. M., & Kaufman, J. C. (2005). Gender differences in mathematics: An integrative psychological approach. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
20. Gawronski, B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2006). Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 692-731.
21. Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). A unified theory of implicit attitudes, beliefs, self-esteem and self-concept. Psychological Review, 102, 4-27.
22. Greenwald, A. G., Banaji, M. R., Rudman, L. A., Farnham, S. D., Nosek, B. A., & Mellot, D. S. (2002). A unified theory of implicit attitudes, beliefs, self-esteem and self-concept. Psychological Review, 109, 3-25.
23. Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464-1480.
24. Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197-216.
25. Halpern, D. F., Benbow, C. P., Geary, D. C., Gur, R. C., Hyde, J. S., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (2007). The science of sex differences in science and mathematics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 8, 1-51.
26. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
27. Higher Education Research Institute (2014). The American Freshman: National Norms 2014.. http://heri.ucla.edu/monographs/TheAmericanFreshman2014.pdf
28. Inzlicht, M. & Ben-Zeev, T. (2000). A threatening intellectual environment: Why females are susceptible to experiencing problem-solving deficits in the presence of males. Psychological Science, 11, 365-371.
29. Kaminski, D., & Geisler, C. (2012). Survival analysis of faculty retention in science and engineering by gender. Science, 335, 864-866.
30. Kenny, D. A. (October 29, 2014). Mediation. http://davidakenny.net/cm/mediate.htm#DIA. Accessed Jan 18, 2015.
31. Kiefer, A. K., & Sekaquaptewa, D. (2007). Implicit stereotypes, gender identification, and math-related outcomes: A prospective study of female college students. Psychological Science, 18, 13-18.
32. Lane, K. A., Goh, J. X., & Driver-Linn, E. (2012). Implicit science stereotypes mediate the relationship between gender and academic participation. Sex Roles, 66, 220-234. DOI 10.1007/s11199-011-0036-z
33. Lee, Y., Jussim, L., & McCauley, C. R. (1995). Stereotype accuracy: Toward appreciating group differences. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
34. Martin, D., von Oertzen, T., Smyth, F., Melcher, T., & Mitrea, I. (2013, May). Implicit math gender stereotypes changing over time: An application of latent growth curve modeling. Poster presented at the 25th annual meeting of the Association for Psychological Science, Washington, D.C.
35. Miller, D. I., & Halpern, D. F. (2014). The new science of cognitive sex differences. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 37-45.
36. Miller, D. I., Eagly, A. H., & Linn, M. C. (in press). Women's representation in science predicts national gender-science stereotypes: Evidence from 66 nations. Journal of Educational Psychology, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/edu0000005.
37. Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 16474-16479.
38. National Academies of Science (2007). Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the potential of women in academic science and engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
39. National Science Foundation (2006). Time to Degree of U.S. Research Doctorate Recipients. NSF 06-312. Arlington, VA. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf06312/
40. National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (2011a). Science and Engineering Degrees: 1966-2008. Detailed Statistical Tables NSF 11-316. Arlington, VA. Available at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf11316/.
41. National Science Foundation (2011b). Women, Minorities and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2011. NSF 11-309. Arlington, V.A.
42. National Science Foundation (2006). Time to Degree of U.S. Research Doctorate Recipients. NSF 06-312. Arlington, VA. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf06312/
43. Nosek, B. A., & Smyth, F. L. (2011). Implicit social cognitions predict sex differences in math engagement and achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 1124-1154. doi:10.3102/0002831211410683
44. Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002a). Math = male, me = female, therefore math ≠ me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 44-59.
45. Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002b). Harvesting implicit group attitudes and beliefs from a demonstration website. Group Dynamics, 6, 101-115.
46. Nosek, B. A., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (2005). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: II. Method variables and construct validity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 166-180.
47. Nosek, B. A., Smyth, F. L., Hansen, J. J., Devos, T., Lindner, N. M., Ranganath, K. A., Smith, C. T., Olson, K. R., Chugh, D., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (2007). Pervasiveness and correlates of implicit attitudes and stereotypes. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 36-88.
48. Nosek, B. A., Hawkins, C. B., & Frazier, R. S. (2012). Implicit Social Cognition. In S. Fiske & C. N. Macrae (Eds.) Handbook of Social Cognition (pp. 31-53). New York, NY: Sage.
49. Ratliff, K. A., & Nosek, B. A. (2010). Creating distinct implicit and explicit attitudes with an illusory correlation paradigm. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 721-728.
50. Robertson, K. F., Smeets, S., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2010). Beyond the threshold hypothesis: Even among the gifted and top math/science graduate students, cognitive abilities, vocational interests, and lifestyle preferences matter for career choice, performance, and persistence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 346-351.
51. Smyth, F. L. (2010). Pilot research with first-semester University of Virginia engineering students: Gender differences in goals, self-concepts, stereotypes and perceptions of discrimination. Unpublished manuscript.
52. Smyth, F. L., & McArdle, J. J. (2004). Ethnic and gender differences in science graduation at selective colleges with implications for admission policy and college choice. Research in Higher Education, 45, 353-381.
53. Smyth, F. L., Mitrea, I., Melcher, T., & Martin, D. (2013). Men's, not women's, implicit math-gender stereotype weakens in differential equations courses taught by female professors. Unpublished data.
54. Stout, J. G., Dasgupta, N., Hunsinger, M., & McManus, M. A. (2011). STEMing the tide: Using ingroup experts to inoculate women's self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,100, 255-270.
55. Su, R., J. Rounds and P. Armstrong. 2009. Men and things, women and people: A metaanalysis of sex differences in interests. Psychological Bulletin 135:859-884.
56. Summers, L. H. (14 January 2005). Remarks presented at NBER Conference on Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce. Cambridge, MA. Retrieved April 21, 2005, from http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/2005/nber.html
57. Tai, R. H., Liu, C. Q., Maltese, A. V., & Fan, X. T. (2006). Planning early for careers in science. Science, 312, 1143-1144.
58. Xie, Y., & Shauman, K. A. (2003). Women in Science: Career Processes and Outcomes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, M.A.