Female peers in small work groups enhance women's motivation, verbal participation, and career aspirations in engineering

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Volumn 112, Issue 16, 2015, Pages 4988-4993

  Dasgupta, Nilanjana ^a   Scircle, Melissa McManus ^b   Hunsinger, Matthew ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

^b MILLIKIN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c PACIFIC UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Gender; Science education; Social psychology; STEM diversity; Stereotypes

Indexed keywords

ANXIETY; ARTICLE; CAREER; EDUCATION; ENGINEERING; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN ACTIVITIES; LEARNING; MALE; MASCULINITY; MINORITY GROUP; MOTIVATION; PARITY; PEER GROUP; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEX DIFFERENCE; SEX RATIO; SOCIAL PARTICIPATION; STEREOTYPY; WORK ENVIRONMENT; BEHAVIOR; DECISION MAKING; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; STEREOTYPING; YOUNG ADULT;

BEHAVIOR; CAREER CHOICE; COMMUNICATION; ENGINEERING; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MINORITY GROUPS; MOTIVATION; PEER GROUP; SEX FACTORS; STEREOTYPING; WOMEN; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84928473785     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: 10916490     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1422822112     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. National Academies (2010) Rising Above the Gathering Storm, Revisited: Rapidly Approaching Category 5 (National Academies, Washington, DC).
2. National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (2013) Science and engineering degrees: 1966-2010. Available at nsf.gov/statistics/nsf13327/. Accessed November 20, 2014.
3. National Center for Education Statistics, National Center for Education Statistics (2013) Digest of Education Statistics. Washington, DC. Available at nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13-318.10.asp. Accessed November 20, 2014.
4. Higher Education Research Institute (2013) Survey of the American freshman: Special tabulations. Los Angeles, CA. Available at www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/2013/pdf/tab2-8.pdf. Accessed November 20, 2014.
5. National Science Foundation (2009) Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2009. Available at www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/. Accessed November 20, 2014.
6. Seymour E, Hewitt NM (1997) Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences (Westview Press, Boulder, CO).
7. Ohland MW, et al. (2008) Persistence, engagement, and migration in engineering programs. J Engineering Educ 97(3):259-278.
8. Vogt CM, Hocevar D, Hagedorn LS (2007) A social cognitive construct validation: Determing women's and men's success in engineering programs. J Higher Educ 78(30):337-364.
9. Robertson KF, Smeets S, Lubinski D, Benbow CP (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. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 19(6):346-351.
10. Stout JG, Dasgupta N, Hunsinger M, McManus MA (2011) STEMing the tide: Using ingroup experts to inoculate women's self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). J Pers Soc Psychol 100(2):255-270.
11. Ferriman K, Lubinski D, Benbow CP (2009) Work preferences, life values, and personal views of top math/science graduate students and the profoundly gifted: Developmental changes and gender differences during emerging adulthood and parenthood. J Pers Soc Psychol 97(3):517-532.
12. Pinker S (2008) The Sexual Paradox: Extreme Men, Gifted Women and the Real Gender Gap (Random House, Canada).
13. Rosenbloom JL, Ash RA, Dupont B, Coder L (2008) Why are there so few women in information technology? Assessing the role of personality in career choices. J Econ Psychol 29(4):543-554.
14. Dasgupta N (2011) Ingroup experts and peers as social vaccines who inoculate the self-concept: The stereotype inoculation model. Psychol Inq 22(4):231-246.
15. Steele CM, Spencer SJ, Aronson J (2002) Contending with group image: The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 34:379-440.
16. Asgari S, Dasgupta N, Cote NG (2010) When does contact with successful ingroup members change self-stereotypes? A longitudinal study comparing the effect of quantity vs. quality of contact with successful individuals. Soc Psychol 41(3):203-211.
17. Asgari S, Dasgupta N, Stout JG (2012) When do counterstereotypic ingroup members inspire versus deflate? The effect of successful professional women on young women's leadership self-concept. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 38(3):370-383.
18. Dasgupta N, Asgari S (2004) Seeing is believing: Exposure to counterstereotypic women leaders and its effect on automatic gender stereotyping. J Exp Soc Psychol 40(5):642-658.
19. Gibson DE (2004) Role models in career development: New directions for theory and research. J Voc Beh 65(1):134-156.
20. Lockwood P, Kunda Z (1997) Superstars and me: Predicting the impact of role models on the self. J Pers Soc Psychol 73(1):91-103.
21. Lockwood P, Kunda Z (1999) Increasing the salience of one's best selves can undermine inspiration by outstanding role models. J Pers Soc Psychol 76(2):214-228.
22. Inzlicht M, Ben-Zeev T (2000) A threatening intellectual environment: Why females are susceptible to experiencing problem-solving deficits in the presence of males. Psychol Sci 11(5):365-371.
23. Inzlicht M, Ben-Zeev T (2003) Do high-achieving female students underperform in private? The implications of threatening environments on intellectual processing. J Educ Psychol 95(4):796-805.
24. Sekaquaptewa D, Thompson M (2002) The differential effects of solo status on members of high- and low-status groups. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 28(5):694-707.
25. Sekaquaptewa D, Thompson M (2003) Solo status, stereotype threat, and performance expectancies: Their effects on women's performance. J Exp Soc Psychol 39(1):68-74.
26. Lord CG, Saenz DS (1985) Memory deficits and memory surfeits: Differential cognitive consequences of tokenism for tokens and observers. J Pers Soc Psychol 49(4):918-926.
27. Stangor C, Carr C, Kiang L (1998) Activating stereotypes undermines task performance expectations. J Pers Soc Psychol 75(5):1191-1197.
28. Kanter N (1977) Men and Women of the Corporation (Basic Books, New York).
29. Niemann YF, Dovidio JF (1998) Relationship of solo status, academic rank, and perceived distinctiveness to job satisfaction of racial/ethnic minorities. J Appl Psychol 83(1):55-71.
30. Yoder JD, Aniakudo P (1997) 'Outsider within' the firehouse: Subordination and difference in the social interactions of African American women firefighters. Gend Soc 11(3):324-341.
31. Pollak KI, Niemann YF (1998) Black and White tokens in academia: A difference of chronic versus acute distinctiveness. J Appl Soc Psychol 28(11):954-972.
32. Sekaquaptewa D, Waldman A, Thompson M (2007) Solo status and self-construal: Being distinctive influences racial self-construal and performance apprehension in African American women. Cultur Divers Ethnic Minor Psychol 13(4):321-327.
33. Murphy MC, Steele CM, Gross JJ (2007) Signaling threat: How situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychol Sci 18(10):879-885.
34. Meadows L, Sekaquaptewa D (2011) The effect of skewed gender composition on student participation in undergraduate engineering project teams. Proceedings of the Association for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference, Vancouver, BC, Canada Paper 2011-1319. Available at www.asee.org/public/conferences/1/papers/1319/view. Accessed October 13, 2014.
35. Jamieson JP, Mendes WB, Blackstock E, Schmader T (2010) Turning the knots in your stomach into bows: Reappraising arousal improves performance on the GRE. J Exp Soc Psychol 46(1):208-212.
36. Tomaka J, Blascovich J (1994) Effects of justice beliefs on cognitive appraisal of and subjective, physiological, and behavioral responses to potential stress. J Pers Soc Psychol 67(4):732-740.
37. White JB (2008) Fail or flourish? Cognitive appraisal moderates the effect of solo status on performance. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 34(9):1171-1184.
38. Greenwald AG, McGhee DE, Schwartz JLK (1998) Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. J Pers Soc Psychol 74(6):1464-1480.
39. Smith MK, et al. (2009) Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science 323(5910):122-124.
40. Drach-Zahavy A, Erez M (2002) Challenge versus threat effects on the goal-performance relationship. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 88(2):667-682.