Losing its expected communal value: how stereotype threat undermines women’s identity as research scientists

Social Psychology of Education

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 443-466

  Smith, Jessi L ^a   Brown, Elizabeth R ^b   Thoman, Dustin B ^c   Deemer, Eric D ^d  

^a MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH FLORIDA   (United States)

^c CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Expectancy value; Gender; Motivation; Science education; Science identification; Stereotype threat

Indexed keywords

EID: 84941426866     PISSN: 13812890     EISSN: 15731928     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11218-015-9296-8     Document Type: Article

References (103)

1. Ahlqvist, S., London, B., & Rosenthal, L. (2013). Unstable identity compatibility: How gender rejection sensitivity undermines success of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields. Psychological Science,24, 1644–1652. doi:10.1177/0956797613476048.
2. Aronson, J., Lustina, M. J., Good, C., & Keough, K. (1999). When White men can’t do math: Necessary and sufficient factors in stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,35, 29–46. doi:10.1006/jesp.1998.1371.
3. Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: An essay on psychology and religion. Chicago: Rand McNally.
4. Blickenstaff, J. C. (2005). Women and science careers: Leaky pipeline or gender filter? Gender and Education,17, 369–386. doi:10.1080/09540250500145072.
5. Cadinu, M., Maass, A., Frigerio, S., Impagliazzo, L., & Lationotti, S. (2003). Stereotype threat: The effect of expectancy on performance. European Journal of Social Psychology,33, 267–285. doi:10.1002/ejsp.145.
6. Cadinu, M., Maass, A., Rosbianca, A., & Kiesner, J. (2005). Why do women underperform under stereotype threat? Evidence for the role of negative thinking. Psychological Science,16, 572–578. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01577.x.
7. Carr, P. B., & Steele, C. M. (2010). Stereotype threat affects financial decision making. Psychological Science,21, 1411–1416. doi:10.1177/0956797610384146.
8. Chemers, M. M., Zurbriggen, E. L., Syed, M., Goza, B. K., & Bearman, S. (2011). The role of efficacy and identity in science career commitment among underrepresented minority students. Journal of Social Issues,67, 469–491. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01710.x.
9. Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Davies, P. G., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,97, 1045–1060. doi:10.1037/a0016239.
10. Croizet, J. C., Désert, M., Dutrévis, M., & Leyens, J. (2001). Stereotype threat, social class, gender, and academic under-achievement: When our reputation catches up to us and takes over. Social Psychology of Education,3–4, 295–310. doi:10.1023/A:1011336821053.
11. Crosby, F. (1984). The denial of personal discrimination. American Behavioral Scientist,27, 371–386. doi:10.1177/000276484027003008.
12. Dasgupta, N. (2011). Ingroup experts and peers as social vaccines who inoculate the self-concept: The stereotype inoculation model. Psychological Inquiry, An International Journal for the Advancement of Psychological Theory,22(4), 231–246. doi:10.1080/1047840X.2011.607313.
13. Derks, B., Inzlicht, M., & Kang, S. (2008). The neuroscience of stigma and stereotype threat. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,11, 163–181. doi:10.1177/1368430207088036.
14. Diekman, A. B., Brown, E. R., Johnston, A. M., & Clark, E. K. (2010). Seeking congruity between goals and roles: A new look at why women opt out of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. Psychological Science,21, 1051–1057. doi:10.1177/0956797610377342.
15. Diekman, A. B., Clark, E. K., Johnston, A. M., Brown, E. R., & Steinberg, M. (2011). Malleability in communal goals and beliefs influence attraction to STEM careers: Evidence for a goal congruity perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,101, 902–918. doi:10.1037/a0025199.
16. Doosje, B., Ellemers, N., & Spears, R. (1995). Perceived intragroup variability as a function of group status and identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,31, 410–436. doi:10.1006/jesp.1995.1018.
17. Dyer, J., & McWhinnie, S. (2011). A survey of chemistry and physics postdoctoral researchers’ experiences and career intentions. International Journal of Gender, Science, and Technology,3, 596–619.
18. Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (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). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. Eccles, J.S. (1989). Bringing young women to math and science. In M. Crawford & M. Gentry (Eds.) Gender and thought: Psychological perspectives (pp. 36–58). New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-3588-0_3
20. Eccles, J. S. (2005). Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.). Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 105–121) New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
21. Eccles, J. S. (2009). Who am I and what am I going to do with my life? Personal and collective identities as motivators of action. Educational Psychologist,44, 78–89. doi:10.1080/00461520902832368.
22. Eccles, J. S., Barber, B., & Jozefowicz, D. (1999). Linking gender to educational, occupational, and recreational choices: Applying the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. In W. B. Swann, Jr., J. H. Langlois, & L. A. Gilbert (Eds.), Sexism and stereotypes in modern society: The gender science of Janet Taylor spence (pp. 153–192). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10277-007
23. Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology,53, 109–132. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153.
24. European Commission. (2012). She figures 2012: Gender in research and innovation. Retrieved November 2014 from http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/she-figures-2012_en.pdf.
25. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences,11, 77–83. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005.
26. Forbes, C. E., Schmader, T., & Allen, J. J. B. (2008). The role of devaluing and discounting in performance monitoring: A neurophysiological study of minorities under threat. SCAN,3, 253–261. doi:10.1093/scan/nsn012.
27. Glynn, S. M., & Koballa, T. R. (2006). Motivation to learn in college science. In J. Mintzes & W. H. Leonard (Eds.), Handbook of college science teaching (pp. 25–32). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
28. Glynn, S. M., Taasoobshirazi, G., & Brickman, P. (2009). Science motivation questionnaire: Construct validation with nonscience majors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 127–146. doi:10.1002/tea.20267.
29. Good, C., Rattan, A., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Why do women opt out? Sense of belonging and women’s representation in mathematics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,102, 700–717. doi:10.1037/a0026659.
30. Hammond, R. (2009). Chien-Shiung Wu: Pioneering nuclear physicist (makers of modern science). New York, NY: Chelsea House Publications.
31. Harackiewicz, J. M., Rozek, C. S., Hulleman, C. S., & Hyde, J. S. (2012). Helping parents to motivate adolescents in mathematics and science: An experimental test of a utility-value intervention. Psychological Science,23, 899–906. doi:10.1177/0956797611435530.
32. Helgeson, V. S. (1994). The relation of agency and communion to well-being: Evidence and potential explanations. Psychological Bulletin,116, 412–428.
33. Hulleman, C. S., Godes, O., Hendricks, B. L., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). Enhancing interest and performance with a utility value intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology,102, 880–895. doi:10.1037/a0019506.
34. Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2009). Promoting interest and performance in high school science classes. Science,326, 1410–1412. doi:10.1126/science.1177067.
35. International Union of Pure and Applied Physics. (June, 2000). Women in physics working group. Retrieved November 2014 from http://www.if.ufrgs.br/iupap/report1.html.
36. 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. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00272.
37. Jacobs, J. E., Davis-Kean, P., Bleeker, M., Eccles, J. S., & Malanchuk, O. (2005). “I can, but I don’t want to”: The impact of parents, interest, and activities on gender differences in math. In A. M. Gallagher & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Gender differences in mathematics: An integrative psychological approach (pp. 246–263). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
38. Jacobs, J. E., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). The impact of mothers’ gender-role stereotypic beliefs on mothers’ and children’s ability perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,63, 932–944. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.6.932.
39. Karpinski, A., & Hilton, J. L. (2001). Attitudes and the implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,81, 774–788. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.5.774.
40. Keller, J., & Sekaquaptewa, D. (2008). Solo status and women’s spatial test performance: The role of individuation tendencies. European Journal of Social Psychology,38, 1044–10553. doi:10.1002/ejsp.490.
41. Konrad, A. M., Ritchie, J. E., Lieb, P., & Corrigall, E. (2000). Sex differences and similarities in job attribute preferences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,126, 593–641. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.4.593.
42. Lawrence, J. S., & Crocker, J. (2009). Academic contingencies of self-worth impair positively- and negatively-stereotyped students’ performance in performance-goal settings. Journal of Research in Personality,43, 868–874. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.05.002.
43. Lent, R. W., Hackett, G., & Brown, S. D. (1996). A social cognitive framework for studying career choice and transition to work. Journal of Vocational Education Research,21, 3–31.
44. Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self evaluation of one’s social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,18, 302–318. doi:10.1177/0146167292183006.
45. Maddux, W. W., & Brewer, M. B. (2005). Gender differences in relational and collective bases for trust. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,8, 159–171. doi:10.1177/1368430205051065.
46. Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemas and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,35, 63–78. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.35.2.63.
47. Martinez, E. D., Botos, J., Dohoney, K. M., Geiman, T. M., Kolla, S. S., Olivera, A., et al. (2007). Falling off the academic bandwagon. Women are more likely to quit at the postdoc to principal investigator transition. EMBO Reports,8, 977–981. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7401110.
48. Marx, D. M., & Goff, P. A. (2005). Clearing the air: The effect of experimenter race on target’s test performance and subjective experience. British Journal of Social Psychology,44, 645–657. doi:10.1348/014466604X17948.
49. McGee, R., Jr, & Keller, J. L. (2007). Identifying future scientists: Predicting persistence into research training. CBE Life Science Education,6, 316–331. doi:10.1187/cbe.07-04-0020.
50. McGee, R., Jr, Saran, S., & Krulwich, T. A. (2012). Diversity in the biomedical research workforce: Developing talent. Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine,79, 397–411. doi:10.1002/msj.21310.
51. McKinsey & Company. (2007). Women matter: Gender diversity, a corporate performance driver. http://www.mckinsey.com/features/women_matter.
52. Morgan, C., Isaac, J. D., & Sansone, C. (2001). The role of interest in understanding the career choices of female and male college students. Sex Roles,44, 295–320. doi:10.1023/A:1010929600004.
53. Murphy, M. C., Steele, C. M., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Signaling threat: How situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychological Science,18, 879–885. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01995.x.
54. Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2012). Mplus: The comprehensive modeling program for applied researchers [Computer software]. Los Angeles: Author.
55. National Science Board. (2012). Science and engineering indicators 2012. NSB 10-01. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
56. National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2011). Science & engineering degrees: 1966–2008. Detailed statistical tables NSF 11-136. Arlington, VA. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf11316/pdf/nsf11316.pdf.
57. Nature Neuroscience. (2010). Wanted: Women in research. Nature Neuroscience,13, 267. doi:10.1038/nn0310-267.
58. Nguyen, H. H. H., & Ryan, A. M. M. (2008). Does stereotype threat affect test performance of minorities and women? A meta-analysis of experimental evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology,93, 1314–1334. doi:10.1037/a0012702.
59. Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002). Math=male, me=female, therefore math≠me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,83, 44–59. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.83.1.44.
60. Nosek, B. A., et al. (2009). National differences in gender-science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. PNAS,106, 10593–10597. doi:10.1073/pnas.0809921106.
61. Nye, C. D., Su, R., Rounds, J., & Drasgow, F. (2012). Vocational interests and performance: A quantitative summary over 60 years of research. Perspectives on Psychological Science,7, 384–403. doi:10.1177/1745691612449021.
62. Osborne, J. W., & Jones, B. D. (2011). Identification with academics and motivation to achieve in school: How the structure of the self influences academic outcomes. Educational Psychology Review,23, 131–158. doi:10.1007/s10648-011-9151-1.
63. Osborne, J. W., & Walker, C. (2006). Stereotype threat, identification with academics, and withdrawal from school: Why the most successful students of colour might be most likely to withdraw. Educational Psychology,26, 563–577. doi:10.1080/01443410500342518.
64. Oswald, D. L., & Harvey, R. D. (2000). Hostile environments, stereotype threat, and math performance among undergraduate women. Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social,4, 338–356. doi:10.1007/s12144-000-1025-5.
65. Pohlmann, K. (2001). Agency- and communion-orientation in life goals: Impacts on goal pursuit strategies and psychological wellbeing. In P. Schmuck & K. M. Sheldon (Eds.), Life goals and well-being: Towards a positive psychology of human striving (pp. 68–84). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe and Huber.
66. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,36, 717–731. doi:10.3758/BF03206553.
67. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2012, February). Report to the president: Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-engage-to-excel-final_feb.pdf.
68. Pronin, E., Steele, C. M., & Ross, L. (2003). Identity bifurication in response to stereotype threat: Women and mathematics. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,40, 152–168. doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00088-X.
69. Rahm, J., & Charbonneau, P. (1997). Probing stereotypes through students’ drawings of scientists. American Journal of Physics,65, 774–778. doi:10.1119/1.18647.
70. Ramsey, L. R., Betz, D. E., & Sekaquaptewa, D. (2013). The effects of an academic environment intervention on science identification among women in STEM. Social Psychology of Education,16, 377–397. doi:10.1007/s11218-013-9218-6.
71. Schmader, T. (2002). Gender identification moderates stereotype threat effects on women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,38, 194–201. doi:10.1006/jesp.2001.1500.
72. Schmader, T., Johns, M., & Barquissau, M. (2004). The costs of accepting gender differences: The role of stereotype endorsement in women’s experience in the math domain. Sex Roles,50, 835–850. doi:10.1023/B:SERS.0000029101.74557.a0.
73. Sekaquaptewa, D., & Thompson, M. (2003). Solo status, stereotype threat, and performance expectancies: Their effects on women’s performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,39, 68–74. doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00508-5.
74. Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1995). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
75. Shapiro, J. R., & Williams, A. M. (2012). The role of stereotype threats in undermining girls’ and women’s performance and interest in STEM fields. Sex Roles,66, 175–183. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-0051-0.
76. Smith, J. L. (2004). Understanding the process of stereotype threat: A review of mediational variables and new performance goal directions. Educational Psychology Review,16, 177–206. doi:10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034020.20317.89.
77. Smith, J. L., Cech, E., Metz, A., Huntoon, M., & Moyer, C. (2014a). Giving back or giving up: Native American student experiences in science and engineering. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology,20, 413–429. doi:10.1037/a0036945.
78. Smith, C. S., & Hung, L. C. (2008). Stereotype threat: Effects on education. Social Psychology of Education,11, 243–257.
79. Smith, J. L., Lewis, K. L., Hawthorne, L., & Hodges, S. D. (2013). When trying hard isn’t natural: Women’s belonging with and motivation for male-dominated STEM fields as a function of effort expenditure concerns. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,39, 131–143. doi:10.1177/0146167212468332.
80. Smith, J. L., Thoman, D. B., Deemer, E. D., & Zazworsky, L. (2014b). Motivation under the microscope: Understanding undergraduate science students’ multiple motivations for research. Motivation and Emotion,38, 496–512. doi:10.1007/s11031-013-9388-8.
81. Smith, J. L., & White, P. H. (2001). Development of the domain identification measure: A tool for investigating stereotype threat effects. Educational and Psychological Measurement,61, 1040–1057. doi:10.1177/00131640121971635.
82. Smith, J. L., & White, P. H. (2002). An examination of implicitly activated, explicitly activated, and nullified stereotypes on mathematical performance: It’s not just a woman’s issue. Sex Roles,47, 179–191. doi:10.1023/A:1021051223441.
83. Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,35, 4–28. doi:10.1006/jesp.1998.1373.
84. Stangor, C., Carr, C., & Kiang, L. (1998). Activating stereotypes undermines task performance expectations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,75, 1191–1197. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.5.1191.
85. Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist,52, 613–629. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.6.613.
86. Steele, J., James, J. B., & Barnett, R. (2002a). Learning in a man’s world: Examining the perceptions of undergraduate women in male-dominated academic areas. Psychology of Women Quarterly,26, 46–50. doi:10.1111/1471-6402.00042.
87. Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Aronson, J. (2002b). Contending with group image: The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,34, 379–440. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(02)80009-0.
88. STEMconnector. (2012). Where are the STEM students? What are their career interests? Where are the STEM jobs?http://www.stemconnector.org/sites/default/files/store/STEM-Students-STEM-Jobs-Executive-Summary.pdf.
89. 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, 255–272. doi:10.1037/a0021385.
90. Su, R., Rounds, J., & Armstrong, P. I. (2009). Men and things, women and people: A meta-analysis of sex differences in interests. Psychological Bulletin,135, 859–884. doi:10.1037/a0017364.
91. Swann, W. B., Jr, & Bosson, J. K. (2010). Self and Identity. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., pp. 589–628). New York: McGraw-Hill.
92. Thoman, D. B., Smith, J. L., Brown, E. R., Chase, J., & Lee, J. Y. K. (2013). Beyond performance: A motivational experiences model of stereotype threat. Educational Psychology Review,25, 211–243. doi:10.1007/s10648-013-9219-1.
93. Thoman, D. B., White, P. H., Yamawaki, N., & Koishi, H. (2008). Variations of gender-math stereotype content affect women’s vulnerability to stereotype threat. Sex Roles,58, 702–712. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9390-x.
94. Tine, M., & Gotlieb, R. (2013). Gender-, race-, and income-based stereotype threat: The effects of multiple stigmatized aspects of identity on math performance and working memory function. Social Psychology of Education,16, 353–376. doi:10.1007/s11218-013-9224-8.
95. Urry, M. (July, 2002). The status of women in physics—an international meeting on what, why, and how to change. American Physical Society. Retrieved November 2014 from http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/2002/july/urry.pdf.
96. Walsh, P. E., & Smith, J. L. (2007). Opposing standards within the cultural worldview: Terror management and American women’s desire for uniqueness versus inclusiveness. Psychology of Women Quarterly,31, 103–113. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00335.x.
97. Wang, M., & Degol, J. (2013). Motivational pathways to STEM career choices: using expectancy-value perspective to understand individual and gender differences in STEM fields. Developmental Review,33, 304–340. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2013.08.001.
98. Webb, R. M., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2002). Mathematical facile adolescents with math-science aspirations: New perspectives on their educational and vocational development. Journal of Educational Psychology,94, 785–794. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.4.785.
99. Weisgram, E. S., Bigler, R. S., & Liben, L. S. (2010). Gender, values, and occupational interests among children, adolescents, and adults. Child Development,81, 778–796. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01433.x.
100. Wickware, P. (1997). Along the leaky pipeline. Nature,390, 202–203. doi:10.1038/36639.
101. Woodcock, A., Hernandez, P. R., Estrada, M., & Schultz, P. W. (2012). The consequences of chronic stereotype threat: Domain disidentification and abandonment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,103, 635–646. doi:10.1037/a0029120.
102. Xie, Y., & Shauman, K. A. (2003). Women in science: Career processes and outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
103. Young, D. M., Rudman, L. A., Buettner, H. M., & McLean, M. C. (2013). The influence of female role models on women’s implicit science cognitions. Psychology of Women Quarterly,37, 283–292. doi:10.1177/036168431348210.