Corinne A. Moss-Racusin

Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students

Despite efforts to recruit and retain more women, a stark gender disparity persists within academic science. Abundant research has demonstrated gender bias in many demographic groups, but has yet to experimentally investigate whether science faculty exhibit a bias against female students that could contribute to the gender disparity in academic science. In a randomized double-blind study (n = 127), science faculty from research-intensive universities rated the application materials of a student—who was randomly assigned either a male or female name—for a laboratory manager position. Faculty participants rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable than the (identical) female applicant. These participants also selected a higher starting salary and offered more career mentoring to the male applicant. The gender of the faculty participants did not affect responses, such that female and male faculty were equally likely to exhibit bias against the female student. Mediation analyses indicated that the female student was less likely to be hired because she was viewed as less competent. We also assessed faculty participants’ preexisting subtle bias against women using a standard instrument and found that preexisting subtle bias against women played a moderating role, such that subtle bias against women was associated with less support for the female student, but was unrelated to reactions to the male student. These results suggest that interventions addressing faculty gender bias might advance the goal of increasing the participation of women in science.

Internalization of Weight Bias: Implications for Binge Eating and Emotional Well‐being

Objective: This study examined the relationship between internalization of negative weight‐based stereotypes and indices of eating behaviors and emotional well‐being in a sample of overweight and obese women.

COMPETENT YET OUT IN THE COLD: SHIFTING CRITERIA FOR HIRING REFLECT BACKLASH TOWARD AGENTIC WOMEN

We present evidence that shifting hiring criteria reflects backlash toward agentic (“masterful”) women (Rudman, 1998). Participants (N = 428) evaluated male or female agentic or communal managerial applicants on dimensions of competence, social skills, and hireability. Consistent with past research, agentic women were perceived as highly competent but deficient in social skills, compared with agentic men. New to the present research, social skills predicted hiring decisions more than competence for agentic women; for all other applicants, competence received more weight than social skills. Thus, evaluators shifted the job criteria away from agentic womens strong suit (competence) and toward their perceived deficit (social skills) to justify hiring discrimination. The implications of these findings for womens professional success are discussed.

Disruptions in Women's Self-Promotion: The Backlash Avoidance Model

Women experience social and economic penalties (i.e., backlash) for self-promotion, a behavior that violates female gender stereotypes yet is necessary for professional success. However, it is unknown whether and how the threat of backlash interferes with womens ability to self-promote. The present research examined the effects of fear of backlash and self-regulatory mode on womens self-promotion success by testing the backlash avoidance model (BAM), a model designed to account for disruptions in womens self-promotion. Two studies employing U.S. undergraduate samples examined self-promotion both in a live interview and written context. Results supported the BAMs predictions that self-promoting womens fear of backlash inhibits activation of a goal-focused, locomotive regulatory mode, which subsequently interferes with self-promotion success. This process was not evident for self-promoting men (Study 1) or peer-promoting women (Study 2), groups who demonstrated reliably more promotion success than self-promoting women. The influence of womens endorsement of communal stereotypes and their perceived entitlement were also investigated. Implications for womens self-promotion, gender stereotyping, and workplace parity are discussed.

Scientific Diversity Interventions

Fair treatment of other scientists is an essential aspect of scientific integrity, warranting diversity interventions. Although the representation of women and racial or ethnic minorities within the scientific community has increased in recent decades, the overall pace of diversification remains relatively slow (1). A number of factors may be involved (2), but one possible explanation for this limited progress is that gender and racial or ethnic biases persist throughout academia (1, 3).

Quality of evidence revealing subtle gender biases in science is in the eye of the beholder

Significance Ever-growing empirical evidence documents a gender bias against women and their research—and favoring men—in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. Our research examined how receptive the scientific and public communities are to experimental evidence demonstrating this gender bias, which may contribute to women’s underrepresentation within STEM. Results from our three experiments, using general-public and university faculty samples, demonstrated that men evaluate the quality of research unveiling this bias as less meritorious than do women. These findings may inform and fuel self-correction efforts within STEM to reduce gender bias, bolster objectivity and diversity in STEM workforces, and enhance discovery, education, and achievement. Scientists are trained to evaluate and interpret evidence without bias or subjectivity. Thus, growing evidence revealing a gender bias against women—or favoring men—within science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) settings is provocative and raises questions about the extent to which gender bias may contribute to women’s underrepresentation within STEM fields. To the extent that research illustrating gender bias in STEM is viewed as convincing, the culture of science can begin to address the bias. However, are men and women equally receptive to this type of experimental evidence? This question was tested with three randomized, double-blind experiments—two involving samples from the general public (n = 205 and 303, respectively) and one involving a sample of university STEM and non-STEM faculty (n = 205). In all experiments, participants read an actual journal abstract reporting gender bias in a STEM context (or an altered abstract reporting no gender bias in experiment 3) and evaluated the overall quality of the research. Results across experiments showed that men evaluate the gender-bias research less favorably than women, and, of concern, this gender difference was especially prominent among STEM faculty (experiment 2). These results suggest a relative reluctance among men, especially faculty men within STEM, to accept evidence of gender biases in STEM. This finding is problematic because broadening the participation of underrepresented people in STEM, including women, necessarily requires a widespread willingness (particularly by those in the majority) to acknowledge that bias exists before transformation is possible.

Relationship Contingency and Sexual Motivation in Women: Implications for Sexual Satisfaction

Deriving self-worth from romantic relationships (relationship contingency) may have implications for women’s sexual motives in relationships. Because relationship contingency enhances motivation to sustain relationships to maintain positive self-worth, relationship contingent women may engage in sex to maintain and enhance their relationships (relational sex motives). Using structural equation modeling on Internet survey data from a convenience sample of 462 women in heterosexual and lesbian relationships, we found that greater relationship contingency predicted greater relational sex motives, which simultaneously predicted both sexual satisfaction and dissatisfaction via two distinct motivational states. Having sex to improve intimacy with one’s partner was associated with greater sexual satisfaction and autonomy, while having sex to earn partner’s approval was associated with sexual dissatisfaction and inhibition. While some differences exist between lesbian and heterosexual relationships, relationship contingency had sexual costs and benefits, regardless of relationship type.

The Gender Role Motivation Model of Women’s Sexually Submissive Behavior and Satisfaction in Heterosexual Couples

Previous findings suggest that women are more likely than men to take on the submissive role during sexual activities (e.g., waiting for their partner to initiate and orchestrate sexual activities), often to the detriment of their sexual satisfaction. Extending previous research on gender role motivation, the authors recruited 181 heterosexual couples to examine scripted sexual behavior, motivation for such behavior, and relationship outcomes (sexual satisfaction, perceptions of closeness, and relationship satisfaction) for both women and their partners. Using the actor–partner interdependence model, path analyses revealed that women’s submissive behavior had negative links to personal sexual satisfaction and their partner’s sexual satisfaction but only when their submission was inconsistent with their sexual preferences. Moreover, the authors show there are negative downstream consequences of diminished sexual satisfaction on perceptions of closeness and overall relationship satisfaction for both partners in the relationship.

When Do We Confront? Perceptions of Costs and Benefits Predict Confronting Discrimination on Behalf of the Self and Others

Across two studies, we tested whether perceived social costs and benefits of confrontation would similarly predict confronting discrimination both when it was experienced and when it was observed as directed at others. Female undergraduate participants were asked to recall past experiences and observations of sexism, as well as their confronting behaviors. Path modeling in Study 1 (N = 148) demonstrated that women were more likely to report confronting if they believed that the confrontation would make a difference (perceived benefits), or they were less concerned about social sanctions (perceived costs), and the prediction patterns were similar for both experienced and observed sexism. Study 2 (N = 166) replicated the results of Study 1, as well as tested the moderating influence of gender identification. In situations of higher perceived social costs, women who were less strongly identified with their gender group were more responsive to the perceived benefits of the confrontation when deciding whether to confront on behalf of the self. The results of the two studies suggest that researchers should investigate methods for enhancing perceived social benefits and reducing perceived social costs when designing intervention programs aimed at increasing confrontation and decreasing the prevalence of discrimination.

Reactions to Vanguards: Advances in Backlash Theory

Abstract Backlash refers to social and economic penalties for counterstereotypical behavior ( Rudman, 1998 ). By penalizing vanguards (atypical role models), backlash reinforces cultural stereotypes as normative rules. We present the Backlash and Stereotype Maintenance Model (BSMM), supported by studies of gender and racial vanguards ( Phelan and Rudman, 2010a , Phelan and Rudman, 2010b , Rudman and Fairchild, 2004 ). The BSSM illuminates when and why backlash occurs, as well as its effects on potential targets. We provide evidence for the Status Incongruity Hypothesis, which posits that targets who violate status expectations are especially likely to suffer backlash because system-justification motives play a key role in backlash ( Moss-Racusin et al., 2010 , Rudman et al., 2012 ). The Backlash Avoidance Model describes how fear of backlash not only limits peoples aspirations but also undermines their performance in atypical domains ( Moss-Racusin, 2011 , Moss-Racusin and Rudman, 2010 ). Finally, we discuss how advances in backlash theory might guide future research.