Does he see what she sees? The gender gap in perceptions of institutional sexism

Women are more likely than men to perceive institutional sexism. In the present study, we examined the gender gap in perceptions of a legal case in which a female plaintiff claims she was a victim of institutional gender discrimination by an employer. Participants were randomly assigned to receive information about institutional forms of sexism (or not) prior to learning the facts of the case. In addition, participants were randomly assigned to take the female plaintiff's perspective (or remain objective) while reviewing the case. In isolation, sexism awareness and perspective-taking both independently eliminated the gender gap in perceptions of discrimination. However, contrary to expectations, the gender gap reemerged among participants who were made aware of sexism prior to perspective-taking such that women perceived more discrimination than men. Implications for interventions to increase perceptions of institutional sexism are discussed.

Why We Should Stop Trying to Fix Women: How Context Shapes and Constrains Women's Career Trajectories

In this review we examine two classes of interventions designed to achieve workplace gender equality: (a) those designed to boost motivations and ambition, such as those that aim to attract more women into roles where they are underrepresented; and (b) those that try to provide women with needed abilities to achieve these positions. While such initiatives are generally well meaning, they tend to be based upon (and reinforce) stereotypes of what women lack. Such a deficit model leads to interventions that attempt to "fix" women rather than address the structural factors that are the root of gender inequalities. We provide a critical appraisal of the literature to establish an evidence base for why fixing women is unlikely to be successful. As an alternative, we focus on understanding how organizational context and culture maintain these inequalities by looking at how they shape and constrain (a) women's motivations and ambitions, and (b) the expression and interpretation of their skills and attributes. In doing so, we seek to shift the interventional focus from women themselves to the systems and structures in which they are embedded.

From Endorsement of Ambivalent Sexism to Psychological IPV Victimization: The Role of Attitudes Supportive of IPV, Legitimating Myths of IPV, and Acceptance of Psychological Aggression

Research on intimate partner violence (IPV) has recognized psychological abuse as a precursor of physical and sexual violence in intimate relationships. However, risk factors in predicting women’s psychological abuse victimization in such a context are still unclear. The goal of the present work was to investigate the role of ambivalent sexism on psychological IPV victimization, by taking into account in the same study the effect of three additional social-psychological factors: women’s (i) attitudes supportive of IPV, (ii) endorsement of legitimating myths of IPV, and (iii) acceptance of psychological aggression in intimate relationships. A total of 408 Italian young women (M_age = 23.87; SD = 2.39) involved in non-marital heterosexual romantic relationships completed measures aimed at assessing (i) hostile and benevolent sexism, (ii) attitudes supportive of IPV, (iii) legitimating myths of IPV, (iv) prevalence of psychological abuse experienced within the last 12 months, and performed a task developed ad hoc to measure, and (v) acceptance of psychological aggression in intimate relationships. Results showed that the effect of ambivalent sexism on participants’ prevalence of psychological abuse was mediated by the endorsement of attitudes supportive of IPV and legitimating myths of IPV, as well as by acceptance of psychological aggression. Findings are discussed based on literature about ambivalent sexism, and attitudes and beliefs about IPV.

Hiring women into senior leadership positions is associated with a reduction in gender stereotypes in organizational language

Gender inequality has been deemed the “greatest human rights challenge of our time” by the United Nations, and scholars across numerous disciplines agree that gender stereotypes represent a primary way by which this inequality is maintained. Yet changing stereotypes in a systemic, enduring way is extremely difficult. This is at least in part because stereotypes are transmitted and perpetuated through the language societies and organizations use to describe women, especially those in leadership roles. Here, we show that hiring women into leadership positions is associated with organizations characterizing women in more leadership-congruent, agentic ways. This shift mitigates a critical barrier to women’s progression in organizations and society: the incongruence of what it means to be a woman and a leader.

Women continue to be underrepresented in leadership positions. This underrepresentation is at least partly driven by gender stereotypes that associate men, but not women, with achievement-oriented, agentic traits (e.g., assertive and decisive). These stereotypes are expressed and perpetuated in language, with women being described in less agentic terms than men. The present research suggests that appointing women to the top tiers of management can mitigate these deep-rooted stereotypes that are expressed in language. We use natural language processing techniques to analyze over 43,000 documents containing 1.23 billion words, finding that hiring female chief executive officers and board members is associated with changes in organizations’ use of language, such that the semantic meaning of being a woman becomes more similar to the semantic meaning of agency. In other words, hiring women into leadership positions helps to associate women with characteristics that are critical for leadership success. Importantly, our findings suggest that changing organizational language through increasing female representation might provide a path for women to break out of the double bind: when female leaders are appointed into positions of power, women are more strongly associated with the positive aspects of agency (e.g., independent and confident) in language but not at the cost of a reduced association with communality (e.g., kind and caring). Taken together, our findings suggest that female representation is not merely an end, but also a means to systemically change insidious gender stereotypes and overcome the trade-off between women being perceived as either competent or likeable.

RASE: Modeling cumulative disadvantage due to marginalized group status in academia

We propose a framework of Resources, Achievement, Status, and Events (RASE) that allows the many disparate but well-documented phenomena affecting underrepresented groups in STEM to be assembled into a story of career trajectories, illuminating the possible cumulative impact of many small inequities. Our framework contains a three-component deterministic cycle of (1) production of Achievements from Resources, (2) updated community Status due to Achievements, and (3) accrual of additional Resources based on community Status. A fourth component, stochastic Events, can influence an individual’s level of Resources or Achievements at each time step of the cycle. We build a specific mathematical model within the RASE framework and use it to investigate the impact of accumulated disadvantages from multiple compounding variables. We demonstrate that the model can reproduce data of observed disparities in academia. Finally, we use a publicly available visualization and networking tool to provide a sandbox for exploring career outcomes within the model. The modeling exercise, results, and visualization tool may be useful in the context of training STEM faculty to recognize and reduce effects of bias.

The Future of Women in Psychological Science

There has been extensive discussion about gender gaps in representation and career advancement in the sciences. However, psychological science itself has yet to be the focus of discussion or systematic review, despite our field's investment in questions of equity, status, well-being, gender bias, and gender disparities. In the present article, we consider 10 topics relevant for women's career advancement in psychological science. We focus on issues that have been the subject of empirical study, discuss relevant evidence within and outside of psychological science, and draw on established psychological theory and social-science research to begin to chart a path forward. We hope that better understanding of these issues within the field will shed light on areas of existing gender gaps in the discipline and areas where positive change has happened, and spark conversation within our field about how to create lasting change to mitigate remaining gender differences in psychological science.

Domination and Objectification: Men’s Motivation for Dominance Over Women Affects Their Tendency to Sexually Objectify Women

In the present research, we examined the association between heterosexual men’s motivation for dominance over women and their sexual objectification of women. We found that men’s social dominance orientation (SDO) correlated with their tendency to sexually objectify women (Study 1). Inducing threat to men’s dominance over women by assigning men to work under the supervision of women bosses—versus jointly with women partners (Study 2a) or under men bosses (Study 3)—led to increased sexual objectification of women among high-SDO participants. These results persisted when controlling for mood. Examining the corresponding effects among heterosexual women revealed that the correlation between SDO and the sexual objectification of men was non-significant (Study 1) and that working under men bosses did not affect women’s sexual objectification of men (Study 2b). These findings support feminist theorizing that men (re)assert their dominance over women by sexually objectifying them. Increased awareness of the motivations underlying women’s sexual objectification can help professionals plan useful interventions to reduce this phenomenon, hopefully limiting its negative effects on women’s well-being.

Challenging the Gendered Academic Hierarchy

In my 2017 Sherif Award address, I pay tribute to Carolyn Wood Sherif for her insightful exposure of an academic hierarchy in psychology and her call to be skeptical not only of our research choices but also of our career choices. I contend that the artificial separation of research/scholarship and teaching/mentoring, along with the masculinization and privileging of the former over the latter, contributes to perpetuating this gendered academic hierarchy. I suggest three possibilities for integrating teaching and research, embedded within one’s commitment to feminist activism, by (a) publishing about one’s own teaching, (b) researching one’s teaching effectiveness, and (c) using one’s classes to do research that contributes to feminist scholarship (as well as, in a fourth example, challenging the academic hierarchy itself). My immodest goal is to inspire junior and senior academic feminists to practice a “subversive” feminism that challenges the gendered, hierarchical academic institutions in which we are immersed as feminists “doing” (i.e., socially constructing) both teaching and research.

You, Me, or Her

We examined how university leaders described what and who needed to change in order to increase the representation of female faculty in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) departments. Thirty-one (28 men and 3 women) STEM departmental chairs and deans at a large, public university participated in semi-structured interviews. Data were examined using both qualitative and quantitative procedures. Analysis focused on participants’ descriptions of responsibility for changes related to gender equity. Using the distinction of high versus low responsibility, themes were examined for their qualitative characteristics as well as their frequency. Leaders who exhibited high personal responsibility most frequently saw themselves as needing to change and also named their male colleagues as concurrently responsible for diversity. Conversely, leaders who exhibited low personal responsibility most frequently described female faculty as responsible and described women’s attitudes and their “choice” to have a family as obstacles to gender diversity in STEM. We argue that the dimensions of high and low responsibility are useful additions to discussions of leadership, workplace diversity initiatives, and gender equity more broadly. To this end, we provide several methodological tools to examine these subtle, yet essential, aspects of how diversity and change efforts are imagined and discussed.