No Girls Allowed: Women in Male-Dominated Majors Experience Increased Gender Harassment and Bias

Abstract

The prevalence of gender harassment in male-dominated workforces has been well established, but little is known regarding the experiences of women in male-dominated majors within academia. The current study examines the experiences and gender-related biases of 146 male and female students in male-dominated (MD) and gender-equivalent (GE) majors. This study hypothesizes that men from MD majors, as opposed to GE majors, will exhibit more explicit and implicit bias regarding women in positions of power and authority, resulting in a higher prevalence of gender harassment towards women in MD majors. Results showed that there was no significant difference in self-reported explicit bias against women in positions of power and authority between men from MD and GE majors, but there was significantly more implicit bias among men from MD majors as opposed to GE majors. Additionally, women from MD majors experienced significantly more gender harassment than women from GE majors. Implications of these findings and suggestions to assist those working in education to combat these biases and instances of harassment are discussed.

Keywords

Sex roles social psychology gender harassment male dominance sexual harassment organizational climate

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Barbulescu

Bidwell

(2013) Do women choose different jobs from men? Mechanisms of application segregation in the market for managerial workers. Organization Science 24(3): 737–756. doi:10.1287/orsc.1120.0757.

Bartol

K. M.

(1999) Gender influences on performance evaluations. In: Powell

G. N.

(ed.) Handbook of gender & work, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 165–178. doi:10.4135/9781452231365.n9.

Berdahl

J. L.

(2007) Harassment based on sex: Protecting social status in the context of gender hierarchy. The Academy of Management Review 32(2): 641–658. doi:10.2307/20159319.

Carnes

Devine

P. G.

Manwell

L. B.

Byars-Winston

Fine

Ford

C. E.

Sheridan

(2015) The effect of an intervention to break the gender bias habit for faculty at one institution: A cluster randomized, controlled trial. Academic Medicine 90(2): 221–230. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000000552.

Cha

(2013) Overwork and the persistence of gender segregation in occupations. Gender & Society 27(2): 158–184. doi:10.1177/0891243212470510.

Chen, X., & Soldner, M. (2013). STEM attrition: College students’ paths into and out of STEM fields. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education website: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014001rev.pdf.

Collinson

(1996) “It’s only Dick”: The sexual harassment of women managers in insurance sales. Work, Employment, and Society 10: 29–56. doi:10.1177/0950017096101002.

de Haas

Timmerman

(2010) Sexual harassment in the context of double male dominance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 19(6): 717–734. doi:10.1080/09541440903160492.

Dovidio

J. F.

Fazio

R. H.

(1992) New technologies for the direct and indirect assessment of attitudes. In: Tanur

J. M.

(ed.) Questions about questions: Inquiries into the cognitive bases of surveys, New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 204–237.

10.

Fine

Sheridan

Carnes

Handelsman

Pribbenow

Savoy

Wendt

(2014) Minimizing the influence of gender bias on the faculty search process. In: Demos

Berheide

Segal

(eds) Advances in Gender Research Series: Vol. 19. Gender transformation in the academy, Bingley, England: Emerald, pp. 267–289.

11.

Fitzgerald

L. F.

(1990) Sexual harassment: The definition and measurement of a construct. In: Paludi

M. A.

(ed.) Ivory power: Sexual harassment on campus, Albany: State University of New York Press, pp. 21–44.

12.

Fitzgerald

L. F.

Gelfand

M. J.

Drasgow

(1995) Measuring sexual harassment: Theoretical and psychometric advances. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 17(4): 425–445. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1704_2.

13.

Fitzgerald

L. F.

Shullman

S. L.

Bailey

Richards

Swecker

Gold

Weitzman

(1988) The incidence and dimensions of sexual harassment in academia and the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior 32(2): 152–175. doi:10.1016/0001-8791(88)90012-7.

14.

Gauchat

Kelly

Wallace

(2012) Occupational gender segregation, globalization, and gender earnings inequality in U.S. metropolitan areas. Gender & Society 26(5): 718–747. doi:10.1177/0891243212453647.

15.

Greenwald

A. G.

McGhee

D. E.

Schwartz

J. K.

(1998) Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74(6): 1464–1480. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464.

16.

Gruber

Morgan

(2005) In the company of men: Male dominance and sexual harassment, Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

17.

Gutek

(1985) Sex and the workplace: Impact of sexual behavior and harassment on women, men, and organizations, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

18.

Gutek

B. A.

Cohen

A. G.

(1987) Sex ratios, sex role spillover, and sex at work: A comparison of men’s and women’s experiences. Human Relations 40(2): 97–115. doi:10.1177/001872678704000202.

19.

Hill

Silva

(2005) Drawing the line: Sexual harassment on campus, Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.

20.

Hitlan

R. T.

Pryor

J. B.

Hesson-McInnis

M. S.

Olson

(2009) Antecedents of gender harassment: An analysis of person and situation factors. Sex Roles 61(11–12): 794–807. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9689-2.

21.

Huhman, H. R. (2012). STEM fields and the gender gap: Where are the women? Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/work-in-progress/2012/06/20/stem-fields-and-the-gender-gap-where-are-the-women/#eb48fe441ba8.

22.

Kabat-Farr

Cortina

L. M.

(2014) Sex-based harassment in employment: New insights into gender and context. Law and Human Behavior 38(1): 58–72. doi:10.1037/lhb0000045.

23.

LaPiere

R. T.

(1934) Attitudes vs. actions. Social Forces 13(2): 230–237. doi:10.2307/2570339.

24.

Leskinen, E. A., Cortina, L. M., & Kabat, D. B. (2011). Gender harassment: Broadening our understanding of sex-based harassment at work. Law and Human Behavior, 35(25). doi:10.1007/s10979-010-9241-5.

25.

McConnell

A. R.

Leibold

J. M.

(2001) Relations among the Implicit Association Test, discriminatory behavior, and explicit measures of racial attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 37(5): 435–442. doi:10.1006/jesp.2000.1470.

26.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Digest of education statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/2013menu_tables.asp.

27.

Parker

S. K.

Griffin

M. A.

(2002) What is so bad about a little name-calling? Negative consequences of gender harassment for overperformance demands and distress. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 7(3): 195–210. doi:10.1037//1076-8998.7.3.195.

28.

Pollack, E. (2013). Why are there still so few women in science? The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/magazine/why-are-there-still-so-few-women-in-science.html.

29.

Rudman

L. A.

Glick

(1999) Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: The hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77(5): 1004–1010. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.77.5.1004.

30.

Rudman

L. A.

Glick

(2001) Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues 57(4): 743–762. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00239.

31.

Rudman, L. A., & Kilianski, S. E. (2000a). Gender and authority measure [Measurement scale]. doi:10.1037/t16069-000.

32.

Rudman

L. A.

Kilianski

S. E.

(2000b) Implicit and explicit attitudes toward female authority. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 26(11): 1315–1328. doi:10.1177/0146167200263001.

33.

Schultz

(1998) Reconceptualizing sexual harassment. Yale Law Journal 107: 1683–1796. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6002&context=fss_paper.

34.

Singh

Fouad

N. A.

Fitzpatrick

M. E.

Liu

J. P.

Cappaert

K. J.

Figuereido

(2013) Stemming the tide: Predicting women engineers’ intentions to leave. Journal of Vocational Behavior 83(3): 281–294. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2013.05.007.

35.

Stockdale

(2005) The sexual harassment of men: Articulating the approach-rejection theory of sexual harassment. In: Gruber

J. E.

Morgan

(eds) In the company of men: Male dominance and sexual harassment, Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press, pp. 117–142.

36.

Stockdale

M. S.

Visio

Batra

(1999) The sexual harassment of men: Evidence for a broader theory of sexual harassment and sex discrimination. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 5(3): 630–664. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.5.3.630.

37.

Swim

J. K.

Aikin

K. J.

Hall

W. S.

Hunter

B. A.

(1995) Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68(2): 199–214. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.199.

38.

Swim

J. K.

Hyers

L. L.

Cohen

L. L.

Ferguson

M. J.

(2001) Everyday sexism: Evidence for its incidence, nature, and psychological impact from three daily diary studies. Journal of Social Issues 57(1): 31–53. doi:10.111/0022-4357.00200.

39.

U.S. Department of Labor, Women’s Bureau. (2009). Quick facts on nontraditional occupations for women. Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov/wb/factsheets/nontra2008.htm#.UJvbO9ePzWI.

40.

Wilson

Thompson

(2001) Sexual harassment as an exercise of power. Gender, Work and Organization 8(1): 61–83. doi:10.1111/1468-0432.00122.

41.

Wright

(2014) Gender, sexuality and male-dominated work: The intersection of long-hours working and domestic life. Work, Employment and Society 28(6): 985–1002. doi:10.1177/0950017013512713.