The Safety and Threat in Environment Perceptions (STEP) scale assesses perceptions of environments as safe (welcoming, inclusive) or threatening (critical, intimidating). We first evaluated the factor structure of the scale and demonstrated its unique predictive validity in classrooms (Studies 1 and 2), gyms (Studies 3 and 4), and the workplace (Study 5). When seeing classrooms with stereotypically masculine (vs. neutral) objects, women perceived less safety, which predicted less engagement, interest, and intentions to recruit others. When seeing an unwelcoming (vs. welcoming) gym, women (vs. men) perceived less safety, which predicted less engagement, interest, and intentions to recruit others, especially when the gym contained masculine (vs. feminine or gender-balanced) social cues. When seeing a boardroom with unwelcoming (vs. no) social cues, both men and women perceived greater threat, which predicted less intentions to recruit others. Together, these findings suggest that the STEP scale is a useful measure for assessing perceived safety and threat in any environment.
AdamsG.GarciaD. M.Purdie-VaughnsV.SteeleC. M. (2006). The detrimental effects of a suggestion of sexism in an instruction situation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(5), 602–615.
2.
AdayA.GuoY.MehtaS.ChenS.HallW.GötzF. M.SedikidesC.SchmaderT. (2024). The SAFE model: State authenticity as a function of three types of fit. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672231223597
3.
BearG. G. (2010). School discipline and self-discipline: A practical guide to promoting prosocial student behavior. Guilford Press.
4.
BearG. G.HolstB.LisboaC.ChenD.YangC.ChenF. F. (2016). A Brazilian Portuguese survey of school climate: Evidence of validity and reliability. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 4(3), 165–178.
5.
BemS. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42(2), 155–162.
6.
BranscombeN. R.EllemersN.SpearsR.DoosjeB. (1999). The context and content of social identity threats. In EllemersN.SpearsR.DoosjeB. (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 35–58). Blackwell.
7.
BrownN. A.NeelR.ShermanR. A. (2015). Measuring the evolutionarily important goals of situations: Situational affordances for adaptive problems. Evolutionary Psychology, 13(3), 1–15.
8.
BrowneM. W.CudeckR. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230–258.
9.
CacioppoJ. T.BerntsonG. G. (1994). Relationship between attitudes and evaluative space: A critical review, with emphasis on the separability of positive and negative substrates. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 401–423.
10.
CacioppoJ. T.GardnerW. L.BerntsonG. G. (1997). Beyond bipolar conceptualizations and measures: The case of attitudes and evaluative space. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 3–25.
11.
CanningE. A.OzierE.WilliamsH. E.AlRasheedR.MurphyM.C. (2022). Professors who signal a fixed mindset about ability undermine women’s performance in STEM. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(5), 927–937.
12.
ChaikinA. L.DerlegaV. J.MillerS. J. (1976). Effects of room environment on self-disclosure in a counseling analogue. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 23, 479–481.
13.
ChaneyK. E.SanchezD. T. (2018). Gender-inclusive bathrooms signal fairness across identity dimensions. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(2), 245–253.
14.
ChaneyK. E.SanchezD. T.RemediosJ. D. (2016). Organizational identity safety cue transfers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(11), 1564–1576.
15.
CheryanS.MarkusH. R. (2020). Masculine defaults: Identifying and mitigating hidden cultural biases. Psychological Review, 127(6), 1022–1052.
16.
CheryanS.PlautV. C.DaviesP. G.SteeleC. M. (2009). Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1045–1060.
17.
CheryanS.ZieglerS. A.MontoyaA. K.JiangL. (2017). Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others?Psychological Bulletin, 143, 1–35.
18.
CipollinaR.SanchezD. T. (2023). Racial identity safety cues and healthcare provider expectations. Stigma and Health, 8(2), 159–169.
19.
CoenS. E.RosenbergM. W.DavidsonJ. (2018). “It’s gym, like g-y-m not J-i-m”: Exploring the role of place in the gendering of physical activity. Social Science & Medicine, 196, 29–36.
20.
ConnerM.ArmitageC. J. (2008). Attitudinal ambivalence. In CranoW. D.PrislinR. (Eds.), Attitudes and attitude change (pp. 261–286). Psychology Press.
21.
ConstantinopleA. (1973). Masculinity-femininity: An exception to a famous dictum?Psychological Bulletin, 80(5), 389–407.
22.
CraigM. L.LibertiR. (2007). “Cause that’s what girls do”: The making of a feminized gym. Gender and Society, 21(5), 676–699.
23.
DasguptaN.ScircleM. M.HunsingerM. (2015). Female peers in small work groups enhance women’s motivation, verbal participation, and career aspirations in engineering. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(16), 4988–4993.
24.
DaviesP. G.SpencerS. J.QuinnD. M.GerhardsteinR. (2002). Consuming images: How television commercials that elicit stereotype threat can restrain women academically and professionally. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(12), 1615–1628.
25.
DaviesP. G.SpencerS. J.SteeleC. M. (2005). Clearing the air: Identity safety moderates the effects of stereotype threat on women’s leadership aspirations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(2), 276–287.
26.
DiamondL. M.AlleyJ. (2022). Rethinking minority stress: A social safety perspective on the health effects of stigma in sexually-diverse and gender-diverse populations. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 138, Article 104720.
27.
EdmonsonA. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
28.
EdmonsonA. C.LeiZ. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 23–43.
EisenbergerN. I.LiebermanM. D. (2004). Why rejection hurts: A common neural alarm system for physical and social pain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(7), 294–300.
31.
EllemersN.SpearsR.DoosjeB. (2002). Self and social identity. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 161–186.
32.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J.GlickP. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77–83.
33.
GohJ. X.HallJ. A.RosenthalR. (2016). Mini meta-analysis of your own studies: Some arguments on why and a primer on how. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(10), 535–549.
34.
GoodC.RattanA.DweckC. S. (2012). Why do women opt out? Sense of belonging and women’s representation in mathematics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(4), 700–717.
35.
GoslingS. D.RentfrowP. J.SwannW. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504–528.
36.
HallW.SchmaderT.AdayA.InnessM.CroftE. (2018). Climate control: The relationship between social identity threat and cues to an identity-safe culture. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(3), 446–467.
37.
HayesA. F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (3rd ed.). The Guilford Press.
38.
HesterN.JonesB. C.HehmanE. (2021). Perceived femininity and masculinity contribute independently to facial impressions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150(6), 1147–1164.
39.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
40.
JohnsonI. R.PietriE. S.FulliloveF.MowrerS. (2019). Exploring identity-safety cues and allyship among black women students in STEM environments. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 43(2), 131–150.
41.
KirbyT. A.TabakJ. A.IlacM.CheryanS. (2020). The symbolic value of ethnic spaces. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(7), 867–878.
42.
KroeperK. M.WilliamsH. E.MurphyM. C. (2022). Counterfeit diversity: How strategically misrepresenting gender diversity dampens organizations’ perceived sincerity and elevates women's identity threat concerns. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122(3), 399–426.
43.
KrukM.MatsickJ. L. (2021). A taxonomy of identity safety cues based on gender and race: From a promising past to an intersectional and translational future. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 7(4), 487–510.
44.
LarsenJ. T.McGrawA. P.CacioppoJ. T. (2001). Can people feel happy and sad at the same time?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 684–696.
45.
LazarusR. S.FolkmanS. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. Springer.
46.
LogelC.WaltonG. M.SpencerS. J.IsermanE. C.von HippelW.BellA. E. (2009). Interacting with sexist men triggers social identity threat among female engineers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(6), 1089–1103.
47.
MacDonaldG.LearyM. R. (2005). Why does social exclusion hurt? The relationship between social and physical pain. Psychological Bulletin, 131(2), 202–223.
48.
MarklandD.TobinV. J. (2010). Need support and behaviural regulations for exercise among exercise referral scheme clients: The mediating role of psychological need satisfaction. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11(2), 91–99.
49.
MartinA. E.SlepianM. L. (2021). The primacy of gender: Gendered cognition underlies the Big Two dimensions of social cognition. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(6), 1143–1158.
50.
MasterA.CheryanS.MeltzoffA. N. (2016). Computing whether she belongs: Stereotypes undermine girls’ interest and sense of belonging in computer science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(3), 424–437.
51.
McNultyJ. K.OlsonM. A.JoinerT. E.Jr. (2019). Implicit interpersonal evaluations as a risk factor for suicidality: Automatic spousal attitudes predict changes in the probability of suicidal thoughts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(5), 978–997.
52.
MuenksK.CanningE. A.LaCosseJ.GreenD. J.ZirkelS.GarciaJ. A.MurphyM. C. (2020). Does my professor think my ability can change? Students’ perceptions of their STEM professors’ mindset beliefs predict their psychological vulnerability, engagement, and performance in class. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(11), 2119–2144.
53.
MurphyM. C.SteeleC. M.GrossJ. J. (2007). Signaling threat: How situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychological Science, 18(10), 879–885.
54.
MurphyM. C.TaylorV. J. (2012). The role of situational cues in signaling and maintaining stereotype threat. In InzlichtM.SchmaderT. (Eds.), Stereotype threat: Theory, process, and application (pp. 17–33). Oxford University Press.
55.
MuthénB.MuthénL. (2017). Mplus. In Handbook of item response theory (pp. 507–518). Chapman and Hall/CRC.
56.
NeubergS. L.KenrickD. T.SchallerM. (2011). Human threat management systems: Self-protection and disease avoidance. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 35(4), 1042–1051.
57.
ParkL. E.ItalianoA.VesselsV. (2023). Managers’ frequent displays of busyness predict employees’ job disengagement, burnout, and turnover intentions. International Journal of Social Psychology, 38(1), 192–239.
58.
ParkL. E.KondrakC.WardD. E.StreamerL. (2018). Positive feedback from male authority figures boosts women’s math outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44, 359–383.
59.
ParkL. E.NaiduE.LemayE. P.CanningE. A.WardD. E.PanlilioZ. A.VesselsV. (2023). Social evaluative threat across individual, relational, and collective selves. In GawronskiB. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 68, pp.139–199). Academic Press.
60.
ParkL. E.O’BrienC.ItalianoA.WardD. E.PanlilioZ. (2023). “That’s a great question!” Instructors’ positive responses to students’ questions improves STEM-related outcomes. Self and Identity, 22(6), 849–895.
61.
PerrettD. I.LeeK. J.Penton-VoakI.RowlandD.YoshikawaS.BurtD. M.HenziS. P.CastlesD. L.AkamatsuS. (1998). Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature, 394(6696), 884–887.
62.
PietriE. S.JohnsonI. R.OzgumusE. (2018). One size may not fit all: Exploring how the intersection of race and gender and stigma consciousness predict effective identity-safe cues for Black women. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 74, 291–306.
63.
Purdie-VaughnsV.SteeleC. M.DaviesP. G.DitlmannR.CrosbyJ. R. (2008). Social identity contingencies: How diversity cues signal threat or safety for African Americans in mainstream institutions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(4), 615–630.
64.
RauthmannJ. F.Gallardo-PujolD.GuillaumeE. M.ToddE.NaveC. S.ShermanR. A.ZieglerM.JonesA. B.FunderD. C. (2014). The Situational Eight DIAMONDS: A taxonomy of major dimensions of situation characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(4), 677–718.
65.
RauthmannJ. F.ShermanR. A. (2016). Measuring the Situational Eight DIAMONDS characteristics of situations: An optimization of the RSQ-8 to the S8. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 32(2), 155–164.
66.
RhoadesL.EisenbergerR. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698–714.
67.
RobinsR. W.HendinH. M.TrzesniewskiK. H. (2001). Measuring global self-esteem: Construct validation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 151–161.
68.
RhodesG. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 199–226.
69.
SchmaderT.HallW.CroftA. (2015). Stereotype threat in intergroup relations. In MikulincerM.ShaverP. R.DovidioJ. F.SimpsonJ. A. (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Vol. 2. Group processes (pp. 447–471). American Psychological Association.
70.
SchmaderT.SedikidesC. (2018). State authenticity as fit to environment: The implications of social identity for fit, authenticity, and self-segregation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(3), 228–259.
71.
SeeryM. D. (2013). The biopsychosocial model of challenge and threat: Using the heart to measure the mind. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 637–653.
72.
SlepianM. L.Jacoby-SenghorD. S. (2021). Identity threats in everyday life: Distinguishing belonging from inclusion. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(3), 392–406.
73.
SnethenG.JeffriesV.ThomasE.SalzerM. (2021). Welcoming places: Perspectives of individuals with mental illnesses. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 91(1), 76–85.
74.
SpencerS. J.LogelC.DaviesP. G. (2016). Stereotype threat. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 415–437.
75.
SteeleC. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual test performance of African Americans. American Psychologist, 52(6), 613–629.
76.
SteeleC. M.AronsonJ. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797–811.
77.
SteeleC. M.SpencerS. J.AronsonJ. (2002). Contending with group image: The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 379–440.
78.
TajfelH.BilligM.BundyR.FlamentC. (1971). Social categorization and inter-group behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149–178.
79.
The Lancet Public Health. (2019). Time to tackle the physical activity gender gap. The Lancet Public Health, 4(8), e360.
80.
TomassoniR.GalettaG.TregliaE. (2015). Psychology of light: How light influences the health and psyche. Psychology, 06(10), 1216–1222.
81.
TownsendS. S.StephensN. M.SmalletsS.HamedaniM. G. (2019). Empowerment through difference: An online difference-education intervention closes the social class achievement gap. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(7), 1068–1083.
82.
WaltonG. M.MurphyM. C.RyanA. M. (2015). Stereotype threat in organizations: Implications for equity and performance. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2, 523–550.
83.
WatsonD.ClarkL. A.TellegenA. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070.
84.
WoutD. A.ShihM. J.JacksonJ. S.SellersR. M. (2009). Targets as perceivers: How people determine when they will be negatively stereotyped. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(2), 349–362.
85.
ZayasV.ShodaY. (2015). Love you? Hate you? Maybe it’s both: Evidence that significant others trigger bivalent-priming. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(1), 56–64.
86.
ZoppolatG.RighettiF.FaureR.SchneiderI. K. (2024). A systematic study of ambivalence and well-being in romantic relationships. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 15(3), 329–339.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
