Our research capitalized on a naturalistic data collection opportunity to investigate responses to experimental evidence of gender bias within science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). We analyzed 831 written comments made by members of the public in response to three prominent articles reporting on experimental evidence of science faculty members’ gender biases. Utilizing a mixed-method approach (i.e., thematic and quantitative analysis), we identified the nature and frequency of positive and negative responses, and we investigated possible gender and professional differences in what commenters wrote. Although acknowledgment of gender bias was the most prevalent category, a wide range of positive (e.g., calls for social change) and negative (e.g., justifications of gender bias) reactions emerged. Among the subsample of 423 comments for which it was possible to code commenters’ gender, gender differences arose for the majority of categories, such that men were more likely than women to post negative responses and women were more likely than men to post positive responses. Results were unaffected by commenters’ own STEM field affiliation. We discuss implications for the role of clearly demonstrated bias in prejudice recognition and reduction as well as the development of STEM diversity interventions.
AndersonA. A.BrossardD.ScheufeleD. A.XenosM. A.LadwigP. (2014). The “nasty effect:” Online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19, 373–387.
2.
ArgamonS.KoppelM.FineJ.ShimoniA. (2003). Gender, genre, and writing style in formal written texts. Text, 23, 321–346.
3.
Ashburn-NardoL.MorrisK. A.GoodwinS. A. (2008). The confronting prejudiced responses (CPR) model: Applying CPR in organizations. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7, 332–342.
4.
BeckerJ. C.SwimJ. K. (2011). Seeing the unseen: Attention to daily encounters with sexism as way to reduce sexist beliefs. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35, 227–242.
5.
BergB. L.LuneH. (2012). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston, MA: Pearson.
6.
Bowes-SperryL.O’leary-KellyA. M. (2005). To act or not to act: The dilemma faced by sexual harassment observers. The Academy of Management Review, 30, 288–306.
7.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.
8.
BrescollV. L.LaFranceM. (2004). The correlates and consequences of newspaper reports of research on gender differences. Psychological Science, 15, 515–521.
9.
BrescollV. L.UhlmannE. L.NewmanG. E. (2013). The effects of system-justifying motivations on endorsement of essentialist explanations for gender differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 891–908.
10.
BrownL. D.CaiT. T.DasGuptaA. (2001). Interval estimation for a binomial proportion. Statistical Science, 16, 101–133.
11.
CarnesM.DevineP. G.IsaacC.ManwellL.FordC. E.Byars-WinstonA.…SheridanJ. (2012). Promoting institutional change through bias literacy. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 5, 63–77.
12.
CeciS. J.WilliamsW. M. (2011). Understanding current causes of women’s underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 3157–3162.
13.
CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (1976). The design and conduct of quasi-experiments and true experiments in field settings. In DunnettM. (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 223–336). Skokie, IL: Rand McNally.
14.
CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
CrandallC. S.EshlemanA. (2003). A justification-suppression model of the expression and experience of prejudice. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 414–446.
17.
CutlerJ. L.HardingK. J.MozianS. A.WrightL. L.PicaA. G.MastersS. R.…GrahamM. J. (2009). Discrediting the notion “working with ‘crazies’ will make you ‘crazy’”: Addressing stigma and enhancing empathy in medical student education. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 14, 487–502.
18.
CzoppA. M.MonteithM. J. (2003). Confronting prejudice (literally): Reactions to confrontations of racial and gender bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 532–544.
19.
CzoppA. M.MonteithM. J.MarkA. Y. (2006). Standing up for a change: Reducing bias through interpersonal confrontation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 784–803.
20.
DevineP. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5–18.
21.
DevineP. G.ForscherP. S.AustinA. J.CoxW. L. (2012). Long-term reduction in implicit race bias: A prejudice habit-breaking intervention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 1267–1278.
22.
DevineP. G.PlantE.AmodioD. M.Harmon-JonesE.VanceS. L. (2002). The regulation of explicit and implicit race bias: The role of motivations to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 835–848.
23.
DobbinF.KalevA. (2013). The origins and effects of corporate diversity programs. In RobersonQ. M. (Ed.), Handbook of diversity and work (pp. 253–281). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
24.
FieldsA. M.SwanS.KloosB. (2010). “What it means to be a woman:” Ambivalent sexism in female college students’ experiences and attitudes. Sex Roles, 62, 554–567.
25.
GingesJ.AtranS.SachdevaS.MedinD. (2011). Psychology of out the laboratory: The challenge of violent extremism. American Psychologist, 66, 507–519.
26.
GintherD. K.SchafferW. T.SchnellJ.MasimoreB.LiuF.HaakL. L.…KingtonR. (2011). Race, ethnicity, and NIH research awards. Science, 333, 1015–1019.
27.
GlaserB. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
28.
GrahamM. J.NaqviZ.EncandelaJ.HardingK. J.ChatterjiM. (2009). System-based practice defined: Taxonomy development and role identification for competency assessment of residents. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 1, 49–60.
29.
GulkerJ. E.MarkA. Y.MonteithM. J. (2013). Confronting prejudice: The who, what, and why of confrontation effectiveness. Social Influence, 8, 280–293.
30.
HandelsmanJ.Moss-RacusinC. A. (2013). Institute training to reduce bias. Nature, 495, 35–38.
31.
HenryP. J. (2008). College sophomores in the laboratory redux: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology's view of the nature of prejudice. Psychological Inquiry, 19, 49–71.
32.
IbroschevaE. (2007). Caught between East and West? Portrayals of gender in Bulgarian television advertisements. Sex Roles, 57, 409–418.
33.
JostJ. T.BanajiM. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1–27.
34.
JostJ. T.BanajiM. R.NosekB. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881–919.
35.
JostJ. T.HunyadyO. (2002). The psychology of system justification and the palliative function of ideology. European Review of Social Psychology, 13, 111–153.
36.
KingE. B.HeblM. R.Botsford MorganW.AhmadA. (2013). Experimental field research on sensitive organizational topics. Organizational Research Methods, 16, 501–521.
37.
Knobloch-WesterwickS.GlynnC. J.HugeM. (2013). The matilda effect in science communication: An experiment on gender bias in publication quality perceptions and collaboration interest. Science Communication, 35, 603–625.
MallettR. K.WagnerD. E. (2011). The unexpectedly positive consequences of confronting sexism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 215–220.
40.
MattisJ. S. (2002). Religion and spirituality in the meaning-making and coping experiences of African American women: A qualitative analyses. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 309–321.
41.
McClellandS. I.HollandK. J. (2014). You, me, or her: Leaders’ perceptions of responsibility for increasing gender diversity in STEM departments. Psychology of Women Quarterly.
42.
McGrathJ. E. (1981). Dilemmatics: The study of research choices and dilemmas. American Behavioral Scientist, 25, 179–210.
43.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
44.
MilkmanK. L.AkinolaM.ChughD. (2012). Temporal distance and discrimination: An audit study in academia. Psychological Science, 23, 710–717.
45.
MillerM. K.SummersA. (2007). Gender differences in video game characters’ roles, appearances, and attire as portrayed in video game magazines. Sex Roles, 57, 733–742.
46.
MonteithM. J.VoilsC. I.Ashburn-NardoL. (2001). Taking a look underground: Detecting, interpreting, and reacting to implicit racial biases. Social Cognition, 19, 395–417.
47.
MortonT. A.PostmesT.HaslamS. A.HornseyM. J. (2009). Theorizing gender in the face of social change: Is there anything essential about essentialism?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 653–664.
48.
Moss-RacusinC. A.DovidioJ. F.BrescollV. L.GrahamM.HandelsmanJ. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 16474–16479.
49.
Moss-RacusinC. A.PhelanJ. E.RudmanL. A. (2010). “I’m not prejudiced, but…”: Compensatory egalitarianism in the 2008 democratic presidential primary. Political Psychology, 31, 543–561.
National Science Foundation. (2010). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. Arlington, VA: National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd
52.
NeuendorfK. A. (2011). Content analysis—A methodological primer for gender research. Sex Roles, 64, 276–289.
53.
NickersonR. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175–220.
54.
PaluckE. L. (2006). Diversity training and intergroup contact: A call to action research. Journal of Social Issues, 62, 577–595.
55.
PerryS. P.MurphyM. C.DovidioJ. F. (2014). Modern prejudice: Subtle, but unconscious? The role of bias awareness in Whites’ perceptions of personal and others’ biases. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Under revision.
56.
PollackE. (2013). Why are there still so few women in science?The New York Times. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nytimes.com
57.
PrimeJ.Foust-CummingsH.SalibE. R.Moss-RacusinC. A. (2012). Calling all White men: Can training help create inclusive workplaces?New York, NY: Catalyst.
ProchaskaJ. O.DiClementeC. C.NorcrossJ. C. (1992). In search of how people change: Applications to addictive behaviors. American Psychologist, 47, 1102–1114.
60.
ProchaskaJ. M.MaurielloL. M.ShermanK. J.HarlowL.SilverB.TrubatchJ. (2006). Assessing readiness for advancing women scientists using the transtheoretical model. Sex Roles, 54, 869–880.
61.
ProchaskaJ. O.NorcrossJ. C.DiClementeC. C. (1994). Changing for good: The revolutionary program that explains the six stages of change and teaches you how to free yourself from bad habits. New York, NY: W. Morrow.
62.
ProninE.GilovichT.RossL. (2004). Objectivity in the eye of the beholder: Divergent perceptions of bias in self versus others. Psychological Review, 111, 781–799.
63.
ProninE.LinD. Y.RossL. (2002). The bias blind spot: Perceptions of bias in self versus others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 369–381.
64.
PuhlR. M.Moss-RacusinC. A.SchwartzM. B.BrownellK. D. (2008). Weight stigmatization and bias reduction: Perspectives of overweight and obese adults. Health Education Research, 23, 347–358.
65.
ReubenE.SapienzaP.ZingalesL. (2014). How stereotypes impair women's career in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 4403–4408.
66.
RudmanL. A.DohnM. C.FairchildK. (2007). Implicit self-esteem compensation: Automatic threat defense. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 798–813.
67.
RudmanL. A.Moss-RacusinC. A.PhelanJ. E.NautsS. (2012). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 165–179.
68.
ShieldsS. A.ZawadzkiM. J.JohnsonR. (2011). The impact of the workshop activity for gender equity simulation in the academy (WAGES–Academic) in demonstrating cumulative effects of gender bias. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 4, 120–129.
69.
SmithJ. L. (2014). A multi-million dollar opportunity: How social psychology can advance the participation of women faculty in STEM[PSP Connections Blog].
70.
SteinpreisR. E.AndersK. A.RitzkeD. (1999). The impact of gender on the review of the curricula vitae of job applicants and tenure candidates: A national empirical study. Sex Roles, 41, 509–528.
71.
SwimJ. K.AikinK. J.HallW. S.HunterB. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 199–214.
72.
TestaM.LivingstonJ. A. (1999). Qualitative analysis of women’s experiences of sexual aggression. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 573–589.
73.
TestaM.LivingstonJ. A.VanZile-TamsenC. (2011). Advancing the study of violence against women using mixed methods: Integrating qualitative methods into a quantitative research program. Violence Against Women, 17, 236–250.
74.
WickensC. M.WiesenthalD. L.HallA.RoseboroughJ. W. (2013). Driver anger on the information superhighway: A content analysis of online complaints of offensive driver behaviour. Accident Analysis And Prevention, 51, 84–92.
75.
ZawadzkiM. J.DanubeC. L.ShieldsS. A. (2012). How to talk about gender inequity in the workplace: Using WAGES as an experiential learning tool to reduce reactance and promote self-efficacy. Sex Roles, 67, 605–616.
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.
