Interventions designed to increase women’s participation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines sometimes emphasize the STEM gender gap. Drawing upon optimal distinctiveness theory, we hypothesized that interventions overtly emphasizing women’s minority status in STEM might lead to less interest in STEM relative to interventions with subtler references to women’s minority status. In Study 1, women who viewed a STEM recruitment presentation drawing direct attention to the STEM gender gap showed lower implicit identification with STEM compared to those who viewed a presentation referencing gender through images alone. In Study 2, women’s greater feelings of unwanted distinctiveness in STEM following a presentation emphasizing the enduring gender gap (relative to one emphasizing the closing gender gap) had a significant indirect effect on their interest in STEM. In Study 3, women who viewed information about the gender distribution of a STEM company expressed less interest in the job when the same information was framed in terms of a continuing gender gap (vs. women’s growing representation), due to reduced feelings of belonging and increased feelings of unwanted distinctiveness. The present findings indicate that those designing STEM interventions targeting women should do so in ways that not only make women feel welcomed into the discipline but also do not place undue emphasis on women’s underrepresentation. Additional online materials for this article are available on PWQ’s website at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/0361684320965123
AntonioA. L.ChangM. J.HakutaK.KennyD. A.LevinS.MilemJ. F. (2004). Effects of racial diversity on complex thinking in college students. Psychological Science, 15(8), 507–510. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00710.x
2.
BerkelaarB. L.KisselburghL. G.BuzzanellP. M. (2008, April3–5). Locating and disseminating effective messages: Enhancing gender representation in computing majors and careers. Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGMIS CPR conference on Computer personnel doctoral consortium and research (pp. 106–108). New York, NY:Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1355238.1355265
3.
BrewerM. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475–482. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167291175001
4.
BuhrmesterM.KwangT.GoslingS. D. (2016). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1037/14805-009
5.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013). Women in the labor force: A databook. U.S. Department of Labor. https://www.bls.gov/cps/wlf-databook-2012.pdf
6.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016239
7.
CheryanS.SiyJ. O.VichayapaiM.DruryB. J.KimS. (2011). Do female and male role models who embody STEM stereotypes hinder women’s anticipated success in STEM?Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(6), 656–664. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611405218
8.
CheryanS.ZieglerS. A.MontoyaA. K.JiangL. (2016). Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others?Psychological Bulletin, 143(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000052
9.
ColeD.EspinozaA. (2008). Examining the academic success of Latino students in science technology engineering and mathematics (STEM) majors. Journal of College Student Development, 49(4), 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.0.0018
10.
CrenshawK. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Scholar, 140, 139–168. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429500480-5
11.
CundiffJ. L.RyukS.CechK. (2018). Identity-safe or threatening? Perceptions of women-targeted diversity initiatives. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(5), 745–766. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217740434
DasguptaN. (2011). Ingroup experts and peers as social vaccines who inoculate the self-concept: The stereotype inoculation model. Psychological Inquiry, 22(4), 231–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840x.2011.607313
14.
DeMarreeK. G.RiosK. (2014). Understanding the relationship between self-esteem and self-clarity: The role of desired self-esteem. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 202–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.10.003
15.
EatonA. A.SaundersJ. F.JacobsonR. K.WestK. (2019). How gender and race stereotypes impact the advancement of scholars in STEM: Professors’ biased evaluations of physics and biology post-doctoral candidates. Sex Roles, 82(3-4), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01052-w
16.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.41.4.1149
17.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026659
18.
GrayD. L. (2014). Understanding STEM-focused high school students’ perceptions of task importance: The role of “standing out” and “fitting in” in mathematics class. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(1), 29–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.12.001
19.
GrayD. L. (2017). Is psychological membership in the classroom a function of standing out while fitting in? Implications for achievement motivation and emotions. Journal of School Psychology, 61, 103–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.02.001
20.
GrayD. L.RiosK. (2012). Achievement motivation as a function of assimilation and differentiation needs. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 220(3), 157–163. https://doi.org/10.1037/e527772014-625
21.
GreenwaldA. G.McGheeD. E.SchwartzJ. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464
22.
HansonS. L. (2004). African American women in science: Experiences from high school through the post-secondary years and beyond. NWSA Journal, 16(1), 96–115. https://doi.org/10.2979/nws.2004.16.1.96
23.
HayesA. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis second edition: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12050
24.
HennesE. P.PietriE. S.Moss-RacusinC. A.MasonK. A.DovidioJ. F.BrescollV. L.BaileyA. H.HandelsmanJ. (2018). Increasing the perceived malleability of gender bias using a modified video Intervention for Diversity in STEM (VIDS). Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(5), 788–809. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430218755923
25.
HerringC. (2009). Does diversity pay? Race, gender, and the business case for diversity. American Sociological Review, 74(2), 208–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240907400203
26.
HigginsE. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 1–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60381-0
27.
HillC.CorbettC.St RoseA. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. American Association of University Women. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED509653.pdf
28.
HughesB. E. (2018). Coming out in STEM: Factors affecting retention of sexual minority STEM students. Science Advances, 4(3), eaao6373. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aao6373
29.
HullemanC. S.HarackiewiczJ. M. (2009). Promoting interest and performance in high school science classes. Science, 326(5958), 1410–1412. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1177067
30.
HurtadoS.NewmanC. B.TranM. C.ChangM. J. (2010). Improving the rate of success for underrepresented racial minorities in STEM fields: Insights from a national project. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2010(148), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.357
KaoC. Y. (2015). Mathematically gifted adolescent females’ mixed sentiment toward gender stereotypes. Social Psychology of Education, 18(1), 17–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-014-9278-2
33.
KisselburghL. G.BerkelaarB. L.BuzzanellP. M. (2009). Discourse, gender, and the meaning of work rearticulating science, technology, and engineering careers through communicative lenses. Annals of the International Communication Association33(1)259–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2009.11679089
34.
LamP.SrivatsanT.DoverspikeD.VesaloJ.MawashaP. (2005). A ten year assessment of the pre-engineering program for under-represented, low-income and/or first generation college students at the University of Akron. Journal of STEM Education, 6(3), 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1109/fie.2004.1408599
35.
LearyM. R.KellyK. M.CottrellC. A.SchreindorferL. S. (2013). Construct validity of the need to belong scale: Mapping the nomological network. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(6), 610–624. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2013.819511
36.
LeonardelliG. J.PickettC. L.BrewerM. B. (2010). Optimal distinctiveness theory: A framework for social identity, social cognition, and intergroup relations. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 63–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(10)43002-6
37.
LiuS. N. C.BrownS. E.SabatI. E. (2019). Patching the “leaky pipeline”: Interventions for women of color faculty in STEM academia. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 7(1), 32–39. https://doi.org/10.1037/arc0000062
38.
LynnM.HarrisJ. (1997). Individual differences in the pursuit of self-uniqueness through consumption. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(21), 1861–1883. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb01629.x
39.
MacPheeD.FarroS.CanettoS. S. (2013). Academic self-efficacy and performance of underrepresented STEM majors: Gender, ethnic, and social class patterns. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13(1), 347–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12033
40.
MetzS. S. (2007). Attracting the engineers of 2020 today. In BurkeR. J.MattisM. C. (Eds.), Women and minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: Upping the numbers (pp. 184–209). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781847206879.00018
MillerD. I.WaiJ. (2015). The bachelor’s to Ph.D. STEM pipeline no longer leaks more women than men: A 30-year analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(37), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00037
43.
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. doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01995.x
44.
MyersK. K.JahnJ. L.GailliardB. M.StoltzfusK. (2011). Vocational anticipatory socialization (VAS): A communicative model of adolescents’ interests in STEM. Management Communication Quarterly, 25(1), 87–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318910377068
45.
National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2017). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2017 (Special Report NSF 17-310). https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2017/nsf17310/
46.
NosekB. A.BanajiM. R.GreenwaldA. G. (2002). Harvesting implicit group attitudes and beliefs from a demonstration web site. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6(1), 101–115. doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.6.1.101
47.
OngM.WrightC.EspinosaL.OrfieldG. (2011). Inside the double bind: A synthesis of empirical research on undergraduate and graduate women of color in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Harvard Educational Review, 81(2), 172–209. doi.org/10.17763/haer.81.2.t022245n7x4752v2
48.
PickettC. L.SilverM. D.BrewerM. B. (2002). The impact of assimilation and differentiation needs on perceived group importance and judgments of ingroup size. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(4), 546–558. doi.org/10.1177/0146167202287011
49.
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. doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.06.021
50.
RamseyL. R.BetzD. E.SekaquaptewaD. (2013). The effects of an academic environment intervention on science identification among women in STEM. Social Psychology of Education, 16(3), 377–397. doi.org/10.1037/e608332013-001
51.
ShafferE. S.MarxD. M.PrislinR. (2013). Mind the gap: Framing of women’s success and representation in STEM affects women’s math performance under threat. Sex Roles, 68(7–8), 454–463. doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0252-1
52.
ShinJ. E. L.LevyS. R.LondonB. (2016). Effects of role model exposure on STEM and non-STEM student engagement. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 46(7), 410–427. doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12371
53.
SmithJ. L.LewisK. L.HawthorneL.HodgesS. D. (2013). When trying hard isn’t natural: Women’s belonging with and motivation for male-dominated STEM fields as a function of effort expenditure concerns. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(2), 131–143. doi.org/10.1177/0146167212468332
54.
StephensN. M.FrybergS. A.MarkusH. R.JohnsonC. S.CovarrubiasR. (2012). Unseen disadvantage: How American universities’ focus on independence undermines the academic performance of first-generation college students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(6), 1178–1197. doi.org/10.1037/e634112013-187
55.
StoutJ. G.DasguptaN. (2011). When he doesn’t mean you: Gender-exclusive language as ostracism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(6), 757–769. doi.org/10.1177/0146167211406434
56.
StoutJ. G.DasguptaN.HunsingerM.McManusM. A. (2011). STEMing the tide: Using ingroup experts to inoculate women’s self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 255–270. doi.org/10.1037/a0021385
57.
WaltonG. M.LogelC.PeachJ. M.SpencerS. J.ZannaM. P. (2015). Two brief interventions to mitigate a “chilly climate” transform women’s experience, relationships, and achievement in engineering. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(2), 468–485. doi.org/10.1037/a0037461
58.
WeisgramE. S.BiglerR. S. (2007). Effects of learning about gender discrimination on adolescent girls’ attitudes toward and interest in science. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31(3), 262–269. doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00369.x
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.
