Using data collected from multiple teams of undergraduate engineering students, this study examines whether team members evaluate members of different perceived genders differently than they would a member of their own perceived gender. This was done using social relations modeling to analyze the dyadic differences within the teams over the course of several years. This research found that despite what was expected, gender only played a minor role in how different team members rated each other as time progressed. This lack of significance of gender in the model could be attributed to the high proportion of women in this major as well as how the teams were formed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AshforthB. E.MaelF. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20–39.
2.
CarliL. L. (2010). Gender and group behavior. In ChrislerJ. C.McCrearyD. R. (eds.), Handbook of Gender Research in Psychology, 337–358. Springer Science and Business Media.
3.
DerksB.van LaarC.EllemersN. (2009). Working for the self or working for the group: How self- versus group affirmation affects collective behavior in low-status groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 183–202.
4.
EaglyA. H.KarauS. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psycholological Review, 109(3), 573–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573.
5.
Garcia-RetameroR.López-ZafraE. (2006). Prejudice against women in male-congenial environments: Perceptions of gender role congruity in leadership. Sex Role, 2, 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9068-1.
6.
HoggM. A.TerryD. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121–140.
7.
HollingsheadA. B.FraidinS. N. (2003). Gender stereotypes and assumptions about expertise in transactive memory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(4), 355–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00549-8.
8.
HuynhH.FeldtL. S. (1976). Estimation of the Box Correction for Degrees of Freedom from Sample Data in Randomized Block and Split-Plot Designs. Journal of Educational Statistics, 1(1), 69–82. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986001001069.
9.
JohnO. P.SrivastavaS. (1999). The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In PervinL. A.JohnO. P. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research2, 102–138. New York: Guilford Press.
10.
JoshiA. (2014). By whom and when is women’s expertise recognized? The interactive effects of gender and education in science and engineering teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(2), 202–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839214528331.
11.
JoshiA.KnightA. P. (2015). Who defers to whom and why? Dual pathways linking demographic differences and dyadic deference to team effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 58(1), 59–84.
12.
KalkhoffW.BarnumC. (2000). The effects of status-organizing and social identity processes on patterns of social influence. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 95–115.
13.
KennyD. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. Guilford.
14.
KennyD. A.MohrC. D.LevesqueM. J. (2001). A social relations variance partitioning of dyadic behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 128–141
15.
KennyD. A.KashyD. A.CookW. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. Guilford.
16.
OldmeadowJ. A.PlatowM. J.FoddyM.AndersonD. (2003). Self-categorization, status, and social influence. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66, 138–152.
17.
PoleacovschiC.FaustK.RoyA.FeinsteinS. (2020). Identity of engineering expertise: Implicitly biased and sustaining the gender gap. American Society of Civil Engineers, 147(1).
18.
RidgewayC. L.Smith-LovinL. (1999). The gender system and interaction. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 191–216.
19.
SchönbrodtF. D.BackM. D.SchmukleS. C. (2012). TripleR: An R package for social relations analyses based on round-robin designs. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 455–470.
20.
TajfelH. (1981). Human Groups and Social Categories. Cambridge University Press.
21.
Van der VegtG. S.BundersonJ. S.OosterhofA. (2006). Expertness diversity and interpersonal helping in teams: Why those who need the most help end up getting the least. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 877–893.
22.
ViallonM. L.MartinotD. (2009). The effects of solo status on women’s and men’s success: The moderating role of the performance context. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24(2), 191–205.
