This research examined whether simply watching videos of a man behaving dominantly toward a woman during a math-related interaction hurts women’s math performance. Men and women watched videos of male–female interactions related to math (stereotype-relevant) or studying (stereotype-neutral) in which the male was dominant, the female was dominant, or the two were equally dominant. Women who watched a video of a dominant male in a math interaction showed reduced math performance and had greater worries about confirming negative in-group math stereotypes than when the video showed a studying interaction; however, women who watched a video of a man and woman equal in dominance or a dominant female did not show such performance decrements and worries. These effects did not occur for men. This work suggests that brief video exposure to male dominant behavior aimed at a female in a math context can lead women to experience stereotype threat and underperform.
BurgoonJ. K.DunbarN. E. (2006). Nonverbal expressions of dominance and power in human relationships. In ManusovV.PattersonM. L. (Eds.), Sage handbook of nonverbal communication (pp. 279–297). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2.
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, 1045–1060.
3.
CohenG. L.GarciaJ. (2005). “I am us”: Negative stereotypes as collective threats. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 566–582.
4.
CohenG. L.GarciaJ. (2008). Identity, belonging, and achievement: A model, interventions, implications. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 365–369.
5.
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, 1615–1628.
6.
DovidioJ. F.EllysonS. L. (1982). Decoding visual dominance: Attributions of power based on relative percentages of looking while speaking and looking while listening. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45, 106–113.
7.
HallJ. A.CoatsE. J.LeBeauL. S. (2005). Nonverbal behavior and the vertical dimension of social relations: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 898–924.
8.
InzlichtM.Ben-ZeevT. (2000). A threatening intellectual environment: Why females are susceptible to experiencing problem-solving deficits in the presence of males. Psychological Science, 11, 365–371.
9.
InzlichtM.SchmaderT. (Eds.). (2012). Stereotype threat: Theory, process, and application. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
10.
LogelC.WaltonG. M.SpencerS. J.IsermanE.von HippelW.BellA. (2009). Interacting with sexist men triggers social identity threat among female engineers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1089–1103.
11.
MarxD. M. (2012). Differentiating theories: A comparison of stereotype threat and stereotype priming effects. In InzlichtM.SchmaderT. (Eds.), Stereotype threat: Theory, process, and application (pp. 124–140). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
12.
MarxD. M.RomanJ. S. (2002). Female role models: Protecting women’s math test performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1183–1193.
13.
MurphyM. C.SteeleC. M.GrossJ. J. (2007). Signaling threat: How situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychological Science, 18, 879–885.
14.
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. 124–140). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
15.
National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics. (2011). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2011. Special Report NSF 11-309. Arlington, VA. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd
16.
RydellR. J.McConnellA. R.BeilockS. L. (2009). Multiple social identities and stereotype threat: Imbalance, accessibility, and working memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 949–966.
17.
SchmaderT.JohnsM. (2003). Converging evidence that stereotype threat reduces working memory capacity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 440–452.
18.
SchmaderT.JohnsM.ForbesC. (2008). An integrated process model of stereotype threat on performance. Psychological Review, 115, 336–356.
19.
SekaquaptewaD.ThompsonM. (2002). The differential effects of solo status on members of high and low status groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 694–707.
20.
SekaquaptewaD.ThompsonM. (2003). Solo status, stereotype threat, and performance expectancies: Their effects on women’s performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 68–74.
21.
SpencerS. J.SteeleC. M.QuinnD. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4–28.
22.
SteeleC. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613–629.
23.
SteeleC. M.AronsonJ. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797–811.
24.
TiedensL. Z.FragaleA. R. (2003). Power moves: Complementarity in dominant and submissive nonverbal behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 558–568.
25.
WaltonG. M.CohenG. L. (2007). A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 82–96.
