Male Allies at Work: Gender-Equality Supportive Men Reduce Negative Underrepresentation Effects Among Women

Abstract

Does commitment to allyship from a dominant group member cue identity-safety for women in male-dominated environments? We examine this question by assessing women’s perceptions of workplaces that included the presence (vs. absence) of a male ally (Studies 1–3) or a female ally (Study 3), and determine the impact of Black versus White allies for Black and White women. Across three studies (N = 1,032) and an integrative data analysis, we demonstrate that an equality-supportive male ally reduces anticipated isolation and workplace hostility and increases anticipated support, respect, and gender-equality norms for women in general populations (Studies 1 and 2) and women in science, technology, and math (Study 3). These results represent a possible strategy to help retain women in male-dominated fields.

Keywords

allyship gender intergroup relations STEM underrepresentation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ashburn-Nardo

(2018). What can allies do? In Colella

A. J.

King

E. B.

(Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Workplace Discrimination (pp. 373–386). Oxford University Press.

Beaton

Tougas

Rinfret

Huard

Delisle

(2007). Strength in numbers? Women and mathematics. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22(3), 291–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173427

Betz

D. E.

Ramsey

L. R.

Sekaquaptewa

(2013). Gender stereotype threat among women and girls. In Ryan

M. K.

Branscombe

N. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of gender and psychology (pp. 428–450). SAGE.

Branscombe

N. R.

Schmitt

M. T.

Harvey

R. D.

(1999). Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African Americans: Implications for group identification and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(1), 135.

Brown

K. T.

Ostrove

J. M.

(2013). What does it mean to be an ally? The perception of allies from the perspective of people of color. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(11), 2211–2222.

Chaney

K. E.

Sanchez

D. T.

Remedios

J. D.

(2018). We are in this together: How the presence of similarly stereotyped allies buffer against identity threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 79, 410–422.

Cheryan

(2012). Understanding the paradox in math-related fields: Why do some gender gaps remain while others do not? Sex Roles, 66(3-4), 184–190.

Cheryan

Markus

H. R.

(2020). Masculine defaults: Identifying and mitigating hidden cultural biases. Psychological Review, 127(6), 1022.

Cheryan

Plaut

V. C.

Davies

P. G.

Steele

C. M.

(2009). Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1045.

10.

Cihangir

Barreto

Ellemers

(2014). Men as allies against sexism: The positive effects of a suggestion of sexism by male (vs. female) sources. SAGE Open, 4(2). https://doi.org/2158244014539168

11.

Cohen

L. L.

Swim

J. K.

(1995). The differential impact of gender ratios on women and men: Tokenism, self-confidence, and expectations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(9), 876–884, https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167295219001

12.

Curran

P. J.

Hussong

A. M.

(2009). Integrative data analysis: The simultaneous analysis of multiple data sets. Psychological Methods, 14(2), 81–100.

13.

Dasgupta

Stout

J. G.

(2014). Girls and women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: STEMing the tide and broadening participation in STEM careers. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(1), 21–29.

14.

Davies

P. G.

Spencer

S. J.

Steele

C. 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.

15.

Drury

B. J.

Kaiser

C. R.

(2014). Allies against sexism: The role of men in confronting sexism. Journal of Social Issues, 70(4), 637–652.

16.

Drury

B. J.

Siy

J. O.

Cheryan

(2011). When do female role models benefit women? The importance of differentiating recruitment from retention in STEM. Psychological Inquiry, 22(4), 265–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2011.620935

17.

Eliezer

Major

(2012). It’s not your fault: The social costs of claiming discrimination on behalf of someone else. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15(4), 487–502.

18.

Fiske

S. T.

Cuddy

A. J.

Glick

(2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77–83.

19.

Gervais

S. J.

Hillard

A. L.

(2014). Confronting sexism as persuasion: Effects of a confrontation’s recipient, source, message, and context. Journal of Social Issues, 70(4), 653–667.

20.

Gulker

J. E.

Mark

A. Y.

Monteith

M. J.

(2013). Confronting prejudice: The who what, and why of confrontation effectiveness. Social Influence, 8(4), 280–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2012.736879

21.

Hall

Schmader

Aday

Croft

(2019). Decoding the dynamics of social identity threat in the workplace: A within-person analysis of women’s and men’s interactions in STEM. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(4), 542–552.

22.

Heilman

M. E.

(2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 657–674.

23.

Hekman

D. R.

Johnson

S. K.

Foo

M. D.

Yang

(2017). Does diversity-valuing behavior result in diminished performance ratings for non-White and female leaders? Academy of Management Journal, 60(2), 771–797.

24.

Hildebrand

L. K.

Jusuf

C. C.

Monteith

M. J.

(2020). Ally confrontations as identity-safety cues for marginalized individuals. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50(6), 1318–1333.

25.

Hoyt

C. L.

Murphy

S. E.

(2016). Managing to clear the air: Stereotype threat, women, and leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 27(3), 387–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.11.002

26.

Jackson

P. B.

Thoits

P. A.

Taylor

H. F.

(1995). Composition of the workplace and psychological well-being: The effects of tokenism on America’s Black elite. Social Forces, 74(2), 543–557. https://doi.org/10.2307/2580491

27.

Johnson

I. R.

Pietri

E. S.

Fullilove

Mowrer

(2019). Exploring identity-safety cues and allyship among Black women students in STEM environments. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 43(2), 131–150.

28.

Kaiser

C. R.

Miller

C. T.

(2001). Stop complaining! The social costs of making attributions to discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(2), 254–263.

29.

Miner-Rubino

Cortina

L. M.

(2007). Beyond targets: Consequences of vicarious exposure to misogyny at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1254–1269.

30.

Murphy

M. C.

Steele

C. M.

Gross

J. J.

(2007). Signaling threat: How situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychological Science, 18(10), 879–885.

31.

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2021). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2021. Special Report NSF 21-321. National Science Foundation. https://ncses.nsf.gov/wmpd

32.

Niemann

Y. F.

Dovidio

J. F.

(1998). Relationship of solo status, academic rank, and perceived distinctiveness to job satisfaction of racial/ethnic minorities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(1), 55–71.

33.

Nosek

B. A.

Banaji

M. R.

Greenwald

A. G.

(2002). Math = male, me = female, therefore math ≠ me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 44–59.

34.

Oakes

P. J.

Turner

J. C.

Haslam

S. A.

(1991). Perceiving people as group members: The role of fit in the salience of social categorizations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 30(2), 125–144.

35.

Pietri

E. S.

Johnson

I. R.

Ozgumus

(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.

36.

Radke

H. R. M.

Kutlaca

Siem

Wright

S. C.

Becker

J. C.

(2020). Beyond allyship: Motivations for advantaged group members to engage in action for disadvantaged groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 24(4), 291–315.

37.

Renger

Miché

Simon

(2017). A social recognition approach to autonomy: The role of equality-based respect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(4), 479–492.

38.

Saguy

Fernández

Branscombe

N. R.

Shany

(2020). Justice agents: Discriminated group members are perceived to be highly committed to social justice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(1), 155–167.

39.

Shaffer

E. S.

Marx

D. M.

Prislin

(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.

40.

Shapiro

J. R.

Williams

A. M.

Hambarchyan

(2013). Are all interventions created equal? A multi-threat approach to tailoring stereotype threat interventions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(2), 277–288. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030461

41.

Steele

C. M.

Aronson

(1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797–811.

42.

Stout

J. G.

Dasgupta

Hunsinger

McManus

M. 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.

43.

van Zomeren

Leach

C. W.

Spears

(2012). Protesters as “passionate economists” a dynamic dual pathway model of approach coping with collective disadvantage. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(2), 180–199.

44.

van Zomeren

Spears

Fischer

A. H.

Leach

C. W.

(2004). Put your money where your mouth is! Explaining collective action tendencies through group-based anger and group efficacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(5), 649–664.

45.

Walton

G. M.

Murphy

M. C.

Ryan

A. M.

(2015). Stereotype threat in organizations: Implications for equity and performance. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2, 523–550.

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.

0.00 MB

1.14 MB