The present work documents the safety concerns of men and women in academia and how these concerns can create opportunity gaps. Across five samples including undergraduate and graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and faculty (N = 1,812), women reported greater concerns about their safety than did men, and these concerns were associated with reduced work hours in libraries, offices, and/or labs afterhours. Additionally, although we were unable to manipulate safety concerns among women, in an experiment with men (N = 117), increasing safety concerns decreased willingness to use the library afterhours. Finally, in an archival study of swipe access data (N = 350,364 swipes), a crime event that made safety concerns salient for women was associated with a decreased likelihood that women worked in their office afterhours and a decreased likelihood that science, technology, engineering, and mathematics women worked in their labs later at night. Collectively, these data suggest that women’s safety concerns can restrict their work.
BerdahlJ. L. (2007). Harassment based on sex: Protecting social status in the context of gender hierarchy. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 641–658.
5.
ChulefA. S.ReadS. J.WalshD. A. (2001). A hierarchical taxonomy of human goals. Motivation and Emotion, 25(3), 191–232.
6.
ClancyK. B.NelsonR. G.RutherfordJ. N.HindeK. (2014). Survey of Academic Field Experiences (SAFE): Trainees report harassment and assault. PLoS One, 9(7), e102172.
CorleyE.GaughanM. (2005). Scientists’ participation in university research centers: What are the gender differences?. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(4), 371–381.
9.
CurrleD. H. (1994). Women’s safety on campus: Challenging the university as gendered space. Humanity & Society, 18(3), 24–48.
DayK. (1994). Conceptualizing women’s fear of sexual assault on campus: A review of causes and recommendations for change. Environment and Behavior, 26(6), 742–765.
12.
DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (2000). The” what” and” why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
13.
FairchildA. L.HolyfieldL. J.ByingtonC. L. (2018). National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report on sexual harassment: Making the case for fundamental institutional change. JAMA, 320(9), 873–874.
14.
FairchildK.RudmanL. A. (2008). Everyday stranger harassment and women’s objectification. Social Justice Research, 21(3), 338–357.
15.
FlamF. (1991). Still a “chilly climate” for women?. Science, 252(5013), 1604–1606.
16.
FletcherP. C.BrydenP. J. (2007). Preliminary examination of safety issues on a university campus: Personal safety practices, beliefs & attitudes of female faculty & staff. College Student Journal, 41(4), 1149–1162.
17.
FoxM. F. (2010). Women and men faculty in academic science and engineering: Social-organizational indicators and implications. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(7), 997–1012.
18.
HayesA. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford publications.
KenrickD. T.GriskeviciusV.NeubergS. L.SchallerM. (2010). Renovating the pyramid of needs: Contemporary extensions built upon ancient foundations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 292–314.
22.
Koltko-RiveraM. E. (2006). Rediscovering the later version of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: Self-transcendence and opportunities for theory, research, and unification. Review of General Psychology, 10(4), 302–317.
23.
MaslowA. (1954). Motivation and personality. Harper & Row.
24.
MayD. C.RaderN. E.GoodrumS. (2010). A gendered assessment of the “threat of victimization”: Examining gender differences in fear of crime, perceived risk, avoidance, and defensive behaviors. Criminal Justice Review, 35(2), 159–182.
25.
McDonaldS. (2011). What's in the “old boys” network? Accessing social capital in gendered and racialized networks. Social Networks, 33(4), 317–330.
26.
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.
27.
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. (2007). Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering. The National Academies Press.
SchroederJ.DugdaleH. L.RadersmaR.HinschM.BuehlerD. M.SaulJ.…HorrocksN. P. (2013). Fewer invited talks by women in evolutionary biology symposia. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 26(9), 2063–2069.
SonnertG.HoltonG. J. (1995). Who succeeds in science?: the gender dimension. Rutgers University Press.
32.
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(7), 509–528.
33.
TayL.DienerE. (2011). Needs and subjective well-being around the world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 354.
34.
TrawalterS.HoffmanK.PalmerL. (2020). Out of place: Socioeconomic status, use of public space, and belonging in higher education. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20, 131–144.
35.
TuanY.-F. (1974). Topophilia. Prentice Hall.
36.
TuanY.-F. (1977). Space and place: The perspectives of experience. University of Minnesota Press.
37.
UhlyK. M.VisserL. M.ZippelK. S. (2017). Gendered patterns in international research collaborations in academia. Studies in Higher Education, 42(4), 760–782.
WahbaM. A.BridwellL. G. (1976). Maslow reconsidered: A review of research on the need hierarchy theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15(2), 212–240.
40.
WalbyS. (2006). In-depth study on all forms of violence against women: Report of the Secretary General. United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women. https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/21682/1/
41.
WaltonG. M.MurphyM. C.RyanA. M. (2015). Stereotype threat in organizations: Implications for equity and performance. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 523–550.
42.
WittemanH. O.HendricksM.StrausS.TannenbaumC. (2019). Are gender gaps due to evaluations of the applicant or the science? A natural experiment at a national funding agency. The Lancet, 393(10171), 531–540.
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.
