Women are missing from Science, Technology, Education, and Mathematics (STEM) fields, undermining intellectual inclusivity, meritocracy goals, national competitiveness, and high-quality advances. Solutions require not only hiring more women, but boosting their sustainable representation (i.e., their lasting, substantial presence and valued engagement). Evidence-based policies can shift organizational culture, enabling women’s full and durable participation. The present review presents (1) numerous causes of women’s underrepresentation in STEM and (2) evidence-based interventions to tackling these causes. Specific policy initiatives (derived from the scientific evidence) would promote the sustainable representation of women in STEM.
AsgariS.DasguptaN.StoutJ. G. (2012). When do counterstereotypic ingroup members inspire versus deflate? The effect of successful professional women on young women’s leadership self-concept. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 370–383. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000028
2.
AvolioB.ChavezJ.Vilchez-RomanC. (2020). Factors that contribute to the underrepresentation of women in science careers worldwide: A literature review. Social Psychology of Education, 23, 773–794. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-020-09558-y
3.
BagèsC.VerniersC.MartinotD. (2016). Virtues of a hardworking role model to improve girls’ mathematics performance. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(1), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684315608842
4.
BeilockS. L.MaloneyE. A. (2015). Math anxiety: A factor in math achievement not to be ignored. Policy Insights From the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2(1), 4–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732215601438
5.
BelangerA. L.DiekmanA. B.SteinbergM. (2017). Leveraging communal experiences in the curriculum: Increasing interest in pursuing engineering by changing stereotypic expectations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 47, 305–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12438
6.
BennettJ. E.SekaquaptewaD. (2014). Setting an egalitarian social norm in the classroom: Improving attitudes towards diversity among male engineering students. Social Psychology of Education, 17, 343–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-014-9253-y
7.
Blake-BeardS.BayneM. L.CrosbyF. J.MullerC. B. (2011). Matching by race and gender in mentoring relationships: Keeping our eyes on the prize. Journal of Social Issues, 67, 622–643. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01717.x
8.
BrownE. R.SmithJ. L.ThomanD. B.AllenJ. M.MuragishiG. (2015). From bench to bedside: A communal utility value intervention to enhance students’ biomedical science motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 1116–1135. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000033
9.
CarnesM.DevineP. G.ManwellL. B.Byars-WinstonA.FineE.FordC. E.. . . SheridanJ. (2015). Effect of an intervention to break the gender bias habit for faculty at one institution: A cluster randomized, controlled trial. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 90(2), 221–230. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000552
10.
CarrP. B.WaltonG. M. (2014). Cues of working together fuel intrinsic motivation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 53, 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.03.015
11.
CechE. A.Blair-LoyM. (2010). Perceiving glass ceilings? Meritocratic versus structural explanations of gender inequality among women in science and technology. Social Problems, 3, 371–397. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2010.57.3.371
12.
CechE. A.Blair-LoyM. (2014). Consequences of flexibility stigma among academic scientists and engineers. Work and Occupations Journal, 41, 86–110.
13.
CechE. A.Blair-LoyM. (2019). The changing career trajectories of new parents in STEM. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(10), 4182–4187. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1810862116
14.
CeciS. J.WilliamsW. M. (2011). Understanding current causes of women’s underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108, 3157–3162. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1014871108
15.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016239
16.
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, 656–664. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611405218
17.
CheryanS.ZieglerS. A.MontoyaA.JiangL. (2017). Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others?Psychological Bulletin, 143, 1–35. http://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000052
18.
ClancyK. B. H.NelsonR. G.RutherfordJ. N.HindeK. (2014). Survey of academic field experiences (SAFE): Trainees report harassment and assault. PLOS ONE, 9(7), e102172. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102172
19.
CohenG. L.ShermanD. K. (2014). The psychology of change: Self-affirmation and social psychological intervention. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 333–371. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115137
20.
CundiffJ. L.ZawadzkiM. J.DanubeC. L.ShieldsS. A. (2014). Using experimental learning to increase the recognition of everyday sexism: The WAGES intervention. Journal of Social Issues, 70(4), 703–721. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12087
21.
DarhourH.DahlerupD. (2013). Sustainable representation of women through gender quotas: A decade’s experience in Morocco. Women’s Studies International Forum, 41(2), 132–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2013.04.008
22.
DasguptaN. (2011). Ingroup experts and peers as social vaccines who inoculate the self-concept: The stereotype inoculation model. Psychological Inquiry, 22, 231–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2011.607313
23.
DasguptaN.ScircleM. M.HunsingerM. (2015). Female peers in small work groups enhance women’s motivation, verbal participation, and career aspirations in engineering. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112, 4988–4993. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1422822112
24.
DasguptaN.StoutJ. G. (2014). Girls and women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics: STEM in the tide and broadening participation in STEM careers. Policy Insights From the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732214549471
25.
DennehyT. C.DasguptaN. (2017). Female peer mentors early in college increase women’s positive academic experiences and retention in engineering. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114, 5964–5969. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1613117114
26.
DevineP. G.ForscherP. S.CoxW. T. L.KaatzA.SheridanJ.CarnesM. (2017). A gender bias habit-breaking intervention led to increased hiring of female faculty in STEMM departments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 73, 211–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.07.002
27.
DiekmanA. B.Benson-GreenwaldT. M. (2018). Fixing STEM workforce and teacher shortages: How goal congruity can inform individuals and institutions. Policy Insights From the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5(1), 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732217747889
28.
DiekmanA. B.ClarkE. K.JohnstonA. M.BrownE. R.SteinbergM. (2011). Malleability in communal goals and beliefs influences attraction to stem careers: Evidence for a goal congruity perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 902–918. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025199
29.
DovidioJ. F.GaertnerS. L.UfkesE. G.SaguyT.PearsonA. R. (2016). Included but invisible? Subtle bias, common identity, and the darker side of “we.”Social Issues and Policy Review, 10, 4–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12017
30.
EllemersN.BarretoM. (2009). Collective action in modern times: How modern expressions of prejudice prevent collective action. Journal of Social Issues, 65(4), 749–768. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01621.x
31.
FarrC. M.BombaciS. P.GalloT.ManganA. M.RiedlH. L.StinsonL. T.. . . PejcharL. (2017). Addressing the gender gap in distinguished speakers at professional ecology conferences. BioScience, 67(5), 464–468. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix013
32.
FitzsousaE.AndersonN.ReismanA. (2019). “This institution was never meant for me”: The impact of institutional historical portraiture on medical students. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 34(12), 2738–2739. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-05138-9
33.
FreemanS.EddyS. L.McDonoughM.SmithM. K.OkoroaforN.JordtH.WenderothM. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111, 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
34.
FuestingM. A.DiekmanA. B. (2017). Not by success alone: Role models provide pathways to communal opportunities in STEM. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216678857
35.
FuestingM. A.DiekmanA. B.HudiburghL. (2017). From classroom to career: The unique role of communal processes in predicting interest in STEM careers. Social Psychology of Education, 20, 875–896. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-017-9398-6
36.
GaucherD.FriesenJ.KayA. C. (2011). Evidence that gendered wording in job advertisements exists and sustains gender inequality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(1), 109–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022530
GibsonD. E. (2004). Role models in career development: New directions for theory and research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 134–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00051-4
39.
GirodS.FassiottoM.GewalD.KuM. C.SriramN.NosekB. A.ValantineH. (2016). Reducing implicit gender leadership bias in academic medicine with an educational intervention. Academic Medicine, 91(8), 1143–1150. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001099
40.
GoodJ. J.WoodzickaJ. A.WingfieldL. C. (2010). The effects of gender stereotypic and counter-stereotypic textbook images on science performance. The Journal of Social Psychology, 150, 132–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540903366552
41.
GreenT. K.KalevA. (2008). Discrimination-reducing measures at the relational level. Hastings Law Journal, 59, 1435.
42.
GrossD.PietriE. S.AndersonG.Moyano-CamihortK.GrahamM. J. (2015). Increased preclass preparation underlies student outcome improvement in the flipped classroom. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14(4), ar36.
43.
GuarinoC. M.BordenV. M. (2017). Faculty service loads and gender: Are women taking care of the academic family?Research in Higher Education, 58, 672–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-017-9454-2
44.
HallW.SchmaderT.AdayA.InnessM.CroftE. (2018). Climate control: The relationship between social identity threat and cues to an identity-safe culture. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(3), 446–467. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000137
HernandezP. R.BloodhartB.BarnesR. T.AdamsA. S.ClintonS. M.PollackI.. . . FischerE. V. (2017). Promoting professional identity, motivation, and persistence: Benefits of an informal mentoring program for female undergraduate students. PLOS ONE, 12, e0187531. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187531
47.
HernandezP. R.EstradaM.WoodcockA.SchultzP. W. (2017). Protégé perceptions of high mentorship quality depend on shared values more than on demographic match. The Journal of Experimental Education, 85, 450–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2016.1246405
48.
JacksonS. M.HillardA. L.SchneiderT. R. (2014). Using implicit bias training to improve attitudes toward women in STEM. Social Psychology of Education, 17(3), 419–438.
49.
JonesM. T.BarlowA. E.VillarejoM. (2010). Importance of undergraduate research for minority persistence and achievement in biology. The Journal of Higher Education, 81, 82–115. http://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.0.0082
50.
LatulipeC.RorrerA.LongB. (2018, February). Longitudinal data on flipped class effects on performance in CS1 and retention after CS1. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 411–416). https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3159450.3159518
51.
LewisN. A.SekaquaptewaD.MeadowsL. A. (2019). Modeling gender counter-stereotypic group behavior: A brief video intervention reduces participation gender gaps on STEM teams. Social Psychology of Education, 22(3), 557–577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-019-09489-3
52.
LockwoodP.KundaZ. (1997). Superstars and me: Predicting the impact of role models on the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.91
53.
MaderaJ. M.HeblM. R.DialH.MartinR.ValianV. (2019). Raising doubt in letters of recommendation for academia: Gender differences and their impact. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(3), 287–303.
54.
MaderaJ. M.HeblM. R.MartinR. C. (2009). Gender and letters of recommendation for academia: Agentic and communal differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1591–1599.
55.
MarraR. M.RodgersK. A.ShenD.BogueB. (2009). Women engineering students and self-efficacy: A multi-year, multi-institution study of women engineering student self-efficacy. Journal of Engineering Education, 98, 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2009.tb01003.x
56.
MartensA.JohnsM.GreenbergJ.SchimelJ. (2006). Combating stereotype threat: The effect of self-affirmation on women’s intellectual performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 236–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.04.010
57.
MehtaS.RoseL.CookD.HerridgeM.OwaisS.MetaxaV. (2018). The speaker gender gap at critical care conferences. Critical Care Medicine, 46, 991–996.
58.
MichelmoreK.SasslerS. (2016). Explaining the gender wage gap in STEM: Does field sex composition matter?Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 2, 194–215.
MillerD. I.EaglyA. H.LinnM. C. (2015). Women’s representation in science predicts national gender-science stereotypes: Evidence from 66 nations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3), 631–644.
61.
MitchellK. M.MartinJ. (2018). Gender bias in student evaluations. PS: Political Science & Politics, 51(3), 648–652.
62.
MiyakeA.Kost-SmithL. E.FinkelsteinN. D.PollockS. J.CohenG. L.ItoT. A. (2010). Reducing the gender achievement gap in college science: A classroom study of values affirmation. Science, 330, 1234–1237. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1195996
63.
MorgenrothT.RyanM. K.PetersK. (2015). The motivational theory of role modeling: How role models influence role aspirants’ goals. Review of General Psychology, 19, 465–483. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000059
64.
Moss-RacusinC. A.DovidioJ. F.BrescollV. L.GrahamM. J.HandelsmanJ. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(41), 16474–16479.
65.
Moss-RacusinC. A.PietriE. S.HennesE. P.DovidioJ. F.BrescollV. L.RoussosG.HandelsmanJ. (2018a). Reducing STEM gender bias with VIDS (video interventions for diversity in STEM). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 24(2), 236–260.
66.
Moss-RacusinC. A.SanzariC.CaluoriN.RabascoH. (2018b). Gender bias produces gender gaps in STEM engagement. Sex Roles, 79(11–12), 651–670.
67.
Moss-RacusinC. A.van der ToornJ.DovidioJ. F.BrescollV. L.GrahamM. J.HandelsmanJ. (2016). A “scientific diversity” intervention to reduce gender bias in a sample of life scientists. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(3), ar29.
68.
MurphyM. C.KroeperK. M.OzierE. M. (2018). Prejudiced places: How contexts shape inequality and how policy can change them. Policy Insights From the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5(1), 66–74.
69.
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. 17–33). Oxford University Press.
70.
NittrouerC. L.HeblM. R.Ashburn-NardoL.Trump-SteeleR. C.LaneD. M.ValianV. (2018). Gender disparities in colloquium speakers at top universities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(1), 104–108.
71.
NosekB. A.SmythF. L.SriramN.LindnerN. M.DevosT.AyalaA.. . . KesebirS. (2009). National differences in gender–science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(26), 10593–10597.
72.
O’BrienK. A.Moss-RacusinC. A. (2020). Bill Nye vs. Betty Crocker: Impacts of paid parental leave on the STEM gender gap [Manuscript under review].
73.
O’BrienL. T.HittiA.ShafferE.CampA. R. V.HenryD.GilbertP. N. (2017). Improving girls’ sense of fit in science: Increasing the impact of role models. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 301–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616671997
74.
OmidakhshN.SpragueA.HeymannJ. (2020). Dismantling restrictive gender norms: Can better designed paternal leave policies help?Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12205
75.
PerezC. C. (2019). Invisible women: Exposing data bias in a world designed for men. Random House.
76.
PfundC.MillerS.BrennerK.BrunsP.ChangA.Ebert-MayD.. . . LabovJ. B. (2009). Summer institute to improve university science teaching. Science, 324, 470–471. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1170015
77.
PfundC.SpencerK. C.AsquithP.HouseS. C.MillerS.SorknessC. A. (2015). Building national capacity for research mentor training: An evidence-based approach to training the trainers. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14, ar24.
78.
PhelanJ. E.Moss-RacusinC. A.RudmanL. A. (2008). Competent yet out in the cold: Shifting criteria for hiring reflect backlash toward agentic women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32(4), 406–413.
79.
PietriE. S.DrawbaughM. L.LewisA. N.JohnsonI. R. (2019). Who encourages Latina women to feel a sense of identity-safety in STEM?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 84, 103827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103827
80.
PietriE. S.JohnsonI. J.MajidS.ChuC. (2020). Seeing what’s possible: Videos are more effective than written portrayals for enhancing the relatability of scientists and promoting black female U.S. students’ interest in STEM. Sex Roles. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01153-x
81.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.06.021
82.
PietriE. S.Moss-RacusinC. A.DovidioJ. F.GuhaD.RoussosG.BrescollV. L.HandelsmanJ. (2017). Using video to increase gender bias literacy toward women in science. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 41(2), 175–196.
83.
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2012). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (GatesS. J.Jr.HandelsmanJ.LepageG. P.MirkinC., Eds.). Office of the President.
84.
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, 377–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-013-9218-6
85.
RaskK. N.BaileyE. M. (2002). Are faculty role models? Evidence from major choice in an undergraduate institution. The Journal of Economic Education, 33(2), 99–124.
86.
RobnettR. D. (2016). Gender bias in STEM fields: Variation in prevalence and links to STEM self-concept. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(1), 65–79.
87.
RudmanL. A.Moss-RacusinC. A.PhelanJ. E.NautsS. (2012). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 165–179.
88.
SchmaderT.BeilockS. (2012). An integration of processes that underlie stereotype threat. In InzlichtM.SchmaderT. (Eds.), Stereotype threat: Theory, process, and application (pp. 34–50). Oxford University Press.
89.
SchmaderT.WhiteheadJ.WysockiV. H. (2007). A linguistic comparison of letters of recommendation for male and female chemistry and biochemistry job applicants. Sex Roles, 57(7–8), 509–514.
90.
SekaquaptewaD.TakahashiK.MalleyJ.HerzogK.BlissS. (2019). An evidence-based faculty recruitment workshop influences departmental hiring practice perceptions among university faculty. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 38, 188–210.
91.
SheaC. M.MaloneM. F. F. T.YoungJ. R.GrahamK. J. (2019). Interactive theater: An effective tool to reduce gender bias in faculty searches. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 38, 178–187.
92.
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.
93.
SmithJ. L.HandleyI. M.RushingS.BelouR.ShanahanE. A.SkewesM. C.. . . IntemannK. (2018). Added benefits: How supporting women faculty in STEM improves everyone’s job satisfaction. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 11(4), 502–517.
94.
SmithJ. L.HandleyI. M.ZaleA. V.RushingS.PotvinM. A. (2015). Now hiring! Empirically testing a three-step intervention to increase faculty gender diversity in STEM. BioScience, 65, 1084–1087. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biv138
95.
SmithJ. L.StoopC.YoungM.BelouR.HeldS. (2017). Grant-writing bootcamp: An intervention to enhance the research capacity of academic women in STEM. BioScience, 67(7), 638–645.
96.
SpoorenP.BrockxB.MortelmansD. (2013). On the validity of student evaluation of teaching: The state of the art. Review of Educational Research, 83(4), 598–642.
97.
SpragueJ.MassoniK. (2005). Student evaluations and gendered expectations: What we can’t count can hurt us. Sex Roles, 53(11), 779–793. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-8292-4
98.
SteeleC. M.SpencerS. J.AronsonJ. (2002). Contending with group image: The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 379–440). Academic Press.
99.
StoutJ. G.DasguptaN. (2011). When he doesn’t mean you: Gender-exclusive language as ostracism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(6), 757–769.
100.
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, 255–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021385
101.
ThomasN.BystdzienskiJ.DesaiA. (2015). Changing institutional culture through peer mentoring of women STEM faculty. Innovative Higher Education, 40, 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-014-9300-9
102.
TrixF.PsenkaC. (2003). Exploring the color of glass: Letters of recommendation for female and male medical faculty. Discourse & Society, 14(2), 191–220.
103.
TurnerC. S. V.GonzálezJ. C.WongK. (2011). Faculty women of color: The critical nexus of race and gender. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 4, 199–211. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024630
104.
UhlmannE. L.CohenG. L. (2005). Constructed criteria: Redefining merit to justify discrimination. Psychological Science, 16(6), 474–480.
105.
WaltonG. M.LowellC.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.
106.
YeagerD. S.Purdie-VaughnsV.GarciaJ.ApfelN.BrzustoskiP.MasterA.. . . CohenG. L. (2014). Breaking the cycle of mistrust: Wise interventions to provide critical feedback across the racial divide. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(2), 804–824.
107.
YoderJ. D. (2018). Challenging the gendered academic hierarchy: The artificial separation of research, teaching, and feminist activism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 42, 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684318762695
108.
YoungD. M.RudmanL. A.BuettnerH. M.McLeanM. C. (2013). The influence of female role models on women’s implicit science cognitions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37(3), 283–292.
109.
ZawadzkiM. J.ShieldsS. A.DanubeC. L.SwimJ. K. (2014). Reducing the endorsement of sexism using experiential learning: The Workshop Activity for Gender Equity Simulation (WAGES). Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38(1), 75–92.
