WAGES-Classroom Board Game

WAGES-Classroom is a board game and facilitated discussion that demonstrates how gender biases accumulate over time to negatively impact women in the workplace. The goal of WAGES-Classroom is to introduce students to core constructs regarding unconscious bias, social disparities, and intersectionality in a non-threatening way and to motivate action to address gender bias in everyday interactions and workplaces. Access to downloadable files have been temporarily restricted. Contact [email protected] if you have questions

The “Princess Syndrome”: An Examination of Gender Harassment on a Male-Majority University Campus

Gender harassment is prevalent in contexts where women are underrepresented and negatively stereotyped, yet instances of gender harassment are often discounted as unimportant and inconsequential. The current research presents an examination of gender harassment operating on a male-majority university campus in the form of a sex-based slur known as the Princess Syndrome. Across two studies, the present research investigated the prevalence, meaning, and adverse consequences of the label. Study 1 indicated that the label was widespread at the university: 70% of participants had heard of the label, nearly half had used the label, and 1 out of 4 female participants had been targeted by the label. Inductive content analysis of open-ended responses revealed that the label was a derogatory term used to insult and degrade women by stigmatizing women as manipulative, exploitative, and stuck up. In Study 2, participants read about and rated a female student who was either labeled with the Princess Syndrome or not. Consistent with predictions, participants were more likely to discount the female student\u27s success in an engineering course as due to external factors (e.g., luck), rated her as less competent, and were less likely to choose to work with her on a team project when she was labeled with the Princess Syndrome than when she was not labeled. Results contribute to a growing body of literature demonstrating that sex-based slurs matter and suggest that slurs such as the Princess Syndrome may constitute a consequential yet understudied source of gender harassment for undergraduate women in STEM that reinforces and maintains gender inequity

Is Mainstream Psychological Research Womanless and Raceless ? An Updated Analysis

In the late 20th century, mainstream psychological research was accused of being womanless and raceless by excluding women and members of racial-ethnic minority groups and by interpreting their experiences as deviant from White male norms. The present article provides an updated analysis of the state of psychological research by examining research published in 2007 in eight prominent journals across four subdisciplines (N = 255). Two types of data were examined: (1) gender and racial-ethnic representation at the levels of editor, senior author, and participant, and (2) the presence of biased assumptions in reporting tendencies. Representation was interpreted in relation to relevant baselines drawn from U. S. data. Women and members of racial-ethnic minority groups do not appear to be underrepresented as editors in mainstream psychology. However, women continue to be underrepresented as senior authors, and members of racial-ethnic minority groups continue to be underrepresented as research participants. Furthermore, studies using predominately male or White samples (vs. female or racial-ethnic minority samples) were less likely to indicate participant gender or race-ethnicity in the title and marginally less likely to provide a rationale for including participants of only one social group, consistent with the notion that reporting tendencies within mainstream psychological research continue to reflect assumptions that men and Whites are more typical members of the category human than are women and racial-ethnic minorities. These findings indicate that mainstream psychology has not yet reached social equity and that efforts to increase diversity and decrease subtle biases should continue to be supported and funded

Are Stereotypes True?

Are African Americans really better at basketball than Caucasians? Are blonds really dumber than brunettes? Are women really worse at math than men? The short answer is yes. The longer answer is no. Let me explain by focusing on the stereotype that women can’t do math. At first glance, this stereotype seems to be true. For instance, men continue to outperform women on the math sections of the SAT and GRE, and men outnumber women in college math courses and math-related jobs. Surely this is evidence that women are not as good at math as men. But as this article will explain stereotypes are self-perpetuating and not only reflect but also cause performance differences between groups

Subtle Barriers and Bias in STEM: How Stereotypes Constrain Women’s STEM Participation and Career Progress

Dr. Cundiff’s chapter reviews the evidence of powerful influence of stereotypes on our self-concepts and behaviors, examining how these stereotypes may sometimes, covertly and unintentionally, prevent women from entering and persisting in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields. Her research focuses on two categories of stereotypes -- stereotypes about STEM fields and stereotypes about women’s STEM abilities. It explores the barriers these stereotypes impose on the recruitment, retention and advancement of women in STEM. The book examines gender roles and inequity and the impact of unintentional efforts and purposeful efforts to undermine women’s equal treatment in the United States

Good Intentions Are Not Enough: Assessing a Gender Bias Literacy Intervention for Potential Positive and Negative Outcomes

Interventions to educate about and reduce gender bias in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM), though well-intended, may backfire. Rigorous scientific evaluation is needed to ensure that interventions produce desired effects and avoid unintended harm. We demonstrate a scientific approach to evaluating bias literacy interventions using a randomized controlled longitudinal research design. Specifically, we evaluated the efficacy of an intervention that used entertainment-education via a live theatrical performance depicting women’s and men’s real-life experiences of gender bias in STEM. We randomly assigned undergraduate students to either attend the performance or watch a control film (A Beautiful Mind). We found evidence that the performance increased participants’ ability to take the perspective of women in STEM compared to the control condition, but no evidence that the performance achieved its main goals of increasing awareness of gender bias or motivating action to address gender bias. Instead, participants who attended the performance reported lower self-efficacy to effect change and higher levels of psychological reactance (rejection of the information) compared to those who watched the film. In addition, women in both conditions reported larger increases in identity threat and larger decreases in sense of belonging in STEM over time compared to men, indicating that the intervention did not buffer women against these negative trends. Our results suggest that good intentions are not enough to ensure desired outcomes and that interventions should be rigorously evaluated for both positive and negative effects. Doing so can help identify areas of improvement to maximize benefits and minimize potential harm

Adapting the Verbal-Guise Technique: A STEM-Focused U.S. Campus Community’s Attitudes toward Nonnative Englishes

This Study Evaluates Attitudes toward Nonnative Englishes among Students, Faculty, and Staff at a STEM-Focused U.S. University. the Study Utilizes the Verbal-Guise Technique: Participants Listened to and Rated Three Summaries of the Same Short Story as Told by Native Speakers of U.S. English, Chinese, and Arabic. This Adapted Verbal-Guise Methodology Allows for the Inclusion and Analysis of Grammatical and Lexical Features—in Addition to Phonological Features—in Speaker Recordings. Results Reveal Preferential Bias in Favor of Native-Speaker U.S. English, Yet Each Nonnative English Speaker Was Rated Significantly Differently. the Native Arabic Speaker Was Rated as Less Likeable and Competent Than the Native Chinese and English Speakers, While Also Receiving Higher Ratings in Speech Similarity and Pleasantness Than the Native Chinese Speaker. Participants\u27 Attitudes toward and Confidence with Intercultural Communication Moderated Ratings of the Nonnative Englishes: Participants with More Positive Attitudes and Greater Confidence Rated the Native Speakers of Chinese and Arabic Higher on Variables Including Speech Pleasantness and Willingness to Interact. Findings Suggest Ways to Improve Attitudes toward Nonnative Englishes on College Campuses—STEM-Focused Campuses, Specifically

Gender Stereotypes Influence How People Explain Gender Disparities in the Workplace

Gender stereotypes provide viable explanations for why women are underrepresented and men are overrepresented in senior leadership positions and STEM occupations, typically by attributing gender disparities to the dispositions of women and men. The present research examined whether stereotypes also influence attributions to discrimination. Consistent with predictions, undergraduate participants who strongly vs. weakly endorsed gender stereotypes, either chronically (Study 1, N = 147) or when situationally primed (Study 2, N = 258), were less likely to attribute gender disparities in the workplace to discrimination. In addition, participants unexpectedly made stronger discrimination attributions when explaining gender gaps in leadership positions than in STEM occupations, suggesting that interventions for addressing gender discrimination may need to use different strategies for different contexts. Overall, results are consistent with the notion that stereotypes influence explanations for group disparities in ways that justify existing social arrangements as fair, just, and legitimate. Our findings have implications for understanding when people will acknowledge discrimination, which is an important first step toward addressing discrimination