Answering prospective student e-mails: The effect of student gender, individuation, and goals.

Abstract

Women continue to be underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. Past research has demonstrated that gender stereotypes can perpetuate this disparity by influencing people's perceptions of prospective students. This study used manipulations of individuation (individuated vs. nonindividuated) and goal type (agentic vs. communal) to examine STEM professors' receptiveness toward male and female prospective students' e-mail requests for meetings. Nonindividuated students simply sent a meeting request; individuated students provided an additional statement highlighting their research experience. Agentic goal types focused on stereotypically "male" traits such as agency and leadership, and communal goal types focused on stereotypically "female" traits such as helping and serving. Based on previous research, it was hypothesized that professors would show a positive bias toward male students, individuated students, and students with goal types that were congruent with the stereotypes of their gender. E-mails were sent to a sample of 1,879 STEM professors who had previously recommended their female students for a career development workshop. Findings indicate more receptive responses toward female prospective students, more receptive responses from male professors, and an interaction between prospective student gender and goal type. Male prospective students received less receptive responses when they mentioned a communal goal (vs. agentic); however, female prospective students received responses similar in receptiveness, regardless of goal type. The implications of these results are mixed, which may be a function of the sample of professors who engaged in the study (i.e., faculty who had previously engaged in activities supportive to female mentees). Future research directions are discussed.

Men, women and STEM: Why the differences and what should be done?

“…At some elite universities, the academic threshold for admission is higher for men than for women. This is true, for instance, at Oxford University in the UK (Bhattacharya et al., 2017) and Harvard University in the US (Arcidiacono et al., 2019, Table D5). STEM professors are more receptive to meeting requests from female students than male students (C. Young et al., 2019).…”

“…STEM professors are more receptive to meeting requests from female students than male students (C. Young et al., 2019).…”

“…This is true, for instance, at Oxford University in the UK (Bhattacharya et al, 2017) and Harvard University in the US (Arcidiacono et al, 2019, Table D5). • STEM professors are more receptive to meeting requests from female students than male students (C. Young et al, 2019). • Female college students in male-dominated fields are less likely than other female students to switch majors: the opposite of what one would expect if women faced an especially hostile environment in these fields.…”

Men, Women, and STEM: Why the Differences and What Should Be Done?

“… STEM professors are more receptive to meeting requests from female students than male ones (C. Young et al, 2019).…”

Gender equality in the workplace: An introduction.

“…Young, Fa-Kaji, Cheng, Beier, and Hebl (2019) found evidence that those who have supported women in STEM in the past may be most likely to support women in STEM in the future. Specifically, they conducted a field study and manipulated e-mail messages sent to STEM professors who had previously recommended women for a developmental program.…”