Double Trouble: How Being Outnumbered and Negatively Stereotyped Threatens Career Outcomes of Women in STEM

Abstract

Masculine work contexts form an important source of social identity threat for working women. But what aspect of masculine work contexts is most threatening to women’s gender identity at work: A numerical majority of male colleagues (i.e., numerical male dominance), working in a profession in which women are negatively stereotyped (i.e., normative male dominance), or the combination? The current study aimed to disentangle these two aspects of masculine work contexts by testing its combined impact on the experience of gender identity threat among women and men who work in the STEM sector (i.e., Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics). A field study was conducted among women ( N = 177) and men ( N = 630) graduates holding an academic degree in a STEM educational program. Respondents either worked in- or outside the STEM sector (i.e., stronger vs. weaker gender stereotype) and estimated the ratio of men to women in their direct work environment. Results from a Structural Equation Model demonstrated that women in STEM face double trouble: The combination of working almost solely with male colleagues (being outnumbered) and working in the technical sector (where women are negatively stereotyped) predicted the highest levels of experienced gender identity threat, particularly among women who highly identified with their gender group. Gender identity threat, in turn, negatively predicted women’s work engagement and career confidence. Men did not face double trouble: Their experience of gender identity threat was not related to working in a masculine STEM sector. Importantly, considering that the women in this sample already hold a degree in STEM, and have proven their competence in STEM and resilience to gender stereotypes, this research reveals how in naturalistic work settings, prevailing social identity threats continue to affect women’s professional careers.

Distancing from a stigmatized social identity: State of the art and future research agenda on self‐group distancing

“…alized biased norms and regulations deeply embedded in societal and organizational systems and cultures (the meso-or macro-level; e.g., a highly competitive working climate, an organizational culture that tolerates discrimination, unequal parental leave rights in society, lack of protection for LGBTQ + in an organization or society; Cifti et al, 2020, this issue;Emerson & Murphy, 2014;Hall et al, 2015; Napier et al, 2020, this issue;Van Veelen, Derks, & Endedijk, 2019). In the face of such ingroup threat or stigma, minority members typically cope by either defending and improving the position of the ingroup as a whole (e.g., collective action) or by improving their own position via individual mobility strategies (e.g., self-group distancing).…”

Academics as Agentic Superheroes: Female academics’ lack of fit with the agentic stereotype of success limits their career advancement

“…Notably, while effect sizes in our data were small, they were structural. They confirm the invisible and intangible, yet highly pervasive nature of gender bias, and its subtle manifestation in many areas in academia (e.g., Bedi et al, 2012;De Goede et al, 2016;Leslie et al, 2015;Miller et al, 2015, Moss-Racusin et al, 2012Shen, 2013;Van Veelen & Derks, 2019).…”

“…At the start of the survey, participants read and agreed to an informed consent form, ensuring amongst others, anonymity, voluntary nature of participation, safety of data storage, the right to withdraw at any time and contact information. Subsequently, participants filled out questions about their demographic and job characteristics, and also answered questions about their time for tasks, support and resources in their work (Van Veelen & Derks, 2019). Subsequently, questions were asked about self-perceptions as a professional and perceptions of the typical 'successful academic within their own discipline', followed by questions about a future career in academia.…”

“…Gender inequality in academia persists, with female academics facing a number of gender gaps in their careers (Shen, 2013), such as the leadership gap (only one fifth of all Full Professors is female; LNVH, 2018; Higher Education Statistics Agency, 2013), the salary gap (female academics earn significantly less than male academics for the same work and responsibilities; e.g., De Goede, Van Veelen, , and the funding gap (female academics' success rates in receiving funding are significantly lower, the amount of research funding they receive is significantly lower, and they are less often listed as principal investigators relative to their male peers; Bedi, Van Dam, & Munafo, 2012;Witteman, Hendriks, Strauss, & Tannenbaum, 2013). Recent research also demonstrates a more hidden gap in research resources, whereby female academics report to have significantly less time, facilities and assistance at their disposal for doing research than their male peers (Van Veelen & Derks, 2019). Over time, these gender gaps contribute the career stagnation and exit of women in academia (Ceci & Williams, 2011).…”

Gender identity relevance predicts preferential neural processing of same-gendered faces

“…When social categories are salient, people become more prone to how they as group members are different from other groups (Wilder, 1984). Being dissimilar from others can be especially unpleasant when the salient social category is associated with negative stereotypes or low status (Van Veelen, Derks, & Endedijk, 2019;Veldman, Meeussen, Van Laar, & Phalet, 2017). In this study, we, therefore, focus specifically on female participants and manipulated gender identity salience based on numerical underrepresentation (versus equal representation) of women in leadership, a role that is stereotypically perceived as more fitting with men, and hence, also more often occupied by men (Eagly & Karau, 2002;Eagly, Makhijani, & Klonsky, 1992;Heilman, 2001;Schyns & Schilling, 2011).…”