Field-specific ability beliefs as an explanation for gender differences in academics’ career trajectories: Evidence from public profiles on ORCID.Org.

Abstract

Academic fields exhibit substantial levels of gender segregation. Here, we investigated differences in field-specific ability beliefs (FABs) as an explanation for this phenomenon. FABs may contribute to gender segregation to the extent that they portray success as depending on “brilliance” (i.e., exceptional intellectual ability), which is a trait culturally associated with men more than women. Although prior work has documented a relation between academic fields’ FABs and their gender composition, it is still unclear what the underlying dynamics are that give rise to gender imbalances across academia as a function of FABs. To provide insight into this issue, we custom-built a new data set by combining information from the author-tracking service Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) with information from a survey of U.S. academics across 30 fields. Using this expansive longitudinal data set (Ns = 86,879–364,355), we found that women were underrepresented among those who enter fields with brilliance-oriented FABs and overrepresented among those who exit these fields. We also found that FABs’ association with women’s transitions across academic fields was substantially stronger than their association with men’s transitions. With respect to mechanisms, FABs’ association with gender segregation was partially explained by the fact that women encounter more prejudice in fields with brilliance-oriented FABs. With its focus on the dynamic patterns shaping segregation and its broad scope in terms of geography, career stage, and historical time, this research makes an important contribution toward understanding the factors driving gender segregation in academia.

“What Does It Take to Succeed Here?”: The Belief That Success Requires Brilliance Is an Obstacle to Diversity

“…Notably, even 5-to 7-year-old children were less likely to select a girl than a boy teammate when a game was described as being "for really, really smart" children, suggesting that informal gatekeeping processes start early in life (e.g., in children's peer groups). Evidence that connects these gender biases with women's underrepresentation in brilliance-oriented fields and occupations was reported by Leslie and colleagues (2015): The more a field valued brilliance, the more its members endorsed biased beliefs such as that men are "more suited" than women to do "high-level work" in their field, and endorsement of such gender-biased beliefs accounted for approximately 70% of the association between a field's FABs and the gender composition of its PhDs (see also Hannak et al, 2023).…”

“…Academics' FABs predicted the percentage of women in their fields: The more strongly a field's members emphasized the role of brilliance in achieving success, the lower was women's representation at the doctoral level (Fig. 2A; see also Hannak et al, 2023;Meyer et al, 2015;Storage et al, 2016). The degree to which a field emphasized brilliance was also inversely correlated with the percentage of doctoral degrees awarded to Black Americans, who-like women-are targeted by negative stereotypes about their intellectual abilities (Fig.…”

Checking gender bias: Parents and mentors perceive less chess potential in girls.

“…Our investigation of the structural barriers to girls’ and women’s participation in chess has implications that extend beyond this specific domain. For instance, the present work informs theory about FABs as an explanation for occupational gender segregation (e.g., Muradoglu et al, 2023) by testing the generality of the FAB model in explaining gender segregation beyond educational or academic pursuits (e.g., Hannak et al, 2023; Leslie et al, 2015; Muradoglu et al, 2022) and at the individual rather than group level: Although research inspired by the FAB account has documented a link between brilliance-oriented FABs and prejudice against women at the group level (e.g., more brilliance-oriented fields also show stronger biases against women; Hannak et al, 2023; Leslie et al, 2015; Meyer et al, 2015), no research to date has examined whether this link is also observed at the individual level. Finally, no evidence thus far speaks to whether brilliance-related beliefs relate to parents’ and mentors’ attitudes toward their own children and mentees, respectively.…”

“…From a theoretical standpoint, the present findings contribute to theories of gender segregation. They are particularly relevant to the FAB account of this phenomenon, according to which contexts in which brilliance is prized are less conducive to women’s participation, due in part to the prejudice that women encounter in these contexts (e.g., Bian et al, 2018; Hannak et al, 2023). First, it is noteworthy that no prior work tested the predictions of the FAB account in a leisure domain.…”

“…Fields and occupations differ in the extent to which intellectual talent (“brilliance”) is seen as necessary for success (for a review, see Muradoglu et al, 2023). Contexts with more brilliance-oriented FABs are less welcoming to women, in part because of greater prejudice against them (Bian et al, 2018; Hannak et al, 2023; Leslie et al, 2015). Extrapolating to chess, we might see that parents and mentors with more brilliance-oriented FABs about chess are particularly likely to underestimate the potential of and underinvest in female (vs. male) youth players at this ambiguous (but pivotal) early stage.…”