Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Gender Equality in the Workplace: An Introduction

Gender Equality in the Workplace: An Introduction Archives of Scientific Psychology 2019, 7, 1–3 © 2019 American Psychological Association DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/arc0000071 2169-3269 Archives of Scientific Psychology www.apa.org/pubs/journals/arc SPECIAL SECTION: ADVANCING GENDER EQUALITY IN THE WORKPLACE Mikki Hebl and Eden B. King Rice University ABSTRACT This year 2020 marks the 100th anniversary of American women winning the right to vote. This right was a great symbol of democracy and an essential step toward gender equity not only in voting but also in society as a whole. Unfortunately, the tide over the last 100 years has not been as swift as the suffragists might have imagined. In reaction, we decided to co-edit a special section of the Archives of Scientific Psychology focusing on gender inequity in the workplace. We invited papers that attempt to understand, challenge, and remediate gender inequities. The 10 papers that are published here went through the peer-review process, and we summarize the highlights of each of them. We believe that, as a whole, the questions asked and results found help to define the current state of the field, identify challenges and solutions to workplace inequities, and motivate future research and action. SCIENTIFIC ABSTRACT The special section that we have assembled includes 10 papers that address some aspects related to gender inequities in the workplace. Specifically, these papers address (a) gender bias in winning prestigious awards in neuroscience, (b) supporting women in STEM, (c) women’s concerns about potential sexism, (d) unique challenges faced by STEM faculty, (e) the double jeopardy of being female and an ethnic minority, (f) gendered patterns of dealing with work–family balance, (g) how women’s attractiveness can be a hindrance in the workplace, (h) backlash effects that emerge in gender-equity intervention attempts, (i) the role social support plays in reducing gender inequities, and (j) putting women at the top of organizations can make a difference to women at the bottom. As a whole, we believe these papers help identify challenges and solutions for gender equity in the workplace. Keywords: gender, equality, equity, work, workplace When the new associate editors for Archives of Scientific Psychol- Settling on the topic for our special section was not difficult. The ogy were appointed 2 years ago, editor Cecil Reynolds asked each of year 2020 marks the 100th anniversary of American women’s us whether we might be interested in organizing a special section winning the right to vote. Many women and men viewed the focusing on a topic of our choice. After sitting with this intriguing idea passage of the 19th Amendment as a great symbol of democracy for a short period of time, I did what I typically do when I get an and an essential step toward gender equity not only in the voting exciting workplace opportunity. I approached my favorite friend and booth but also in society as a whole. Although great strides have collaborator, Eden King, and proceeded to talk her into coediting the been made in the last century, the tide has not been as swift as the section with me. With promises like “it will be fun” and “we can make suffragists might have imagined. In fact, few would have suspected a difference,” she did what Eden usually does—she agreed. that the United States would rank as low as 51 out of 144 countries This article was published November 25, 2019. Mikki Hebl and Eden B. King, Department of Psychological Sciences, Rice University. This article is part of the special section “Advancing Gender Equality in the Workplace.” The guest editors for this section are Mikki Hebl and Eden B. King. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mikki Hebl, Department of Psychological Sciences, Rice University, 6100 Main Street-MS 25, Houston, TX 77005. E-mail: hebl@rice.edu This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association. 2 HEBL AND KING rated by the World Economic Forum (2018) in its Global Gender again. Harnessing these allies to continue leading the way for gender Gap Report 2018. This unacceptably low rating is based, in no equity may be key. small part, on disparities in workplace equity and leadership. U.S. In another STEM-related study, Gilrane, Wessel, Cheung, and King women spend a greater proportion of time doing unpaid work each (2019) examined how STEM inequality leads to not only sexism but day, are minimally represented on the boards of publicly traded also to women’s concerns about potential sexism. They found that companies, do not receive equal pay, and do not get paid leave to STEM women fear that their supervisors believe that they are incom- care for a new child or recover from childbirth. According to the petent and that they reacted by undertaking mentally and emotionally report, countries like Rwanda, Namibia, Cuba, Colombia, Burundi, taxing behaviors to improve others’ perceptions. As a result, then, this Uganda, and Zimbabwe all experience greater gender equity than research shows that women in STEM careers face psychological does the United States. challenges that can impede their success, above and beyond the actual Add to the disheartening data two other historical issues that have impediments themselves. recently taken place in the United States. First, in 2016, the United In Liu, Brown, and Sabat’s (2019) work, they consider the unique States elected a president who has openly admitted to assaulting challenges faced by STEM faculty who are women of color with women, has allegedly cheated in his three marriages with some 19 respect to selection, promotion, and retention. They specifically sug- women, regularly disparages women based on their appearance and gest that it is critical to examine the intersectionality of raceethnicity abilities, and is attempting to take away women’s fundamental repro- and gender. They propose that when the specific issues that women of ductive rights. Second, in 2017, women initiated the #MeToo Move- color faculty face are considered, these women are more likely to ment. Although the upside of this movement is that women mobilized thrive professionally and feel like they matter to the institution. They and were able to voice their experiences, the extraordinarily large examined different types of interventions and data to determine number of women who admitted being targets of sexual misconduct in whether they are successful. the workplace was a gloomy look into the realities of women’s Derous and Pepermans (2019) examined the importance of inter- workplace experiences. Women are clearly targets in the American sectionality beyond STEM and suggest that this is critical to a more workplace. Our president’s reaction, meanwhile, was to state that “it comprehensive understanding of gender inequality. They focused on is a very scary time for young men in America, where you can be the impact of “double jeopardy,” or of belonging to two social groups guilty of something you may not be guilty of. . . . Women are doing that are devalued (e.g., being female and belonging to an ethnic great” (Trump, 2018). minority group). Belgian human resources professionals evaluated This special section, then, focuses on gender inequity in the work- resumes of a native Belgian or a Maghreb/Arab (ethnic minority place and attempts to understand, challenge, and remediate it. We group in Belgium) man or woman who applied for a cognitively hope to define the current state of the field, identify challenges and demanding or nondemanding job. The double jeopardy effect emerged solutions to workplace inequities, and motivate future research and for the cognitively demanding but not nondemanding job. Derous and action. Pepermans suggest the need for considering discrimination and reme- After the standard Archives of Scientific Psychology peer review diation from a more complex perspective. process, a total of 10 articles were accepted for this special section. Intersectionality was also implicitly emphasized by Frear, Paustian- We would like to publicly acknowledge the work of Frederick Leong, Underdahl, Halbesleben, and French (2019), who reveal the gendered of Michigan State University, who helped us by handling and even- pattern of dealing with workfamily balance may lead to greater tually ushering in three of the articles for this section. gendered workplace inequities. To explore the intersection of gender We lead off the section by first focusing on studies that show the and parental status, they blended qualitative and quantitative methods presence of, or yet unstudied nuances associated with, continued to examine the strategies used by men and women with varying gender inequities. We begin with a series of studies that provide a degrees of career centrality to balance work and family. Their results greater understanding of inequality in the science, technology, engi- suggest that although both men and women adjust their work to meet neering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce. In the first STEM- family demands, only women consider leaving their jobs altogether. related study, Melnikoff and Valian (2019) examined the potential of This gendered distribution of workfamily decision-making may gender bias in winning prestigious awards in neuroscience. They partially account for gender inequalities at work. found that men earned more prestigious awards than did women, even Next, Johnson and Chan (2019) raise awareness that women’s after controlling for institutional prestige, year of degree, and total attractiveness—which has long been considered a benefit in employee publications. They also found that the gender disparity in awards was selection—can actually be a big hindrance. In a series of studies, they mediated by a gender difference in total cites and h-index. Their researched the “beauty is beastly” effect and found that the presence results point to the notion that gender schemas may lead to women’s of a second attractive decoy job candidate in the hiring pool can articles’ receiving fewer citations than do men’s, resulting in more actually decrease this effect. They explain the effect and suggest the prestigious awards for men than for women. They conclude by de- importance of context for gender bias. scribing what needs to be done to promote gender equality in aca- We next move on to considering the host of interventions that have demic awards. been and continue to be recommended in bias reduction. We begin Young, Fa-Kaji, Cheng, Beier, and Hebl (2019) found evidence that with an important article by Caleo and Heilman (2019), who warn us those who have supported women in STEM in the past may be most that sometimes even the best intended gender-equity interventions can likely to support women in STEM in the future. Specifically, they have backlash effects, or unintended and detrimental consequences, conducted a field study and manipulated e-mail messages sent to for women. These consequences may include unintentionally promot- STEM professors who had previously recommended women for a ing gender stereotyping, reducing personal accountability for address- developmental program. The e-mails looked as if they had been sent by individuals who were ostensibly male or female, who emphasized ing bias, fueling misperceptions of undeserved preferences, and agentic or communal goals, and who either provided individuating prompting negative trickle-down effects (pp. 72–74). This cautionary information or did not provide such information. Results revealed that stance is important for even the most well meaning gender scholars those who supported women in the past were more likely to do so and managers. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association. GENDER EQUALITY IN THE WORKPLACE 3 We move on to Cortland and Kinias’s (2019) research showing the Cortland, C. I., & Kinias, Z. (2019). Stereotype threat and women’s work satisfaction: The importance of role models. Archives of Scientific Psychol- important role that workplace social support for women can play in ogy, 7, 81–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/arc0000056 reducing gender inequities. They examined the psychological benefits Derous, E., & Pepermans, R. (2019). Gender discrimination in hiring: Inter- of different sources of workplace social support in a sample of sectional effects with ethnicity and cognitive job demands. Archives of professional women leaders from 72 different countries and found that Scientific Psychology, 7, 40–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/arc0000061 informal (but not formal) support from mentorssponsors, supervi- Frear, K. A., Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., Halbesleben, J. R. B., & French, K. A. sors, and peers all directly predict women’s work satisfaction. They (2019). Strategies for work–family management at the intersection of discuss the benefits of workplace social support for efforts to reduce career–family centrality and gender. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 7, work-related gender inequities. 50–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/arc0000068 Finally, we end this section with the work of Madera, Ng, Sunder- Gilrane, V. L., Wessel, J. L., Cheung, H. K., & King, E. B. (2019). The mann, and Hebl (2019), who show that putting women at the top can consequences of making the right impressions for STEM women: Meta- make a difference to women at the bottom. More specifically, they stereotypes, impression management, and supervisor ratings. Archives of manipulated a hypothetical organization to have either 53%, 23%, or Scientific Psychology, 7, 22–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/arc0000065 3% women in top management. Female participants were more at- Johnson, S. K., & Chan, E. (2019). Can looks deceive you? Attractive decoys tracted to the organization that had more women at the top and mitigate beauty is beastly bias against women. Archives of Scientific Psy- perceived these organizations to be fairer for women. Thus, this chology, 7, 60–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/arc0000066 research suggests that not only are these organizations fairer when Liu, S.-N. C., Brown, S. E. V., & Sabat, I. E. (2019). Patching the “leaky they put greater numbers of women in top management but they are pipeline”: Interventions for women of color faculty in STEM academia. also seen as fairer and become more attractive to women. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 7, 32–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ Although this section focused predominantly (with two exceptions) arc0000062 on the experiences of women in the U.S. workforce, we hope future Madera, J. M., Ng, L., Sundermann, J. M., & Hebl, M. R. (2019). Top research will also better voice women’s experiences beyond the management gender diversity and organizational attraction: When and why it matters. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 7, 90–101. http://dx.doi.org/ borders of the United States. We are interested in examining experi- 10.1037/arc0000060 ences of women in the Scandinavian countries, where women and Melnikoff, D. E., & Valian, V. V. (2019). Gender disparities in awards to men share a greater degree of gender equality. And we are also neuroscience researchers. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 7, 4–11. http:// interested in shining the spotlight on research in countries where dx.doi.org/10.1037/arc0000069 gender equity is far worse than it is in the United States. But for now, Trump, D. (2018). Interview with Donald Trump (interview on October 2). we will leave a more global focus to perhaps a future section. Retrieved from https://www.c-span.org/video/?452419-1/president-trump- In sum, we are delighted with the 10 articles that we helped usher acceptable-judge-kavanaugh-lied-testimony into this special section and hope that you will enjoy them as much as World Economic Forum. (2018). The global gender gap report 2018. Re- we did. Moreover, we hope that you will be inspired to take action to trieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2018.pdf work toward greater gender equity in the workplace and beyond. With Young, C., Fa-Kaji, N. M., Cheng, S., Beier, M. E., & Hebl, M. R. (2019). everyone on board, all things are possible, and we think that includes Answering prospective student e-mails: The effect of student gender, indi- a workplace that is fair to both men and women. viduation, and goals. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 7, 12–21. http://dx .doi.org/10.1037/arc0000058 References Caleo, S., & Heilman, M. E. (2019). What could go wrong? Some unintended Received July 8, 2019 consequences of gender bias interventions. Archives of Scientific Psychol- ogy, 7, 71–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/arc0000063 Accepted July 8, 2019 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Archives of Scientific Psychology American Psychological Association

Gender Equality in the Workplace: An Introduction

Hebl, Mikki; King, Eden B.
Archives of Scientific Psychology , Volume 7 (1): 3 – Nov 25, 2019
Download PDF
3 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-psychological-association/gender-equality-in-the-workplace-an-introduction-MI0RahbMRE

References (11)

Publisher
American Psychological Association
Copyright
© 2019 American Psychological Association
eISSN
2169-3269
DOI
10.1037/arc0000071
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Archives of Scientific Psychology 2019, 7, 1–3 © 2019 American Psychological Association DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/arc0000071 2169-3269 Archives of Scientific Psychology www.apa.org/pubs/journals/arc SPECIAL SECTION: ADVANCING GENDER EQUALITY IN THE WORKPLACE Mikki Hebl and Eden B. King Rice University ABSTRACT This year 2020 marks the 100th anniversary of American women winning the right to vote. This right was a great symbol of democracy and an essential step toward gender equity not only in voting but also in society as a whole. Unfortunately, the tide over the last 100 years has not been as swift as the suffragists might have imagined. In reaction, we decided to co-edit a special section of the Archives of Scientific Psychology focusing on gender inequity in the workplace. We invited papers that attempt to understand, challenge, and remediate gender inequities. The 10 papers that are published here went through the peer-review process, and we summarize the highlights of each of them. We believe that, as a whole, the questions asked and results found help to define the current state of the field, identify challenges and solutions to workplace inequities, and motivate future research and action. SCIENTIFIC ABSTRACT The special section that we have assembled includes 10 papers that address some aspects related to gender inequities in the workplace. Specifically, these papers address (a) gender bias in winning prestigious awards in neuroscience, (b) supporting women in STEM, (c) women’s concerns about potential sexism, (d) unique challenges faced by STEM faculty, (e) the double jeopardy of being female and an ethnic minority, (f) gendered patterns of dealing with work–family balance, (g) how women’s attractiveness can be a hindrance in the workplace, (h) backlash effects that emerge in gender-equity intervention attempts, (i) the role social support plays in reducing gender inequities, and (j) putting women at the top of organizations can make a difference to women at the bottom. As a whole, we believe these papers help identify challenges and solutions for gender equity in the workplace. Keywords: gender, equality, equity, work, workplace When the new associate editors for Archives of Scientific Psychol- Settling on the topic for our special section was not difficult. The ogy were appointed 2 years ago, editor Cecil Reynolds asked each of year 2020 marks the 100th anniversary of American women’s us whether we might be interested in organizing a special section winning the right to vote. Many women and men viewed the focusing on a topic of our choice. After sitting with this intriguing idea passage of the 19th Amendment as a great symbol of democracy for a short period of time, I did what I typically do when I get an and an essential step toward gender equity not only in the voting exciting workplace opportunity. I approached my favorite friend and booth but also in society as a whole. Although great strides have collaborator, Eden King, and proceeded to talk her into coediting the been made in the last century, the tide has not been as swift as the section with me. With promises like “it will be fun” and “we can make suffragists might have imagined. In fact, few would have suspected a difference,” she did what Eden usually does—she agreed. that the United States would rank as low as 51 out of 144 countries This article was published November 25, 2019. Mikki Hebl and Eden B. King, Department of Psychological Sciences, Rice University. This article is part of the special section “Advancing Gender Equality in the Workplace.” The guest editors for this section are Mikki Hebl and Eden B. King. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mikki Hebl, Department of Psychological Sciences, Rice University, 6100 Main Street-MS 25, Houston, TX 77005. E-mail: hebl@rice.edu This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association. 2 HEBL AND KING rated by the World Economic Forum (2018) in its Global Gender again. Harnessing these allies to continue leading the way for gender Gap Report 2018. This unacceptably low rating is based, in no equity may be key. small part, on disparities in workplace equity and leadership. U.S. In another STEM-related study, Gilrane, Wessel, Cheung, and King women spend a greater proportion of time doing unpaid work each (2019) examined how STEM inequality leads to not only sexism but day, are minimally represented on the boards of publicly traded also to women’s concerns about potential sexism. They found that companies, do not receive equal pay, and do not get paid leave to STEM women fear that their supervisors believe that they are incom- care for a new child or recover from childbirth. According to the petent and that they reacted by undertaking mentally and emotionally report, countries like Rwanda, Namibia, Cuba, Colombia, Burundi, taxing behaviors to improve others’ perceptions. As a result, then, this Uganda, and Zimbabwe all experience greater gender equity than research shows that women in STEM careers face psychological does the United States. challenges that can impede their success, above and beyond the actual Add to the disheartening data two other historical issues that have impediments themselves. recently taken place in the United States. First, in 2016, the United In Liu, Brown, and Sabat’s (2019) work, they consider the unique States elected a president who has openly admitted to assaulting challenges faced by STEM faculty who are women of color with women, has allegedly cheated in his three marriages with some 19 respect to selection, promotion, and retention. They specifically sug- women, regularly disparages women based on their appearance and gest that it is critical to examine the intersectionality of raceethnicity abilities, and is attempting to take away women’s fundamental repro- and gender. They propose that when the specific issues that women of ductive rights. Second, in 2017, women initiated the #MeToo Move- color faculty face are considered, these women are more likely to ment. Although the upside of this movement is that women mobilized thrive professionally and feel like they matter to the institution. They and were able to voice their experiences, the extraordinarily large examined different types of interventions and data to determine number of women who admitted being targets of sexual misconduct in whether they are successful. the workplace was a gloomy look into the realities of women’s Derous and Pepermans (2019) examined the importance of inter- workplace experiences. Women are clearly targets in the American sectionality beyond STEM and suggest that this is critical to a more workplace. Our president’s reaction, meanwhile, was to state that “it comprehensive understanding of gender inequality. They focused on is a very scary time for young men in America, where you can be the impact of “double jeopardy,” or of belonging to two social groups guilty of something you may not be guilty of. . . . Women are doing that are devalued (e.g., being female and belonging to an ethnic great” (Trump, 2018). minority group). Belgian human resources professionals evaluated This special section, then, focuses on gender inequity in the work- resumes of a native Belgian or a Maghreb/Arab (ethnic minority place and attempts to understand, challenge, and remediate it. We group in Belgium) man or woman who applied for a cognitively hope to define the current state of the field, identify challenges and demanding or nondemanding job. The double jeopardy effect emerged solutions to workplace inequities, and motivate future research and for the cognitively demanding but not nondemanding job. Derous and action. Pepermans suggest the need for considering discrimination and reme- After the standard Archives of Scientific Psychology peer review diation from a more complex perspective. process, a total of 10 articles were accepted for this special section. Intersectionality was also implicitly emphasized by Frear, Paustian- We would like to publicly acknowledge the work of Frederick Leong, Underdahl, Halbesleben, and French (2019), who reveal the gendered of Michigan State University, who helped us by handling and even- pattern of dealing with workfamily balance may lead to greater tually ushering in three of the articles for this section. gendered workplace inequities. To explore the intersection of gender We lead off the section by first focusing on studies that show the and parental status, they blended qualitative and quantitative methods presence of, or yet unstudied nuances associated with, continued to examine the strategies used by men and women with varying gender inequities. We begin with a series of studies that provide a degrees of career centrality to balance work and family. Their results greater understanding of inequality in the science, technology, engi- suggest that although both men and women adjust their work to meet neering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce. In the first STEM- family demands, only women consider leaving their jobs altogether. related study, Melnikoff and Valian (2019) examined the potential of This gendered distribution of workfamily decision-making may gender bias in winning prestigious awards in neuroscience. They partially account for gender inequalities at work. found that men earned more prestigious awards than did women, even Next, Johnson and Chan (2019) raise awareness that women’s after controlling for institutional prestige, year of degree, and total attractiveness—which has long been considered a benefit in employee publications. They also found that the gender disparity in awards was selection—can actually be a big hindrance. In a series of studies, they mediated by a gender difference in total cites and h-index. Their researched the “beauty is beastly” effect and found that the presence results point to the notion that gender schemas may lead to women’s of a second attractive decoy job candidate in the hiring pool can articles’ receiving fewer citations than do men’s, resulting in more actually decrease this effect. They explain the effect and suggest the prestigious awards for men than for women. They conclude by de- importance of context for gender bias. scribing what needs to be done to promote gender equality in aca- We next move on to considering the host of interventions that have demic awards. been and continue to be recommended in bias reduction. We begin Young, Fa-Kaji, Cheng, Beier, and Hebl (2019) found evidence that with an important article by Caleo and Heilman (2019), who warn us those who have supported women in STEM in the past may be most that sometimes even the best intended gender-equity interventions can likely to support women in STEM in the future. Specifically, they have backlash effects, or unintended and detrimental consequences, conducted a field study and manipulated e-mail messages sent to for women. These consequences may include unintentionally promot- STEM professors who had previously recommended women for a ing gender stereotyping, reducing personal accountability for address- developmental program. The e-mails looked as if they had been sent by individuals who were ostensibly male or female, who emphasized ing bias, fueling misperceptions of undeserved preferences, and agentic or communal goals, and who either provided individuating prompting negative trickle-down effects (pp. 72–74). This cautionary information or did not provide such information. Results revealed that stance is important for even the most well meaning gender scholars those who supported women in the past were more likely to do so and managers. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association. GENDER EQUALITY IN THE WORKPLACE 3 We move on to Cortland and Kinias’s (2019) research showing the Cortland, C. I., & Kinias, Z. (2019). Stereotype threat and women’s work satisfaction: The importance of role models. Archives of Scientific Psychol- important role that workplace social support for women can play in ogy, 7, 81–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/arc0000056 reducing gender inequities. They examined the psychological benefits Derous, E., & Pepermans, R. (2019). Gender discrimination in hiring: Inter- of different sources of workplace social support in a sample of sectional effects with ethnicity and cognitive job demands. Archives of professional women leaders from 72 different countries and found that Scientific Psychology, 7, 40–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/arc0000061 informal (but not formal) support from mentorssponsors, supervi- Frear, K. A., Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., Halbesleben, J. R. B., & French, K. A. sors, and peers all directly predict women’s work satisfaction. They (2019). Strategies for work–family management at the intersection of discuss the benefits of workplace social support for efforts to reduce career–family centrality and gender. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 7, work-related gender inequities. 50–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/arc0000068 Finally, we end this section with the work of Madera, Ng, Sunder- Gilrane, V. L., Wessel, J. L., Cheung, H. K., & King, E. B. (2019). The mann, and Hebl (2019), who show that putting women at the top can consequences of making the right impressions for STEM women: Meta- make a difference to women at the bottom. More specifically, they stereotypes, impression management, and supervisor ratings. Archives of manipulated a hypothetical organization to have either 53%, 23%, or Scientific Psychology, 7, 22–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/arc0000065 3% women in top management. Female participants were more at- Johnson, S. K., & Chan, E. (2019). Can looks deceive you? Attractive decoys tracted to the organization that had more women at the top and mitigate beauty is beastly bias against women. Archives of Scientific Psy- perceived these organizations to be fairer for women. Thus, this chology, 7, 60–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/arc0000066 research suggests that not only are these organizations fairer when Liu, S.-N. C., Brown, S. E. V., & Sabat, I. E. (2019). Patching the “leaky they put greater numbers of women in top management but they are pipeline”: Interventions for women of color faculty in STEM academia. also seen as fairer and become more attractive to women. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 7, 32–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ Although this section focused predominantly (with two exceptions) arc0000062 on the experiences of women in the U.S. workforce, we hope future Madera, J. M., Ng, L., Sundermann, J. M., & Hebl, M. R. (2019). Top research will also better voice women’s experiences beyond the management gender diversity and organizational attraction: When and why it matters. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 7, 90–101. http://dx.doi.org/ borders of the United States. We are interested in examining experi- 10.1037/arc0000060 ences of women in the Scandinavian countries, where women and Melnikoff, D. E., & Valian, V. V. (2019). Gender disparities in awards to men share a greater degree of gender equality. And we are also neuroscience researchers. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 7, 4–11. http:// interested in shining the spotlight on research in countries where dx.doi.org/10.1037/arc0000069 gender equity is far worse than it is in the United States. But for now, Trump, D. (2018). Interview with Donald Trump (interview on October 2). we will leave a more global focus to perhaps a future section. Retrieved from https://www.c-span.org/video/?452419-1/president-trump- In sum, we are delighted with the 10 articles that we helped usher acceptable-judge-kavanaugh-lied-testimony into this special section and hope that you will enjoy them as much as World Economic Forum. (2018). The global gender gap report 2018. Re- we did. Moreover, we hope that you will be inspired to take action to trieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2018.pdf work toward greater gender equity in the workplace and beyond. With Young, C., Fa-Kaji, N. M., Cheng, S., Beier, M. E., & Hebl, M. R. (2019). everyone on board, all things are possible, and we think that includes Answering prospective student e-mails: The effect of student gender, indi- a workplace that is fair to both men and women. viduation, and goals. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 7, 12–21. http://dx .doi.org/10.1037/arc0000058 References Caleo, S., & Heilman, M. E. (2019). What could go wrong? Some unintended Received July 8, 2019 consequences of gender bias interventions. Archives of Scientific Psychol- ogy, 7, 71–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/arc0000063 Accepted July 8, 2019 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.

Journal

Archives of Scientific Psychology – American Psychological Association

Published: Nov 25, 2019

There are no references for this article.