How do unconscious biases and assumptions affect the careers of women in science and engineering fields

1. How do unconscious biases and assumptions affect the careers of women in science and engineering fields?

3. Swedish Postdoc studyWenneras and Wold, Nature, 1997 114 applications for prestigious research postdocs to Swedish MRC (52 women) Reviewers� scores vs standardized metric from publication record = impact points Women consistently reviewed lower, especially in �competence� Women had to be 2.5x as productive as men to get the same score To even the score, women needed equivalent of 3 extra papers in a prestigious journal like Science or Nature So is this like your patients with chronic pelvic pain where you can search all day and not identify any specific pathology? Let�s look at some of the studies of specific pathology, if you will. So is this like your patients with chronic pelvic pain where you can search all day and not identify any specific pathology? Let�s look at some of the studies of specific pathology, if you will.

5. Gender and Behavior DESCRIPTIVE: How men and women actually behave PRESCRIPTIVE: Subconscious assumptions about the way men and women in the abstract �ought� to behave: Women: Nurturing, communal, nice, supportive, helpful, sympathetic Men: Decisive, inventive, strong, forceful, independent RELEVANT POINTS: Scientists, professors, leaders: Decisive, inventive, strong, independent Social penalties for violating prescriptive gender assumptions Why would this be? Stereotypic views about the attributes of men and women are pervasive and widely shared ��that is why it is always funny when a man walks in high heels - this violates our unconscious assumption about the way we think men should dress. Psychologists refer to � and why we all know what it means when we use the terms �effeminate man� or �butch woman� �these are individuals whose behavior falls outside the assumed norms for each gender. So not only ought but ought NOT to behaveWhy would this be? Stereotypic views about the attributes of men and women are pervasive and widely shared ��that is why it is always funny when a man walks in high heels - this violates our unconscious assumption about the way we think men should dress. Psychologists refer to � and why we all know what it means when we use the terms �effeminate man� or �butch woman� �these are individuals whose behavior falls outside the assumed norms for each gender. So not only ought but ought NOT to behave

6. Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks Heilman et al., J Applied Psychol 89:416-27, 2004 48 subjects (20 men) Job description; Assist VP; products made suggested male (e.g. engine parts, fuel tanks). Male and female rated in two conditions: Performance clear Performance ambiguous Additional notes: Three workers were given to each evaluator � the male and female were alternated and the third was always male and stayed the same and was not part of the test. Has recently undergone company-wide annual performance review��stellar performer� top 5% of all employees in his (her) level Asked whether most people holding the job they reviewed would be male or female � 100% said maleAdditional notes: Three workers were given to each evaluator � the male and female were alternated and the third was always male and stayed the same and was not part of the test. Has recently undergone company-wide annual performance review��stellar performer� top 5% of all employees in his (her) level Asked whether most people holding the job they reviewed would be male or female � 100% said male

7. Results Performance clear Competence comparable Achievement-related characteristics comparable Women less liked Women more hostile Performance ambiguous Likeability and hostility comparable Men more competent Men more achievement-related characteristics

8. Study 2 � women only less liked in male gender type jobs Study 3 � Likeability and competence independently linked to recommendation for organizational rewards Only women were deemed unlikeable for being competent at their job! Study 3 used subjects who worked full time � not students If you are not liked, it will work against you in terms of pay, promotion, and institutional resources If you are not competent, it will work against you in terms of pay, promotion and institutional resourcs. But only women are not liked for being competent.Study 3 used subjects who worked full time � not students If you are not liked, it will work against you in terms of pay, promotion, and institutional resources If you are not competent, it will work against you in terms of pay, promotion and institutional resourcs. But only women are not liked for being competent.

9. Subtle gatekeeping biasTrix and Psenka, Discourse & Soc 14:191 2003  312 letters of rec for medical faculty hired at large U.S. medical school Letters for women vs men: Shorter 15% vs 6% of minimal assurance 10% vs 5% with gender terms (e.g. �intelligent young lady�; �insightful woman�) 24% vs 12% doubt raisers Stereotypic adjectives: �Compassionate�, �related well�� vs �successful�, �accomplished� Fewer standout adjectives (�outstanding� �excellent�) Gatekeeping practices, including educational requirements, job interviews, and letters of recommendation, all serve to control access to particular positions and the societal benefits that thereby accrue. The higher the social status of the institution, the less public the gatekeeping. 1992-1995; 312 letters for 103 faculty positions (approx 3 letters per applicant); mostly at assist prof level but 8 assoc prof and one prof; 37 different specialties; 89 letters for women; 222 for men; one letter for a couple. Recommenders: 85% male. 96% of gatekeepers (ie those to whom the letters were addressed) were male 13% of these addressed to first name. Doubt raiser: irrelevancy, not innately negative, but the overall effect can raise doubt; e.g. she worked hard on projects that she accepted. It appears that her health and personal life are stable. An independent worker, she requires only minimal supervision.Gatekeeping practices, including educational requirements, job interviews, and letters of recommendation, all serve to control access to particular positions and the societal benefits that thereby accrue. The higher the social status of the institution, the less public the gatekeeping. 1992-1995; 312 letters for 103 faculty positions (approx 3 letters per applicant); mostly at assist prof level but 8 assoc prof and one prof; 37 different specialties; 89 letters for women; 222 for men; one letter for a couple. Recommenders: 85% male. 96% of gatekeepers (ie those to whom the letters were addressed) were male 13% of these addressed to first name. Doubt raiser: irrelevancy, not innately negative, but the overall effect can raise doubt; e.g. she worked hard on projects that she accepted. It appears that her health and personal life are stable. An independent worker, she requires only minimal supervision.

10. Distinctive semantic realms following possessive

12. Semantic realms following possessive (e.g. �her training�; �his research�) More status words after hisMore status words after his

15. NIH Director�s Pioneer Awards, 2004 Very large awards, highly prestigious, new Aimed at highly competent scientist who were �risk takers� with great �potential� Considerable weight placed on letters of recommendation Accelerated review process

16. NIH Pioneer Awards � research would predict selection biased to favor men

17. Computer simulation of cumulative advantage for men in an organizationMartell et al. Am Psychol 51:157-8 1996 8 levels: 500 employees at bottom; 10 at top; 50% women Eval scores normally distrib; highest scores promoted 15% attrition until organization staffed with all new employees �Bias� points given to favor men: 5% = 29% women at top; 58% bottom 1% = 35% women at top; 53% at bottom

18. How trivial bias works against women within organizations

19. UW Gender Climate Survey: Foster et al. Acad Medicine, 2001  836 Med Sch faculty; 61% response Example of climate questions: �Are you aware of informal networking which systematically (even if not purposely) excludes faculty members on the basis of gender?� Yes: 24% women; 6% men (p <.001)

20. UW Gender Climate SurveyGender differences in responses (p<.001) I feel like a welcome member of the academic community I feel my advice is sought My career is not taken seriously I have observed situations in which women are denigrated based on their gender Perceived obstacles to academic success � women 2-3X men