Visualizing Gendered Representations of Male and Female Teachers Using a Reverse Correlation Paradigm
Abstract
Abstract. Stereotypically, men are expected to outperform women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) domains, and women to outperform men in language. We conceptually replicated this association using reverse correlation tasks. Without available gender information, participants generated male images of physics teachers and female images of language teachers (Studies 1 and 3). Personal endorsement of respective ability stereotypes inconsistently predicted these effects (Studies 1 and 3). With unambiguous gender information (Study 2), participants generated feminized images of female language teachers and masculinized images of female physics teachers, whereas images of male teachers were unaffected by academic domain. Stereotype endorsement affected perceptions of female but not male teachers, suggesting that appearing feminine in STEM domains still signals professional mismatch.
References
1996). Automatic stereotyping. Psychological Science, 7, 136–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00346.x
(2016). But you don’t look like a scientist!: Women scientists with feminine appearance are deemed less likely to be scientists. Sex Roles, 75, 95–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0586-1
(2011). Women in STEM: A gender gap to innovation. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce, Economics, and Statistics Administration.
(2017). Training away bias: The differential effects of counterstereotype training and self-regulation on stereotype activation and application. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 73, 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.06.003
(2002). A quintessentially feminine domain? Student teachers’ constructions of primary teaching as a career. Educational Studies, 28, 287–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305569022000003735
(2011). Understanding current causes of women’s underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 3157–3162. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1014871108
(1984). Structure of gender stereotypes: Interrelationships among components and gender label. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 991–1004. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.5.991
(2010). Automatic prejudice in childhood and early adolescence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 356–374. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017993
(2016). rcicr: Reverse correlation image classification toolbox. R package version 0.3.4.1. Retrieved from http://www.rondotsch.nl/rcicr/
(2011). RCIC_matlab. Retrieved from https://github.com/olilan/RCIC_matlab
(2008). Ethnic out-group faces are biased in the prejudiced mind. Psychological Science, 19, 978–980. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02186.x
(2013). Behavioral information biases the expected facial appearance of members of novel groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 116–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1928
(1999). Exploring a hydrological concept through children’s drawings. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 485–497. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290534
(1991). Explaining sex differences in social behavior: A meta-analytic perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 306–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167291173011
(2012).
(Social role theory . In P. van LangeA. KruglanskiE. T. HigginsEds., Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 458–476). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249222.n491998). Leugnung von Diskriminierung: Eine Skala zur Erfassung des modernen Sexismus
([Denial of discrimination: A scale measuring modern sexism] . Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 29, 224–238.2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.41.4.1149
(2005). Faking the IAT: Aided and unaided response control on the Implicit Association Tests. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27, 307–316. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp2704_3
(in press). Six lessons for a cogent science of implicit bias and its criticism. Perspectives on Psychological Science.
(2006). Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 692–731. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.692
(2011). The associative-propositional evaluation model: Theory, evidence, and open questions. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 59–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385522-0.00002-0
(2014).
(Implicit measures in social and personality psychology . In H. T. ReisC. M. JuddH. T. ReisC. M. JuddEds., Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (2nd ed., pp. 283–310). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464
(2003). Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.197
(2013). Do we look like me or like us? Visual projection as self- or ingroup-projection. Social Cognition, 31, 806–816. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2013.31.6.806
(2013). Warmth and competence in your face! Visual encoding of stereotype content. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 386. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00386
(2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 863. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863
(2017). Too true to be bad: When sets of studies with significant and nonsignificant findings are probably true. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 875–881. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617693058
(2012). Implicit science stereotypes mediate the relationship between gender and academic participation. Sex Roles, 66, 220–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0036-z
(2010). Presentation and validation of the Radboud Faces Database. Cognition and Emotion, 24, 1377–1388. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930903485076
(2008). Some methodological issues with “draw a scientist tests” among young children. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 773–792. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701250452
(2014). What’s in a name: Exposing gender bias in student ratings of teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 40, 291–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-014-9313-4
(2004). Making the ineffable explicit: Estimating the information employed for face classifications. Cognitive Science, 28, 209–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsci.2003.11.004
(1957). Image of the scientist among high school students: A pilot study. Science, 126, 384–390. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.126.3270.384
(2015). Women’s representation in science predicts national gender-science stereotypes: Evidence from 66 nations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 631–644. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000005
(2018). The development of children’s gender-science stereotypes: A meta-analysis of 5 decades of US Draw-A-Scientist studies. Child Development, 89, 1943–1955. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13039
(2002). Math= male, me= female, therefore math ≠ me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 44. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44
(2011). Implicit social cognitions predict sex differences in math engagement and achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 1125–1156. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831211410683
(2009). National differences in gender-science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 10593–10597. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0809921106
(2016). Positive feeling, negative meaning: Visualizing the mental representations of in-group and out-group smiles. PLoS One, 11, e0151230. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151230
(2017). The bias of crowds: How implicit bias bridges personal and systemic prejudice. Psychological Inquiry, 28, 233–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2017.1335568
(2010). Prejudice toward female leaders: Backlash effects and women’s impression management dilemma. Social and Personality Compass, 4, 807–820. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00306.x
(2009). Unraveling bias from student evaluations of their high school science teachers. Science Education, 93, 827–845. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20332
(2017). Methodical challenges concerning the Draw-A-Scientist Test: A critical view about the assessment and evaluation of learners’ conceptions of scientists. International Journal of Science Education, 39, 1952–1975. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1362712
(2014). How stereotypes impair women’s careers in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 4403–4408. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1314788111
(1974). Sex stereotypes of secondary school teaching subjects: Male and female status gains and losses. Sociology of Education, 47, 388–398. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111912
(2015). On the gender-science stereotypes held by scientists: Explicit accord with gender-ratios, implicit accord with scientific identity. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 415. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00415
(2006). Studierende an Hochschulen
. ([Students at Universities] . Fachserie 11, Reihe 4.1, WS 2006/2007. Wiesbaden, Germany: Statistisches Bundesamt. Retrieved from https://www.destatis.de/2016). Studierende an Hochschulen
. ([Students at Universities] . Fachserie 11, Reihe 4.1, WS 2016/2017. Wiesbaden, Germany: Statistisches Bundesamt. Retrieved from https://www.destatis.de/2012).
(Portrayals of female scientists in the mass media . In A. ValdiviaS. R. MazzarellaEds., The international encyclopedia of media studies (pp. 1–18). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444361506.wbiems0702011). STEMing the tide: Using ingroup experts to inoculate women’s self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 255–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021385
(2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 220–247. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_1
(1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 199. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.199
(2006). The Draw a Scientist Test: A different population and a somewhat different story. College Student Journal, 40, 140–148.
(2015). Lehramtstudent_innen nach Studiengängen und Fächern im Wintersemester 2013/14 in Deutschland. Auswertung für das GEW-Zukunftsforum Lehrer_innenbildung
([Numbers of students in teacher's training sorted by university course and discipline in winter semester 2013/14 in Germany] . GEW: Eigenverlag.2015). Replicating studies in which samples of participants respond to samples of stimuli. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 390–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614564879
(2012).
(Biosocial construction of sex differences and similarities in behavior . In J. M. OlsonM. P. ZannaEds., Advances in experimental social psychology (46, pp. 55–123). London, UK: Elsevier.2014). Gender-typicality of activity offerings and child-teacher relationship closeness in German “Kindergarten”. Influences on the development of spelling competence as an indicator of early basic literacy in boys and girls. Learning and Individual Differences, 31, 59–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.12.008
(2015). Qualified for teaching physics? How prospective teachers perceive teachers with a migration background – and how it’s really about “him” or “her”. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 7, 255–279.
(