Abstract
Retrospective surveys and qualitative research have found that women in male-dominated majors (MDMs) commonly experience sexism during college, but less research has been devoted to better understand the daily experiences of sexism and attitudinal reactivity—defined as the likelihood that an individual’s attitudes will change as a result of sexism. This study utilized experience sampling methodology, which involves participants reporting current experiences multiple times per day, to better understand the unique daily experiences of sexism and reactivity among women in MDMs compared to both men in MDMs and women in gender-neutral majors (GNMs). For 2 weeks, four times a day, 120 U.S. college students (40 women in MDMs, 40 men in MDMs, 40 women in GNMs) were signaled to report sexist events that occurred in the last hour, current attitudes toward fit with their major, and academic motivation. Although a majority experienced at least one sexist event during the 2 weeks, results indicated that, unexpectedly, women in MDMs did not experience more sexist events around the time they attended a major class compared to the control groups. Women in MDMs, however, were more reactive to sexism. During the same hour they reported sexism, women in MDMs (unlike students in control groups) reported lower attitudes toward fit with their major. Results suggest that interventions should focus on creating contextual resources that may help women in MDMs cope with sexism.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ahlqvist, S., London, B., & Rosenthal, L. (2013). Unstable identity compatibility: How gender rejection sensitivity undermines the success of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields. Psychological Science, 24(9), 1644–1652. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613476048.
Almeida, D. M. (2005). Resilience and vulnerability to daily stressors assessed via diary methods. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(2), 64–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00336.x.
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596–612. https://doi.org/10.1037/002-3514.63.4.596.
Barthelemy, R. S., McCormick, M., & Henderson, C. (2016). Gender discrimination in physics and astronomy: Graduate student experiences of sexism and gender microaggressions. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.0120119.
Becker, J. C., & Swim, J. K. (2011). Seeing the unseen: Attention to daily encounters with sexism as way to reduce sexist beliefs. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35(2), 272–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684310397509.
Blickenstaff, J. C. (2005). Women and science careers: Leaky pipeline or gender filter? Gender and Education, 17(4), 369–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540250500145072.
Bolger, N., & Zuckerman, A. (1995). A framework for studying personality in the stress process. Personality Processes and Individual Differences, 69(5), 890–902. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.890.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brown, C. S., & Leaper, C. (2010). Latina and European American girls’ experiences with academic sexism and their self-concepts in mathematics and science during adolescence. Sex Roles, 63, 860–870. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9856-5.
Ceci, S. J., Williams, W. M., & Barnett, S. M. (2009). Women’s underrepresentation in science: Sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 218–261. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014412.
Charles, S. T., Piazza, J. R., Mogle, J., Sliwsinksi, M. J., & Almeida, D. M. (2013). The wear and tear of daily stressors on mental health. Psychological Science, 24(5), 733–741. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612462222.
Chen, X., & Soldner, M. (2013). STEM attrition: College students’ paths into and out of STEM sfields. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014001rev.pdf.
Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Davies, P. G., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 1045–1060. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016239.
Cheryan, S., Ziegler, S. A., Montoya, A. K., & Jiang, L. (2017). Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others? Psychological Bulletin, 143(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000052.
Cohen, G. L., & Garcia, J. (2008). Identity, belonging, and achievement. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(6), 365–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00607.x.
Cortina, J. M., & Landis, R. S. (2009). When small effect sizes tell a big story, and when large effect sizes don’t. In C. E. Lance & R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends (pp. 287–308). New York: Routledge.
Dorius, S. F., & Firebaugh, G. (2010). Trends in global gender inequality. Social Forces, 5, 1941–1968. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof/2010.0040.
Dresden, B. E., Dresden, A. Y., Ridge, R. D., & Yamawaki, N. (2018). No girls allowed: Women in male-dominated majors experience increased gender harassment and bias. Psychological Reports, 121(3), 459–474. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294117730357.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.109.3.573.
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2012). Social role theory. In P. van Lange, A. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories in social psychology (pp. 458–476). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Erwin, L., & Maurutto, P. (1998). Beyond access: Considering gender deficits in science education. Gender & Education, 10, 51–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540259821096.
Frome, P. M., Alfeld, C. J., Eccles, J. S., & Barber, B. L. (2006). Why don’t they want a male-dominated job? An investigation of young women who changed their occupational aspirations. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(4), 359–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610600765686.
Geisinger, B. N., & Raman, D. R. (2013). Why they leave: Understanding student attrition from engineering majors. International Journal of Engineering Education, 29(4), 914–925.
Hegewisch, A., & Hartmann, H. (2014). Occupational segregation and the gender wage gap: A job half done. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2593&context=key_workplace.
Hegewisch, A., Liepmann, H., Hayes, J., & Hartmann, H. (2010). Separate and not equal? Gender segregation in the labor market and the gender wage gap. Institute for Women’s policy research briefing paper IWPR C377. Retrieved from www.iwpr.org.
Hill, C., & Silva, E. (2005). Drawing the line: Sexual harassment on campus. Retried from https://www.aauw.org/files/2013/02/drawing-the-line-sexual-harassment-on-campus.pdf.
Hofmann, W., & Patel, P. V. (2014). A convenient solution for experience sampling research using participants’ own smartphones. Social Science Computer Review, 33(2), 235–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439314525117.
Hultin, M., & Szulkin, R. (2003). Mechanisms of inequality: Unequal access to organizational power and the gender wage gap. European Sociological Review, 19(2), 143–159. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/19.2.143.
Kabat-Farr, D., & Cortina, L. M. (2014). Sex-beased harassment in employment: New insights into gender and context. Law and Human Behavior, 38(1), 58–72. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000045.
Kaiser, C. R., Vick, S. B., & Major, B. (2006). Prejudice expectations moderate preconscious attention to cues that are threatening to social identity. Psychological Science, 17, 332–338. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01707.x.
Kite, M. E., Deaux, K., & Haines, E. L. (2008). Gender stereotypes. In F. L. Denmark & M. A. Paludi (Eds.), Psychology of women: A handbook of issues and theories (pp. 205–236). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Klonoff, E. A., & Landrine, H. (1995). The schedule of sexist events: A measure of lifetime and recent sexist discrimination in women’s lives. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19, 439–472.
Kuchynka, S. L., Salomon, K., Bosson, J. K., El-Hout, M., Kiebel, E., Cooperman, C., … Toomey, R. (2017). Hostile and benevolent sexism and college women’s STEM outcomes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 42, 72–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684317741889.
Landrine, H., Klonoff, E. A., Gibbs, J., Manning, V., & Marlene, L. (1995). Physical and psychiatric correlates of gender discrimination: An application of the schedule of sexist events. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19(4), 473–492. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6401.1995.tb00087.x.
Lawson, K. M., Kooiman, L. Y., & Kuchta, O. (2018). Professors’ behaviors and attributes that promote U.S. women’s success in male-dominated academic majors: Results from a mixed methods study. Sex Roles, 78, 542–560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0809-0.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
Lewis, K. L., Stout, J. G., Pollock, S. J., Finkelstein, N. D., & Ito, T. A. (2016). Fitting in or opting out: A review of key social-psychological factors influencing a sense of belonging for women in physics. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.020110.
London, B., Rosenthal, L., & Gonzalez, A. (2011a). Assessing the role of gender rejection sensitivity, identity, and support on the academic engagement of women in nontraditional fields using experience sampling methods. Journal of Social Issues, 67(3), 510–530. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560..2011.01712.x.
London, B., Rosenthal, L., Levy, S. R., & Lobel, M. (2011b). The influences of perceived identity compatibility and social support on women in nontraditional fields during the college transition. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 33, 304–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2011.614166.
MacLachlan, A. J. (2006). The graduate experience of women in STEM and how it could be improved. In J. M. Bystydzienski & S. R. Bird (Eds.), Removing barriers: Women in academic science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (pp. 237–253). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Mastekaasa, A., & Smeby, J. (2008). Education choice and persistence in male- and female-dominated fields. Higher Education, 55, 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-006-9042-4.
Meyer, M., Cimpian, A., & Leslie, S. J. (2015). Women are underrepresented in fields where success is believed to require brilliance. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00235.
Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. PNAS, 109(41), 16474–16479. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211286109.
Ong, M., Wright, C., Espinosa, L. L., & Orfield, G. (2011). Inside the double bind: A synthesis of empirical research on undergraduate and graduate women of color in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Harvard Educational Review, 81(2), 172–208.
Oswald, D., Baalbaki, M., & Kirkman, M. (2019). Experiences with benevolent sexism: Scale development and associations with women’s well-being. Sex Roles, 80, 362–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0933-5.
Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, E. (2002). What women and men should be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to be, and don’t have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4), 269–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00066.
Settles, I. H. (2004). When multiple identities interfere: The role of identity centrality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(4), 487–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203261885.
Settles, I. H., Cortina, L. M., Malley, J., & Stewart, A. J. (2006). The climate for women in academic science: The good, the bad, and the changeable. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00261.x.
Sharpe, D. (2015). Your chi-square test is statistically significant: Now what? Practical Assessment. Research & Evaluation, 20(8), 1–10.
Steele, J., James, J. B., & Barnett, R. C. (2002). Learning in a man’s world: Examining the perceptions of undergraduate women in male-dominated academic areas. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 46–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.00042.
Swim, J. K., & Cohen, L. L. (1997). Overt, covert, and subtle sexism: A comparison between attitudes toward women and modern sexism scales. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00103.x.
Swim, J. K., Hyers, L. L., Cohen, L. L., & Ferguson, M. J. (2001). Everyday sexism: Evidence for its incidence, nature, and psychological impact from three daily diary studies. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 31–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00200.
Szymanski, D. M., & Steward, D. N. (2010). Racism and sexism as correlates of African American women’s psychological distress. Sex Roles, 63, 226–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9788-0.
Taylor, S. E. (1990). Health psychology: The science and the field. American Psychologist, 45, 45–50. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.
Tropp, L. R., & Wright, S. C. (2001). Ingroup identification as the inclusion of ingroup in the self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 585–600. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201275007.
Woodzicka, J. A., & LaFrance, M. (2001). Real versus imagined gender harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00199.
Xu, Y. J. (2013). Career outcomes of STEM and non-STEM college graduates: Persistence in majored-field and influential factors in career choices. Research in Higher Education, 54, 349–382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-012-9275-2.
Acknowledgements
Katie M. Lawson (ORCID: 0000-0001-8467-4915), Department of Psychological Science, Ball State University. The present study was funded by Ball State University’s Aspire Internal Grant Program to Katie M. Lawson, Principal Investigator. The author thanks Rahissa Winningham, Adrianna Caballero, Marcy Beutlich, Kendall Smith, Krista Kranz, and Charlie Jackson for their help with survey testing and data collection. Correspondence concerning this manuscript should be addressed to Katie M. Lawson, Department of Psychological Science, Ball State University, 106 North Quad Building, Muncie, IN, 43706. Email: kmlawson4@bsu.edu
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
There are no potential conflicts of interest.
Research Involving Human Participants and/or Animals
Human participants were included in the study. Research was approved by the University’s IRB prior to data collection.
Informed Consent
Data is available upon request to the corresponding author.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lawson, K.M. An Examination of Daily Experiences of Sexism and Reactivity among Women in U.S. Male-Dominated Academic Majors Using Experience Sampling Methodology. Sex Roles 83, 552–565 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01135-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01135-z