http://gpi.sagepub.com/Relations

Group Processes & Intergroup

http://gpi.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/09/25/1368430214550340The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/1368430214550340

published online 29 September 2014Group Processes Intergroup RelationsJacqueline M. Chen and Wesley G. Moons

male-dominated domainsThey won't listen to me: Anticipated power and women's disinterest in

  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Group Processes & Intergroup RelationsAdditional services and information for    

  http://gpi.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://gpi.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

http://gpi.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/09/25/1368430214550340.refs.htmlCitations:  

What is This? 

- Sep 29, 2014OnlineFirst Version of Record >>

by guest on September 30, 2014gpi.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on September 30, 2014gpi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 1 –13

© The Author(s) 2014Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1368430214550340

gpir.sagepub.com

G P IR

Group Processes &Intergroup Relations

Scientific innovation and business leadership are vital to the progress of modern society. It is therefore in the best interest of society to attract as many talented individuals to these fields as possible. However, not all capable individuals are equally attracted to participate in these domains. For example, the underrepresentation of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathe-matics (STEM), has received national attention for more than a decade. A large body of research has now established that the existing gender dis-parity across various important fields is a com-plex, multifaceted social issue. The present work offers a novel factor that influences women’s pur-suit of male-dominated fields.

The multiple causes of women’s underrepre-sentation in male-dominated fields contribute to two central problems: underrepresentation of women among individuals entering these fields and a “leaky pipeline” in which more women than men who have entered these fields later decide to leave or are pushed out by gender-biased personnel policies and decisions (see

They won’t listen to me: Anticipated power and women’s disinterest in male-dominated domains

Jacqueline M. Chen1 and Wesley G. Moons2

AbstractWe hypothesized that women avoid male-dominated domains because they anticipate lacking the power to influence others in those contexts. In Study 1, a questionnaire study, male undergraduates were more interested in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors than were female undergraduates, and this gender disparity was mediated by women anticipating having less power in STEM fields than men did. Study 2 experimentally demonstrated that a lack of female representation within an academic context (MBA program) led women to infer that they would lack power in that context. Consequently, they became less interested in the program and in business schools in general. Our findings indicate that expecting low interpersonal power is an important mechanism by which women lose interest in pursuing male-dominated fields.

Keywordsbusiness, diversity, gender, power, STEM

Paper received 12 May 2013; revised version accepted 17 June 2014.

1University of California, Irvine, USA2University of California, Davis, USA

Corresponding author:Jacqueline M. Chen, Department of Psychology and Social Behavior, UC Irvine, Irvine, CA, 92617, USA.Email: j.chen@uci.edu

550340GPI0010.1177/1368430214550340Group Processes & Intergroup RelationsChen and Moonsresearch-article2014

Article

by guest on September 30, 2014gpi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

2 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

American Association of University Women [AAUW], 2010). The present investigation focuses on the former problem. Although it is also important to examine the factors that lead women within male-dominated fields to leave (e.g., family-unfriendly practices), understanding what keeps women in these fields will have lim-ited effectiveness if only a handful of women actually decide to enter them. We propose a mechanism by which the lack of female represen-tation within a domain is self-perpetuating. Specifically, we reasoned that the high representa-tion of men in a domain makes women disinter-ested in that field because they anticipate having low power in that context.

There are a number of reasons why women are less likely to enter male-dominated fields (see AAUW, 2010; Blickenstaff, 2005; Singh et al., 2013; Syed & Chemers, 2011, for comprehensive discussions). Some of these reasons are systemic (e.g., culturally held gender stereotypes that can induce stereotype threat and discourage women from being interested in masculine domains; Davies, Spencer, Quinn, & Gerhardstein, 2002), and others occur at the interpersonal level (e.g., discrimination against qualified female applicants; Moss-Racusin, Dovidio, Brescoll, Graham, & Handelsman, 2012). Most relevant to the present investigation are reasons why the lack of female representation within a domain dissuades women from entering it, thereby perpetuating the existing gender disparity. Low female representation elicits stereotype threat (Inzlicht & Ben-Zeev, 2000, 2003), which inhibits learning (Rydell, Rydell, & Boucher, 2010; Rydell, Shiffrin, Boucher, van Loo, & Rydell, 2010) and performance (see Schmader, Johns, & Forbes, 2008; Shapiro & Neuberg, 2007, for reviews), and ultimately leads to disidentifica-tion with the domain (Woodcock, Hernandez, Estrada, & Schultz, 2012). When considering pur-suing a male-dominated field, women also have lower exposure to female role models who may buffer negative effects of stereotype threat (Latu, Schmid Mast, Lammers, & Bombari, 2013; Stout, Dasgupta, Hunsinger, & McManus, 2011). Further, women anticipate and experience a lack of belonging within fields perceived to be

male-dominated (e.g., Murphy, Steele, & Gross, 2007). Because social acceptance is a fundamental human motivation, increasing women’s feelings of belonging in male-dominated fields may be par-ticularly important for attracting and retaining them (Walton, Logel, Peach, Spencer, & Zanna, in press). Building on this work, we propose that women are also discouraged from entering male-dominated fields because they expect to have low interpersonal power.

All individuals are motivated to have control over their environments (Kelley, 1971). To have control over one’s social environment is to have interpersonal power, the ability to influence others (Kelley, 1971; Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003). Importantly, interpersonal power is con-ceptually distinct from, although related to, lay definitions of power that are often synonymous with prestige and status. Past research has shown that women’s academic and career choices are less motivated by agentic goals, such as power, achieve-ment, and status, and more motivated by commu-nal goals, such as serving and connecting with others (e.g., Diekman, Clark, Johnston, Brown, & Steinberg, 2011). However, having interpersonal power facilitates both agentic goals, because it leads to individual recognition and achievement, and communal goals, because it enables interper-sonal communication and relationships.

Interpersonal power is also related to but dif-ferent from self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977), which has been linked to women’s avoidance of male-dominated fields (e.g., Betz & Hackett, 1983). Whereas self-efficacy entails an individual’s assessment of whether she has the requisite abili-ties and skills to succeed in a domain, perceived interpersonal power describes her perception of whether she can influence other people around her. A woman might believe she has the necessary ability and training (i.e., high self-efficacy) but that she will be powerless to effect change (i.e., low power); thus, self-efficacy and interpersonal power can vary independently and are conceptu-ally distinct.

Perceiving that one has interpersonal power is important for one’s cognitive functioning (Smith, Jostmann, Galinsky, & van Dijk, 2008)

by guest on September 30, 2014gpi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Chen and Moons 3

and mental well-being (Anderson, Kraus, Galinsky, & Keltner, 2012). As such, individuals seek out domains in which they will have inter-personal power (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009). We therefore reasoned that both men and women should be motivated to approach domains in which they anticipate having inter-personal power. In related research, recent work has demonstrated that feeling powerful can buffer the negative effects of stereotype threat on women’s mathematical performance (van Loo & Rydell, 2013).

Yet, women in male-dominated fields are frequently relegated to low power positions. For example, women frequently experience interpersonal discrimination and the devalua-tion of their gender group in male-dominated domains (e.g., Moss-Racusin, Dovidio, Brescoll, Graham, & Handelsman, 2012; Steele, James, & Barnett, 2002). Women also commonly expect to experience social rejection and dis-crimination in male-dominated contexts (Inzlicht & Ben-Zeev, 2000; Inzlicht, Kaiser, & Major, 2008; London, Downey, Romero-Canyas, Rattan, & Tyson, 2012; Murphy et al., 2007; Pinel, 2004). Therefore, on the basis of previous experience and/or expectancies about male-dominated domains, it is likely that women also expect to be socially ineffective (i.e., low in interpersonal power) in those domains. Widely held stereotypes that men are sexist, arrogant, and aggressive (Ghavami & Peplau, 2013) may also lead women to infer that they will have low power in domains largely occupied by men. Therefore, we hypothesized that women avoid fields with a high proportion of men because they anticipate lacking inter-personal power in those environments.

In two studies, we tested our hypotheses about the role of anticipated interpersonal power in perpetuating gender disparities in two male-dominated fields, STEM and business leadership. In Study 1, we examined the role of anticipated interpersonal power in predicting undergraduates’ interest in STEM majors and in explaining gender differences in STEM interest. In Study 2, in the context of an MBA program,

we sought to demonstrate that the lack of female representation within a domain serves as a cue to women that they will experience low interpersonal power in those contexts.

Study 1Despite the fact that high school girls earn higher GPAs in science and math than do high school boys, twice as many boys than girls intend to major in a STEM field in college (AAUW, 2010). In STEM, women earn fewer doctoral degrees than men and are outnumbered 2 to 1 in most STEM occupations (AAUW, 2010). Study 1 pro-vided an initial investigation as to whether indi-viduals are motivated to approach domains in which they anticipate having interpersonal power and whether anticipated interpersonal power was a relevant factor in explaining gender disparities in STEM at the undergraduate level.

There were three specific goals. First, we sought to determine whether anticipated inter-personal power was a significant predictor of stu-dents’ interest in STEM majors. Because all individuals are motivated to have interpersonal power (Kelley, 1971), we argue that they will be attracted to and seek out domains in which they will have power. Thus, we hypothesized that male and female students who anticipated having more power in STEM classes would be more interested in majoring in STEM. Second, we sought to show the unique predictive power of anticipated inter-personal power in STEM interest above and beyond students’ quantitative ability, as measured by their scores on the SAT I Math Section (Park, Lubinski, & Benbow, 2008). Although students with greater quantitative ability might expect to be more successful in STEM majors, we pre-dicted that both variables would explain unique variance in students’ STEM interest. Third and most importantly, we hypothesized that, com-pared to men, women would expect to have less interpersonal power in STEM majors and would express less interest in them. We predicted that the gender difference in anticipated interpersonal power would mediate the gender difference in STEM interest.

by guest on September 30, 2014gpi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

4 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

Method

ParticipantsParticipants were recruited from psychology courses at a large west coast university. We selected participants who were in the first or sec-ond year of undergraduate education to ensure that our questions regarding major choice were relevant to our sample. Three hundred and eighty-seven undergraduates (294 female) com-pleted the online survey for partial course credit (Mage = 20.31, SD = 3.37). According to their self-reports, the sample was 44.2% Asian, 32.6% White, 10.6% Hispanic, 8.3% multiracial, 1.3% Black, and 3.1% other.

Materials and ProcedureParticipants believed that they were completing background information that would determine their eligibility for future experiments. Participants first read the definition of STEM: “STEM fields include all fields related to science, technology, engineering, and math. For example, physics, math, engineering, biology, and chemistry are all considered to be STEM fields.” After learning the definition of STEM, participants were asked to estimate their anticipated interpersonal power in STEM classes by responding to an adapted ver-sion of the Sense of Power Scale (Anderson, John, & Keltner, 2012; α = .89) consisting of eight items with response options from 1 (“Strongly disagree”) to 7 (“Strongly agree”). For example, one item stated, “I would be able to get others to listen to what I say.” Then participants indicated their interest in STEM (i.e., “How inter-ested are you in majoring in a STEM field?”) from 1 (“Definitely not interested”) to 7 (“Very inter-ested/planning on it”). Lastly, participants reported demographic information and their scores on the math section of the SAT I, and they were debriefed.

ResultsOur first hypothesis was that male and female students who anticipated having more power in STEM contexts would also be more interested in

STEM fields. A regression analysis revealed that, consistent with this prediction, anticipated power was positively associated with participants’ STEM interest, β = .27, p < .001, R2 = .07. Participant gender did not moderate the positive relationship between anticipated power and interest in STEM majors, p > .82. These findings support our asser-tion that interpersonal power is relevant to all stu-dents’ academic decisions.

Second, we hypothesized that students’ antici-pated power in STEM would predict their STEM interest above and beyond their quantitative abil-ity. To test this prediction, we conducted a hierar-chical regression analysis predicting participants’ STEM interest from anticipated power, math SAT scores, participant gender, all two-way inter-actions, and the three-way interaction. In Step 1, we entered the main effects and found that both SAT math scores, β = .18, p < .001, and antici-pated power, β = .25, p < .001, were unique pre-dictors of participants’ interest in STEM majors. Therefore, students with higher quantitative abil-ity were more interested in STEM fields. Importantly, regardless of their ability, students who anticipated having higher power in STEM contexts were more interested in STEM fields. Gender was not a unique predictor of STEM interest, p = .25. The two-way interactions were entered in Step 2 and the three-way interaction was entered in Step 3. However, none of these interactions significantly predicted STEM inter-est, ps > .21.

Third, we predicted that women would express less interest in STEM and anticipate having less power in STEM contexts compared to men. Indeed, men (M = 4.99, SE = .22) reported more interest in STEM majors than did women (M = 4.41, SE = .13), t(385) = 2.21, p = .03, ηp

2 = .01. In addition, men (M = 4.91, SE = .09) anticipated having more power in STEM contexts than did women, (M = 4.62, SE = .06), t(385) = 2.51, p = .01, ηp

2 = .02.Finally, we expected that the gender difference

in STEM interest would be mediated by the gender difference in anticipated power. Bootstrapping with 5,000 resamples (Preacher & Hayes, 2008) confirmed that the total effect of gender on STEM interest, β = −.26, p = .02, was reduced to

by guest on September 30, 2014gpi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Chen and Moons 5

nonsignificance (p > .11) when the indirect effect through anticipated power was accounted for, 95% CI for indirect effect [−.15, −.02] (see Figure 1). This analysis supports our hypothesis that women were less interested in STEM majors than men were because they expected to have less power in STEM contexts than men did.

We also conducted a reverse mediation to test for the possibility that gender differences in anticipated power were due to gender differences in STEM interest. It was possible that women were less likely to expect power in STEM classes because they are less interested in the subject material. Gender significantly predicted antici-pated power, β = −.30, p = .01, and this pathway remained significant when the indirect path through STEM interest was accounted for, β = −.23, p = .04, 95% CI for indirect effect [−.15, −.01]. Unlike the original mediation model, the reverse mediation model did not reduce the path-way from gender to anticipated power to nonsig-nificance. Therefore, we concluded that the data were best explained by anticipated power mediat-ing the gender difference in STEM interest.1

DiscussionStudy 1 demonstrated the importance of antici-pated interpersonal power as a relevant factor in students’ academic interests regardless of their

gender and quantitative ability. Further, media-tion analyses suggested that gender disparities in STEM interest are related to gender differences in anticipated interpersonal power within STEM contexts.

Although these results established the rele-vance of anticipated interpersonal power in stu-dents’ academic decisions, the present study was correlational. Based on this methodology, it is not possible to rule out the alternative explanation represented in our reverse mediation analysis that gender differences in STEM interest explain gen-der differences in anticipated interpersonal power in STEM contexts. As a result, it was necessary to show that experimentally induced changes in indi-viduals’ anticipated interpersonal power account for changes in their interest in that domain.

We have speculated that the gender differ-ences in STEM interest and anticipated interper-sonal power within STEM are due to the lack of female representation in STEM. Specifically, women may infer that, because a field is predomi-nantly male, they will have low power if they enter it. We directly tested this hypothesis in Study 2.

Study 2In Study 2, we directly tested whether women’s expectations of power are affected by the gender

Participant gender

(0 = male, 1 = female)

Anticipated power in

STEM

Interest in STEM majors

β = −.18

(β = −.26*)

Standardized indirect effect of representation and anticipated power on interest in the domain

95% CI [−.15, -.02].

β = −.30* β = .26***

Figure 1. Mediational analysis in Study 1.*p < .05, ***p < .001.

by guest on September 30, 2014gpi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

6 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

representation within a domain. People often assume that similar others share their values, opinions, and preferences (Apfelbaum, Phillips, & Richeson, 2014), and this assumption could lead women to infer that they will have less inter-personal power and influence in a context with low female representation compared to one with high female representation. In addition, predomi-nantly male settings may activate stereotypes that men are sexist, arrogant, and aggressive (Ghavami & Peplau, 2013), and consequently women may assume that they will not have interpersonal power in those settings. Indeed, women who anticipate attending a predominantly male scien-tific conference experience physiological stress, report a lower sense of belonging, and have less interest in participating in the conference (Murphy et al., 2007).

In Study 2, we manipulated the gender repre-sentation of a specific business graduate program and measured its effect on women’s expectations of interpersonal power and interest in entering the field. We selected business leadership as the experimental context for a few reasons. First, similar to STEM fields, business leadership is a predominantly male domain (Catalyst, 2014; Koenig, Eagly, Mitchell, & Ristikari, 2011; Oakley, 2000). Twice as many high school boys than girls plan to major in business in college (Pryor et al., 2012), and these gender differences grow at each level of advancement. Among Fortune 500 com-panies, women hold only 16.9% of the positions on the board of directors, 14.6% of executive officer positions, and 4% of CEO positions (Catalyst, 2014). Therefore, the underrepresenta-tion of women in business leadership is stark.

Second, MBAs are important facilitators of business leadership. Until the last decade, MBA programs have been male-dominated (Graduate Management Admission Council, 2004). Due to widespread outreach programs (Graduate Management Admission Council, 2012), some of the top MBA programs have managed to reverse this historical precedent, though the student bod-ies in the top 20 MBA programs are still only 30% female on average (U.S. News and World Report, 2014). In addition, compared to undergraduate

STEM majors, undergraduate participants have less direct experience with MBA programs. As a result, we believed that manipulating the gender representation of a local MBA program would be more believable and would more closely mirror the psychological effect of initially learning about and becoming interested or disinterested in a male-dominated field.

Therefore, in this experiment, we sought to examine why women would be more or less inter-ested in pursuing an MBA program. We manipu-lated the gender representation within a local prestigious MBA program to determine its effect on women’s anticipated interpersonal power in the program. We hypothesized that a program with low female representation (i.e., male-dominated) would lead women to anticipate hav-ing less power, which would reduce their interest in the program and, consequently, their interest in business schools more generally.

We also measured participants’ gender identity centrality, or the importance of gender to the self (Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992), for two reasons. First, we sought to examine gender identity cen-trality as a potential moderator of the effect of representation on women’s anticipated interper-sonal power. Past research has demonstrated that high racial identity centrality, the importance of race to the self, predicts increased perceived dis-crimination among African Americans (Sellers, Caldwell, Schmeelk-Cone, & Zimmerman, 2003; Sellers & Shelton, 2003). In addition, gender identity centrality is likely to be associated with increased gender-based stigma consciousness, and women who are higher in gender-based stigma consciousness are more likely to perceive threat in male-dominated environments (Inzlicht et al., 2008; London et al., 2012; Pinel, 2004) and avoid opportunities to perform in these domains (Pinel, 1999). Consistent with these findings, we reasoned that women with high gender identity centrality might be more likely to anticipate nega-tive treatment in predominantly male contexts than would women for whom their gender is unimportant. On the other hand, it was possible that women would infer having low interpersonal power in predominantly male settings regardless

by guest on September 30, 2014gpi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Chen and Moons 7

of their gender identity centrality, but that only women with high gender identity centrality would be more likely to avoid these contexts. We explored these possibilities in Study 2. Second, we followed Mason and Suri’s (2012) recommen-dations that online surveys contain attention checks to ensure that experiments can effectively filter out those participants who are responding to questions without fully reading vital study information. Because our attention check gauged whether participants processed and remembered our manipulation of gender representation in the MBA program, we sought to ensure that we were not selectively filtering out women who were less likely to care about this information (i.e., those low in gender identity centrality).

Method

ParticipantsTo ensure that a graduate degree in business was a realistic goal for our sample, we recruited par-ticipants from an upper division psychology course in which 90.4% of the students were social science majors. We analyzed responses only of participants who passed the attention check (60% of the sample) embedded in the survey (see following lines). The participants who passed ver-sus failed the attention check did not differ in gender identity centrality, t < 1. One hundred and fifteen female undergraduates participated in the online study in exchange for course credit (Mage = 22.45, SD = 5.69). According to their self-reports, the sample was 45.2% White, 28.7% Asian, 10.4% Hispanic, 7.8% multiracial, 1.7 % Native American, 0.9% Black, 0.9% Middle Eastern, and 4.3% other.

Materials and ProcedureParticipants believed that the study was designed to generate feedback on brochures advertising the MBA program of a local business school. They viewed a one-page online brochure present-ing information about this MBA program. In the brochure, there was a “snapshot” of the student

body, indicating that it was either 19% women (low representation) or 45% women (high repre-sentation) embedded within a variety of filler information.2 After viewing the brochure, partici-pants were asked to recall the proportion of the MBA program that was women in a write-in box, and their response (correct vs. incorrect) served as the attention check. Next participants responded to questions about their perceptions of the program including their anticipated level of power as a student in the program (α = .92; adapted from Anderson et al., 2012 and Study 1). For example, one reverse-coded item stated, “My ideas and opinions would be frequently ignored.”

Next, participants indicated their interest in the MBA program on three scale items (e.g., “How interested are you in [program name]?”; α = .96) with response options from 1 (“Not at all”) to 7 (“Extremely”). Participants then indicated their interest in attending business schools with two items (i.e., “In general, how likely would you be to consider applying to business schools?” and “In general, how likely would you be to consider attending a business school?”) with response options from 1 (“Very unlikely”) to 7 (“Very likely”), r(113) = .95, p < .001. Participants then completed a measure of gender identity centrality (α = .80; Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992). The meas-ure consisted of four items such as, “The gender I belong to is an important reflection of who I am,” and participants indicated their level of agreement with each item on a 7-point scale anchored by 1 (“Strongly disagree”) and 7 (“Strongly agree”). Finally, participants reported demograph-ics and were debriefed.

ResultsFirst, we investigated the effects of our gender representation manipulation. As expected, our female participants anticipated having more power when female representation was high (M = 4.64, SE = .11) compared to low (M = 4.20, SE = .14), t(113) = −2.48, p = .02, ηp

2 = .05. They were more interested in the MBA program when female representation was high (M = 2.63, SE = .21) compared to low (M = 1.43, SE = .19),

by guest on September 30, 2014gpi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

8 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

t(113) = −2.08, p = .04, ηp2 = .04. Participants

were also more interested in business schools in general when female representation was high (M = 2.50, SE = .19) compared to low (M = 1.97, SE = .19), t(113) = −1.95, p = .05, ηp

2 = .03.We tested the hypothesized downstream

effects of female representation in a path model using IBM® SPSS® Amos. Table 1 reports the zero-order correlations between the variables in the model, and the results detailed next are dis-played in Figure 2. Parameters were estimated using the method of maximum likelihood. There were no missing values and consequently no par-ticipants were dropped from the analysis.

All paths were in the predicted direction and statistically significant. First, female representa-tion in the MBA program positively predicted anticipated power, β = .23, p = .01. Women expected to have less power when they learned that the program had low female representation compared to high female representation. Second, women who anticipated having more power were more interested in attending the MBA program, β = .23, p = .01. Third, women’s interest in the spe-cific MBA program predicted increased interest in business schools in general, β = .82, p < .001.

Model fit was assessed using chi-square, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), and inspection of the standard-ized residual covariances (Schreiber, Stage, King, Nora, & Barlow, 2006). These criteria converged on good model fit. The chi-square was small and nonsignificant, χ2(3) = 2.67, p = .45, indicating good model fit. The RMSEA was 0.00 with a 90% confidence interval between 0.00 and 0.15, indicating fair model fit. The range of the 90% confidence interval was wider than ideal, but RMSEA estimates are not ideal assessments of model fit for models with lower degrees of free-dom (Kenny, Kaniskan, & McCoach, 2013). Next, the SRMR was 0.06, clearly below the 0.08 threshold for indicating good model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Finally, we inspected the standard-ized residual covariances to determine if the model failed to account for a significant relation-ship among the variables. However, none of the standardized residuals were significant, Zs < 1.47. Together these different measures provided con-verging evidence that our model fit the data well.

Gender identity centrality did not moderate any of the results reported here.

Table 1. Zero-order correlations between variables in Study 2.

1 2 3 4

1. Female representation (low vs. high) — .23* .19* .18+

2. Anticipated power — .24** .17+

3. Interest in MBA program — .82***4. Interest in business schools —

+p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Interest in businessschools

Female representationin program

(0 = low, 1 = high)

Anticipated powerin MBA program

Interest in MBAprogram

.82**.23*.23*

χ2(3) = 2.67, p = .45RMSEA = .000, SRMR = 0.06

Figure 2. Path model with standardized coefficients and model fit indices (N = 115) for Study 2.*p < .05,**p < .001.

by guest on September 30, 2014gpi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Chen and Moons 9

DiscussionBuilding on Study 1, Study 2 experimentally iden-tified an important mechanism by which male-dominated fields deter women from participating in them. We hypothesized and found that women became disinterested in a male-dominated domain because they anticipated lacking interper-sonal power in those contexts. Importantly, infor-mation about the gender representation within one academic environment (in this case, an MBA program) was sufficient to affect women’s inter-est in the domain more generally.

The present findings were not moderated by gender identity centrality (importance of one’s gender to the self). Our results indicate that, regardless of their level of gender identity cen-trality, women inferred that they would have low interpersonal power in a male-dominated domain and consequently intended to avoid it. One pos-sibility is that having low interpersonal power is not a prototypical form of prejudice or discrimi-nation. Consequently, individual differences in gender identity may not be strongly associated with expectations of interpersonal power but with more overt forms of prejudice and discrimi-nation (e.g., presumed incompetence). It is also possible that gender identity centrality does not necessarily predict one’s expectations of being stigmatized, that is, gender-related stigma con-sciousness, which we did not measure directly in this experiment. It would be reasonable to expect that that there is individual variation in the extent to which people care about having high interper-sonal power, and future research could investi-gate whether this individual difference moderates the effects documented in the present work.

Study 2 focused on the effect of gender repre-sentation on women’s interest in a domain. However, it is necessary for future investigations to include men. It would be reasonable to predict that parallel findings would be obtained for men, such that high representation of women leads men to infer that they will lack interpersonal power and subsequently avoid the domain. If so, these findings would suggest that all gender une-ven domains, from computer science to nursing,

are at risk of increasing gender disparities barring no interventions to change the perception of these fields. On the other hand, men may not exhibit the same effects as women because the generally high level of interpersonal power that they have in society at large could override situa-tional losses in interpersonal power (see Williams, 1992, 2013). These possibilities are interesting and warrant follow-up research.

General DiscussionAcross two studies, we found that women were less motivated to enter male-dominated domains because they anticipated having low interper-sonal power in those contexts. Our work pro-vides a novel explanation for why women may avoid male-dominated fields. Given that all indi-viduals have the need for interpersonal power (Kelley, 1971; Keltner et al., 2003), we had no a priori hypotheses about the role that race would play in our findings. Therefore, we believe that the generalizability of our findings is strength-ened by our inclusion of large, racially heteroge-neous samples.

The causes of gender disparities in education and the workplace are complex and multifaceted. Our findings complement the literature docu-menting the importance of belonging for wom-en’s interest and persistence in male-dominated domains (e.g., Murphy et al., 2007; Walton et al., in press). In conjunction with these studies, we have shown that male-dominated environments have multiple types of threats that discourage women from entering them: the threat of low belonging and the threat of low interpersonal power. Follow-up research is needed to deter-mine the contextual factors and individual differ-ences that influence the relative importance of women’s concerns about interpersonal power versus other concerns (e.g., self-efficacy, belong-ing) for garnering their interest in the domain. Identifying the situations in which the anticipa-tion of interpersonal power is a particularly influ-ential determinant of women’s interest in a domain will be essential for designing effective

by guest on September 30, 2014gpi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

10 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

interventions to increase women’s participation in these contexts.

The limitations of Studies 1 and 2 offer direc-tions for future research. Our investigation focused on the effect of gender representation on women’s anticipated interpersonal power. Study 1 established a correlation between per-ceived representation and women’s anticipated interpersonal power, whereas Study 2 demon-strated a causal effect of female representation on women’s anticipated interpersonal power. Additional studies are necessary to examine the threshold at which female representation lowers women’s anticipated power, and this threshold may depend on the stereotypicality of the domain. For instance, more male-stereotypic domains such as computer science may have higher thresholds for low female representation such that delicate imbalances such as 45% female to 55% female could affect women’s anticipated power. Further, it is possible that actual gender representation and stereotypicality of the domain independently affect women’s anticipated power within that context. For instance, a woman may anticipate high power in an English class despite the fact that she is in the numerical minority. In contrast, a woman may expect to have low inter-personal power in an advanced computer science course, even if there is even gender representa-tion in her class. Therefore, additional research is needed to parse out the effects of numeric repre-sentation and the stereotypicality of a domain on women’s anticipated interpersonal power and how it compares to men’s.

Organizations and institutions aiming to attract more women should demonstrate that female employees have considerable interper-sonal power. More broadly, interventions that make women believe they would be socially pow-erful in these settings (e.g., Carney, Cuddy, & Yap, 2010) may increase their participation in male-dominated fields. Furthermore, changing the cul-ture of male-dominated fields to endow women with more interpersonal power (e.g., Aronson & Bridgeman, 1979) may be essential to increasing and maintaining gender diversity in these envi-ronments. In sum, expectations of interpersonal

power can both account for existing gender dis-parities and may offer a new route by which these disparities can be ameliorated.

FundingThis research was supported by a UC Davis Chancellor’s postdoctoral fellowship to the first author.

Notes1. We also conducted the mediation and reverse-

mediation models with SAT math scores as a covariate. In the mediation model, the total effect of gender on STEM interest became margin-ally significant, p = .08; however the 95% CI of the indirect effect of gender through power on STEM interest did not contain zero [−.14, .02], indicating mediation. The remaining results and significance levels were unchanged. Given that a significant path from gender to STEM interest is not a necessary condition to establish mediation (Zhao, Lynch, & Chen, 2010), these analyses also indicate that the mediation model is preferred to the reverse mediation model.

2. Because the actual percentage of women in the MBA program was 33%, we operationalized high representation as 45%.

ReferencesAmerican Association of University Women (AAUW).

(2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineer-ing, and mathematics (A report by C. Hill, C. Corbett, & A. Rose). Washington, DC: Author.

Anderson, C., John, O. P., & Keltner, D. (2012). The personal sense of power: An interaction-ist approach. Journal of Personality, 80, 313–344. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00734.x

Anderson, C., & Kilduff, G. (2009). The pursuit of status in social groups. Current Directions in Psy-chological Science, 18, 295–298. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01655.x

Anderson, C., Kraus, M. W., Galinsky, A. D., & Kelt-ner, D. (2012). Sociometric status and subjec-tive well-being. Psychological Science, 23, 764–771. doi:10.1177/0956797611434537

Apfelbaum, E. P., Phillips, K. W., & Richeson, J. A. (2014). Rethinking the baseline in diversity research: Should we be explaining the effects of homogeneity? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 235–244. doi:10.1177/1745691614527466

by guest on September 30, 2014gpi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Chen and Moons 11

Aronson, E., & Bridgeman, D. (1979). Jigsaw groups and the desegregated classroom: In pursuit of com-mon goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 438–446. doi:10.1177/014616727900500405

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1983). The relationship of mathematics self-efficacy expectations to the selection of science-based college majors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 23, 329–345. doi:10.1016/0001-8791(83)90046-5

Blickenstaff, J. C. (2005). Women and science careers: Leaky pipeline or gender filter? Gender and Education, 17, 369–386. doi:10.1080/09540250500145072

Carney, D. R., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Yap, A. J. (2010). Power posing: Brief nonverbal displays cause changes in neuroendocrine levels and risk tol-erance. Psychological Science, 21, 1363–1368. doi:10.1177/0956797610383437

Catalyst. (2014). U.S. women in business [Graph depict-ing representation of women at different levels of business]. Retrieved from http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/us-women-business

Davies, P. G., Spencer, S. J., Quinn, D. M., & Gerhard-stein, R. (2002). Consuming images: How televi-sion commercials that elicit stereotype threat can restrain women academically and professionally. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1615–1628. doi:10.1177/014616702237644

Diekman, A. B., Clark, E. K., Johnston, A. M., Brown, E. R., & Steinberg, M. (2011). Malleability in com-munal goals and beliefs influences attraction to STEM careers: Evidence for a goal congruity per-spective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 902–918. doi:10.1037/a0025199

Ghavami, N., & Peplau, L. A. (2013). An intersectional analyses of gender and ethnic stereotypes: Testing three hypotheses. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, 113–127. doi:10.1177/0361684312464203

Graduate Management Admission Council. (2004). Finding future women MBAs: B-schools still face challenges. Graduate Management News. Retrieved from www.gmac.com

Graduate Management Admission Council. (2012). Application Trends Survey Report. Reston, VA: GMAC.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conven-tional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118

Inzlicht, M., & Ben-Zeev, T. (2000). A threatening intellectual environment: Why females are sus-ceptible to experiencing problem-solving deficits in the presence of males. Psychological Science, 11, 365–371. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00272

Inzlicht, M., & Ben-Zeev, T. (2003). Do high-achiev-ing female students underperform in private? The implications of threatening environments on intel-lectual processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 796–805. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.796

Inzlicht, M., Kaiser, C. R., & Major, B. (2008). The face of chauvinism: How prejudice expectations shape perceptions of facial affect. Journal of Experimen-tal Social Psychology, 44, 758–766. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2007.06.004

Kelley, H. H. (1971). Attribution in social interaction. Mor-ristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psycho-logical Review, 110, 265–284. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.265

Kenny, D. A., Kaniskan, B., & McCoach, D. B. (2013). The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Unpublished paper.

Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., & Risti-kari, T. (2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psycho-logical Bulletin, 137, 616–642. doi:10.1037/a0023557

Latu, I. M., Schmid Mast, M., Lammers, J., & Bombari, D. (2013). Successful female leaders empower women’s behavior in leadership tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 444–448. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2013.01.003

London, B., Downey, G., Romero-Canyas, R., Rattan, A., & Tyson, D. (2012). Gender rejection sensitiv-ity and academic self-silencing in women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 961–979. doi:10.1037/a0026615

Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one’s social iden-tity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 302–318. doi:10.1177/0146167292183006

Mason, W., & Suri, S. (2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behavio-ral Research Methods, 44, 1–23. doi:0.3758/s13428-011-0124-6

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. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 16474–16479. doi:10.1073/pnas.1211286109

by guest on September 30, 2014gpi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

12 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

Murphy, M. C., Steele, C. M., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Signaling threat: How situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychological Science, 18, 879–885. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01995.x

Oakley, J. G. (2000). Gender-based barriers to senior management positions: Understanding the scar-city of female CEOs. Journal of Business Ethics, 27, 321–334. doi:10.1023/a:1006226129868

Park, G., Lubinsky, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2008). Abil-ity differences among people who have com-mensurate degrees matter for scientific creativity. Psychological Science, 19, 957–961. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02182.x

Pinel, E. C. (1999). Stigma consciousness: The psy-chological legacy of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 114–128. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.114

Pinel, E. C. (2004). You’re just saying that because I’m a woman: Stigma consciousness and attribu-tions to discrimination. Self and Identity, 3, 39–51. doi:10.1080/13576500342000031

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav-ior Research Methods, 40, 879–891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879

Pryor, J. H., Eagan, K., Blake, L. P., Hurtado, S., Berdan, J., & Case, M. H. (2012). The American freshman: National norms fall 2012. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.

Rydell, R. J., Rydell, M. T., & Boucher, K. L. (2010). The effect of negative performance stereotypes on learning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 99, 883–896. doi:10.1037/a0021139

Rydell, R. J., Shiffrin, R., Boucher, K. L., van Loo, K., & Rydell, M. T. (2010). Stereotype threat pre-vents perceptual learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), 107, 14042–14047. doi:10.1073/pnas.1002815107

Schmader, T., Johns, M., & Forbes, C. (2008). An inte-grated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance. Psychological Review, 115, 336–356. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.336

Schreiber, J. B., Stage, F. K., King, J., Nora, A., & Bar-low, E. A. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. Journal of Educational Research, 99, 323–337. doi:10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338

Sellers, R. M., Caldwell, C. H., Schmeelk-Cone, K., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2003). The role of racial

identity and racial discrimination in the mental health of African American young adults. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44, 302–317.

Sellers, R. M., & Shelton, J. N. (2003). Racial iden-tity, discrimination, and mental health among African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1079–1092. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.1079

Shapiro, J. R., & Neuberg, S. L. (2007). From stereo-type threat to stereotype threats: Implications of a multi-threat framework for causes, moderators, mediators, consequences, and interventions. Per-sonality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 107–130. doi:10.1177/1088868306294790

Singh, R., Fouad, N. A., Fitzpatrick, M. E., Liu, J. P., Cappaert, K. J., & Figuereido, C. (2013). Stem-ming the tide: Predicting women engineers’ inten-tion to leave. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83, 281–294. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2013.05.007

Smith, P. K., Jostmann, N. B., Galinsky, A. D., & van Dijk, W. (2008). Lacking power impairs execu-tive functions. Psychological Science, 19, 441–447. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02107.x

Steele, J., James, J. B., & Barnett, R. C. (2002). Learn-ing in a man’s world: Examining the perceptions of undergraduate women in male-dominated academic areas. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 46–50. doi:10.1111/1471-6402.00042

Stout, J. G., Dasgupta, N., Hunsinger, M., & McManus, M. A. (2011). STEMing the tide: Using ingroup experts to inoculate women’s self-concept in sci-ence, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 255–270. doi:10.1037/a0021385

Syed, M., & Chemers, M. M. (2011). Ethnic minori-ties and women in STEM: Casting a wide net to address a persistent social problem. Journal of Social Issues, 67, 435–441. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01708.x

U.S. News and World Report. (2014). Best business schools. Retrieved from http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-business-schools/mba-rankings

Van Loo, K. J., & Rydell, R. J. (2013). On the experience of feeling powerful: Perceived power moderates the effect of stereotype threat on women’s math performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulle-tin, 39, 387–400. doi:10.1177/0146167212475320

Walton, G. M., Logel, C., Peach, J. M., Spencer, S. J., & Zanna, M. P. (in press). Two brief social-psychological interventions transform women’s

by guest on September 30, 2014gpi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Chen and Moons 13

experience, relationships, and achievement in engineering. Journal of Educational Psychology.

Williams, C. L. (1992). The glass escalator: Hidden advantages for men in the “female” profes-sions. Social Problems, 39, 253–267. doi:10.2307/ 3096961

Williams, C. L. (2013). The glass escalator, revisited: Gen-der inequality in neoliberal times. Gender & Society, 27, 609–629. doi:10.1177/0891243213490232

Woodcock, A., Hernandez, P. R., Estrada, M., & Schultz, P. W. (2012). The consequences of chronic stereo-type threat: Domain disidentification and attrition (for some). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 635–646. doi:10.1037/a0029120

Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsid-ering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 197–206. doi:10.1086/651257

by guest on September 30, 2014gpi.sagepub.comDownloaded from