Given the critical importance of manuscript review, the development of a more evidence-based approach is needed. Manuscript review is the final step in the research process, and limitations in this aspect of the process may have a negative impact on the quality of published research in psychology and in other disciplines as well. This article examines current findings regarding the strengths and limitations of manuscript review and identifies ways that the process can be improved. To move toward a more evidence-based framework, the current conceptualization of the review process as a method for evaluating manuscripts must be complemented by an appreciation of two dynamics that help shape this process. First, manuscript review is a signal-detection task wherein reviewers and editors attempt to distinguish signals (publishable manuscripts) from noise (manuscripts that do not warrant publication). Second, manuscript review involves a complex social interaction among authors, reviewers, and editors, each of whom brings particular goals to the endeavor and each of whom must communicate with multiple audiences simultaneously to achieve those goals. The practical implications of research in this area are discussed, and preliminary steps for moving toward a more evidence-based approach to manuscript review are outlined.
In her commentary on Buss and von Hippel (2018), Fine (2020) makes 2 primary claims. First, she argues that Buss and von Hippel’s methods and data do not support their conclusions. Second, she argues that Buss and von Hippel made unsubstantiated accusations of ideological bias regarding Fine (2017), thereby creating unnecessary barriers to constructive scientific debate. In this rejoinder, we acknowledge some of her methodological criticisms but provide additional analyses of our data that support our original conclusions. We also expand on Buss and von Hippel’s criticisms of Fine (2017) to clarify why we regard her work as ideologically biased and why we think concerns about bias should be more commonplace in scientific debate.
The claim that autistic people lack a theory of mind—that they fail to understand that other people have a mind or that they themselves have a mind—pervades psychology. This article (a) reviews empirical evidence that fails to support the claim that autistic people are uniquely impaired, much less that all autistic people are universally impaired, on theory-of-mind tasks; (b) highlights original findings that have failed to replicate; (c) documents multiple instances in which the various theory-of-mind tasks fail to relate to each other and fail to account for autistic traits, social interaction, and empathy; (c) summarizes a large body of data, collected by researchers working outside the theory-of-mind rubric, that fails to support assertions made by researchers working inside the theory-of-mind rubric; and (d) concludes that the claim that autistic people lack a theory of mind is empirically questionable and societally harmful.
This research examines the psychological benefits of different sources of workplace social support in a global sample of professional women leaders (N = 1,221). We explored whether and in what way(s) social support from different workplace sources (role models, formal and informal mentors/sponsors, supportive supervisors, and peer support) predicts women’s experience of stereotype threat—or concerns about confirming gender stereotypes—and subsequently their work satisfaction. We did this using cross-sectional data from a survey of international graduate business school alumnae who represented 72 countries, were mostly from Generation X (63.4% aged 35–54), reported directly to General Management or had more senior roles (64.1%), and described their work responsibilities as regional or global (66.4%). Workplace role models emerge as the only statistically reliable predictor of work satisfaction indirectly through reduced stereotype threat concerns. However, role models, informal (but not formal) mentors/sponsors, supportive supervisors, and peer support all directly predict women’s work satisfaction. Implications of the benefits of workplace social support for efforts to reduce work-related gender inequities are discussed.
There has been a great deal of research on the concept of the “leaky pipeline,” which is the progressive loss of competent women faculty in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Research has shown that women academics are less likely than men to be selected, promoted, and retained in STEM departments. In recent years, there have been programs to increase the representation of women in STEM departments, which have resulted in increasing the overall percentage of STEM women faculty in the United States. However, despite these efforts, the percentage of women of color faculty (WOCF) in STEM has decreased. This simultaneous increase in overall numbers of women faculty in STEM and decrease in numbers of women of color faculty in STEM might be because these programs did not consider intersectional barriers. When the intersectionality of race−ethnicity and gender is accounted for, WOCF are more likely to thrive professionally and feel like they matter to the institution. In this article, we consider the unique challenges faced by WOCF in STEM departments within selection, promotion, and retention. Furthermore, we identify the types of interventions and programs that are likely to be particularly effective at fixing these leaks within the pipeline. Last, we call for more research to be conducted to assess whether these programs are actually helpful in remediating these disparities for women of color in STEM departments.
Despite decades of change and repeated attempts by organizations to reduce gender inequality, progress for women in top leadership positions seems to have stalled. This article considers why some of the strategies organizations use to mitigate gender bias do not have their intended consequence, contending that interventions can sometimes backfire and create more problems than they solve. Specifically, we identify how even well-designed interventions can inadvertently increase rather than decrease the tendency to behave in a biased manner and also discuss unintended consequences that can arise once an organization begins to move closer to achieving gender parity. We argue that being attentive to these potential problems and knowledgeable about when and why they occur will increase the effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce gender bias and will equip organizations with better strategies for progressing toward true gender equality.
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.
A growing literature has investigated the role of stereotypes in the underrepresentation of women faculty in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM; Beutel & Nelson, 2005). Extending this literature, the current study of 173 women faculty in STEM fields investigates the role of metastereotypes (perceptions about how others stereotype one’s ingroup; Vorauer, Main, & O’Connell, 1998) on two forms of impression management: self-promotion and ingratiation (Bolino & Turnley, 1999). Results suggest that metastereotypes largely do not affect impression management behaviors; however, engagement in impression management behaviors relates to supervisor ratings. Specifically, using self-promotion tactics was negatively related to supervisor ratings of likability, whereas using ingratiation tactics was positively related to likability. This research has implications for STEM women faculty and their employing institutions.
In this study, individuation (individuated vs. nonindividuated) and goal type (agentic vs. communal) were manipulated to examine STEM professors’ receptiveness toward male and female prospective students’ e-mail requests for meetings. E-mails were sent to a sample of 1,879 STEM professors who had previously recommended their female students for a career development workshop. Findings indicate more receptive responses toward female prospective students, more receptive responses from male professors, and an interaction between prospective student gender and goal type; male prospective students received less receptive responses when they mentioned a communal goal (vs. agentic); however, female prospective students received responses similar in receptiveness, regardless of goal type.
We used qualitative and quantitative data from 70 individuals at different life stages to examine work–family management strategies adopted by men and women across 4 career–family centrality profiles: career-centric, family-centric, dual-centric, and other-centric. Participant interview responses were analyzed using QSR NVivo Version 10. We used a theoretical thematic analysis and a theory-driven coding scheme (Boyatzis, 1998) to examine the data. Data were analyzed in multiple stages carried out by 2 independent coders. We found that men of all centrality profiles, along with dual-centric and career-centric women, leaned back from family to benefit their careers (e.g., delayed having children). Men and women of all centrality profiles scaled back their work demands to benefit family, yet only women reported stepping out of their work role altogether (including career-centric and dual-centric women). This gender-role-congruent finding of women stepping out was supplemented by men, of all centrality profiles, who adopted work–family management strategies aimed at enabling their current or future wives to step out. The findings suggest that in order to fully understand gender equality in the workplace, it is important to understand the social processes occurring at home, including how men and women jointly negotiate managing the work–family interface.
Studies on hiring discrimination typically consider 1 diversity dimension at a time. Building on a multiple categorization and cognitive matching perspective, this study investigated how applicants’ gender intersects with other status characteristics (ethnicity) and cognitive job demands for a better understanding of gender discrimination in resumé screening. An experimental study among 214 Belgian human resources professionals showed that a Maghreb/Arab female applicant received lower job suitability ratings compared with equally qualified native/Belgian female and Maghreb/Arab male applicants when they applied for a high-cognitive demanding job. No differences were found when they applied for a low-cognitive demanding job. Study findings point to the complexity of gender discrimination in hiring (i.e., resumé screening) as double jeopardy of ethnic minority women (i.e., Maghreb/Arab) may also depend on the type of job (i.e., cognitive demanding or not) one is applying for. We conclude with a critical reflection on findings, future research opportunities and implications for practice, like anonymous resumé screening.
Because women continue to be a numerical minority in top management, the symbolic value of sex diversity of top management might be particularly important for women. The purpose of the current study is to understand when and why the percentage of women in top management affects women’s and men’s attraction to an organization by manipulating the percentage of women in top management that reflect varying degrees of disparity. We used experimental methods in which adults with full-time jobs evaluated an organization that included information about the percentage of women in top management that reflect varying degrees of disparity (53%, 23%, or 3%). Results showed that women were more attracted than men to an organization with the highest levels of women in top management that represent minimum disparity. The results showed that women perceived more fairness for women than did men for the condition with women representing 53% of management or minimum disparity. Women also perceived less fairness for women than did male participants in the condition of maximum disparity or when women represented 3% of top management. The current research provides important implications that can inform organizations’ efforts to attract women. In particular, the current research suggests that women use information about the sex composition of a company’s top management positions, and that this information influences organizational attraction because they perceive such organizations to be fair for women.
This research examines bias against attractive women applying for masculine jobs—a phenomenon called the “beauty is beastly” effect. We show this effect in multiple studies and examine one way to mitigate the bias. Specifically, when we included more than one attractive applicant on the finalist slate, the beauty is beastly effect was eliminated. The findings show that people’s decisions are fraught with biases. Even though one might believe they are hiring the best person for the job, they can be biased in favor of or against a woman based on her looks (although this effect generally does not extend to men). In addition, just altering the composition of those in the finalist pool can create another bias in who is selected for jobs. One solution is to train people to reduce their biases and ensure more fair selection processes.
Women in academia receive fewer prestigious awards than their male counterparts. This gender gap may emerge purely from structural factors (e.g., gender differences in time spent in academia, institutional prestige, and academic performance), or from a combination of structural and psychological factors (e.g., gender schemas). To test these competing predictions, we assessed the independent contribution of year of degree, institutional prestige (a composite of prestige of PhD school and current affiliation), academic performance (total publications, total cites, and h-index), and gender to the prestige of awards earned by male (N = 298) and female (N = 134) academic neuroscientists. Award prestige was determined by an independent set of neuroscientists. Men earned more prestigious awards than women after controlling for institutional prestige, year of degree, and total publications. But after controlling for total citations or h-index, no gender difference appeared. Mediation analyses revealed that the gender disparity in awards was mediated by a gender difference in total cites and h-index. There was a reciprocal effect as well, in that the gender disparity in total cites and h-index was partially mediated by awards. These results point to an indirect path by which psychological factors may create gender disparities in academic awards: gender schemas may lead to women's papers receiving fewer citations than men's papers, resulting in more prestigious awards for men than for women. Additionally, our results suggest that gender disparities in awards and citations may reinforce each other. Practical implications for promoting gender equality in academic awards are discussed.
