“When most people think of the average tech entrepreneur, the pale guy who codes while playing World of Warcraft in his gadget-filled basement pops up.”(Wei 2012)
2. How Stereotypes Affect Perceptions in Tech Fields
2.1. Self-Perceptions of Skill
2.2. Self-Perceptions of Belonging
2.3. Perceptions of Others’ Treatment
2.4. The Current Research
4. Analytical Plan and Measures
4.1. Dependent Variables
4.1.1. Identity Measures
4.1.2. Supervisor Treatment Measures
4.1.3. Turnover Intention Measure
4.2. Independent Variables
4.2.1. Stereotypes about Successful Tech Work
4.2.2. Self-Perception Scales
4.2.3. Cultural and Skill Alignment Measures
4.2.4. Gender and Race Measures
4.2.5. Employee Level
5.1. Summary Statistics
5.2. What Are the Stereotypes About Successful Tech Work?
5.3. How Do Individuals Rate Themselves?
5.4. Are Women Less Likely to Align with the Stereotypes of Successful Tech Work?
5.5. Analytical Strategy
5.6. Is Alignment Associated with Workplace Outcomes?
5.7. Does Career Stage Matter?
6. Summary and Conclusions
Conflicts of Interest
Intensive Work Commitment
|Long Working Hours||0.744||0.111||0.101|
|Company 1||Cultural Alignment||51%||37% **|
|Company 2||Cultural Alignment||58%||36% *|
|Company 3||Cultural Alignment||53%||42%|
|Skill Alignment||71%||32% **|
|Company 4||Cultural Alignment||62%||50%|
|Company 5||Cultural Alignment||57%||57%|
|Company 6||Cultural Alignment||58%||34% ***|
|Company 7||Cultural Alignment||55%||30% ***|
- Alfrey, Lauren, and France Winddance Twine. 2016. Gender-Fluid Geek Girls: Negotiating Inequality Regimes in the Tech Industry. Gender & Society 31: 28–50. [Google Scholar]
- Beede, David, Tiffany Julian, David Langdon, George McKittrick, Beethika Khan, and Mark Doms. 2011. Women in STEM: A Gender Gap to Innovation; U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration Report. Washington: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration.
- Beilock, Sian L., and Thomas H. Carr. 2005. When High-Powered People Fail: Working Memory and ‘Choking Under Pressure’ in Math. Psychological Science 16: 101–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Blair-Loy, Mary, and Erin A. Cech. Misconceiving Merit: Consequences of the Work Devotion Schema in Academic Science and Engineering. Paper presented at the American Sociological Association Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA, USA, 20–23 August 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Cech, Erin. 2015. Engineers and Engineeresses? Self-conceptions and the Development of Gendered Professional Identities. Sociological Perspectives 58: 56–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cech, Erin, Brian Rubineau, Susan Silbey, and Caroll Seron. 2011. Professional Role Confidence and Gendered Persistence in Engineering. American Sociological Review 76: 641–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, Linchiat, and Jon A. Krosnick. 2009. National Surveys Via RDD Telephone Interviewing Versus the Internet: Comparing Sample Representativeness and Response Quality. Public Opinion Quarterly 73: 641–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Charles, Maria, and David B. Grusky. 2004. Occupational Ghettos: The Worldwide Segregation of Women and Men. Stanford: Stanford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Cheryan, Sapna, Victoria C. Plaut, Paul G. Davies, and Claude M. Steele. 2009. Ambient Belonging: How Stereotypical Cues Impact Gender Participation in Computer Science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 97: 1045–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cheryan, Sapna, John Oliver Siy, Marissa Vichayapai, Benjamin J. Drury, and Saenam Kim. 2011. Do Female and Male Role Models Who Embody STEM Stereotypes Hinder Women’s Anticipated Success in STEM? Social Psychological and Personality Science 2: 656–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Correll, Shelley J. 2001. Gender and the Career Choice Process: The Role of Biased Self-Assessments. American Journal of Sociology 106: 1691–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Correll, Shelley J. 2004. Constraints into Preferences: Gender, Status, and Emerging Career Aspirations. American Sociological Review 69: 93–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Correll, Shelley J., Cecilia L. Ridgeway, Ezra W. Zuckerman, Sharon Jank, Sara Jordan-Bloch, and Sandra Nakagawa. 2017. It’s the Conventional Thought that Counts: How Third-order Inference Produces Status Advantage. American Sociological Review. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Correll, Shelley J., and Lori Nishiura Mackenzie. 2016. The Visibility Gap. Harvard Business Review. September 13. Available online: https://hbr.org/2016/09/to-succeed-in-tech-women-need-more-visibility (accessed on 19 December 2016).
- Curtin, Richard, Stanley Presser, and Eleanor Singer. 2000. The Effects of Response Rate Changes on the Index of Consumer Sentiment. Public Opinion Quarterly 64: 413–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Davies, Paul G., Steven J. Spencer, Diane M. Quinn, and Rebecca Gerhardstein. 2002. Consuming Images: How Television Commercials that Elicit Stereotype Threat Can Restrain Women Academically and Professionally. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28: 1615–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diekman, Amanda B., Mia Steinberg, Elizabeth R. Brown, Aimee L. Belanger, and Emily K. Clark. 2016. A Goal Congruity Model of Role Entry, Engagement, and Exit: Understanding Communal Goal Processes in STEM Gender Gaps. Personality and Social Psychology Review. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Diekman, Amanda B., Elizabeth R. Brown, Amanda M. Johnston, and Emily K. Clark. 2010. Seeking Congruity Between Goals and Roles: A New Look at Why Women Opt Out of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Careers. Psychological Science 21: 1051–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ensher, Ellen A., Elisa J. Grant-Vallone, and Stewart I. Donaldson. 2001. Effects of Perceived Discrimination on Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, and Grievances. Human Resource Development Quarterly 12: 53–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foschi, Martha. 1996. Double Standards in the Evaluation of Men and Women. Social Psychology Quarterly 59: 237–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foschi, Martha. 2000. Double Standards for Competence: Theory and Research. Annual Review of Sociology 26: 21–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glass, Jennifer L., Sharon Sassler, Yael Levitte, and Katherine M. Michelmore. 2013. What’s So Special about STEM? A Comparison of Women’s Retention in STEM and Professional Occupations. Social Forces 92: 723–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gutek, Barbara A., Aaron Groff Cohen, and Anne Tsui. 1996. Reactions to Perceived Sex Discrimination. Human Relations 49: 791–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hausmann, Leslie R. M., Feifei Ye, Janet Ward Schofield, and Rochelle L. Woods. 2009. Sense of Belonging and Persistence in White and African American First-Year Students. Research in Higher Education 50: 649–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heilman, Madeline E. 2001. Description and Prescription: How Gender Stereotypes Prevent Women’s Ascent up the Organizational Ladder. Journal of Social Issues 57: 657–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hill, Catherine, Christianne Corbett, and Andresse St. Rose. 2010. Why So Few? Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. American Association of University Women Report. Washington: American Association of University Women. [Google Scholar]
- Holbrook, Allyson L., Melanie C. Green, and Jon A. Krosnick. 2003. Telephone Versus Face-to-Face Interviewing of National Probability Samples with Long Questionnaires: Comparisons of Respondent Satisficing and Social Desirability Response Bias. Public Opinion Quarterly 67: 79–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huhman, Heather R. 2012. STEM Fields and the Gender Gap: Where are the Women? Forbes. June 20. Available online: http://www.forbes.com/sites/work-in-progress/2012/06/20/stem-fields-and-the-gender-gap-where-are-the-women/ (accessed on 27 December 2012).
- Hymowitz, Carol, and Timothy Schellhardt. 1986. The Glass Ceiling: Why Women Can’t Seem to Break the Invisible Barrier that Blocks Them from the Top Jobs. The Wall Street Journal. [Google Scholar]
- Jiménez, Tomás R., and Adam L. Horowitz. 2013. When White is Just Alright: How Immigrants Redefine Achievement and Reconfigure the Ethnoracial Hierarchy. American Sociological Review 78: 849–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaiser, Cheryl R., Brenda Major, and Shannon K. McCoy. 2004. Expectations about the Future and the Emotional Consequences of Perceiving Prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 30: 173–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. 1977. Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books. [Google Scholar]
- Keeter, Scott, Carolyn Miller, Andrew Kohut, Robert M. Groves, and Stanley Presser. 2000. Consequences of Reducing Nonresponse in a National Telephone Survey. Public Opinion Quarterly 64: 125–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Margolis, Jane, and Allan Fisher. 2002. Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [Google Scholar]
- Markham, William T., Scott J. South, Charles M. Bonjean, and Judy Corder. 1985. Gender and Opportunity in the Federal Bureaucracy. American Journal of Sociology 91: 129–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martell, Richard F., David M. Lane, and Cynthia Emrich. 1996. Male-Female Differences: A Computer Simulation. American Psychologist 51: 157–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meyersson Milgrom, Eva M., and Trond Petersen. 2006. The Glass Ceiling in the United States and Sweden: Lessons from the Family-Friendly Corner of the World, 1970 to 1990. In The Declining Significance of Gender. Edited by Francine D. Blau, Mary C. Brinton and David B. Grusky. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. [Google Scholar]
- Moss-Racusin, Corinne A., John F. Dovidio, Victoria L. Brescoll, Mark J. Graham, and Jo Handelsman. 2012. Science Faculty’s Subtle Gender Biases Favor Male Students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109: 16474–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Murphy, Mary C., Claude M. Steele, and James J. Gross. 2007. Signaling Threat: How Situational Cues Affect Women in Math, Science, and Engineering Settings. Psychological Science 18: 879–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nosek, Brian A., Mahzarin R. Banaji, and Anthony G. Greenwald. 2002. Math = Male, Me = Female, Therefore Math ≠ Me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83: 44–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Podolny, Joel M. 2005. Status Signals. Princeton: Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Reskin, Barbara F., and Debra Branch McBrier. 2000. Why Not Ascription? Organizations’ Employment of Male and Female Managers. American Sociological Review 65: 210–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ridgeway, Cecilia L. 2011. Framed by Gender: How Gender Inequality Persists in the Modern World. New York: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Rivera, Lauren A. 2012. Hiring as Cultural Matching: The Case of Elite Professional Service Firms. American Sociological Review 77: 999–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shih, Margaret, Todd L. Pittinsky, and Nalini Ambady. 1999. Stereotype Susceptibility: Identity Salience and Shifts in Quantitative Performance. Psychological Science 10: 80–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silva, Christine, Nancy M. Carter, and Anna Beninger. 2012. Good Intentions, Imperfect Execution? Women Get Fewer of the "Hot Jobs" Needed to Advance. Catalyst, November 21. [Google Scholar]
- Simard, Caroline, Andrea Davies Henderson, Shannon K. Gilmartin, Londa Schiebinger, and Telle Whitney. 2007. Climbing the Technical Ladder: Obstacles and Solutions for Mid-Level Women in Technology. Available online: http://gender.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Climbing_the_Technical_Ladder.pdf (accessed on 2 May 2017).
- Spencer, Steven J., Claude M. Steele, and Diane M. Quinn. 1999. Stereotype Threat and Women’s Math Performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 35: 4–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stainback, Kevin, and Matthew Irvin. 2012. Workplace Racial Composition, Perceived Discrimination, and Organizational Attachment. Social Science Research 41: 657–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Steele, Claude M. 1997. A Threat in the Air: How Stereotypes Shape Intellectual Identity and Performance. American Psychologist 52: 613–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Steinpreis, Rhea E., Katie A. Anders, and Dawn Ritzke. 1999. The Impact of Gender on the Review of the Curricula Vitae of Job Applicants and Tenure Candidates: A National Empirical Study. Sex Roles 41: 509–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tiedens, Laura Z., and Susan Linton. 2001. Judgment under emotional uncertainty: The effects of specific emotions on information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81: 973–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Uhlmann, Eric Luis, and Geoffrey L. Cohen. 2005. Constructed Criteria: Redefining Merit to Justify Discrimination. Psychological Science 16: 474–80. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Wei, Jenn. 2012. Why Women VCs Shouldn’t Care about the Silicon Valley Stereotype. Washington Post. August 27 Retrieved. Available online: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-innovations/why-women-vcs-shouldnt-care-about-the-silicon-valley-stereotype/2012/08/27/7d9fba02-f084-11e1-b74c-84ed55e0300b_story.html (accessed on 6 December 2012).
- Weary, Gifford, Jill A. Jacobson, John A. Edwards, and Stephanie J. Tobin. 2001. Chronic and temporarily activated causal uncertainty beliefs and stereotype usage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81: 206–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Winship, Christopher, and Larry Radbill. 1994. Sampling Weights and Regression Analysis. Sociological Methods and Research 23: 230–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wynn, Alison T., and Shelley J. Correll. Puncturing the Pipeline: Do Technology Companies Alienate Women in Recruiting Sessions? Paper presented at American Sociological Association Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA, USA, 16–19 August 2014. [Google Scholar]
Research directors at the Anita Borg and Clayman Institutes recruited seven companies to participate in the study. Their recruitment strategy was designed to capture organizational variation within the broad computer and information technology industry and to focus on companies that were known to employ top technical talent. We are unable to name the companies due to promised confidentiality. At the time the survey was completed, software and hardware industry segments were the largest employers in the high-technology sector in Silicon Valley, and these industry segments constitute the company sample. Surveys were administered to employees who comprised the core Silicon Valley technical workforce at each participating company; companies defined their “core technical workforce in the Silicon Valley region” for the researchers. The vast majority of survey respondents identified their field of expertise as software development/engineering and hardware engineering. For more information about the survey methodology, see (Simard et al. 2007).
Some recent research indicates that low response rates are not necessarily associated with significant declines in sample representativeness (Chang and Krosnick 2009; Curtin et al. 2000; Keeter et al. 2000). For example, Chang and Krosnick (2009) found that a sample with a 25% response rate was just as representative as a 43% response rate sample. In addition, response rates have generally declined over time, and the response rates obtained today are considerably lower than those obtainable in 1980, holding budget constant over time (Chang and Krosnick 2009; Holbrook et al. 2003).
Because women are underrepresented in the larger tech industry, an overrepresentation in the sample facilitates analysis by gender. While some might claim sample overrepresentation requires weights, others have argued that sampling weights are not necessary in multivariate analysis if the weight is not a function of the dependent variable, and that weighting in multivariate analysis, at least with the OLS estimator, actually produces inefficient estimates (Winship and Radbill 1994). Thus, we did not include sampling weights in our analysis.
We also ran our analyses with multiple imputation using a multivariate normal model (models available upon request). The patterns of results remain the same. Though some findings change slightly in magnitude and/or in level of significance, our overall arguments remain unchanged. Since very few data are missing, deleting the missing cases does not change our results substantially.
For the “plan to switch career fields” variable described below, there is a “don’t know” answer choice, which we coded as missing.
We used principal-component factor analysis with varimax orthogonal rotations to derive the cultural and skill dimensions. The cultural dimension is a combination of two factors: intensive work commitment and geeky personality. We combined these factors due to their theoretical relevance to cultural perceptions of tech workers. The skill dimension is comprised of one factor. More information is available in the Appendix A.
The scale is constructed by dividing the sum of the question responses by the total number of questions answered. Thus, a value is created for every observation for which there is a response to at least one item (i.e., at least one variable in the scale is not missing). The summative score is divided by the number of items over which the sum is calculated. The scale value thus represents an average.
Because self-ratings are more complicated and nuanced than ratings of successful tech workers, they do not align as neatly with particular “types.” Thus, we prioritized obtaining a good scale (i.e., higher Cronbach’s alpha values) for the ratings of successful tech workers rather than self-ratings. Factor loadings and bivariate Pearson’s correlations of the scale items are available in the Appendix. Breakdowns by gender are available upon request.
We also ran models using the raw difference between individuals’ self-ratings and their ratings of successful tech workers as the dependent variable. The overall patterns are consistent with our direction-magnitude interaction models, but our models provide more specific information. We also ran models using a spline variable. Our direction-magnitude interaction models show how the difference between self-ratings and ratings of successful tech workers affects our outcome variables as the difference gets more negative for the no-alignment group and more positive for the alignment group; spline models show the effect as the difference gets more positive for both groups. Even so, the results of the spline models are largely similar to our models, with the same overall patterns. Models are available upon request.
Some might wonder if men rate themselves higher on all domains than women. It is worth noting in this regard that the gap between men and women’s self-ratings is considerably larger on the cultural domain than on the skill domain. Further, Correll (2001) shows that while men make higher assessments of their mathematical ability, women actually assess their verbal ability higher. This suggests that self-ratings are affected by the gender typing of the domain being considered.
Technically, the effect for those who believe they align equals the interaction coefficient combined with the absolute value coefficient.
While the R2 is low, our main goal is not to explain all variance in our dependent variables. Instead, we are interested in mechanisms that contribute to the gender gap. As research on the effects of stereotypes shows, even small effects can have large impacts as they cumulate over careers (Martell et al. 1996).
It is also possible that the direction-magnitude interaction models (with a dummy variable, absolute value and their interaction) split up the variance in alignment variables so much that it becomes hard to detect independent effects of each component of alignment.
In studies like this, concerns about endogeneity must also be considered. One alternative explanation for our results could be that women perceive a lack of alignment because their supervisors treat them poorly. (In other words, the direction of causality may be reversed.) However, this seems unlikely due to the construction of our alignment variables. Survey respondents were asked to rate the average successful tech worker on a number of attributes, then they rated themselves on those same attributes. Therefore, since we did not directly ask respondents to report perceptions of alignment, but rather constructed the alignment variable from their trait assessments, it seems unlikely that the causal direction could be reversed in this way. While endogeneity can never be ruled out by cross-sectional data, this particular analysis is less susceptible to such concerns due to the way the variables were constructed.
Furthermore, in analyses not shown, we added the identification and perception of supervisor treatment variables as independent variables to the model predicting plans to switch career fields and found that identification with the tech profession, perception that supervisor values opinion, and perception that supervisor assigns high visibility projects all significantly predict plans to switch career fields (p < 0.05). Therefore, by impacting these variables, alignment also indirectly impacts plans to switch career fields in the next 12 months.
|Identify with tech profession a||3.83 |
|Identify with company a||3.40 |
|Supervisor values opinions a||3.91 |
|Supervisor assigns high visibility projects a||3.64 |
|Plan to switch career fields b||1.89 |
|Cultural Alignment (=1)||0.57||0.38 ***|
|Cultural Alignment Absolute Value||0.51 |
|Skill Alignment (=1)||0.66||0.53 ***|
|Skill Alignment Absolute Value||0.58 |
|Other Race||0.06 |
|Low (Entry) Level||0.20 |
|ID with Company||ID with Tech Profession|
|Variables||Model 1||Model 2||Model 3||Model 4||Model 5||Model 6|
|Other Race||0.223 *|
|Cultural Alignment (=1 when self-rating equals or exceeds successful tech rating)||0.134 ***|
|Negative Cultural Self-Assessment, Magnitude (Absolute Value)||−0.216|
|Positive Cultural Self-Assessment, Magnitude (Interaction Term)||0.239 +|
|Skill Alignment (=1 when self-rating equals or exceeds successful tech rating)||−0.053 *|
|Negative Skill Self-Assessment, Magnitude (Absolute Value)||0.083|
|Positive Skill Self-Assessment, Magnitude (Interaction Term)||−0.274 *|
|Supervisor Values Opinion||Assigns High Visibility Projects|
|Variables||Model 1||Model 2||Model 3||Model 4||Model 5||Model 6|
|Female (=1)||−0.133 *|
|Cultural Alignment (=1 when self-rating equals or exceeds successful tech rating)||0.158 *|
|Negative Cultural Self-Assessment, Magnitude (Absolute Value)||−0.305 **|
|Positive Cultural Self-Assessment, Magnitude (Interaction Term)||0.501 **|
|Skill Alignment (=1 when self-rating equals or exceeds successful tech rating)||−0.057|
|Negative Skill Self-Assessment, Magnitude (Absolute Value)||0.087 +|
|Positive Skill Self-Assessment, Magnitude (Interaction Term)||−0.313 ***|
|Variables||Model 1||Model 2||Model 3|
|Cultural Alignment (=1 when self-rating equals or exceeds successful tech rating)||0.033|
|Negative Cultural Self-Assessment, Magnitude (Absolute Value)||0.205 ***|
|Positive Cultural Self-Assessment, Magnitude (Interaction Term)||−0.287*|
|Skill Alignment (=1 when self-rating equals or exceeds successful tech rating)||0.010|
|Negative Skill Self-Assessment, Magnitude (Absolute Value)||−0.086|
|Positive Skill Self-Assessment, Magnitude (Interaction Term)||0.183|
© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).