IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jscscx/v7y2018i2p20-d128941.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Strategic Self-Presentation of Women in STEM

Author

Listed:
  • Alexandra Garr-Schultz

    (Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208, USA)

  • Wendi L. Gardner

    (Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208, USA)

Abstract

Despite a plethora of initiatives and a surge of research activity, women remain under-represented in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines (National Science Foundation 2017). While much research has focused on ways to recruit women into these disciplines, less work has explored the strategies women use to navigate these contexts once they have entered. In a set of two experimental studies, we investigate women’s potential response strategies to the well-documented tension between female and STEM attributes in terms of individual self-presentation. In Study 1 ( N = 240), we examine whether female STEM professionals have different impression goals when introducing themselves to professional peers versus a group of other women. In Study 2 ( N = 169), we extend our inquiry to include self-presentation behavior as well as intentions. Across studies, we find that female STEM professionals hold different impression goals based on the audience with whom and context in which they expect to interact. These intentions align with actual self-introduction behavior, as observed in written self-introductions. Tuning one’s self-presentation, however, leads participants to feel less authentic. This work highlights one way women in male-dominated STEM contexts may navigate and strategically communicate their female and STEM identities to others, as well as the personal implications of doing so.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexandra Garr-Schultz & Wendi L. Gardner, 2018. "Strategic Self-Presentation of Women in STEM," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-16, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:7:y:2018:i:2:p:20-:d:128941
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/7/2/20/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/7/2/20/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ben-Ner, Avner & McCall, Brian P. & Stephane, Massoud & Wang, Hua, 2009. "Identity and in-group/out-group differentiation in work and giving behaviors: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 153-170, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sarah Thébaud & Maria Charles, 2018. "Segregation, Stereotypes, and STEM," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(7), pages 1-18, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dimitrova-Grajzl Valentina & Grajzl Peter & Guse A. Joseph & Smith J. Taylor, 2016. "Racial Group Affinity and Religious Giving: Evidence from Congregation-Level Panel Data," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 16(2), pages 689-725, April.
    2. Boschini, Anne & Muren, Astri & Persson, Mats, 2012. "Constructing gender differences in the economics lab," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 741-752.
    3. Aksoy, Billur & Palma, Marco A., 2019. "The effects of scarcity on cheating and in-group favoritism," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 100-117.
    4. Tor Eriksson & Lei Mao & Marie Claire Villeval, 2017. "Saving face and group identity," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(3), pages 622-647, September.
    5. Donna Harris & Benedikt Herrmann & Andreas Kontoleon, 2012. "When to Favour Your Own group? The Threats of Costly Punishments and In-group Favouritism," Economics Series Working Papers 628, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    6. Bhattacharya, Nilanjan & Pakrashi, Debayan & Saha, Sarani & Wang, Liang C., 2023. "Identity assimilation: Impact of conflict and partition on the giving behaviors of refugees and natives in West Bengal," GLO Discussion Paper Series 1297, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    7. Chapkovski, Philipp, 2022. "Information avoidance in a polarized society," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    8. Jiang Bing & Allen Samuel K., 2019. "To Be a Blood Donor or Not to Be? Investigating Institutional and Student Characteristics at a Military College," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 19(4), pages 1-17, October.
    9. Fernando Aguiar & Pablo Branas-Garza & Maria Paz Espinosa & Luis Miller, 2010. "Personal identity: a theoretical and experimental analysis," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(3), pages 261-275.
    10. Kok, Lucille & Oosterbaan, Veerle & Stoker, Hester & Vyrastekova, Jana, 2020. "In-group favouritism and social norms: Public goods experiments in Tanzania," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    11. Chowdhury, Subhasish M. & Jeon, Joo Young & Saha, Bibhas, 2023. "Eye-image as nonverbal social cue has asymmetric gender effects in dictator taking games," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    12. Chhaochharia, Vidhi & Du, Mengqiao & Niessen-Ruenzi, Alexandra, 2022. "Counter-stereotypical female role models and women’s occupational choices☆," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 501-523.
    13. Fabrizio Patriarca & Rama Dasi Mariani & Eugenio Levi, 2017. "Hate at First Sight? Dynamic Aspects of the Electoral Impact of Migrations: The Case of the UK and Brexit," SPRU Working Paper Series 2017-21, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    14. Harris, Colin & Myers, Andrew & Kaiser, Adam, 2023. "The humanizing effect of market interaction," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 489-507.
    15. Eger, Steffen, 2016. "Opinion dynamics and wisdom under out-group discrimination," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 97-107.
    16. Isabel Thielmann & Daniel W. Heck & Benjamin E. Hilbig, 2016. "Anonymity and incentives: An investigation of techniques to reduce socially desirable responding in the Trust Game," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(5), pages 527-536, September.
    17. Hammermann, Andrea & Mohnen, Alwine & Nieken, Petra, 2012. "Whom to Choose as a Team Mate? A Lab Experiment about In-Group Favouritism," IZA Discussion Papers 6286, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    18. Martin Binder & Ann‐Kathrin Blankenberg, 2022. "Identity and well‐being in the skilled crafts and trades," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(2), pages 184-235, May.
    19. Ciccarone, Giuseppe & Di Bartolomeo, Giovanni & Papa, Stefano, 2020. "The rationale of in-group favoritism: An experimental test of three explanations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 554-568.
    20. Fehrler, Sebastian & Kosfeld, Michael, 2013. "Can you trust the good guys? Trust within and between groups with different missions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 121(3), pages 400-404.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:7:y:2018:i:2:p:20-:d:128941. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.