Field-specific ability beliefs as an explanation for gender differences in academics' career trajectories: Evidence from public profiles on ORCID.Org.

IF 6.4 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Journal of personality and social psychology Pub Date : 2023-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-06-22 DOI:10.1037/pspa0000348
Aniko Hannak, Kenneth Joseph, Daniel B Larremore, Andrei Cimpian
{"title":"Field-specific ability beliefs as an explanation for gender differences in academics' career trajectories: Evidence from public profiles on ORCID.Org.","authors":"Aniko Hannak, Kenneth Joseph, Daniel B Larremore, Andrei Cimpian","doi":"10.1037/pspa0000348","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Academic fields exhibit substantial levels of gender segregation. Here, we investigated differences in <i>field-specific ability beliefs</i> (FABs) as an explanation for this phenomenon. FABs may contribute to gender segregation to the extent that they portray success as depending on \"brilliance\" (i.e., exceptional intellectual ability), which is a trait culturally associated with men more than women. Although prior work has documented a relation between academic fields' FABs and their gender composition, it is still unclear what the underlying dynamics are that give rise to gender imbalances across academia as a function of FABs. To provide insight into this issue, we custom-built a new data set by combining information from the author-tracking service Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) with information from a survey of U.S. academics across 30 fields. Using this expansive longitudinal data set (<i>N</i>s = 86,879-364,355), we found that women were underrepresented among those who <i>enter</i> fields with brilliance-oriented FABs and overrepresented among those who <i>exit</i> these fields. We also found that FABs' association with women's transitions across academic fields was substantially stronger than their association with men's transitions. With respect to mechanisms, FABs' association with gender segregation was partially explained by the fact that women encounter more prejudice in fields with brilliance-oriented FABs. With its focus on the dynamic patterns shaping segregation and its broad scope in terms of geography, career stage, and historical time, this research makes an important contribution toward understanding the factors driving gender segregation in academia. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":16691,"journal":{"name":"Journal of personality and social psychology","volume":"125 4","pages":"681-698"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of personality and social psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000348","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/6/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Academic fields exhibit substantial levels of gender segregation. Here, we investigated differences in field-specific ability beliefs (FABs) as an explanation for this phenomenon. FABs may contribute to gender segregation to the extent that they portray success as depending on "brilliance" (i.e., exceptional intellectual ability), which is a trait culturally associated with men more than women. Although prior work has documented a relation between academic fields' FABs and their gender composition, it is still unclear what the underlying dynamics are that give rise to gender imbalances across academia as a function of FABs. To provide insight into this issue, we custom-built a new data set by combining information from the author-tracking service Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) with information from a survey of U.S. academics across 30 fields. Using this expansive longitudinal data set (Ns = 86,879-364,355), we found that women were underrepresented among those who enter fields with brilliance-oriented FABs and overrepresented among those who exit these fields. We also found that FABs' association with women's transitions across academic fields was substantially stronger than their association with men's transitions. With respect to mechanisms, FABs' association with gender segregation was partially explained by the fact that women encounter more prejudice in fields with brilliance-oriented FABs. With its focus on the dynamic patterns shaping segregation and its broad scope in terms of geography, career stage, and historical time, this research makes an important contribution toward understanding the factors driving gender segregation in academia. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

特定领域能力信念对学者职业轨迹性别差异的解释:来自ORCID.Org公开档案的证据。
学术领域表现出相当程度的性别隔离。在这里,我们调查了特定领域能力信念(FABs)的差异,作为对这一现象的解释。FAB可能会导致性别隔离,因为它们将成功描述为取决于“才华”(即非凡的智力),这是一种在文化上与男性而非女性相关的特质。尽管先前的工作已经记录了学术领域的FAB与其性别构成之间的关系,但仍不清楚FAB导致学术界性别失衡的潜在动力是什么。为了深入了解这个问题,我们将作者跟踪服务开放研究人员和贡献者ID(ORCID)的信息与美国30个领域学者的调查信息相结合,定制了一个新的数据集。使用这一扩展的纵向数据集(Ns=86879-464355),我们发现,在那些进入以才华为导向的FAB领域的人中,女性的代表性不足,而在那些退出这些领域的人当中,女性的比例过高。我们还发现,FAB与女性在各个学术领域的转变之间的联系远强于与男性转变之间的关系。在机制方面,FAB与性别隔离的联系部分解释为,妇女在FAB注重才华的领域中遇到了更多的偏见。本研究关注的是形成种族隔离的动态模式,以及在地理、职业阶段和历史时间方面的广泛范围,为理解学术界推动性别隔离的因素做出了重要贡献。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2023 APA,保留所有权利)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.70
自引率
3.90%
发文量
250
期刊介绍: Journal of personality and social psychology publishes original papers in all areas of personality and social psychology and emphasizes empirical reports, but may include specialized theoretical, methodological, and review papers.Journal of personality and social psychology is divided into three independently edited sections. Attitudes and Social Cognition addresses all aspects of psychology (e.g., attitudes, cognition, emotion, motivation) that take place in significant micro- and macrolevel social contexts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信