Magali Fassiotto1, Elizabeth Otto Hamel2, Manwai Ku3, Shelley Correll4, Daisy Grewal5, Philip Lavori6, V J Periyakoil7, Allan Reiss8, Christy Sandborg9, Gregory Walton10, Marilyn Winkleby7, Hannah Valantine7,11. 1. 1 Office of Faculty Development and Diversity, Stanford University School of Medicine , Stanford, California. 2. 2 Department of Applied Physics, Stanford University , Stanford, California. 3. 3 Apple, Inc. , Cupertino, California. 4. 4 Department of Sociology, Stanford University , Stanford, California. 5. 5 Office of the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education, Stanford University , Stanford, California. 6. 6 Department of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine , Stanford, California. 7. 7 Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine , Stanford, California. 8. 8 Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine , Stanford, California. 9. 9 Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine , Stanford, California. 10. 10 Department of Psychology, Stanford University , Stanford, California. 11. 11 National Institutes of Health , Bethesda, Maryland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gender stereotypes in science impede supportive environments for women. Research suggests that women's perceptions of these environments are influenced by stereotype threat (ST): anxiety faced in situations where one may be evaluated using negative stereotypes. This study developed and tested ST metrics for first time use with junior faculty in academic medicine. METHODS: Under a 2012 National Institutes of Health Pathfinder Award, Stanford School of Medicine's Office of Diversity and Leadership, working with experienced clinicians, social scientists, and epidemiologists, developed and administered ST measures to a representative group of junior faculty. RESULTS: 174 School of Medicine junior faculty were recruited (62% women, 38% men; 75% assistant professors, 25% instructors; 50% white, 40% Asian, 10% underrepresented minority). Women reported greater susceptibility to ST than did men across all items including ST vulnerability (p < 0.001); rejection sensitivity (p = 0.001); gender identification (p < 0.001); perceptions of relative potential (p = 0.048); and, sense of belonging (p = 0.049). Results of career-related consequences of ST were more nuanced. Compared with men, women reported lower beliefs in advancement (p = 0.021); however, they had similar career interest and identification, felt just as connected to colleagues, and were equally likely to pursue careers outside academia (all p > 0.42). CONCLUSIONS: Innovative ST metrics can provide a more complete picture of academic medical center environments. While junior women faculty are susceptible to ST, they may not yet experience all of its consequences in their early careers. As such, ST metrics offer a tool for evaluating institutional initiatives to increase supportive environments for women in academic medicine.
BACKGROUND: Gender stereotypes in science impede supportive environments for women. Research suggests that women's perceptions of these environments are influenced by stereotype threat (ST): anxiety faced in situations where one may be evaluated using negative stereotypes. This study developed and tested ST metrics for first time use with junior faculty in academic medicine. METHODS: Under a 2012 National Institutes of Health Pathfinder Award, Stanford School of Medicine's Office of Diversity and Leadership, working with experienced clinicians, social scientists, and epidemiologists, developed and administered ST measures to a representative group of junior faculty. RESULTS: 174 School of Medicine junior faculty were recruited (62% women, 38% men; 75% assistant professors, 25% instructors; 50% white, 40% Asian, 10% underrepresented minority). Women reported greater susceptibility to ST than did men across all items including ST vulnerability (p < 0.001); rejection sensitivity (p = 0.001); gender identification (p < 0.001); perceptions of relative potential (p = 0.048); and, sense of belonging (p = 0.049). Results of career-related consequences of ST were more nuanced. Compared with men, women reported lower beliefs in advancement (p = 0.021); however, they had similar career interest and identification, felt just as connected to colleagues, and were equally likely to pursue careers outside academia (all p > 0.42). CONCLUSIONS: Innovative ST metrics can provide a more complete picture of academic medical center environments. While junior women faculty are susceptible to ST, they may not yet experience all of its consequences in their early careers. As such, ST metrics offer a tool for evaluating institutional initiatives to increase supportive environments for women in academic medicine.
Authors: Thomas M Hess; Corinne Auman; Stanley J Colcombe; Tamara A Rahhal Journal: J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 4.077
Authors: Anne L Wright; Leslie A Schwindt; Tamsen L Bassford; Valerie F Reyna; Catherine M Shisslak; Patricia A St Germain; Kathryn L Reed Journal: Acad Med Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Suzanne C Danhauer; Janet A Tooze; Natalie Am Barrett; Jamie S Blalock; Carol A Shively; Mary Lou Voytko; Sonia J Crandall Journal: Glob Adv Health Med Date: 2019-07-16