↓ Skip to main content

On the gender–science stereotypes held by scientists: explicit accord with gender-ratios, implicit accord with scientific identity

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
35 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
123 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
245 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
On the gender–science stereotypes held by scientists: explicit accord with gender-ratios, implicit accord with scientific identity
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00415
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frederick L. Smyth, Brian A. Nosek

Abstract

Women's representation in science has changed substantially, but unevenly, over the past 40 years. In health and biological sciences, for example, women's representation among U.S. scientists is now on par with or greater than men's, while in physical sciences and engineering they remain a clear minority. We investigated whether variation in proportions of women in scientific disciplines is related to differing levels of male-favoring explicit or implicit stereotypes held by students and scientists in each discipline. We hypothesized that science-is-male stereotypes would be weaker in disciplines where women are better represented. This prediction was tested with a sample of 176,935 college-educated participants (70% female), including thousands of engineers, physicians, and scientists. The prediction was supported for the explicit stereotype, but not for the implicit stereotype. Implicit stereotype strength did not correspond with disciplines' gender ratios, but, rather, correlated with two indicators of disciplines' scientific intensity, positively for men and negatively for women. From age 18 on, women who majored or worked in disciplines perceived as more scientific had substantially weaker science-is-male stereotypes than did men in the same disciplines, with gender differences larger than 0.8 standard deviations in the most scientifically-perceived disciplines. Further, particularly for women, differences in the strength of implicit stereotypes across scientific disciplines corresponded with the strength of scientific values held by women in the disciplines. These results are discussed in the context of dual process theory of mental operation and balanced identity theory. The findings point to the need for longitudinal study of the factors' affecting development of adults' and, especially, children's implicit gender stereotypes and scientific identity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 245 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 241 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 46 19%
Student > Master 36 15%
Researcher 26 11%
Student > Bachelor 23 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 22 9%
Other 37 15%
Unknown 55 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 65 27%
Social Sciences 42 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 7%
Engineering 10 4%
Computer Science 8 3%
Other 42 17%
Unknown 62 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 303. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 February 2022.
All research outputs
#96,343
of 23,122,481 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#180
of 30,556 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,044
of 265,952 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#2
of 500 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,122,481 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,556 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,952 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 500 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.