The gender disparity in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) has been apparent for years, in spite of scholarships meant to entice females to these fields. Many have simply attributed the gender gap to a difference between men and women’s academic interests, but a new study from the Columbia Business School suggests that there’s more to the problem. In “How Stereotypes Impair Women’s Careers in Science,” Ernesto Reuben demonstrates how gender discrimination and bias bar women from STEM careers.
The study was conducted by Ernesto Reuben of Columbia Business School, Paolo Sapienza of the Kellogg School of Business at Northwestern University, and Luigi Zingales of the Booth School of Business at the University of Chicago.
To explore the possibility of gender discrimination in math and science careers, the study assigned approximately 150 participants of both genders to serve as job applicants. These participants took a short math test, and men and women’s performance was roughly equivalent. Another 200 participants were hiring managers, tasked with selecting a candidate for a job. In some instances, the hiring managers were provided only with the physical appearance, and therefore the gender, of the candidates. In others, the candidates were allowed to self-report their score on the math test, or the hiring managers were able to see the candidates’ scores for themselves.
The study found that when the hiring managers knew nothing but the gender of the candidates, men were twice as likely as women to be chosen for the job. The hiring managers, both male and female, assumed that men were more qualified and skilled, even though this assumption was often entirely false. In the words of Dr. Reuben, “…Hiring managers possess an extraordinary level of gender bias when making decisions and filling positions, often times choosing the less qualified male over a superiorly qualified female.”
This gender disparity did not change when the candidates self-reported their performance, partially because men tend to overstate their achievements, while women do not.
The gender bias lessened only slightly when the hiring managers saw the scores themselves. Even if the female candidates performed exactly the same—or even better—than the males, the women were still less likely to be hired.
Even though this was an experimental study that did not take place in actual STEM hiring settings, the results support other research on the impact of discrimination in the workplace and demonstrate the pervasive influence of negative gender stereotypes.
Moreover, this bias and discrimination are not only harmful to the women who are excluded from STEM careers. Dr. Reuben’s study also shows that companies may be choosing less skilled workers, simply because they automatically prefer males. All STEM industries may be suffering by passing up talented and intelligent women.
The study does contribute some idea of how to fix the problem of gender bias, however. The slight reduction in male preference when facing proof of a female applicant’s skill suggests that women need to add to their credentials with stellar transcripts, letters of recommendation, and experience to prove would-be discriminators wrong. The rest is up to society. “Raising awareness of this problem is a step in the right direction,” Dr. Reuben says. “Hiring managers need to disassociate themselves from general stereotypes and focus on the candidate.”