Projects
Assumptions of normativityWhat are the consequences of positioning some groups as the norm and other groups as deviating from prevailing norms?
|
Situational cues of stigmaHow do subtle situational cues contribute to group disparities in achievement domains?
|
SolutionsHow can we create environments that are inclusive and welcoming for everyone?
|
Assumptions of Normativity
One line of research in the lab investigates subtle bias in the form of implicit assumptions about the characteristics that define the typical human. For instance, take a moment to image what the typical human looks like. What is the gender of the person you are imagining? What is their race? Class? If you are like most people, you might have imagined a white middle-class male as the typical human. Implicit assumptions shape our ideas about who is considered the default human and who is considered deviant and a special case of the human condition.
One consequence of these implicit assumptions is that people tend to remark upon the gender of women far more often than the gender of men. Whereas men are referred to merely as people, women tend to be referred to specifically as women. This pattern of asymmetric gender-marking is pervasive, appearing in domains such as sports (NBA vs. WNBA), consumer products (Speed Stick deodorant vs. Lady Speed Stick deodorant), and occupations (engineer vs. female engineer). But does it matter? What are the consequences of asymmetrically marking women’s gender?
This line of research examines how implicit assumptions about who is considered normative are subtly expressed in everyday communication and their role in maintaining and reproducing social inequities. Back to top
One consequence of these implicit assumptions is that people tend to remark upon the gender of women far more often than the gender of men. Whereas men are referred to merely as people, women tend to be referred to specifically as women. This pattern of asymmetric gender-marking is pervasive, appearing in domains such as sports (NBA vs. WNBA), consumer products (Speed Stick deodorant vs. Lady Speed Stick deodorant), and occupations (engineer vs. female engineer). But does it matter? What are the consequences of asymmetrically marking women’s gender?
This line of research examines how implicit assumptions about who is considered normative are subtly expressed in everyday communication and their role in maintaining and reproducing social inequities. Back to top
Situational Cues of Stigma
Environments are filled with subtle cues about how we might be treated by and fit in with others based on our social identity (e.g., gender, race-ethnicity, age, social class, etc.). For members of negatively stereotyped or stigmatized groups, seemingly innocuous cues can signify that one’s social identity is devalued or does not belong in the setting. For example, an underrepresentation of women on the websites of science departments may signal to potential students that the department is not woman-friendly. This program of research aims to identify the cues that shape people’s perceptions about whether their treatment, fit, and success in an environment will be contingent on their social identity. We also examine how these cues contribute to group disparities – particularly gender disparities in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) domains – as well as interventions to mitigate these negative effects and promote inclusive environments. Back to top
Solutions
This line of research focuses on developing and testing interventions for reducing bias and creating inclusive environments. Not only does our research aim to identify cues of stigma, but we also aim to identify cues of identity safety that signal inclusion. That is, how can we make STEM contexts welcoming for everyone?
We believe it is important to involve men as part of the solution to changing the gender climate in STEM. Many intervention programs focus on women -- although these programs have positive implications for empowering women, they don’t address how to change the structural barriers and biases that exist within STEM contexts. Some of our preliminary work indicates that when a climate is perceived as being biased toward women, this negatively affects both women and men. These results suggest that it is in everyone's best interest (majority and underrepresented groups) to have a work climate that is welcoming and inclusive.
An important step toward creating change is first recognizing what subtle bias actually looks like. In collaboration with others, we have tested the effectiveness of the Workshop Activity for Gender Equity, an interactive activity that demonstrates what sexism actually looks like in the workplace – that it occurs as these small subtle gender biases that accumulate over time to create gender disparities. Our results show that WAGES increases people’s knowledge and recognition of gender bias, and increases their motivation to take steps to address bias (both women and men). These results are promising, suggesting that WAGES has the potential to be used in organizations as an initial step toward recognizing and addressing bias. We are continuing to improve and develop WAGES for multiple types of work contexts. Please visit the WAGES website for more information. View this video to hear me discuss some of the research on WAGES. Back to top
We believe it is important to involve men as part of the solution to changing the gender climate in STEM. Many intervention programs focus on women -- although these programs have positive implications for empowering women, they don’t address how to change the structural barriers and biases that exist within STEM contexts. Some of our preliminary work indicates that when a climate is perceived as being biased toward women, this negatively affects both women and men. These results suggest that it is in everyone's best interest (majority and underrepresented groups) to have a work climate that is welcoming and inclusive.
An important step toward creating change is first recognizing what subtle bias actually looks like. In collaboration with others, we have tested the effectiveness of the Workshop Activity for Gender Equity, an interactive activity that demonstrates what sexism actually looks like in the workplace – that it occurs as these small subtle gender biases that accumulate over time to create gender disparities. Our results show that WAGES increases people’s knowledge and recognition of gender bias, and increases their motivation to take steps to address bias (both women and men). These results are promising, suggesting that WAGES has the potential to be used in organizations as an initial step toward recognizing and addressing bias. We are continuing to improve and develop WAGES for multiple types of work contexts. Please visit the WAGES website for more information. View this video to hear me discuss some of the research on WAGES. Back to top
Click to set custom HTML
Representative Publications
Cundiff, J. L. (2021). The “Princess Syndrome”: An examination of gender harassment on a male-majority university campus. Sex Roles. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-021-01243-4
MacArthur, H. J., Cundiff, J. L., & Mehl, M. (2020). Estimating the prevalence of gender-biased language in undergraduates’ everyday speech. Sex Roles, 82(1-2), 81-93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01033-z
Cundiff, J. L., Danube, C., Zawadzki, M., & Shields, S. A. (2018). Testing an intervention for recognizing and reporting subtle gender bias in promotion and tenure decisions. The Journal of Higher Education, 89(5), 611-636. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2018.1437665
Cundiff, J. L., Ryuk, S., & Cech, K. (2018). Identity safe or threatening? Perceptions of women-targeted professional programs. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 21(5), 745-766. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217740434
Cundiff, J. L., & Vescio, T. K. (2016). Gender stereotypes influence how people explain gender disparities in the workplace. Sex Roles, 75(3-4), 126-138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0593-2
Cundiff, J. L., Danube, C., Zawadzki, M. J., & Shields, S. A. (2014). Using experiential learning to increase the recognition of everyday sexism as harmful: The WAGES intervention. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 703-721. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12087
Cundiff, J. L., Vescio, T. K., Loken, E., & Lo, L. (2013). Do gender-science stereotypes predict science identification and science career aspirations among undergraduate science majors? Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal, 16, 541-554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-013-9232-8
Cundiff, J. L. (2012). Is mainstream psychological research “womanless” and “raceless”? An updated analysis. Sex Roles, 67, 158-173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0141-7
MacArthur, H. J., Cundiff, J. L., & Mehl, M. (2020). Estimating the prevalence of gender-biased language in undergraduates’ everyday speech. Sex Roles, 82(1-2), 81-93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01033-z
Cundiff, J. L., Danube, C., Zawadzki, M., & Shields, S. A. (2018). Testing an intervention for recognizing and reporting subtle gender bias in promotion and tenure decisions. The Journal of Higher Education, 89(5), 611-636. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2018.1437665
Cundiff, J. L., Ryuk, S., & Cech, K. (2018). Identity safe or threatening? Perceptions of women-targeted professional programs. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 21(5), 745-766. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217740434
Cundiff, J. L., & Vescio, T. K. (2016). Gender stereotypes influence how people explain gender disparities in the workplace. Sex Roles, 75(3-4), 126-138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0593-2
Cundiff, J. L., Danube, C., Zawadzki, M. J., & Shields, S. A. (2014). Using experiential learning to increase the recognition of everyday sexism as harmful: The WAGES intervention. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 703-721. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12087
Cundiff, J. L., Vescio, T. K., Loken, E., & Lo, L. (2013). Do gender-science stereotypes predict science identification and science career aspirations among undergraduate science majors? Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal, 16, 541-554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-013-9232-8
Cundiff, J. L. (2012). Is mainstream psychological research “womanless” and “raceless”? An updated analysis. Sex Roles, 67, 158-173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0141-7