AN EXAMINATION OF GENDER DIVERSITY IDEOLOGIES FOR WOMEN IN STEM By Sarah Kuang A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Psychology – Master of Arts 2020 AN EXAMINATION OF GENDER DIVERSITY IDEOLOGIES FOR WOMEN IN STEM ABSTRACT By Sarah Kuang Despite efforts towards increasing representation of women into Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields, women are still underrepresented in the workforce in these areas. One possible explanation may be the ways in which organizations approach group differences between genders, i.e. gender diversity ideologies. The current thesis aimed to examine the differential effects of gender awareness (highlighting differences strengths between men and women) and gender blindness (downplaying differences between men and women). Specifically, I anticipated that women applying to STEM positions will respond better to companies employing gender blindness in their recruitment efforts (i.e. expect less meta- stereotyping), as opposed to gender awareness. In addition, I also examined other factors (e.g. representation of women at the organization, communal goal affordance, and communal goal endorsement) that were previously unexamined to uncover the mechanism underlying trickling out of the leaky pipeline in a recruitment context. Results suggest that indeed, women expected less meta-stereotyping for organizations that presented itself as having a gender blind approach or greater representation. This, in turn, predicted greater fit and organizational attraction. Though hypotheses were largely supported, the pertinence of diversity ideology in the applicant context, as well as other future directions, are discussed. This thesis is dedicated to Dr. Angela MinhTu Nguyen whose mentorship transcends degrees. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First, I would like to give thanks to God for who He is and His provision of all the people I have to thank. For all the crucial instrumental support that was given to me, I would like to thank my thesis committee, Dr. Frederick T. L. Leong, Dr. Christy Zhou Koval, and especially my thesis committee chair and advisor, Dr. Ann Marie Ryan. This thesis could not exist without your invaluable feedback, advice, and funding. I would also like to thank all of my friends and family for their love and support. I am beyond grateful for having understanding parents who showed their support from thousands of miles away and having friends from various stages and aspects of my life who have accompanied me in attaining this accomplishment. I cannot imagine having persisted through this process without your readiness to share your experience with this process and remind me of my worth. I am a product of my community and every accomplishment I have is theirs. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ vii LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... viii CHAPTER 1 ....................................................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 Theoretical Framework ..............................................................................................................3 Diversity Ideology ...............................................................................................................3 Signaling Theory ..................................................................................................................5 Diversity Statements ............................................................................................................6 Fit Theory.............................................................................................................................6 Hypothesized Model ..................................................................................................................9 CHAPTER 2 ..................................................................................................................................10 LITERATURE REVIEW ..............................................................................................................10 Diversity Ideologies for Race ..................................................................................................10 Diversity Ideologies for Gender ...............................................................................................12 Representation ....................................................................................................................13 Women in STEM .....................................................................................................................14 Meta-stereotyping ..............................................................................................................15 Perceived P-O Fit ...............................................................................................................17 Gender Schematicity ..........................................................................................................19 Communal Goal Affordance and Communal Goal Endorsement .....................................19 Organizational Attraction.........................................................................................................21 CHAPTER 3 ..................................................................................................................................22 METHOD ......................................................................................................................................22 Participants ...............................................................................................................................22 Procedure .................................................................................................................................23 Manipulations ..........................................................................................................................23 Primary Measures ....................................................................................................................24 Organizational Attraction...................................................................................................24 Perceived P-O Fit ...............................................................................................................24 Perceived Goal Affordance ................................................................................................24 Metastereotype Consciousness ..........................................................................................25 Goal Endorsement ..............................................................................................................25 Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ) ..........................................................................25 Manipulation Checks .........................................................................................................26 Demographics ....................................................................................................................26 Additional Measures ................................................................................................................26 v Workplace Confidence.......................................................................................................26 Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) ...............................................................................26 CHAPTER 4 ..................................................................................................................................28 RESULTS ......................................................................................................................................28 Hypothesis Testing...................................................................................................................28 Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2 ..........................................................................................28 Hypothesis 3 and Hypothesis 4 ..........................................................................................29 Hypothesis 5.......................................................................................................................30 Hypothesis 6.......................................................................................................................30 Hypothesis 7.......................................................................................................................31 Serial Mediation .......................................................................................................................31 Exploratory Analyses ...............................................................................................................31 Supplementary to Hypothesis 5 .........................................................................................31 Supplementary to Hypothesis 6 .........................................................................................32 Agentic Goal Affordance and Agentic Goal Endorsement ................................................32 Workplace Confidence.......................................................................................................33 Social Dominance Orientation ...........................................................................................34 CHAPTER 5 ..................................................................................................................................35 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................35 Theoretical and Practical Implication ......................................................................................39 Limitations and Future Directions ...........................................................................................42 Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................45 APPENDICES ...............................................................................................................................47 APPENDIX A: Tables and Figures .........................................................................................48 APPENDIX B: Prescreening Questions ..................................................................................63 APPENDIX C: Informed Consent Form .................................................................................64 APPENDIX D: Experimental Stimuli .....................................................................................66 APPENDIX E: Manipulation Check .......................................................................................71 APPENDIX F: Open-ended Question .....................................................................................72 APPENDIX G: Measures ........................................................................................................73 APPENDIX H: Demographic Questions .................................................................................80 APPENDIX I: Debriefing Form ..............................................................................................81 REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................82 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Conceptualizations of Diversity Ideologies. ....................................................................48 Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and inter-correlations between study measures. .................49 Table 3. Two-way ANOVA (gender ideology X representation) predicting meta-stereotyping. .50 Table 4. Multiple regression (meta-stereotyping x gender schematicity) predicting perceived fit. ........................................................................................................................................................51 Table 5. Multiple regression (communal goal affordance x communal goal endorsement) predicting perceived fit. .................................................................................................................52 Table 6. Multiple regression (agentic goal affordance x agentic goal endorsement) predicting perceived fit. ..................................................................................................................................53 Table 7. Relative importance analysis of communal goal affordance and agentic goal affordance. ........................................................................................................................................................54 Table 8. Hierarchical multiple regressions (H3, H4, H6) predicting perceived fit, controlling for SDO................................................................................................................................................55 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Proposed model linking diversity ideology to organizational attraction. .......................56 Figure 2. The expected interaction between gender diversity ideologies and representation of women on expected level of meta-stereotyping. ............................................................................57 Figure 3. The expected interaction between gender schematicity and expected level of meta- stereotyping on perceived fit. .........................................................................................................58 Figure 4. The expected interaction between communal goal endorsement and communal goal affordance on perceived fit. ...........................................................................................................59 Figure 5. Serial mediation tested in R. ...........................................................................................60 Figure 6. Interaction between communal goal affordance and meta-stereotyping on fit perceptions. ....................................................................................................................................61 Figure 7. Interaction between communal goal affordance and agentic goal affordance on fit perceptions. ....................................................................................................................................62 Figure 8. Manipulation (gender awareness X low representation). ...............................................67 Figure 9. Manipulation (gender awareness X high representation). ..............................................68 Figure 10. Manipulation (gender blindness X low representation). ..............................................69 Figure 11. Manipulation (gender blindness X high representation). .............................................70 viii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION In 2016, it was reported that women make up half of the total U.S. college-educated workforce, but only 29% of the science and engineering workforce (National Science Board, 2018). While there have been many efforts focused on motivating girls to pursue STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) careers, gender inequality in STEM is still a problem in the U.S. Specifically, women’s participation in STEM fields varies greatly depending on the field: women’s participation in Psychology, Biological Sciences, and Social Sciences has been consistently high (around 60%), while women are less represented (around 20%) in Computer Sciences and Engineering (National Science Board, 2018). Although there is increasingly more research on examining these discrepancies in representation, many studies focus on studying internal reasons, such as interest and attitudes toward STEM, for the disproportionate representation of women across STEM fields (Cheryan, Ziegler, Montoya, & Jiang, 2017; Stoet & Geary, 2018; Su & Rounds, 2015). In addition, while this research has primarily focused on students, ranging from elementary to college, very little has investigated the factors that contribute to women’s decision to leave or stay in STEM as they enter the workforce (for exceptions see: Kossek, Su, & Wu, 2017; Peters, Ryan, Haslam, & Fernandes, 2012). To address this gap from an organizational level, I turn to diversity ideology, which can refer to how an organization approaches group differences to promote inclusion and equality (Gündemir, Martin, & Homan, 2019; Rosenthal & Levy, 2010). There are two diversity ideology approaches: awareness (recognizing differences) and blindness (deemphasizing group differences and focusing on shared similarities or individual 1 differences; e.g., Plaut, 2010). Most diversity ideologies studies have focused on race and have shown that colorblindness (blindness toward racial differences) held by the majority group leads to a host of negative outcomes (e.g. lower psychological engagement, greater distrust of the organization, and greater anxiety) for racial minorities because it overlooks group-based challenges they may face (Gündemir et al., 2019). While research associates multiculturalism, or awareness of racial differences, with positive outcomes (Plaut, Thomas, & Goren, 2009; Rosenthal & Levy, 2010; Rattan & Ambady, 2013), there is limited research examining the effects of gender blindness or gender awareness on women, especially in STEM. This thesis identifies gender1 diversity ideologies that organizations can employ to best attract and retain women applicants in STEM fields. Doing so makes at least three broad contributions. First, as demonstrated above, there has been ample research focusing on race ideologies with findings indicating that multiculturalism is generally associated with more positive outcomes than colorblindness from the perspective of racial minorities (Gündemir et al., 2019). By shifting the focus to women as an underrepresented group in STEM, this research uncovers the mechanisms underlying diversity ideologies and address what may be driving the effects of each approach in different contexts. Second, by examining diversity ideologies from an organizational perspective, this project has potential to address the leaky pipeline, whether the organization is a university or a workplace. Although some research has examined strategies women implement as they enter STEM (O’Brien et al., 2019; Richman, van Dellen, & Wood, 2011; Ryan, King, Elizondo, & Wadlington, 2019; Settles, Jellison, & Pratt-Hyatt, 2009), this research focuses on examining organizations’ approaches to gender differences to better attract women to STEM. In my study, I focus on interventions organizations can implement to increase women’s sense of belonging in 1 While gender is a fluid concept, this paper will focus on the majority gender identity groups (i.e. men and women) rather than on gender minorities. 2 STEM. For organizations looking to increase diversity, this can help attract and retain women in STEM jobs. Lastly, work on race ideologies has addressed some effects of representation on different outcomes (Apfelbaum, Stephens, & Reagans, 2016), but the same has not been done for gender ideologies. Due to the varying degrees of representation of women in different STEM fields, this research identifies the potential moderator of representation and informs organizations which ideology approach has the most benefits given the demographic makeup of the company. The introduction is organized into the following sections: I will first define and review different conceptualizations of diversity ideologies in addition to theories relevant to job applicants in the recruitment process. Next, I will review existing literature on race and gender diversity ideologies and differing approaches. I will also discuss the concepts of representation and meta-stereotyping, which is people’s belief about how they are viewed by others, and how these concepts may influence the effect of diversity ideologies. Then, I will describe the current literature on the perceptions and concerns of women in STEM as job applicants. Specifically, I will address communal goal affordance and gender schomaticity as it pertains to women in STEM. Lastly, prior to presenting the methods and analyses used in this study, I will present the hypothesized model which summarizes all relationships that are formally examined in this study. Theoretical Framework Diversity Ideology. Diversity ideologies can differ in how they are conceptualized (See Table 1). For example, blindness ideologies can be differentially conceptualized by focusing on the intentions toward the outgroup. Conceptions of colorblindness can take an assimilationist approach where a superordinate group defines the sameness or an inclusion approach which de- emphasizes differences to make minorities feel included (Hahn, Banchefsky, Park, & Judd, 3 2015). Another difference in conceptualizing blindness ideology is the focus of attention, which can be on recognizing sameness (value-in-homogeneity; Plaut, Garnett, Buffardi, & Sanchez- Burks, 2011) or focusing on individual differences (value-in-individual differences; Rosenthal and Levy, 2010). Colorblindness has also been interpreted as value in equality, which focuses on fair treatment of different groups (Apfelbaum, et al., 2016). Similar to blindness ideologies, but perhaps to a lesser extent, awareness ideologies can also be differentiated between intentionality and focus of attention, which is evident in the many variations in definitions of multiculturalism. Definitions of multiculturalism differ in their valence and focus as some frame multiculturalism as recognition of group difference as an important aspect of a diverse community, others emphasize segregation and separation of groups, and still others frame multiculturalism as a celebration and inclusion of or respect for cultural differences (Hahn et al., 2015; Rattan & Ambady, 2013; Plaut, 2002; Wolsko, Park, & Judd, 2006). While there is limited amount of work on gender ideologies, there are parallels to be drawn between race-ethnicity ideologies and gender ideologies. Similar to racial-ethnic ideologies, both gender blind and gender aware approaches aim to reduce hierarchy where gender blindness focuses on reducing stereotypes and prejudice while gender awareness emphasizes embracing the distinct qualities of men and women (Koenig & Richeson, 2010; Martin & Phillips, 2017). As different conceptualizations of colorblindness and multiculturalism can have different effects, different conceptualizations of gender ideologies can also strengthen existing hierarchies that maintain gender disparity. Specifically, gender blindness can focus on women adapting to men as a form of assimilation and gender awareness can be thought to keep 4 men and women in different domains, indicating segregation (Hahn et al., 2015). Across both gender and racial-ethnic ideologies, definitions of blindness vary more than awareness. Signaling Theory. In order to address a specific issue of the leaky pipeline (i.e. women graduating with a STEM degree and not pursing STEM careers), I turn to applicant reactions, specifically, attraction to organizations. Applicant attraction to recruiting organizations can be influenced by information, or signals, about an organization’s characteristics. In the recruitment process, applicants receive many signals about the organization (recruitment source) from organizational-level activity, e.g. corporate advertising and recruitment advertising. Signaling theory, originally from the economics literature from employer's perspective, posits that in absence of information on characteristics of an organization, applicants form impressions about an organization based on the signals conveyed to them through recruitment activities (Rynes, Bretz Jr., & Gerhart, 1991; Spence, 1973). Signaling theory suggests that applicants rarely possess complete information and must use the limited information they do have as signals of what the organization is really like (Celani & Singh, 2011; Goldberg & Allen, 2008). Research has demonstrated that applicants interpret many recruitment-related activities and information, such as diversity statements, and their processing of this information forms perceptions that are related to many applicant outcomes such as organizational identification, attraction (e.g. job pursuit intentions, job-organization attraction, and acceptance intentions), and attitude toward the organization (Avery, 2003; Celani & Singh, 2011; Goldberg & Allen, 2008; Walker, Feild, Giles, Armenakis, & Bernerth, 2009; Windscheid, Bowes-Sperry, Mazei, & Morner, 2017). As women are underrepresented in many STEM fields, diversity statements may be an especially important signal for women pursuing STEM careers. 5 Diversity Statements. Given that organizations are increasingly hiring to promote their diversity, diversity statements become an essential piece of information that organizations can intentionally provide for applicants. A diversity statement can send a signal of what the organization is like as the organization can portray itself in certain ways. Research has demonstrated that the inclusion of diversity statements in recruitment materials is positively related to individuals’ perceptions that the organization values diversity (Rau & Hyland, 2003). However, the perceived favorability of organizations using diversity statements is mixed given that diversity statements have been found to have both negative (e.g., Martins & Parsons, 2007; Richard & Kirby, 1998; Williamson, Slay, Shapiro, & Shivers-Blackwell, 2008) and positive (e.g., Avery, 2003; Kim & Gelfand, 2003) effects on organizations using them. Depending on the presence of justification for diversity programs and the type of justification, an organization’s greater emphasis on diversity programs may lead the organization to be perceived negatively by applicants, e.g. women with lower gender identity centrality (Martins & Parsons, 2007). In addition, research also focused on processes within the applicants and specifically examined how individuals use diversity statements to inform their decision of whether or not to apply. After receiving signals from various sources, including diversity statements, applicants engage in a process in which they assess whether or not they can see themselves working at that organization. As this perception of belonging/fitting in is especially important for women in STEM, I briefly summarize the literature on this topic below. Fit Theory. In the organizational science literature, research has examined the concept of person-environment (P-E) fit, which is defined as the compatibility of values between a person and the environment (Kristof-Brown & Guay, 2011). Depending on what the individual is fitting to, there are also different subtypes of P-E fit, including person-job (P-J) fit and person- 6 organization (P-O) fit. However, as the current study focuses on woman applicants’ perceptions of how they fit with working at a STEM organization, I will be focusing on P-O fit from the applicant’s perspective. Though the fit is defined as a compatibility, there are different mechanisms on how this compatibility occurs; namely, complementary fit and supplementary fit. Complementary fit refers to the two parties, i.e. the person and the organization, providing what the other is missing or needs (Kristof, 1996). Whereas complementary fit is based on completion, supplementary fit is derived from similarity and refers to when an applicant matches the organization on characteristics it already possesses (Kristof, 1996). This conceptualization of fit is well aligned with Schneider’s attraction-selection-retention (ASA) model as this theory posits that people are attracted to organizations that are similar to them. However, it is important to note that the applicant’s subjective assessment of their congruence is what drives the ASA model. Therefore, it is subjective, or perceived fit, that most proximally influences applicant attraction (Edwards, Cable, Williamson, Lambert, & Shipp, 2006; Judge & Cable, 1997). Due to its basis on perceived supplementary fit, P-O fit can be defined as the degree to which an applicant perceives similar characteristics between herself and the STEM field position. Using this definition, P-O fit suggests that individuals who perceive that they do not fit into a culture of diversity that is contrary to their values and norms would express less attraction to such organizations (Rau & Hyland, 2003). That is, organizations that value diversity by bringing attention to specific group differences, i.e. using an awareness approach, may be less attractive to applicants. In the case of women in STEM, women may feel that they are not welcomed in an organization or field in general and therefore perceive less P-O fit. If an organization promotes itself as valuing diversity through gender awareness such that it conveys 7 that women are different from men, this may heighten the notion that women are unfit/out of place/unsuited to be in STEM and thus find it unattractive. In addition, social justice research suggests that applicants have an egocentric bias toward organizations whose policies are seen as personally beneficial and, by contrast, a bias against organizations whose policies are not seen as personally beneficial (Greenberg, 1981; Grover, 1991). Thus, applicants may be more attracted to organizations committed to diversity if they perceive themselves to be the beneficiary of the diversity policies and practices. Women may not see themselves as beneficiaries in organizations that promote gender awareness as diversity may emphasize that men’s prototypical characteristics are valued, and women’s prototypical characteristics are not. Consequently, women in organizations that promote gender blindness – which promote diversity by deemphasizing differences and focusing on group similarities – may perceive themselves and their qualities to be more in line with the qualities that are valued and encouraged in a male- dominated field. In order to establish the links between diversity ideology and applicant reactions, I reviewed existing literature on diversity ideologies as pertaining to race and gender, as well as potential contingency factors for the effectiveness of each approach. Then I summarized studies that address the disparity of women in STEM and integrate these findings with diversity ideology to demonstrate how different ideological approaches can address issues that women face in STEM, e.g. meta-stereotyping. Specifically, I focused on the effect of meta-stereotyping, which is one’s belief regarding others’ belief, or stereotype, about them, on perceived fit and the relationship between perceived fit and organizational attraction. 8 Hypothesized Model I hypothesize that diversity ideology may linked to organizational attraction through multiple mediators; namely, meta-stereotyping and perceived P-O fit (see Figure 1). I expected diversity ideology to be linked to meta-stereotype awareness. I expected this relationship to be moderated by the representation of women at the organization such that at the effect of gender awareness or gender blindness on meta-stereotype awareness will differ at lower levels of representation but not at higher levels. Next, I hypothesize that meta-stereotype awareness is associated with perceived P-O fit and that this relationship is moderated by gender schematicity. In addition, I predict that gender diversity ideology is related to communal goal affordance and that communal goal affordance is also associated with perceived P-O fit. I expect this relationship to be moderated by individual communal goal endorsement. Lastly, I expect that perceived P-O fit is related to organizational attraction. 9 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Diversity Ideologies for Race Separated into blindness and awareness, diversity ideologies pertaining to race have been studied under the constructs colorblindness and multiculturalism, respectively. In a recent meta- analysis on the effects of different diversity ideologies, Leslie, Bono, Kim, and Beaver (2019) distinguish between different blindness approaches and found divergent effects on the same outcome. Specifically, Leslie and colleagues (2019) found that approaches that ignore differences are negatively associated with stereotyping, while approaches that emphasize nondominant groups to give up their practices and adopt those of the dominant group (i.e. assimilation) are positively associated with stereotyping. Though there are nuances in definition, research generally indicates that multiculturalism is associated with positive group relations such that it is negatively related to prejudice, discrimination, stereotyping and positively related to support toward policies aimed at increasing diversity (Leslie et al., 2019). Perhaps for these reasons, previous research has shown that ethnic minorities have a strong preference for multiculturalism (Rattan & Ambady, 2013; Rosenthal & Levy, 2010). Plaut et al. (2009) found that when multiculturalism is endorsed by White employees, minority employees exhibited increased engagement and were less likely to believe their organizational climate is racially biased. In the same study, Plaut et al. (2009) found that colorblindness had the opposite effect and decreased engagement and increased belief of minority employees that the organizational climate was racially biased. Meeussen, Otten, and Phalet (2014) also found that minority employees responded well to leaders who endorse multiculturalism, as this approach made employees feel more accepted which led to more effective workgroups. In addition, 10 research has shown multiculturalism leads to more positive outcomes, such as fewer evaluative concerns, less anxiety, and improved performance on cognitive tasks (Apfelbaum et al., 2016; Vorauer, Gagnon, & Sasaki, 2009; Wilton, Good, Moss-Racusin, & Sanchez, 2015). One explanation for the strong association of positive outcomes and multiculturalism for ethnic minorities is the extent to which the diversity ideology addresses their group-based needs (Dovidio, Gaertner, & Saguy, 2007). Consistent with this functional perspective, Hehman et al. (2012) found that White students at predominantly black colleges also prefer multiculturalism approaches at the institution level as they are underrepresented and seek to be recognized and have their needs addressed. Multiculturalism has many caveats. For one, highlighting and directing attention to group differences may result in a minority spotlight effect that heightens minorities’ self-awareness, which is associated with negative emotions and discomfort (Zou & Cheryan, 2015; Crosby, King, & Savitsky, 2014). Multiculturalism has also been criticized as reinforcing stereotypes associated with minority members and positive stereotyping of racial minorities has been found to lead to negative reactions as well as perceived prejudice (Gutiérrez and Unzueta, 2010; Czopp, 2008). Moving from target reactions, majority group members also feel negatively toward diversity efforts using multiculturalism approaches as they feel excluded, which in turn negatively affects subsequent support for organizational diversity (Plaut et al., 2011). Specifically examining the role of ideologies at the organizational level as communicated through diversity statements on minority perceptions, research has indicated positive effects, as well as drawbacks, for multicultural diversity statements. For example, a multicultural vision statement increased minorities’ perception of workplace satisfaction, sense of inclusion, and leadership efficacy and aspirations, while reducing turnover intentions (Jansen, Otten, & van der 11 Zee, 2015; Gündemir, Dovidio, Homan, & De Dreu, 2017). However, multiculturalism as conveyed through diversity statements can also create a false fairness context (Gündemir and Galinsky, 2018). False fairness context refers to the false sense of security in that minorities presume the multicultural diversity statement is a cue for fair treatment in the organization; this, in turn, is associated with minorities ignoring contradicting information, such as evidence of racial discrimination, and delegitimizing discrimination claims (Kaiser et al., 2013). In sum, the review of literature on multiculturalism and colorblindness demonstrates a clear pattern of more positive effects associated with multiculturalism from the perspective of racial-ethnic minorities. However, it is also important to consider the downsides and drawbacks of an awareness approach. In addition to examining the effect of diversity ideologies as pertaining to racial-ethnic minorities, researchers have begun to explore the effect of diversity ideologies with regards to gender; specifically, contrasting the awareness and blindness approach toward differences between men and women. Diversity Ideologies for Gender Unlike multiculturalism and its benefits as an awareness approach for racial-ethnic minorities, there is very little research on diversity ideologies for gender and whether there are more benefits associated with gender blindness, which emphasizes the similarities between genders, or gender awareness which focuses on the differences between men and women. Despite the scarcity of studies on diversity ideologies for gender, there are several studies that provide some patterns suggesting gender blind ideology may be beneficial for women as the minority group. Specifically, Koenig and Richeson (2010) found that gender blindness was perceived as being more appropriate for work, as bringing attention to gender and emphasizing the difference between men and women may be seen as benevolent sexism, especially in the 12 workplace, whereas gender blindness reduces this sexism. In addition, some research suggests that men who adopt gender blindness are more likely to reduce their dominance in interactions, less likely to endorse gender-STEM stereotyping, and more supportive of affirmative policies that help women in underrepresented settings. (Martin, Phillips, & Sasaki, 2016; Martin & Phillips, 2019). Further, Martin and Phillips (2017) found that women in gender-blind work settings reported higher self-confidence and allowed for more action-taking. In addition, Windscheid and colleagues (2017) specifically examined pursuit intentions and found that when an organizational context is characterized by gender blind, rather than gender aware, diversity initiatives, both men and women demonstrated higher pursuit intentions. Though knowledge on the effect of gender ideologies is limited, existing research suggests that gender blindness may be more beneficial for women at work, especially for women in settings where they are underrepresented. Representation Because much of the reason for researching diversity ideology revolves around representational concerns for minority groups (e.g. racial minorities, women), actual representation in an organization may affect the effectiveness of the diversity ideology in the setting. In general, organizations can better attract applicants with greater proportional representation of women and racial minorities. This suggests that at high levels of representation, attraction is generally high. This is supported by research in the context of race ideology, as Purdie-Vaughns, Steele, Davies, Ditlmann, and Randall-Crosby (2008) found that minority applicants respond well to both colorblindness and multiculturalism if endorsed by diverse organizations where minority representation is high. However, if an organization has low minority representation, minority applicants responded better to multiculturalism than 13 colorblindness. This indicates that level of representation can differentially affect the effect of diversity ideology. This effect of representation can be explained by the functional perspective of diversity ideology which posits that the underlying mechanism of minorities responding favorably to one approach of diversity ideology and not the other is due to the extent to which the approach addresses group-based concerns (Dovidio et al., 2007). Because representation is a strong signal of an organization adequately addressing a group’s needs, increased minority representation reduces the concern of unmet group-based needs. In examining race ideology, Apfelbaum et al. (2016) found that multiculturalism was particularly effective for racial minorities at settings of low representation but this effectiveness generally decreased at higher levels of representation (40%). However, in male-dominated spaces, especially STEM, women may have domain- specific concerns (e.g. stereotyping) that can be better addressed using a blindness approach. Women in STEM Generally, STEM fields have the stereotypes of being more focused on agentic traits rather than communal traits (Diekman, Brown, Johnston, & Clark, 2010). However, based on social role theory, women are traditionally considered (or expected) to possess communal traits while men are considered as more agentic in nature (Eagly, 1987). Indeed, Carli, Alawa, Lee, Zhao, and Kim (2016) examined the stereotypes of successful scientists and found that there is greater similarity between stereotypes about men and stereotypes about scientists than stereotypes about women and scientists. Specifically, men and scientists were seen as highly agentic, such that they are analytical, competitive, and independent. Further, STEM fields are perceived to be less likely to encourage communal goals and to be more aligned with stereotypically male-endorsed, agentic goals, e.g. power, self-promotion, demonstrating skill or 14 competence (Diekman et al., 2010). Thus, even if the intention of gender awareness is to celebrate differences, an awareness approach may highlight stereotypically feminine or communal traits that are not conventionally considered as being compatible with STEM. This incompatibility can signal to women that they are not a good fit or do not belong in STEM. In addition, creating awareness for differences between men and women in this setting can heighten their sense of visibility in a way that may induce anxiety to perform or disprove their stereotype. Therefore, it follows that, in an application setting, women who expect to be seen as distinct from their male counterparts based on gender differences in a STEM field position, would be less interested in joining to be a part of that organization. Meta-stereotyping. In the literature, this consideration of others’ stereotype of oneself based on group membership is referred to as meta-stereotyping. Specifically, meta-stereotyping is concerned with a person’s belief regarding the stereotype that out-group members hold about their own groups (Voyles, Finkelstein, & King, 2015; Vorauer, Main, & O’Connell, 1998). Essentially, it is a cognition that answers the question of “what do others think of me?” and this concern has been shown to induce anxiety, deplete cognitive resources, and disrupt interpersonal interactions (King, Kaplan, & Zaccaro, 2008). However, in order for one to experience the effects of meta-stereotypes, they must first experience the cognition that another group has a stereotype about them. Therefore, meta-stereotyping has been conceptualized to be made up of two factors: meta-stereotype content and meta-stereotype consciousness, where the former is focused on how people are stereotyped and the latter focuses on whether people are actually concerned about being judged stereotypically. Drawing from literature on stigma, which indicates that people differ in their awareness of their stigmatized identities, meta-stereotype consciousness is defined as the degree to which “individuals are self-conscious about the 15 stereotypes of their in-group held by members of the out-group” (Ryan, King, and Finkelstein, 2015, p. 55). Though STEM fields are perceived to be associated with agentic traits, (Carli et al., 2016; Diekman et al., 2010), whether or not a particular STEM organization is seen to hold stereotypes about women can be indicated by its diversity statement. Specifically, a diversity statement that signals a gender aware ideology may indicate to applicants that the organization values women for their possession of communal traits, which has been demonstrated to be not as associated with success as agentic traits in STEM field positions (Ramsey, 2017). In a gender aware work setting, women may expect to be stereotyped as gender awareness emphasizes the differences between men and women as a source of strength. Conversely, gender blind work settings would deemphasize the group-based differences and -- in the case of focus on homogeneity-- emphasize an overarching identity (e.g. members of an organization). This focus on sameness instead of differences would lead to less expectation to be reduced to gender stereotypes. Thus, Hypothesis 1: Women expect less meta-stereotyping when presented with gender blind diversity statements compared to gender aware diversity statements. The focus on stereotypes may be especially salient in contexts where there is little female representation. As indicated by race studies, people who are the only minority member have representational concerns and are often concerned with being tokenized (Kanter, 1977; Lord & Saenz, 1985; Sekaquaptewa & Thompson, 2003). As the only person who is of ethnic or gender minority, the underrepresented individuals are often expected to behave in ways that are aligned with stereotypes based on their group membership (Gutiérrez & Unzueta, 2010). In addition, minorities are suspicious of awareness ideologies espoused by organizations that are largely comprised of majority group members (Purdie-Vaughns et al., 2008). Indeed, findings from 16 stereotype threat literature indicate that the possibility of encountering bias and discrimination due to negative stereotypes can deter women from being interested in pursuing STEM education, especially in fields in which the proportion of women is lower (Smith, Sansone, & White, 2007; Ahlqvist, London, & Rosenthal, 2013; Cheryan et al., 2017).2 Therefore, I hypothesize that the effect of diversity ideologies on meta-stereotyping is contingent upon the level of representation present at the organization of interest. At organizations with higher levels of representation, I expect there to be no difference in expectation to be stereotyped as representational concerns are addressed and either approach would elicit a similar response in meta-stereotyping. Based on these previous findings, it is hypothesized that the degree to which diversity ideology predicts perceived level of stereotyping depends on the level of representation such that Hypothesis 2a: Women expect lower levels of meta-stereotyping when exposed to gender blind diversity statements from organizations with lower levels of representation than when exposed to gender blind statements from organizations with high levels of representation. Hypothesis 2b: Women expect higher levels of meta-stereotyping when exposed to gender aware diversity statements from organizations with lower levels of representation than when exposed to gender aware statements from organizations with high levels of representation. Hypothesis 2c: There are no differential effects of ideological approach on meta- stereotyping in organizations with high levels of representation (See Figure 2) Perceived P-O Fit. Perceived fit and sense of belonging are seen as largely overlapping and very similar. Due to the proliferation of studying sense of belonging as a key factor in 2 Though highly related, it is important to note that stereotype threat is not the same as meta-stereotype consciousness. Whereas stereotype threat is defined as the fear of confirming stereotypes by acting in stereotypical ways, meta-stereotype awareness is concerned with an individual’s anticipation that others will stereotype her regardless of behavior. 17 students’ intent to pursue STEM in social psychology and educational research, I will briefly define and summarize relevant findings below. Sense of belonging, stemming from the concept of social belongingness, is defined as an affective experience that one belongs to a community and “entails a sense of being valued and accepted by fellow members of the discipline” (Good, Rattan, & Dweck, 2012, p. 700). Thus, belongingness for women in STEM can be conceptualized as involving a woman’s personal belief that she is accepted as a member in STEM, where she is valued. Studies on sense of belonging in STEM have also shown to be particularly important for interest in STEM, intent to pursue STEM education, and STEM identification (Cheryan, Plaut, Davies, & Steele, 2009; Good et al, 2012; Peters et al., 2012). However, whereas the question of what determines women’s retention in STEM is addressed by STEM belonging, the question of whether women would apply to STEM field positions can be addressed by perceived P-O fit. Therefore, because the focus of this study is on organizations as perceived from the applicant’s point of view, I only measured P-O fit to understand fit perceptions as women consider applying to a STEM field position. Drawing from literature on stereotype threat, previous research has indicated the detrimental effect of meta-stereotyping, such that being aware of the possibility to be stereotyped can lead to negative outcomes. Specifically, in a study conducted by Wout, Shih, Jackson, and Sellers (2009), women students in STEM contexts have to contend with the threat of being stereotyped, especially when they have male teachers and only have limited information about teacher’s actual beliefs. In addition, studies on physical manifestations of the STEM stereotypes, (e.g., video games or posters depicting traditionally male interests, such as sci-fi movies), can also lower women’s belief about their belonging and fit in an environment (Cheryan et al., 2009). 18 By extension, this suggests that the heightened expectation to be stereotyped in a STEM setting can lead one to see herself as incompatible or out of place. Therefore, I hypothesize that Hypothesis 3: Expected level of meta-stereotyping negatively predicts perceived fit. Gender Schematicity. Moreover, there are reasons to expect that the effects of meta- stereotyping on fit perceptions may be affected by gender schematicity. Gender schematicity can be defined as the degree to which an individual views themselves as prototypically gendered (Bem, 1984). That is, women who view themselves as more feminine are gender schematic. Prior research revealed that compared to gender aschematics (i.e., those who do not view themselves or process information along gender lines), gender schematics are inclined to apply gender stereotypes and are more sensitive to the effects of gender stereotypes (Frable, 1989). Thus, it might be expected that the hypothesized effects of meta-stereotyping on perceived fit for women applicants varies based on whether she views herself as stereotypically feminine. Thus, it is hypothesized that the degree to which expected levels of meta-stereotyping negatively predicts perceived fit depends on the individual’s gender schematicity such that Hypothesis 4a: Women who are more gender schematic perceive less fit when they expect higher levels of meta-stereotyping. Hypothesis 4b: There are no differential effects of meta-stereotyping on fit perceptions for women who are more gender aschematic (See Figure 3). Communal Goal Affordance and Communal Goal Endorsement. One specific stream of research that examines the retention of women in STEM focuses on role congruity. Role congruity theory asserts individual select roles that fulfills goals that are important to them (Diekman & Eagly, 2008). Regarding women and occupational roles, a meta-analysis on job attribute preferences showed that women tend to prefer communal goals more than men (Konrad, 19 Ritchie, Lieb, & Corrigall, 2000). However, as previously indicated, women are hesitant to enter STEM because it is not known to afford or fulfill communal goals. It is important to consider the potential effects of an organization’s espoused gender diversity ideology on women applicants’ perception of communal goal affordance. That is, does expressing a gender blind or gender aware approach as an organization affect the degree to which women applicants see the organization as being able to fulfill their communal goals? It may be that the gender awareness approach can make communion attributes more salient or suggest that there is acceptance or even a need for communal traits for the position at that organization. Therefore, I pose the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 5: Gender blindness negatively predicts communal goal affordance. Moreover, individuals’ perceptions of fit may be affected by the “match” between their own goal endorsement and what type of goals they think the position will fulfill, as per role congruity theory. That is, a women applicants’ perception of fit at a STEM field position may be affected by the degree to which she perceived the organization as being able to satisfy her communal goals. Further, this relationship may be contingent upon whether the woman applicant values or endorses communal goals in the first place. If the applicants’ degree of endorsement of communal goals is not aligned with her perception of what the organization will be able to afford, her perception of fit with the organization may be negatively affected. Therefore, it is hypothesized that the degree to which communal goal affordance predicts perceived fit depends on the individual’s communal goal endorsement such that: Hypothesis 6a: Women who endorse more communal goals perceive greater fit when they perceive greater communal goal affordance compared to when they perceive less communal goal affordance. 20 Hypothesis 6b: Women who endorse less communal goals perceive greater fit when they perceive less communal goal affordance compared to when they perceive greater communal goal affordance (See Figure 4). Organizational Attraction Organizational attraction is an important determinant of how people choose where to work. Of the many predictors of organizational attraction, one of the most well-established relationships is the one of perceived fit and applicant attraction (Chapman, Uggerslev, Carroll, Piasentin, & Jones, 2005; Uggerslev, Fassina, & Kraichy, 2012). The relationship between perceived fit and organizational reaction can be explain by the ASA model. That is, if job applicants assess themselves and the organization to be similar or compatible, i.e. high P-O fit, they are more attracted and will self-select into the organization (Cable & Judge, 1996). Therefore, I hypothesize Hypothesis 7: Perceived fit positively predicts organizational attraction. 21 CHAPTER 3 METHOD To test this model, I conducted an experiment in which the diversity ideology approach conveyed by an organization and the representation of women at the organization is manipulated. Therefore, the proposed study is a 2 x 2 between-subjects experimental design. Participants Participants were recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk (mTurk). Samples of MTurk workers have been demonstrated to have comparable, or greater, quality in terms of diversity, reliability and attention to instructions as compared to more traditional data samples (e.g., U.S. college students; Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011; Paolacci, Chandler, & Ipeirotis, 2010). Screening questions were used (see Appendix B) such that in order to be considered for the study, participants must identify as women, are over the age of 18, be currently employed at least part-time, and be interested in applying for a position in STEM. Attention check and manipulation check items were also included to ensure the sample consisted of participants who properly understand and are engaged in the study (see Appendix E). To ensure data quality, participants were screened for prior HIT rating (i.e. only who have a HIT rate of greater than 95% were selected to participate). In addition, an open-ended question was included as a data quality check and screening for bots (see Appendix F). Those who met all the criteria (identify as women, over the age of 18, currently work at least part-time, interested in applying to STEM positions, met all data quality checks) were selected to participate in this study. Participants received a small monetary reward, i.e. $1.00, for their participation. 423 participants met all criteria and were included in the sample. 22 The sample was majority White (70.9%) with 10.9% identifying as Black, 8.3% identifying as Asian, 7.1% identifying as Latino/Hispanic, and 7.4% identifying as either Middle Eastern/Arab, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, or other. The average age of the sample was 37.17 years old (SD = 11.65). Over half of the sample was employed full time (69%), had worked at their current company for an average of 5.67 years (SD = 6.86), and had worked in their current industry for an average of 8.18 years (SD = 8.04). In terms of the industry participants are interested in working in, a little less than half of the sample would like to work in technology (48%), with 36.4% interested in working science, 9.9% interested in working in engineering, and 5.7% interested in working in mathematics. Procedure After completing the consent form (see Appendix C), participants were asked to qualitatively describe their current job and their STEM field of interest. After answering, participants were asked to envision themselves as a job applicant who came across a fictional organization, Scienico, and were randomly assigned to read the diversity statement and representation of women at Scienico through images from a company review site. Participants were then asked to consider the experience of being an employee at Scienico. At this point, participants answered a series of manipulation check questions. Participants were then be asked to complete a set of measures in the order listed (See Appendix G). Manipulations Images of company review websites were created for the fictional organization, Scienico. Diversity ideology was manipulated by creating diversity statements based on real diversity statements of organizations as well as manipulation from previous research (e.g. Apfelbaum et al., 2016, Hahn et al., 2015, Martin & Phillips, 2019). Specifically, in the gender awareness 23 diversity statement, the differences and distinctiveness between men and women were emphasized while for the gender blind diversity statement, the shared similarities between men and women as well as the individual were emphasized. Similar to the work done by Apfelbaum et al. (2016) that indicated that 40% as a substantial percentage in an organization, I also manipulated representation of women by presenting of the demographic at Scienico with the statement “What percentage of employees at Scienico are women? [5 out of 100/40 out of 100]” (See Appendix D). Primary Measures Organizational Attraction. To measure organizational attractiveness, participants completed Highhouse, Lievens, and Sinar (2003)’s Organizational Attractiveness measure (α = .96). There were 10 items measured on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). An example item is “For me, this company would be a good place to work.” Perceived P-O Fit. To examine perceived fit, participants completed Cable and DeRue (2002)’s P-O fit measure. There were six items measured on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). An example item is “This organization’s values and culture provide a good fit with the things that I value in life.” The measure demonstrated strong internal consistency. The scale demonstrated high internal consistency (α = 0.96). Perceived Goal Affordance. To measure perceived goal affordance, participants rated how much they considered the position at Scienico will fulfill agentic goals (power, achievement, and seeking new experiences or excitement; Pohlmann, 2001) and communal goals (intimacy, affiliation, and altruism; Pohlmann, 2001). Ratings were completed on 7-point scales, 24 from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely). Both communal and agentic goal affordance showed acceptable levels of internal consistency (αcommunal = 0.83; αagentic = 0.76). Metastereotype Consciousness. An adaptation of the Metastereotype Consciousness Scale used by Ryan, King, and Finkelstein (2015) was used to assess whether participants believe they will be stereotyped at the organization. There were six items measured on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). An example item is “I will not need to worry that my behaviors will be viewed as stereotypical of women at this organization.” The scale demonstrated adequate internal consistency (α = 0.89). Goal Endorsement. To measure goal endorsement, participants rated nine communal and 14 agentic goals on how important each of the goals is to them. The scale ranged from 1 (not at all important) to 7 (extremely important). An example of an agentic goal is “Demonstrating skill or competence” while an example of a communal goal is “Helping others”. Both agentic and communal and agentic communal goal endorsement showed adequate internal consistency (αcommunal = 0.90; αagentic = 0.88). Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ). To measure gender schematicity, participants rated themselves using the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (Heimreich et al., 1981). Participants reported how they saw themselves by rating 24 pairs of statements, with eight items for each of the following subscale: masculinity, femininity, masculinity-femininity. Rating were completed on 5-point bipolar scales anchored by opposite statement, e.g. “very rough” and “very gentle”. Both the masculinity and feminity subscales showed acceptable levels of internal consistency (αmasculinity = 0.74; αfemininity = 0.81). However, the masculinity-femininity subscale demonstrated poor internal consistency and was therefore dropped from subsequent analyses (α = 0.53). 25 Manipulation Checks. To ensure the participants were able to correctly identify the diversity ideology approach used and the representation of women at the organization, I asked participants to complete a set of manipulation check items (see Appendix G). Participants who could not correctly identify the approach used in the diversity statement and the representation of women at the organization were not included in subsequent analyses. Demographics. Finally, participants reported their race/ethnicity and age as well as information related to their work experience, e.g. field of employment and number of years employed. Additional Measures While the primary measures are used to examine the discussed model, the following additional measures were also collected. Specifically, to distinguish confidence from meta- stereotyping, the Workplace Confidence measure from Martin & Phillips (2017) was included and the two measures were analyzed to see if they are conceptually different. In addition, Social Dominance Orientation was measured for exploratory purposes. Workplace confidence. An adaptation of the Workplace Confidence measure used by Martin and Phillips (2017) was used to assess whether participants’ action-based, agentic confidence if they were to work at Scienico. The scale comprised of six items that are measured on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). An example item is “If I were working at Scienico, I think I would perform better than others in the same role/position as myself at work.” The measure demonstrated adequeate internal consistency (α = 0.82). Social Dominance Orientation (SDO). To measure participants’ support for inequity between social groups, participants completed the 16-item Social Dominance Orientation scale 26 (Pratto et al., 1994; α = .90 in validation study). Measured on a seven-point Likert-type scale (1 = “Extremely negative” to 7 = “Extremely positive”), an example item for this measure is “Inferior groups should stay in their place.” This measure demonstrated strong internal consistency (α = .94). 27 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations between all variables are available in Table 1. Given the high correlation between organizational attraction and perceived fit (see Table 1), a series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted to determine whether the measures are distinct. A two-factor structure CFA with organizational attraction items loading onto one factor and perceived fit items loading on another had good model fit (RMSEA = .10, CFI = .95, TLI = .94, SRMR = .03). However, a one-factor model with all organizational attraction and perceived fit items loading onto a single factor also revealed adequate fit (RMSEA = .10, CFI = .92, TLI = .91, SRMR = .04). While CFI and TLI indicated the two-factor model as better fitting, a relative fit index, Akaike information criterion (AIC), was examined as further evidence to strengthen the argument for treating organization attraction and perceived fit as distinct measures. Indeed, the CFAs revealed a lower AIC for the two-factor model than that of the one-factor model, 13242.19 and 13443.12, respectively. In addition to previous research findings on applicant attraction and perceived fit (e.g. Chapman, Uggerslev, Carroll, Piasentin, & Jones, 2005; Uggerslev, Fassina, & Kraichy, 2012), the results of these analyses suggest that the measures are indeed distinctive. Therefore, the measures were treated as distinct within subsequent analyses. Hypothesis Testing Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 1 predicted that gender blindness is related to lower expected level of meta-stereotyping than gender awareness. Further, Hypothesis 2 suggests an interaction between diversity ideology and representation on meta-stereotyping. 28 Specifically, Hypothesis 2a states that gender blind X low representation will result in lower levels of representation than gender blind X high representation. Hypothesis 2b states that gender aware X low representation will result in higher levels of meta-stereotyping compared to gender aware X high representation. Lastly, Hypothesis 2c states that there are no differential effects of diversity ideology on meta-stereotyping at high levels of representation. Accordingly, a two-way ANOVA was conducted, and support was found for Hypothesis 1 but not Hypothesis 2 (see Table 3). Specifically, there was a main effect of ideology such that on average, women who read the diversity blind statement (M = 2.61, SD = 2.97) expected lower levels of meta-stereotyping than women who read gender aware statements (M = 1.05, SD = 1.09), F(1,419) = 12.74, p < .001, η2 = .03. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was supported. Conversely, there was no significant interaction between the independent variables, F(1,419) = 1.16, p = .28, indicating that the effect of diversity ideology on expected levels of meta-stereotyping did not depend on level of representation; therefore, Hypothesis 2 was not supported. A main effect of representation did emerge, such that, on average, women expected less meta-stereotyping when exposed to statements of high level of representation (M = 2.52, SD = .98) than when exposed to statements of low levels of representation (M = 3.06, SD = 1.11), F(1,419) = 29.49, p < .001, η2 = .07. Hypothesis 3 and Hypothesis 4. Hypothesis 3 predicted that expected levels of meta- stereotyping is negatively related to perceived fit. Further, Hypothesis 4 suggested that the effect of meta-stereotyping on perceived fit depends on level of gender schematicity. A multiple regression with meta-stereotyping, gender schematicity, and meta-stereotyping X gender schematicity as the predictors (centered) and perceived fit as the outcome was conducted to examine these possibilities. Main effects were entered into moderated regression model on the 29 first step and the interaction term was entered as the second step (see Table 4). Results indicate that meta-stereotyping is a significant negative predictor of fit perceptions, b = -.71, SE = .04, p <.001. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was supported. In the same model, Hypothesis 4 was not supported as gender schematicity was not a significant moderator on the relationship between meta-stereotyping and fit perceptions, b = .00, SE = .01, p = 82. Similarly, gender schematicity was not a significant predictor of fit perceptions, b = .00, SE = .01, p = .48. Altogether, the omnibus model test revealed an adjusted R2 of .52, indicating that 52% of the variance in fit perceptions can be explained by the proposed model. Hypothesis 5. Hypothesis 5 predicted that gender blindness is negatively related to communal goal affordance. To examine this, a two sample t-test with diversity ideology as the predictor and communal goal affordance as the outcome was conducted. Hypothesis 5 was not supported, as results indicated there was no significant effect of diversity ideology on perceived communal goal affordance, t(421) -.92, p = .36. Hypothesis 6. Hypothesis 6 suggested that communal goal affordance’s and communal goal endorsement predicted greater perceived fit. To examine the relationships between communal goal affordance, individual communal goal endorsement, and perceived fit, a multiple regression with communal goal affordance, communal goal endorsement, and communal goal affordance X communal goal endorsement as the predictors (centered) and perceived fit as the outcome was conducted. Main effects were entered into moderated regression model on the first step and the interaction term was entered as the second step (see Table 5). Results revealed that perceived communal goal affordance was a significant positive predictor of perceived fit, b = .72, SE = .04, p < .001. However, communal goal endorsement was not a significant predictor of perceived fit, b = .03, SE = .05, p = .62. Further, communal goal endorsement did not 30 moderate the relationship between communal goal affordance and perceived fit, b = -.02, SE = .04, p = 71. Hypothesis 7. Hypothesis 7 suggested that applicants’ P-O fit perceptions would positively predict organizational attraction. Indeed, a simple regression with perceived fit as the predictor and organizational attraction as the outcome shows that perceived fit significantly predicted greater organization attraction, b = .86, SE = .02, p < .001. Therefore, Hypothesis 7 was supported. Serial Mediation Given support for Hypotheses 1, Hypothesis 3, and Hypothesis 7, a serial mediation linking diversity ideology and representation of women to organizational attraction was conducted (as depicted in Figure 5). To examine the extent to which meta-stereotyping and perceived fit mediated the relationship between the predictors (diversity ideology and representation) and organizational attraction, I used the lavaan package in RStudio to evaluate the bootstrapped indirect effect. Support for mediation was found, as the confidence interval of the bootstrapped indirect effect of diversity ideology and representation on organizational attraction via meta-stereotyping and perceived was significant, (b = .48, z = 5.69, SE = .08, 95% CI [.32, .65], p < .001). Exploratory Analyses Supplementary to Hypothesis 5. In addition to examining the effect of diversity ideology on perceived communal goal affordance, the effect of representation was examined as well. A two-sample t-test with representation as the predictor was conducted and revealed that women who read the statement with a high representation of women in an organization (M = 31 3.18, SD = .96) perceived significantly greater communal goal affordance than women who read the statement with low representation of women (M = 2.91, SD = 1.06), t(421) = -2.76, p = .01. Supplementary to Hypothesis 6. As an exploratory analysis, the additive and multiplicative effects of communal goal affordance and metastereotyping on fit perceptions were examined. A moderated regression model indicated that the extent to which communal goal affordance predicted perceived fit depended on expected levels of meta-stereotyping, b = .13, SE = .03, p < .001. An examination of Figure 6 reveals that when female applicants who perceive low communal goal affordance and higher levels of expected metastereotyping have the lowest levels of perceived fit with the organization. Agentic Goal Affordance and Agentic Goal Endorsement. Exploratory analyses were conducted to examine the potential role of agentic goal affordance and agentic goal endorsement as outcome or predictors in the hypothesized model. First, to examine the effect of diversity ideology and representation on perceived agentic goal affordance, a two sample t-test with diversity ideology as the predictor and agentic goal affordance as the outcome was conducted and results indicated that diversity ideology is not significantly related to perceived agentic goal affordance, t(421) = -.68, p = .50. However, a two sample t-test with representation as the predictor indicated that representation is significantly related to perceived agentic goal affordance, t(421) = -3.96, p <.001. Further, a multiple regression with agentic goal affordance, agentic goal endorsement, and agentic goal affordance X agentic goal endorsement as the predictors (centered) and perceived fit as the outcome was conducted. Main effects were entered into moderated regression model on the first step and the interaction term was entered as the second step. Results revealed that perceived agentic goal affordance was a significant positive predictor of perceived fit, b 32 = .96, SE = .04, p < .001. However, agentic goal endorsement was not a significant predictor of perceived fit, b = -.10, SE = .06, p = .09. Further, agentic goal endorsement did not moderate the relationship between agentic goal affordance and perceived fit, b = .04, SE = .05, p = .49. These results indicate that the interaction between goal endorsement and goal affordance were not significant for either agentic or communal goals. To compare the relative importance between communal and agentic goal affordance on perceived, a multiple regression model was conducted and the proportion of variance explained by each variable was examined. Results showed that agentic goal affordance was relatively more important (85.1%) than communal goal affordance (15%), after accounting for the relationship between agentic goal affordance and communal goal affordance (see Table 7). In addition, the interaction between communal and agentic goal affordance was examined. A moderated regression model indicated that the extent to which communal goal affordance predicted perceived fit depended on agentic communal goal affordance, b = -.15, SE = .03, p < .001. An examination of Figure 7 reveals that when female applicants who perceive low communal goal affordance and low levels of agentic goal affordance have the lowest levels of perceived fit with the organization. Workplace Confidence. Given the moderate correlation (r = -.46) and conceptual overlap between metastereotyping and workplace confidence, two CFAs were conducted to determine whether the measures are distinct. The same procedure for testing organizational attraction and perceived fit was used and the two-factor model was better fitting (RMSEA = .11, CFI = .91, TLI = .89, SRMR = .07) than the one-factor model (RMSEA = .21, CFI = .87, TLI = .62, SRMR = .15). For exploratory purposes, the steps taken to examine Hypotheses 1 and 2 were repeated with workplace confidence as the outcome and the results did not replicate the 33 findings of Martin and Phillips (2017) such that diversity ideology was not a significant predictor of workplace confidence, F(1,419) = .56, p = .46. A main effect of representation, however, did emerge as significant, such that, on average, women rated as having higher workplace confidence when exposed to statements of high level of representation (M = 3.93, SD = .63) than when exposed to statements of low levels of representation (M = 3.75, SD = .77), F(1,419) = 6.88, p = .01, η2 = .001. Social Dominance Orientation. The correlation table shows that SDO significantly related to Perceived Fit (r = .24). Therefore, to explore the role of SDO, analyses (i.e. H3, H4, H6) were rerun as hierarchical multiple regressions with perceived fit as the dependent variable and SDO entered into the model as step one as a control variable (see Table 8). This was done so that comparisons can be made between the original hypothesized models and models that control for SDO. Examining H3 and H4, including SDO makes an important contribution to the overall model, F(1,418) = 20.97, p < .001, and accounted for 2.19% of the variance in perceived fit. However, controlling for SDO did not change the relationship between the predictors (metastereotyping, gender schematicity, metastereotyping X gender schematicity) and the outcome (perceived fit). Examining Hypothesis 6, including SDO did not make an important contribution to the overall model, F(1,418) = .10, p = .75, and did not influence the relationship between the predictors (communal goal affordance, individual communal goal endorsement, communal goal affordance X communal goal endorsement) and the outcome (perceived fit). 34 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of gender diversity ideology on applicant reactions for women in STEM. Using extant research on race and diversity ideology, signaling theory (Rynes, Bretz Jr., & Gerhart, 1991; Spence, 1973), and fit theory, I predicted that organizations’ diversity ideology is linked to organizational attraction through mediators such as meta-stereotyping and perceived fit; specifically, organizations espousing a genderblind approach to gender differences would lead to more positive outcomes (e.g. lower expected levels of meta-stereotyping, greater sense of perceived fit) for women applicants to STEM field positions. The results of each hypothesis are discussed below. Hypothesis 1 and 2 examined the conditions under which women would expect less meta-stereotyping. The support found for Hypothesis 1 indicated that the manipulations had their intended effect such that gender blind diversity statements led to less expected levels of meta- stereotyping, indicating that deemphasizing gender-based differences reduced the concern of women of being reduced to gender stereotypes. Similarly, representation of women at an organization also reduced these concerns, such that a greater representation of women at an organization was predictive of lower levels of expected meta-stereotyping. The lack of support for Hypothesis 2 – which predicted an interaction effect of gender diversity ideology and representation on expected meta-stereotyping – suggests that gender blind diversity statements are effective in reducing meta-stereotyping concerns of women who apply for STEM field positions, regardless of representation of women in an organization. However, considering how the effect size of representation on expected meta-stereotyping is greater than that of gender 35 diversity ideology, it is worthwhile to focus on increasing representation of women in an organization to reduce meta-stereotyping concerns. As the support for Hypothesis 3 and 5 would suggest, it is important to consider expected meta-stereotyping as a concern for women who are interested in working in STEM field positions. I found that greater levels of expected meta-stereotyping negatively affect the extent to which woman applicants see themselves as a fit for the organization. Specifically, women who anticipate that their actions will be interpreted in terms of the fact they are women at a specific organization are less likely to see compatibility with that organization. In addition to the awareness of such meta-stereotypes, the content of these meta-stereotypes should be explored. For example, previous research found that there is the lack of overlap between stereotypes about scientists and stereotypes about women and that there are more similarities between stereotypes about men and stereotypes about scientists (Carli et al, 2016). This notion of “think STEM, think men” may explain the lack of fit women feel when they expected that they will be judged based on their gender. Further, the lack of support for Hypothesis 4 (gender schematicity would moderate the relationship between meta-stereotyping and perceived fit) generalizes the effect of meta- stereotyping to all women. Specifically, the results suggest that, irrespective of her adherence to conventional gender norms, women applicants’ perceptions of fit at an organization are affected by the level of meta-stereotyping that she expects from that organization. That is, even women who do not view themselves as prototypical of their gender are negatively affected by the expectation that her behaviors will be viewed as stereotypically female at an organization. A closer examination of the correlation table reveals an unexpected relationship between gender schematicity and communal goal endorsement, e.g. higher gender schematicity was related to 36 less communal goal endorsement for women. This may point to the limitation of the PAQ as a measure for gender schematicity, as women who are more likely to apply gender stereotypes would be more likely to endorse communal goals. It is worth noting that goal affordance was found to affect fit perceptions for women who apply to work in STEM. Though there was no support that diversity ideology predicts communal goal affordance perceptions (Hypothesis 5), communal goal affordance was related to perceived fit. That is, applicants who believe the organization will or can afford communal goals will perceive greater fit with the organization. Contrary to what was expected from Hypothesis 6, this effect on fit perception is not affected by applicants’ personal endorsement of communal goals. Exploratory analyses with agentic goal affordance and agentic goal endorsement revealed a similar pattern, such that diversity did not predict agentic goal affordance and agentic goal affordance, not agentic goal endorsement, is predictive of perceived fit. Further, a relative weights analysis suggests that agentic goal affordance is a stronger predictor of perceived fit than communal goal affordance for women applying to STEM field positions. An exploratory examination of both communal and agentic goal affordance also revealed an interaction between the two types goals such that greatest fit perception was predicted by both high communal and high agentic goal affordance. Interestingly, this exploratory interaction revealed that high communal goal affordance and low agentic goal affordance predicts average perceived fit. This supports prior research that agentic goal affordance is largely aligned with perceived fit. However, in the absence of agentic goal affordance, communal goal affordance still predicts moderate perceived fit among women in STEM, supporting previous research on communal goal affordance (Diekman et al., 2010.) 37 Taken together, these findings suggest that perhaps there is not enough information to be gleaned from the content of statements to help discern what goals the organization will satisfy. This shows that gender diversity ideology has no effect on applicants’ perceptions of what goals the position will fulfill. The disconnect between individual goal endorsement and goal affordance may indicate that women, as applicants, disregard the goals they personally value, whether those goals are communal or agentic. The greater relative importance of agentic goal affordance to communal goal affordance indicate that women generally expect STEM field positions to fulfill at least agentic goals. This is likely due to the general perceptions of STEM field and its association with masculinity. In addition, it may be that women do not expect to fulfill communal goals from their STEM field positions as much as they would from their life outside of work. However, when women do hold this expectation of fulfilling communal goals in their STEM position, the perceived compatibility between themselves and the position increases. The lack of support for goal endorsement may allude to its position as a secondary concern during the hiring stage or that there is not enough information for applicants to make that judgement in the scenario provided. Contrary to the findings of Martin and Phillips (2017), workplace confidence was not affected by the type of gender diversity ideology used. Rather, workplace confidence was significantly predicted by the level of representation of women, suggesting that having more women represented in the organization is associated with greater workplace confidence. It is worth noting that Martin and Phillips (2017) chose to capture workplace confidence by using items that addressed action-based confidence and reflect components of agency and workplace efficacy, which has been shown to be distinct from meta-stereotyping. Thus, it may be insightful 38 to examine workplace confidence as a separate outcome to further understand the experience of women in STEM. Interestingly, SDO was also positively predictive of perceived fit, suggesting that women with greater support for inequity between groups perceived greater fit as applicants to STEM field positions. This finding suggests that perhaps certain women are drawn to STEM field positions. For example, more masculine fields, such as STEM, are typically are more valued, both in terms of monetary worth and societal prestige, than more feminine fields (Bieri Buschor, 2014; Funk & Parker, 2018). In addition, examining SDO’s correlation with communal goal affordance may point to the possibility that SDO is related to the degree to which women expect a position to fulfill communal goals. Thus, women who pursue STEM positions may be more sensitive to the prestige of STEM fields and perceive STEM as superior to other groups of occupations, thereby endorsing SDO. Theoretical and Practical Implication The current study contributes to understanding by demonstrated the effects of diversity ideologies as applied to gender. Contrary to existing research on diversity ideologies that have largely focused on race, which demonstrated minorities as largely preferring multiculturalism over colorblindness, women as an underrepresented group in STEM prefer a blindness approach over an awareness approach when it comes to organizations’ approach to gender differences. This divergence from the consistent association of blindness with negative outcomes highlights the need to examine context when studying diversity ideologies as there may not be a one-size- fits-all approach to diversity ideology for all group differences. Specifically, some group differences that have rarely been considered in the diversity ideology include age, disability, and sexuality. Drawing from a study that found White students at predominantly Black colleges 39 preferring diversity aware policies, it may be that awareness as an approach is preferred among minority group members across group differences as they prefer their group be recognized and their needs addressed (Hehman et al., 2012). The present study also further extends the understanding of diversity ideology by recognizing meta-stereotyping as the link between gender blindness and its positive outcomes of greater perceived fit. Understanding meta-stereotyping as an important mechanism that connects diversity ideology and fit perception suggests that diversity ideology can lead to one to question whether or not others will stereotype them. Future research should further examine both the content of these meta-stereotypes and as well as the reactions to these cognitions, which may be stereotype threat or even stereotype reactance. Practically, the findings of this study can help inform how organization want to present themselves. The current findings suggest that gender blindness as an approach is generally more associated with positive outcomes, such as better fit and more attraction to an organization, due to the reduction of concerns of meta-stereotyping. To attract women applicants, it may be helpful for a STEM organization to frame their approach to gender group differences as gender blindness and emphasize the similarities, rather than differences, between men and women. However, organizations should be careful in adopting this approach and recognize that while gender blindness reduce women’s concern of meta-stereotyping, it may be less effective in addressing other concerns of women in STEM. Second, though the current study showed that greater representation is a better signal that reduces concerns of meta-stereotyping than gender blindness, organizations generally have more influence over its presentation through recruitment and diversity statements. By changing the way in which an organization espouses its values and approach to gender group difference, the 40 organization may help reduce the level of meta-stereotyping women experience as an applicant. It is still important, however, to consider representation as its relationships with both communal and agentic goal affordance were both significant. One can consider diversity statements to be what an organization espouses while its representation of women demonstrates what the organization is like “in action”. Indeed, organization found to engaging in diversity dishonesty, which refers to an organization incorrectly inflating its actual diversity, heighten minority concerns of performance and inclusion (Wilton et al., 2020). Thus, organizations need to ensure how it was presented at recruitment is consistent with how it really is for its employees. The congruence between an organization’s appearance and its practices and culture is especially important, as discrepancy between espoused and enacted values can undo the work of promoting perceived fit among women applicants. In sum, in order for gender blindness to influence the retention of women in STEM, organizations need to consider how they actually treat gender group differences by examining their policies and initiatives. It is important to note that there may not be one template for how to best attract applicants. Especially in the context of STEM, Black and Latina women are underrepresented in the STEM workforce (Funk & Parker, 2018). And as the extant research on race diversity ideology has shown, racial minorities respond better to multiculturalism. Therefore, one should be careful not to interpret the positive outcome of gender blindness as applicable to all women. Perhaps in order for an organization to be truly consistent with their messaging of looking beyond gender, it needs to recognize that, as an underrepresented group, women’s and especially women of color’s experiences are characterized by other’s stereotypes of them. This idea is consistent with previous research indicated that racial minorities sometimes experience 41 stereotype activation as an effect of multiculturalism that was poorly implemented (Gündemir et al., 2017). Limitations and Future Directions The present study has its limitations. Most notably, this study was cross-sectional such that data for all measures were collected at a single time point, suggesting that it is vulnerable to common method bias and that causality cannot be determined for the mediation that was supported. However, given the experimental nature of the study, the relationship between manipulations and outcome can be interpreted as more causal than mere associations. In addition, the use of varied scale anchors, the requirement of qualitative responses, and the variability in magnitude of relationships of measures help to lessen concerns about potential effects of common method variance. Future research should incorporate multiple time points in the study and examine the model over time. Specifically, it may be particularly insightful to understand the role of gender diversity ideology for women’s careers in STEM beyond increasing attraction at the applicant stage. An examination of the correlation tables reveal that diversity ideology is only significantly related with meta-stereotyping, which suggest that it is distal from the outcome variables presented in the study. It may be more worthwhile to examine the effect of diversity ideology after hire and its relationship with retention. For example, a gender awareness approach may be perceived more favorably and become more salient as women consider the different accommodation structures that an organization has in place. With this in mind, it may also be beneficial for future research to examine gender identification as a potential moderator. Though gender schematicity, which primarily addresses stereotype content, was already modeled in the current study, the 42 examination of the intensity of gender stereotypes that is addressed by the centrality of gender as an identity may improve current understandings of women in STEM. Theoretically, it may also be important to consider the many conceptualizations that exist within the literature with regards to diversity ideology approaches (see Table 1). In the present study, the way gender awareness was presented aligned with the conceptualization of respect for differences and identities. Gender blindness, however, was conceptualized as a mix of value-in- individual difference, value-in-similarity, and value-in-equality to present a realistic diversity statement one would see on a company website. Thus, narrower conceptualizations of blindness and awareness (e.g. value-in-individual differences vs. respect for differences and identities) may not be so different from each other as approach and may result in weaker relationships than the ones uncovered in the present study. In addition, the manipulation of awareness can be further refined in future research. As it was presented in the study, the gender awareness manipulation does not specify the gender difference between men and women as pertaining to having more communal goals. Thus, while gender awareness may make salient the differences between genders, it may not prompt group differences in agency or communion. Considering those who do not hold different stereotypes for men and women, gender awareness statements would not be likely to influence their other perceptions. As the present research only sampled women in STEM, future research can also consider expanding the sample to studying STEM men and their reactions to different diversity ideology approaches. Some studies have shown that men who were shown gender-blind statements are more likely to reduce their own gender-STEM stereotyping and dominance in conversations (Martin et al., 2016; Martin & Phillips, 2019). However, research on gender awareness meritocracy, which emphasizes value-in-merit, suggest that men may also need to be exposed to 43 the unique experiences of women in STEM, to increase their support of diversity initiatives by making them more aware of the potential of gender-based prejudice (Martin, 2018; Gündemir et al., 2019). In addition, the generalizability of the results should be examined with fields characterized by masculine stereotypes and fields where women are underrepresented (e.g. business). Further, as contents of stereotypes change for men and women, what one thinks their outgroup members expects of them are also likely to change over time. Indeed, a recent meta- analysis of public opinion polls in the United States points to a shift in gender stereotypes such that communion and competence are increasingly more ascribed to women than men (Eagly et al., 2020). Thus, as gender stereotypes change (e.g. stereotype of women being the more competent sex), so will meta-stereotypes of how women think men view them. In the STEM fields, competence stereotypes of women may be supplemented by communion stereotype such that having communal traits becomes a part of what is defined as competent. Depending on the content of meta-stereotypes, women may be less concerned about having their actions be interpreted on the basis of their gender if they believe men associate stereotypes of women with success in a STEM workplace. In addition, women’s focus on agentic and communal goals may also change from when their status changes from applicant to employee. It may be that at recruitment and selection, women prefer gender blindness so that there isn’t an expectation of being communal or agentic. However, as employees, they would like to have the opportunity to pursue and fulfill communal goals. Future research can also examine this potentially dynamic process of goal endorsement across their time of employment. It is unknown how the ASA model functions for women in STEM with regards to fulfilling valued goals. Do women assimilate and become more like their 44 surrounding by increasingly endorsing more agentic goals or do women engage in job crafting to proactively fulfill communal goal to remain in STEM? These are question that can be addressed by future research to gain more insight about women in STEM careers. Finally, this study only examines broadly examines women in STEM rather than taking an intersectional approach to examining STEM women of color. Among all women of color, Black and Latina women are of the least represented in STEM. It may be especially pertinent for future research to take on a lens of intersectionality and compare the reactions of women of color against the reaction of White women to the presentation of diversity ideologies. In addition, previous research cites feelings of exclusion from majority group members when presented with multiculturalism (Plaut et al., 2011). Future directions can also investigate the reactions of white and Asian men, who are overrepresented in STEM, to gender diversity ideologies. Conclusion Though there have been many efforts to encourage more women to pursue STEM, women are still underrepresented in the STEM workforce. As previous research has largely focused on students, the current thesis examined women as applicants interested in STEM field positions and their reactions to different gender diversity ideologies. Expanding existing research on diversity ideology by examining gender, I hypothesized that gender blindness is a more effective approach than gender awareness at attracting women to STEM by reducing their concerns of others stereotyping them on the basis of gender. While results demonstrated that women expected less meta-stereotyping when exposed to a gender blind, rather than gender aware, diversity statement, future research can benefit from more proximal predictors when attempting to increase attraction. Overall, this study illustrated the effects of implementing 45 gender diversity ideology from an organizational level with recommendations of new directions for research and organizations to improve women’s representation in STEM. 46 APPENDICES 47 Table 1. Conceptualizations of Diversity Ideologies. APPENDIX A: Tables and Figures Conceptualizations of Diversity Ideologies Intentionality Assimilationist Inclusion Blindness ideologies Value-in-homogeneity Focus of attention Value-in-individual differences Intentionality Value-in-equality Positive multiculturalism Negative segregation Awareness ideologies Celebration of cultural differences Focus of attention Inclusion of different cultural backgrounds Respect for differences and identities 48 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and inter-correlations between study measures. M SD 1 Diversity Ideology 1.47 .50 1 - 2 Representation 1.48 .50 -.01 2 - 3 Metastererotyping 2.80 1.08 -.17 -.25 (.89) 4 Perceived Fit 3.66 1.07 .04 .25 -.72 (.96) 5 6 Communal Goal Affordance Communal Goal Endorsement 3.04 1.02 .04 .13 -.54 .70 (.83) 3.65 .83 -.02 .00 -.31 .38 .52 (.90) 7 Organizational Attraction 3.77 1.01 .06 .30 -.74 .91 .65 .33 (.96) 8 Workplace Confidence 3.83 .71 -.04 .13 -.46 .58 .52 .36 .58 (.82) 9 Social Dominance Orientation 2.93 .99 .00 .07 -.13 .24 .34 .05 .20 .10 (.94) 10 Gender Schematicity 18.01 5.62 .00 -.08 .07 -.08 -.18 -.07 -.10 -.25 -.18 *** 11 Agentic Goal Affordance 3.09 .44 .03 .19 -.56 .77 .77 .48 .73 .55 .29 -.17 (.76) 12 Agentic Goal Endorsement 3.64 .64 -.08 .03 -.17 .36 .51 .52 .29 .35 .23 -.30 .53 (.88) NOTE. Bolded values are significant at p < .05. Cronbach’s alphas reported in parentheses. Gender Ideology coded as 1 = Awareness, 2 = Blindness. Representation coded as 1 = Low, 2 = High. 49 Table 3. Two-way ANOVA (gender ideology X representation) predicting meta-stereotyping. Gender Ideology Representation Gender Ideology X Representation Residuals df 1 1 1 419 SS 13.66 31.62 1.25 449.35 F 12.74 29.49 1.16 η2 .03 .07 NOTE. Bolded values are significant at p < .05. Gender Ideology coded as 1 = Awareness, 2 = Blindness. Representation coded as 1 = Low, 2 = High. 50 Table 4. Multiple regression (meta-stereotyping x gender schematicity) predicting perceived fit. Step 1 Meta-stereotyping Gender Schematicity Step 2 Meta-stereotyping X Gender Schematicity b -.71 -.00 .00 SE .04 .01 .01 NOTE. Bolded values are significant at p < .05. Adjusted R2 = .52. β -.72 -.02 -.01 ∆R2 .52 .00 51 Table 5. Multiple regression (communal goal affordance x communal goal endorsement) predicting perceived fit. Step 1 Communal Goal Affordance Communal Goal Endorsement Step 2 Communal Goal Affordance X Communal Goal Endorsement b .72 .03 -.02 SE .04 .05 .04 NOTE. Bolded values are significant at p < .05. Adjusted R2 = .49. β .67 .02 -.01 ∆R2 .49 .00 52 Table 6. Multiple regression (agentic goal affordance x agentic goal endorsement) predicting perceived fit. Step 1 Agentic Goal Affordance Agentic Goal Endorsement Step 2 b .96 -.10 Agentic Goal Affordance X Agentic Goal Endorsement .04 SE .04 .06 .05 NOTE. Bolded values are significant at p < .05. Adjusted R2 = .59. β .80 -.06 .02 ∆R2 .59 .00 53 Table 7. Relative importance analysis of communal goal affordance and agentic goal affordance. Communal Goal Affordance Agentic Goal Affordance b .27 .68 β .29 .49 Variance Accounted For Relative Importance .13 .73 .15 .85 54 Table 8. Hierarchical multiple regressions (H3, H4, H6) predicting perceived fit, controlling for SDO. Hypothesis 3 and Hypothesis 4 Step 1 SDO Step 2 Meta-stereotyping Gender Schematicity Meta-stereotyping X Gender Schematicity Hypothesis 6 Step 1 SDO Step 2 Communal Goal Affordance Communal Goal Endorsement Communal Goal Affordance X Communal Goal Endorsement b .13 -.69 .00 .00 b .01 .71 .03 -.01 NOTE. Bolded values are significant at p < .05. ∆R2 .02 .52 ∆R2 .00 .52 β .15 -.65 .00 .00 β .01 .67 .03 -.01 SE .03 .03 .01 .01 SE .03 .05 .05 .04 55 Figure 1. Proposed model linking diversity ideology to organizational attraction. 56 Figure 2. The expected interaction between gender diversity ideologies and representation of women on expected level of meta-stereotyping. 57 Figure 3. The expected interaction between gender schematicity and expected level of meta- stereotyping on perceived fit. 58 Figure 4. The expected interaction between communal goal endorsement and communal goal affordance on perceived fit. 59 Figure 5. Serial mediation tested in R. 60 Figure 6. Interaction between communal goal affordance and meta-stereotyping on fit perceptions. 61 Figure 7. Interaction between communal goal affordance and agentic goal affordance on fit perceptions. 62 APPENDIX B: Prescreening Questions NOTE: THERE ARE FOUR SCREENING QUESTIONS TO DETERMINE IF YOU ARE ELIGIBLE FOR THIS STUDY. If you are NOT eligible to participate, you will be sent to the end of the survey; please return the HIT if this occurs, and do not try to re-enter the HIT. 1. Please provide your mTurk ID below: 2. How would you describe your gender identity? If neither option describes you, please feel free to self-describe your gender identity below. a. Male b. Female c. My gender identity is: _______ 3. Which of the following best describes the industry you currently work in/would like to work in? a. Science b. Technology c. Engineering d. Math e. None of the above 4. What is your current employment status OUTSIDE of mTurk? a. Not currently employed outside of mTurk. b. Full time student (with no part time employment) c. Employed part-time worker (less than 35 hours per week) d. Employed full-time worker (35 hours or more per week) 63 APPENDIX C: Informed Consent Form Research Participation and Consent Form: You are being asked to participate in a research project. Researchers are required to provide a consent form to inform you about the study, to convey that participation is voluntary, to explain risks and benefits of participation, and to empower you to make an informed decision. You should feel free to ask the researchers any questions you may have. STUDY PURPOSE AND TASK: You are being asked to participate in a research study that focuses on perceptions of organizations. You will be asked to read and indicate your perceptions of an organization based on a diversity statement. Your participation in this study will take about 15 minutes to complete. You may not participate if you are under 18 years of age. You will NOT be asked to provide your name, anyone else’s name, or any other information that could potentially identify you. You will then be asked several demographic questions about yourself so as to describe the nature of our sample. POTENTIAL BENEFITS AND RISKS: The potential benefits to you for taking part in this study are a chance to gain further understanding on your own thoughts and feelings concerning diversity statements. There are no foreseeable risks associated with participation in this study. Completion and quality of data will be taken into consideration before compensation is provided. PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY: Your responses will be completely anonymous— neither the researchers nor anyone else will be able to link the data to you. Your confidentiality will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. The data will be kept for at least 3 years after project closes. The data will be accessible to the research team and the HRPP and the data will be stored at the Primary PI's MSU address. YOUR RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE, SAY NO, OR WITHDRAW: Participation in this study is completely voluntary. You may choose not to answer specific questions or to stop participating at any time. COMPENSATION RULES: You will be monetarily compensated ($1) for your participation and completion of this survey according to the terms previously noted. The following are reasons why we would not be able to compensate you for your participation. By following these compensation rules, we hope to be as fair as possible to survey respondents who meet the study criteria, who access the survey only once, and who provide quality data for our study. Please note: • If you are not eligible to take this research survey based on the prescreening questions, we cannot compensate you for your participation. The quality of our scientific study depends on participants meeting these criteria. If we find that you have re-entered the survey multiple times after initially failing the prescreening questions, we also cannot compensate you. 64 • • • If your survey responses include poor qualitative (written) responses, we cannot compensate you for your participation. Poor quality qualitative responses include, but are not limited to, nonsensical text or lines copied and pasted from other internet sources. The rigor of our scientific study depends on high quality data. If you fail the CAPTCHA check, we cannot compensate you for your participation as we cannot ensure you are a human participant who is eligible for this research survey. If you do not correctly answer attention check items, we cannot compensate you for your participation as we cannot be sure you have provided quality data. CONTACT INFORMATION FOR QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS: If you have concerns or questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part of it, or to report an injury, please contact the researchers: Ann Marie Ryan, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, phone: 517-353-8855, e- mail: ryanan@msu.edu. If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection Program at 517-355-2180, Fax 517-432-4503, or e- mail irb@msu.edu or regular mail at 4000 Collins Rd, Suite 136, Lansing, MI 48910. By clicking the Next button, you are indicating your consent to participate in this study. If you do not consent to participate, please exit the survey now. Thank you for your participation. 65 APPENDIX D: Experimental Stimuli Instructions: Imagine that you are a job applicant in the middle of a job search. You found a position that interests you so you decide to learn more about the company, Scienico, and the team you will be working. You find various diversity-related information collected from the company itself on a third-party website, shown below. 66 Figure 8. Manipulation (gender awareness X low representation). 67 Figure 9. Manipulation (gender awareness X high representation). 68 Figure 10. Manipulation (gender blindness X low representation). 69 Figure 11. Manipulation (gender blindness X high representation). 70 APPENDIX E: Manipulation Check Instruction: Please answer the following questions about the information above. 1. What is the name of the company? 2. What percentage of the employees at the company are women? a. 5% b. 25% c. 40% d. 60% Instructions: Each of the items below consists of a pair of statements. Please select the statement that best reflects the diversity statement you read; that is, pick the statement that the company, Scienico, will most likely agree with. A. In order to achieve a harmonious workplace, we must stop thinking of men and women as different from each other, and instead focus on what makes us similar. B. Learning about the different ways that men and women resolve conflict will help us create a more harmonious workplace. A. We must appreciate the unique characteristics of men and women to have a cooperative workplace. B. You can find commonalities with every person no matter what their gender is. A. Men and women have different but equally useful ways of accomplishing tasks. B. All humans are fundamentally the same, regardless of their gender. A. It is important to pay attention to the individual characteristics that make a person unique rather than his or her gender. B. If we want to help create a harmonious workplace, we must recognize that men and women have a right to maintain their own unique perspectives. 71 APPENDIX F: Open-ended Question Instructions: In 2-3 sentences, please explain why you are interested in working in STEM fields. Please also include any information about previous or current experiences with STEM (education, previous work experience, STEM field/topics of interest, etc.) 72 APPENDIX G: Measures Organizational Attraction (adapted from Highhouse et al., 2003) Instructions: Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements. Scale: 1 = “Strongly disagree,” 2 = “Disagree,” 3 = “Neither agree nor disagree,” 4 = “Agree,” 5 = “Strongly agree”. General attractiveness 1. For me, Scienico would be a good place to work. 2. I would not be interested in Scienico except as a last resort.* 3. Scienico is attractive to me as a place for employment. 4. I am interested in learning more about Scienico. 5. A job at Scienico is very appealing to me. Intentions to pursue 6. I would accept a job offer from Scienico. 7. I would make Sciencio one of my first choices as an employer. 8. If Scienico invited me for a job interview, I would go. 9. I would exert a great deal of effort to work for Scienico. 10. I would recommend Scienico to a friend looking for a job. Note: * indicates reverse-coded item. 73 Perceived P-O fit (adapted from Cable & DeRue, 2002) Instructions: Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements. Scale: 1 = “Strongly disagree,” 2 = “Disagree,” 3 = “Neither agree nor disagree,” 4 = “Agree,” 5 = “Strongly agree”. 1. The things that I value in life are very similar to the things that Scienico values. 2. My personal values match Scienico’s values and culture. 3. Scienico’s values and culture provide a good fit with the things that I value in life. 4. There is a good fit between what Scienico offers and what I am looking for in a STEM position. 5. The attributes that I look for in a STEM position are fulfilled very well by Scienico. 6. Scienico gives me just about everything that I want from a STEM position. 74 Metastereotype Consciousness Scale (Adapted from Ryan et al., 2015) Instructions: Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements. Scale: 1 = “Strongly disagree,” 2 = “Disagree,” 3 = “Neither agree nor disagree,” 4 = “Agree,” 5 = “Strongly agree”. 1. Stereotypes about women will not affect me at this organization.* 2. I will not need to worry that my behaviors will be viewed as stereotypically female at this organization.* 3. I feel like those in the organization will interpret all my behaviors in terms of the fact that I am a woman. 4. I do not expect to be judged on the basis of my gender at this organization.* 5. My being female will not influence how my colleagues interact with me at this organization.* 6. Those at the organization will have a problem viewing women as equals. Note: * indicates reverse-coded item. 75 Workplace Confidence (Martin & Phillips, 2017) Instructions: Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements. Scale: 1 = “Strongly disagree,” 2 = “Disagree,” 3 = “Neither agree nor disagree,” 4 = “Agree,” 5 = “Strongly agree”. "If I were working at Scienico, 1. ...I think I would perform better than others in the same role/position as myself at work." 2. ...I would be confident in my ability to attain any goal I set for myself." 3. ...I would be confident in most of the decisions I make." 4. ...I would never feel uncomfortable challenging a coworker’s idea in front of other people." 5. ...I would feel comfortable tackling any work-related challenge that comes my way." 6. ...I would be able to accomplish anything I set out to do." 76 Goal Endorsement (Diekman et al., 2010) Instructions: Please rate how important each of the following kinds of goals is to you personally. Scale: 1 = “Not at all important,” 2 = “Slightly important,” 3 = “Moderately important,” 4 = “Very important,” 5 = “Extremely important”. Agentic goals 1. Power 2. Recognition 3. Achievement 4. Mastery 5. Self-promotion 6. Independence 7. Individualism 8. Status 9. Focus on the self 10. Success 11. Financial rewards 12. Self-direction 13. Demonstrating skill or competence 14. Competition Communal goals 1. Helping others 2. Serving humanity 3. Serving community 4. Working with people 5. Connection with others 6. Attending to others 7. Caring for others 8. Intimacy 9. Spiritual rewards 77 Personal Attribute Questionnaire (Heimreich et al., 1981) Instructions: The items below ask about what kind of person you think you are. Each item consists of a pair of characteristics. NOTE: The closer you rate yourself to an adjective within the pairing, the stronger you identify with that adjective. Scale: 5-point bipolar scale Masculinity scale 1. Not at all independent 2. Very passive 3. Not at all competitive 4. Can make decisions easily* 5. Gives up very easily 6. Not at all self-confident 7. Feels very inferior 8. Goes to pieces under pressure Very independent* Very active* Very competitive* Has difficulty making decisions Never gives up easily* Very self-confident* Feels superior* Stands up well under pressure* Femininity scale 1. Not at all emotional 2. Not at all able to devote self completely to others Able to devote self completely to Very emotional* others* 3. Very rough 4. Not at all helpful to others 5. Not at all kind 6. Not at all aware of feelings of others 7. Not at all understanding of others 8. Very cold in relations with others Masculinity-Femininity scale 1. Not at all aggressive 2. Very submissive 3. Not at all excitable in a major crisis* 4. Very home oriented 5. Indifferent to others approval* 6. Feelings not easily hurt* 7. Never cries* 8. Very little need for security* Very gentle* Very helpful to others* Very kind* Very aware of feelings of others* Very understanding of others* Very warm in relations with others* Very aggressive* Very dominant* Very excitable in a major crisis Very worldly* Highly needful of others approval Feelings easily hurt Cries very easily Very strong need for security NOTE: Items with an asterisk indicate the extreme masculine response for the M and M-F scales and the extreme feminine response for the F scale. 78 Social Dominance Orientation (Pratto et al., 1994) Instructions: For each of the following sentences, indicate which choice represents your degree of positive or negative feelings toward that statement. Scale: 1 = “Extremely Negative,”, 2 = “Somewhat Negative,” 3 = “Slightly Negative,” 4 = “Neutral,” 5 = “Slightly Positive,” 6 = “Somewhat Positive,” 7 = “Extremely Positive”. 1. We should strive to make incomes as equal as possible.* 2. Group equality should be our ideal.* 3. It's okay if some groups have more of a chance in life than others. 4. To get ahead in life, it is sometimes necessary to step on other groups. 5. We should do what we can to equalize conditions for different groups.* 6. It's probably a good thing that certain groups are at the top and others are at the bottom. 7. Inferior groups should stay in their place. 8. We would have fewer problems if groups were treated more equally.* 9. It would be good if groups could be equal.* 10. In getting what you want, it is sometimes necessary to use force against other groups. 11. All groups should be given an equal chance in life.* 12. If certain groups stayed in their place, we would have fewer problems. 13. We should strive for increased social equality.* 14. Sometimes other groups must be kept in their place. 15. Some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups. 16. No one group should dominate in society.* Note: * indicates reverse-coded item. 79 APPENDIX H: Demographic Questions 1. How would you describe your gender identity? If neither option describes you, please feel free to self-describe your gender identity below. a. Male b. Female c. My gender identity is: _______ 2. How would you describe your ethnicity? a. Hispanic b. Latino c. Neither Hispanic not Latino 3. How would you describe your race? Select ALL that apply. a. American Indian/Alaska Native b. Asian c. Black or African American d. Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander e. White (including all European heritage) f. Other 4. What is your age in years? 5. What is your current employment status OUTSIDE of mTurk? a. Not currently employed outside of mTurk. b. Full time student (with no part time employment) c. Employed part-time worker (less than 35 hours per week) d. Employed full-time worker (35 hours or more per week) 6. Which of the following best describes the industry you currently work in/would like to work in? a. Science b. Technology c. Engineering d. Math e. None of the above 7. What is your current job title? 8. How many years have you worked at your current company? If less than one year, please indicate “0”. 9. Which of the following best describes the industry you currently work in? a. Science b. Technology c. Engineering d. Math e. None of the above 10. How many years have you worked in your current industry? If less than one year, please indicate “0”. 80 APPENDIX I: Debriefing Form Thank you for participating in our study. This form is designed to provide you with information about the purpose and importance of this study. The purpose of this study was to learn more about diversity ideologies. Specifically, we hoped to learn how people perceive organizations based on diversity statements and determine whether this affects job applicants. The experimental design was relatively straightforward and is of the type often encountered in psychological research. Given the mild nature of the experimental design, we anticipate that there are and will be no risks involved for any of our participants. However, if you did recall an event that negatively impacted you, please contact the appropriate number below: National suicide hotline (phone: 1-800-273-8255) Emergency number (phone: 911) Additionally, if you have questions or concerns regarding this study, please do not hesitate to contact the investigators. Additionally, if you would like more information about the study or have further questions about it, please feel free to contact: Sarah Kuang, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, e- mail: kuangsar@msu.edu. OR Ann Marie Ryan, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, phone: 517-355-0203, e-mail: ryanan@msu.edu 81 REFERENCES 82 REFERENCES Ahlqvist, S., London, B., & Rosenthal, L. (2013). Unstable identity compatibility: How gender rejection sensitivity undermines the success of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields. Psychological Science, 24(9), 1644-1652. Apfelbaum, E. P., Stephens, N. M., & Reagans, R. E. (2016). Beyond one-size-fits-all: Tailoring diversity approaches to the representation of social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(4), 547. Avery, D. R. (2003). Reactions to diversity in recruitment advertising--are differences black and white?. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 672. Bem, S. L. (1984). Androgyny and gender schema theory: A conceptual and empirical integration. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 32, 179 –226. Bieri Buschor, C., Berweger, S., Keck Frei, A., & Kappler, C. (2014). Majoring in STEM— What accounts for women's career decision making? A mixed methods study. The Journal of Educational Research, 107(3), 167-176. Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5. Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 875. Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1996). Person–organization fit, job choice decisions, and organizational entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(3), 294-311. Carli, L. L., Alawa, L., Lee, Y., Zhao, B., & Kim, E. (2016). Stereotypes about gender and science: Women≠ scientists. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(2), 244-260. Celani, A., & Singh, P. (2010). Signaling theory and applicant attraction outcomes. Personnel Review, 40, 222–238. Chapman, D. S., Uggerslev, K. L., Carroll, S. A., Piasentin, K. A., & Jones, D. A. (2005). Applicant attraction to organizations and job choice: a meta-analytic review of the correlates of recruiting outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 928. Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Davies, P. G., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Ambient belonging: how stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1045. 83 Cheryan, S., Ziegler, S. A., Montoya, A. K., & Jiang, L. (2017). Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others?. Psychological Bulletin, 143(1), 1. Crosby, J. R., King, M., & Savitsky, K. (2014). The minority spotlight effect. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(7), 743-750. Czopp, A. M. (2008). When is a compliment not a compliment? Evaluating expressions of positive stereotypes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(2), 413-420. Diekman, A. B., Brown, E. R., Johnston, A. M., & Clark, E. K. (2010). Seeking congruity between goals and roles: A new look at why women opt out of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. Psychological Science, 21(8), 1051-1057. Diekman, A.B., & Eagly, A.H. (2008). Of men, women, and motivation: A role congruity account. In J.Y. Shah & W.L. Gardner (Eds.), Handbook of motivation science (pp. 434– 447). New York: Guilford. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Saguy, T. (2007). Another view of “we”: Majority and minority group perspectives on a common ingroup identity. European Review of Social Psychology, 18(1), 296-330. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Reporting sex differences. American Psychologist, 42, 756–757. Eagly, A. H., Nater, C., Miller, D. I., Kaufmann, M., & Sczesny, S. (2020). Gender stereotypes have changed: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of US public opinion polls from 1946 to 2018. American Psychologist, 75(3), 301. Edwards, J. R., Cable, D. M., Williamson, I. O., Lambert, L. S., & Shipp, A. J. (2006). The phenomenology of fit: linking the person and environment to the subjective experience of person-environment fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 802. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A., & Buchner, A. (2009). G power 3.1. Dusseldorf, Germany: Institute for Experimental Psychology, Herinrich Heine University of Dusseldorf. Retrieved from http://www.psycho.uni-duesseldorf.de/abteilungen/aap/gpower3/ Finkelstein, L. M., King, E. B., & Voyles, E. C. (2015). Age metastereotyping and cross-age workplace interactions: A meta view of age stereotypes at work. Work, Aging and Retirement, 1(1), 26-40. Frable, D. E. (1989). Sex typing and gender ideology: Two facets of the individual's gender psychology that go together. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(1), 95. Funk, C. & Parker, K. (2018). Women and men in STEM often at odds over workplace equity. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/01/09/women-and-men-in-stem-often-at-odds- over-workplace-equity/. 84 Goldberg C. B. & Allen D. G. (2008). Black and white and read all over: Race differences in reactions to recruitment web sites. Human Resource Management, 47, 217–236. Good, C., Rattan, A., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Why do women opt out? Sense of belonging and women's representation in mathematics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(4), 700. Greenberg, J. (198 1). The justice of distributing scarce and abundant resources. In M. J. Lerner & S. C. Lerner (Eds.), The justice motive in social behavior (pp. 289-3 16). New York, NY Plenum. Grover, S. L. (1991). Predicting the perceived fairness of parental leave policies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76,247-255. Gündemir, S., & Galinsky, A. D. (2018). Multicolored blindfolds: how organizational multiculturalism can conceal racial discrimination and delegitimize racial discrimination claims. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(7), 825-834. Gündemir, S., Dovidio, J. F., Homan, A. C., & De Dreu, C. K. (2017). The impact of organizational diversity policies on minority employees’ leadership self-perceptions and goals. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 24(2), 172-188. Gündemir, S., Homan, A. C., Usova, A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2017). Multicultural meritocracy: The synergistic benefits of valuing diversity and merit. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 73, 34-41. Gündemir, S., Martin, A. E., & Homan, A. C. (2019). Understanding diversity ideologies from the target's perspective: A review and future directions. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. Gutiérrez, A. S., & Unzueta, M. M. (2010). The effect of interethnic ideologies on the likability of stereotypic vs. counterstereotypic minority targets. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(5), 775-784. Hahn, A., Banchefsky, S., Park, B., & Judd, C. M. (2015). Measuring intergroup ideologies: Positive and negative aspects of emphasizing versus looking beyond group differences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(12), 1646-1664. Hayes, A. F. (2013). The PROCESS macro for SPSS and SAS (version 2.13) [Software]. Retrieved from http://www.processmacro.org/index.html. Hehman, E., Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Mania, E. W., Guerra, R., Wilson, D. C., & Friel, B. M. (2012). Group status drives majority and minority integration preferences. Psychological Science, 23(1), 46-52. 85 Helmreich, R. L., Spence, J. T., & Wilhelm, J. A. (1981). A psychometric analysis of the Personal Attributes Questionnaire. Sex Roles, 7(11), 1097-1108. Highhouse, S., Lievens, F., & Sinar, E. F. (2003). Measuring attraction to organizations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(6), 986-1001. Jansen, W. S., Otten, S., & van der Zee, K. I. (2015). Being part of diversity: The effects of an all-inclusive multicultural diversity approach on majority members’ perceived inclusion and support for organizational diversity efforts. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 18(6), 817-832. Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (1997). Applicant personality, organizational culture, and organization attraction. Personnel Psychology, 50(2), 359-394. Kaiser, C. R., Major, B., Jurcevic, I., Dover, T. L., Brady, L. M., & Shapiro, J. R. (2013). Presumed fair: Ironic effects of organizational diversity structures. Journal of personality and social psychology, 104(3), 504. Kanter, R. (1977). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 965–990. Kim, S. S., & Gelfand, M. J. (2003). The influence of ethnic identity on perceptions of organizational recruitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(3), 396-416. King, E. B., Kaplan, S., & Zaccaro, S. (2008). Metaperceptions in diverse work groups: Intrapersonal perspectives and intragroup processes. Research on Managing Groups and Teams, 11, 109–141. Koenig, A. M., & Richeson, J. A. (2010). The contextual endorsement of sexblind and sexaware ideologies about sex differences. Social Psychology, 41, 186–191. Konrad, A.M., Ritchie, J.E.J., Lieb, P., & Corrigall, E. (2000). Sex differences and similarities in job attribute preferences: A metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 593–641. Kossek, E. E., Su, R., & Wu, L. (2017). “Opting out” or “pushed out”? Integrating perspectives on women’s career equality for gender inclusion and interventions. Journal of Management, 43(1), 228-254. Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person‐organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49(1), 1-49. Kristof-Brown, A., & Guay, R. P. (2011). Person– environment fit. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial/Organizational Psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 3–50). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 86 Leslie, L. M., Bono, J. E., Kim, Y. (S.), & Beaver, G. R. (2019). On melting pots and salad bowls: A meta-analysis of the effects of identity-blind and identity-conscious diversity ideologies. Journal of Applied Psychology. Advance online publication. Lord, C. G., & Saenz, D. S. (1985). Memory deficits and memory surfeits: differential cognitive consequences of tokenism for tokens and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(4), 918. Martin, A. E., & Phillips, K. W. (2017). What “blindness” to gender differences helps women see and do: Implications for confidence, agency, and action in male-dominated environments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 142, 28-44. Martin, A. E., & Phillips, K. W. (2019). Blind to bias: the benefits of gender-blindness for STEM Stereotyping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 82, 294-306. Martin, A. E., Phillips, K. W., & Sasaki, S. J. (2016). The benefits of gender-blindness for men’s bias towards and inclusion of women. Anaheim, California: Paper presented at Academy of Management Annual Meeting. Martins, L. L., & Parsons, C. K. (2007). Effects of gender diversity management on perceptions of organizational attractiveness: the role of individual differences in attitudes and beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 865. Meeussen, L., Otten, S., & Phalet, K. (2014). Managing diversity: How leaders’ multiculturalism and colorblindness affect work group functioning. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17(5), 629-644. National Science Board (2018). Science and Engineering Indicators 2018. NSB-2018-1. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. Available at: https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/indicators/. O’Brien, L. T., Garcia, D. M., Blodorn, A., Adams, G., Hammer, E., & Gravelin, C. (2019). An educational intervention to improve women’s academic STEM outcomes: Divergent effects on well-represented vs. underrepresented minority women. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 21(2), 169–180. Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on amazon mechanical turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(5), 411-419. Peters, K., Ryan, M. K., Haslam, S. A., & Fernandes, H. (2012). To belong or not to belong: Evidence that women’s occupational disidentification is promoted by lack of fit with masculine occupational prototypes. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 11, 148-158. Plaut, V. C. (2002). Cultural models of diversity: The psychology of difference and inclusion. In R. Shweder, M. Minow, & H. R. Markus (Eds.), Engaging cultural differences: The 87 multicultural challenge in liberal democracies (pp. 365–395). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Plaut, V. C. (2010). Diversity science: Why and how difference makes a difference. Psychological Inquiry, 21(2), 77-99. Plaut, V. C., Garnett, F. G., Buffardi, L. E., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2011). “What about me?” Perceptions of exclusion and Whites' reactions to multiculturalism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 337. Plaut, V. C., Thomas, K. M., & Goren, M. J. (2009). Is multiculturalism or color blindness better for minorities?. Psychological Science, 20(4), 444-446. Purdie-Vaughns, V., Steele, C. M., Davies, P. G., Ditlmann, R., & Crosby, J. R. (2008). Social identity contingencies: how diversity cues signal threat or safety for African Americans in mainstream institutions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(4), 615. Ramsey, L. R. (2017). Agentic traits are associated with success in science more than communal traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 106, 6-9. Rattan, A., & Ambady, N. (2013). Diversity ideologies and intergroup relations: An examination of colorblindness and multiculturalism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(1), 12-21. Rau, B. L., & Hyland, M. M. (2003). Corporate teamwork and diversity statements in college recruitment brochures: Effects on attraction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(12), 2465-2492. Richard, O. C., & Kirby, S. L. (1998). Women recruits' perceptions of workforce diversity program selection decisions: A procedural justice examination. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(2), 183-188. Richman, L. S., Vandellen, M., & Wood, W. (2011). How women cope: Being a numerical minority in a male‐dominated profession. Journal of Social Issues, 67(3), 492-509. Rosenthal, L., & Levy, S. R. (2010). The colorblind, multicultural, and polycultural ideological approaches to improving intergroup attitudes and relations. Social Issues and Policy Review, 4(1), 215-246. Ryan, A. M., King, D. D., Elizondo, F., & Wadlington, P. (2019). Social identity management strategies of women in STEM fields. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. Ryan, K. M., King, E. B., & Finkelstein, L. M. (2015). Younger workers’ metastereotypes, workplace mood, attitudes, and behaviors. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30, 54–70. 88 Rynes, S. L., Bretz Jr, R. D., & Gerhart, B. (1991). The importance of recruitment in job choice: A different way of looking. Personnel psychology, 44(3), 487-521. Sekaquaptewa, D., & Thompson, M. (2003). Solo status, stereotype threat, and performance expectancies: Their effects on women’s performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(1), 68-74. Settles, I. H., Jellison, W. A., & Pratt-Hyatt, J. S. (2009). Identification with multiple social groups: The moderating role of identity change over time among women- scientists. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(5), 856-867. Smith, J. L., Sansone, C., & White, P. H. (2007). The stereotyped task engagement process: The role of interest and achievement motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 99. Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355-374. Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2018). The gender-equality paradox in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Psychological Science, 29(4), 581-593. Su, R., & Rounds, J. (2015). All STEM fields are not created equal: People and things interests explain gender disparities across STEM fields. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 189. Uggerslev, K. L., Fassina, N. E., & Kraichy, D. (2012). Recruiting through the stages: A meta‐ analytic test of predictors of applicant attraction at different stages of the recruiting process. Personnel Psychology, 65(3), 597-660. Vorauer, J. D., Gagnon, A., & Sasaki, S. J. (2009). Salient intergroup ideology and intergroup interaction. Psychological Science, 20(7), 838-845. Vorauer, J. D., Main, K. J., & O'Connell, G. B. (1998). How do individuals expect to be viewed by members of lower status groups? Content and implications of meta- stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(4), 917. Walker, H. J., Feild, H. S., Giles, W. F., Armenakis, A. A., & Bernerth, J. B. (2009). Displaying employee testimonials on recruitment web sites: effects of communication media, employee race, and job seeker race on organizational attraction and information credibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1354. Williamson I. O., Slay H. S., Shapiro D. L., & Shivers-Blackwell S. L. (2008). The effect of explanations on prospective applicants’ reactions to firm diversity practices. Human Resource Management, 47, 311–330. Wilton, L. S., Bell, A. N., Vahradyan, M., & Kaiser, C. R. (2020). Show Don’t Tell: Diversity Dishonesty Harms Racial/Ethnic Minorities at Work. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(8), 1171–1185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219897149 89 Wilton, L. S., Good, J. J., Moss-Racusin, C. A., & Sanchez, D. T. (2015). Communicating more than diversity: The effect of institutional diversity statements on expectations and performance as a function of race and gender. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 21(3), 315. Windscheid, L., Bowes-Sperry, L., Mazei, J., & Morner, M. (2017). The paradox of diversity initiatives: When organizational needs differ from employee preferences. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(1), 33-48. Wolsko, C., Park, B., & Judd, C. M. (2006). Considering the tower of Babel: Correlates of assimilation and multiculturalism among ethnic minority and majority groups in the United States. Social Justice Research, 19(3), 277-306. Wout, D. A., Shih, M. J., Jackson, J. S., & Sellers, R. M. (2009). Targets as perceivers: how people determine when they will be negatively stereotyped. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(2), 349. Zou, L., & Cheryan, S. (2015). When whites' attempts to be multicultural backfire in intergroup interactions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9(11), 581-592. 90