Skip to main content

When trying hard isn’t natural: Women’s belonging with and motivation for male-dominated STEM fields as a function of effort expenditure concerns (Smith et al. 2013)

Review Guidelines

Citation

Smith, J., Lewis, K., Hawthorne, L., & Hodges, S. (2013). When trying hard isn’t natural: Women’s belonging with and motivation for male-dominated STEM fields as a function of effort expenditure concerns. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(2), 131-143. [Study 2]

Highlights

    • The study’s objective was to examine the impact of male-dominated marketing of a fictitious eco-psychology program on female students’ interest in pursuing the program.
    • Authors randomly assigned 49 female students in an introductory psychology course to receive a brochure about a fictitious one-year master’s program in eco-psychology that was presented as either male-dominated or gender-neutral. Students were then asked to rate their motivation to enroll in the program.
    • The study found that female students who read the male-dominated brochure displayed statistically significantly lower interest in pursuing the program than those in the gender-neutral group.
    • The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is low because the authors did not include sufficient controls in their analysis to account for differences between the treatment and comparison groups. This means we are not confident that the estimated effects are attributable to type of brochure reviewed; other factors are likely to have contributed.

Features of the Study

The authors used a randomized controlled trial design, assigning 49 female students in an introductory psychology course to receive a brochure about a fictitious one-year master’s program in eco-psychology. The brochure either presented the program as male-dominated, using mainly photographs of men and male faculty names, or gender-neutral, using mixed-gender photographs and names. After reviewing the brochure on their own, students were asked to complete a “ratings packet,” which included a question to rate their motivation to enroll in the program. The authors compared responses from the male-dominated group to the gender-neutral group.

Findings

    • The study found that female students who read the male-dominated brochure displayed statistically significantly lower interest (one point on a seven-point scale) in pursuing the program than those in the gender-neutral group.

Considerations for Interpreting the Findings

The study was designed and implemented as a randomized controlled trial, but information in the study suggests that not all students who participated responded in full to the survey. In the absence of information to the contrary, CLEAR must assume that these differences represent high differential attrition. As a result, CLEAR considers the study quasi-experimental. In a quasi-experimental study, the authors must adjust for differences between the treatment and comparison groups that could affect the outcomes of interest. The authors in this study did not control for any such differences between the treatment and comparison groups.

Causal Evidence Rating

The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is low because the authors did not include sufficient controls in their analysis to account for differences between the treatment and comparison groups. This means we are not confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the type of brochure the study participants reviewed; other factors are likely to have contributed.

Reviewed by CLEAR

April 2016