Sexist Behavior Undermines Women’s Performance in a Job Application Situation

Does Sexism Affect Thai Women's Psychological and Behavioural Responses? The Stereotype Threat-Buffering Effect of Mindfulness

Few studies have examined the linkage of perceived sexism with stereotype threat and psychological responses in a work setting and moderators that may buffer this negative effect. In Study 1, the relationships among perceived sexism, stereotype threat, and psychological responses were explored among Thai female employees ( N = 296) in a self-report questionnaire study. The aim of Study 2 was to investigate whether mindfulness can mitigate the disastrous effect of sexism on performance, using an experimental design. In Study 1, the standard error of measurement (SEM) results observed a partial mediation effect of stereotype threat for the sexism-disidentification relationship, and sexism only had a significant direct effect on career aspirations. In Study 2, the interaction effect of sexism × mindfulness on the female participants’ reasoning test scores was significant, indicating that those with mindfulness practice performed better when being exposed to sexist behaviours. The current research provides additional information on understanding the impact of sexism on disengagement and decreased career aspirations among Thai female employees in male-dominated industries. In practice, Thai organisations should be concerned about the impact of sexism on disengagement and the protective factor of performance decrements by encouraging anti-sexist norms and fostering the cultivation of mindfulness through practice.

Predictors of Career Decision Self-Efficacy

We examined sex, socioeconomic status (SES), classism, modern sexism, and locus of control as uniquely contributing factors to college students’ career decision self-efficacy. A total of 139 college students participated in the survey, and the hypothesis was tested with hierarchical regression. Results revealed that (a) sex and SES do not significantly contribute to classism and modern sexism to college students’ career decision self-efficacy and (b) classism and modern sexism, internality and luck uniquely contributed to college students’ career decision self-efficacy above and beyond the variances accounted for sex and SES. Results indicate the importance of classism and modern sexism over actual sex and SES in predicting college students’ career decision self-efficacy.

The Influence of Chronic and Situational Social Status on Stereotype Susceptibility

We tested whether stereotypical situations would affect low-status group members' performance more strongly than high-status group members'. Experiment 1 and 2 tested this hypothesis using gender as a proxy of chronic social status and a gender-neutral task that has been randomly presented to favor boys (men superiority condition), favor girls (women superiority condition), or show no gender preference (control condition). Both experiments found that women's (Experiment 1) and girls' performance (Experiment 2) suffered more from the evoked stereotypes than did men's and boys' ones. This result was replicated in Experiment 3, indicating that short men (low-status group) were more affected compared to tall men (high-status group). Additionally, men were more affected compared to women when they perceived height as a threat. Hence, individuals are more or less vulnerable to identity threats as a function of the chronic social status at play; enjoying a high status provides protection and endorsing a low one weakens individual performance in stereotypical situations.

Women at Work

Organizations benefit from gender diversity, as research clearly documents. Nevertheless, statistics reveal consistent gender differences in career development and payment. Women who feel undervalued at work will re-evaluate their priorities and are tempted to “opt out.” Organizations that wish to reap the benefits of gender diversity can profit from behavioral science research identifying mechanisms that may prevent women from making the same career choices as men: (a) implicit bias decreases the odds that women will enter and perform in male-dominated job levels or organizations, (b) glass cliff effects make career development less attractive for women, (c) Queen Bee effects prevent women in leadership from acting as role models for other women, and (d) some work–family approaches imply that women have to give up family life to be successful in their professional career. Being aware of these mechanisms, their implications, and possible remedies can benefit organizations and policy makers, and encourage women in different career stages to “lean in.”