Good intentions are not enough: Assessing positive and negative effects of a gender bias-literacy intervention

• In Event: Gender Stereotypes and STEM Motivation: Experimental, Longitudinal, Meta-analytic, and Intervention Research Across the Lifespan

Abstract

Background
Gender bias persists in STEM, prompting calls for bias-literacy interventions that increase awareness of bias and motivate action. Unfortunately, few validated bias-literacy interventions exist, and those that do exist primarily target faculty and ignore a large source of gender bias during emerging adulthood—undergraduate peers. Emerging adulthood is an important period of identity development and career exploration; experiences during this time can set the stage for future career attainment. Thus, undergraduate students are a strategic target for bias-literacy interventions in STEM.

However, educating about bias is challenging. Interventions that lack scientific theory can backfire, provoking defensiveness and leaving participants feeling helpless to intervene. Further, learning that gender bias is pervasive can inadvertently trigger identity threat and lead women to question whether they belong in STEM. Evaluation of bias-literacy interventions is needed to verify intended outcomes and identify unintended negative effects. The current research answers this call by evaluating one such bias-literacy intervention at a STEM-focused university: a live theatrical performance depicting gender bias in STEM. We tested competing hypotheses that the intervention would produce, on one hand, positive outcomes (increased gender bias literacy and increased motivation to address gender bias) and on the other hand, negative outcomes (message rejection and lower self-efficacy to effect change, and among women, increased identity threat and lower belonging) compared to a control condition.

Method
Undergraduate students (N = 75, 75% men, 89% white, 83% STEM majors, age range = 18-25, mean age = 19) completed three phases. At Time 1, participants completed baseline measures of gender bias-literacy (awareness of bias, modern sexism, and ability to take the perspective of women in STEM), STEM belonging, and identity threat. At Time 2 (1-2 weeks later), participants were randomly assigned to attend either the intervention performance or control film. Immediately following, they completed measures of message rejection, self-efficacy to effect change, and intentions to address bias. At Time 3 (1-3 weeks later), participants again completed measures of gender bias-literacy, STEM belonging, and identity threat, as well as behaviors they had performed to address bias in the last week.

Results
The intervention increased one aspect of gender bias literacy (ability to take the perspective of women in STEM) compared to the control condition (p = .014), but failed to achieve its main goals of increasing gender bias awareness (ps ≥ .231) or motivating action to address gender bias (ps ≥ .258). Instead, intervention participants reported lower self-efficacy to effect change (p = .006) and greater message rejection (p = .043) compared to control participants. In addition, women in both conditions reported larger increases in identity threat (p = .003) and larger decreases in sense of STEM belonging (p = .002) over time compared to men.

Discussion
Results demonstrate what can go wrong with well-intended but scientifically uninformed interventions and underscore the need to empirically identify and alleviate undesirable outcomes prior to wide-scale implementation. Discussion will focus on potential pitfalls of bias-literacy interventions and ways that practitioners can leverage psychological theory and evidence to improve interventions.

Authors

• Jessica L. Cundiff, Missouri University of Science and Technology
  Presenting Author

• Susan L. Murray, Missouri University of Science and Technology
  Non-Presenting Author