How Do Bystanders Reason About the Acceptability of Gender-Based Social Exclusion from STEM Classrooms?

• In Event: Moral judgments in intergroup contexts

Abstract

Research indicates that understanding gender disparities in undergraduate degree pursuit is complex (MacPhee et al., 2013). One factor that contributes to the underrepresentation of women in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) fields is gender-based social exclusion (Wang & Degol, 2017). We may discontinue this exclusion through bystander intervention. However, when faced with the exclusion of others, bystanders must interpret the situation as harmful in order to intervene (Latane & Darley, 1970), thus their reasoning about exclusion is important to consider. Yet, no research has examined how bystanders reason about the acceptability of excluding men and women within STEM contexts.

To address this, we explored how college students (N = 199, Mage = 19.18, SD = 1.37; see Table 1 for demographics) reasoned about the acceptability of gender-based social exclusion from Physics classrooms, and explored differences in reasoning based on the gender of the person excluded. Participants’ reasoning was coded by using categories based on previous literature on individuals’ conceptualizations of moral judgments (Killen, et al., 2013). The coding system consisted of three main domain categories: Moral, Societal, and Psychological (Cohen’s κ = .87). Codes occurring over the 10% threshold in at least one condition were included in analyses (see Table 2).

A mixed model 6 (reasoning: Fairness, Equal Access, Harm, Group Functioning, Gender Group Identity and Adhering to Gender Stereotypes) X 2 (condition: female exclusion and male exclusion) X 2 (participant gender: female and male) ANCOVA was run for proportional use of each code controlling for major. There was a main effect of reasoning, F (5, 191) = 9.00, p < .001, ηp² = .045, indicating that participants were more likely to use fairness (M = .31, SD = 0.41) and stereotype (M = .23, SD = 0.38) attributions respectively compared to equal access (M = .08, SD = 0.27; p < .001, p = .002), psychological harm (M = .05, SD = 0.13; p < .001, p < .001), group functioning, (M = .09, SD = 0.29; p < .001, p = .001) and gender group identity (M = .09, SD = 0.27; p < .001, p = .009). There was also an interaction between reasoning and condition, F (5, 191) = 4.31, p = .001, ηp² = .022. Accordingly, participants in the female exclusion condition were more likely to reference equal access (M = 0.15, SD = 0.34) as the reason for their acceptability judgment compared to participants in the male exclusion condition (M = 0.02, SD = 0.12, p = .002). Participants in the male exclusion condition were more likely to reference psychological harm (M = 0.09, SD = 0.18) or group functioning (M = 0.16, SD = 0.37) as the reason for their acceptability judgments compared to participants in the female exclusion condition (M = 0.01, SD = 0.06, p < .001; M = 0.03, SD = 0.17, p < .001) respectively.

Bystanders’ reasoning about the acceptability of gender-based social exclusion within STEM classrooms may provide important insight to promote bystander interventions.

Authors

• Emily A Herry, Ohio State University
  Presenting Author

• Seçil Gönültaş, Bilkent University

• Kelly Lynn S Mulvey, North Carolina State University