Perceptual Processes and Interaction Dynamics in Academic Settings With

www.ssoar.info

Tokens in the Tower: Perceptual Processes and Interaction Dynamics in Academic Settings with ‘Skewed’, ‘Tilted’ and ‘Balanced’ Sex Ratios Hewstone, Miles; Crisp, Richard J.; Contarello, Alberta; Voci, Alberto; Conway, Laura; Marletta, Giorgia; Willis, Hazel

Postprint / Postprint Zeitschriftenartikel / journal article

Zur Verfügung gestellt in Kooperation mit / provided in cooperation with: www.peerproject.eu

Empfohlene Zitierung / Suggested Citation: Hewstone, M., Crisp, R. J., Contarello, A., Voci, A., Conway, L., Marletta, G., Willis, H. (2006). Tokens in the Tower: Perceptual Processes and Interaction Dynamics in Academic Settings with ‘Skewed’, ‘Tilted’ and ‘Balanced’ Sex Ratios. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9(4), 509-532. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430206067558

Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Dieser Text wird unter dem "PEER Licence Agreement zur This document is made available under the "PEER Licence Verfügung" gestellt. Nähere Auskünfte zum PEER-Projekt finden Agreement ". For more Information regarding the PEER-project Sie hier: http://www.peerproject.eu Gewährt wird ein nicht see: http://www.peerproject.eu This document is solely intended exklusives, nicht übertragbares, persönliches und beschränktes for your personal, non-commercial use.All of the copies of Recht auf Nutzung dieses Dokuments. Dieses Dokument this documents must retain all copyright information and other ist ausschließlich für den persönlichen, nicht-kommerziellen information regarding legal protection. You are not allowed to alter Gebrauch bestimmt. Auf sämtlichen Kopien dieses Dokuments this document in any way, to copy it for public or commercial müssen alle Urheberrechtshinweise und sonstigen Hinweise purposes, to exhibit the document in public, to perform, distribute auf gesetzlichen Schutz beibehalten werden. Sie dürfen dieses or otherwise use the document in public. Dokument nicht in irgendeiner Weise abändern, noch dürfen By using this particular document, you accept the above-stated Sie dieses Dokument für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke conditions of use. vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, aufführen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Mit der Verwendung dieses Dokuments erkennen Sie die Nutzungsbedingungen an.

Diese Version ist zitierbar unter / This version is citable under: https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-228056 Group Processes & G Intergroup Relations P 2006 Vol 9(4) 509–532 I R Tokens in the Tower: Perceptual Processes and Interaction Dynamics in Academic Settings with ‘Skewed’, ‘Tilted’ and ‘Balanced’ Sex Ratios

Miles Hewstone Oxford University Richard J. Crisp University of Birmingham Alberta Contarello and Alberto Voci Università degli Studi di Padova Laura Conway Cardiff University Giorgia Marletta Università degli Studi di Padova Hazel Willis University of Gloucestershire

We tested Kanter’s (1977a, 1977b) theory concerning the effects of group proportions (sex ratios) on visibility, polarization and assimilation, using natural groups of women and men in academia. Study 1 compared male-skewed and male-tilted settings and found evidence of greater polarization by minority women than majority men. The only effect of group proportions occurred for perceived dispersion as a measure of assimilation; replicating Brown and Smith (1989), men showed an out-group (OH), and women an in-group (IH), homogeneity effect, and both effects were accentuated in the skewed setting. Study 2 extended the research to include male- Author’s note skewed, male-tilted, balanced and female-tilted sex Address correspondence to Miles Hewstone, ratios. Men’s OH effect declined as relative out-group size increased, and women’s IH effect Department of Experimental Psychology, declined as relative in-group size increased. There Oxford University, South Parks Road, Oxford was also a linear decrease in relative perceived OX1 3UD, UK in-group impact and status as actual relative in-group [email: [email protected]]

size declined. We discuss our findings with respect to also apply to other variables of ‘relational the validity of Kanter’s theory, gender and group size demography’ (Riordan, Schaffer, & Stewart, as moderators of perceived variability, and 2005), including race and ethnicity (e.g. methodological issues in studying diversity. Jackson, Thoits, & Taylor, 1995; Pettigrew & keywords gender, group size, in-group Martin, 1987). homogeneity, out-group homogeneity, perceived variability, sex ratios, tokenism Kanter’s theory of group proportions ‘Visibility and performance pressures’ refer to WOMEN in the US Senate and House of Rep- the fact that tokens are highly visible, receive resentatives, the Marylebone Cricket Club, the more attention than dominants, and hence feel Vienna Philharmonic, the Board of a Fortune ‘different’ (cf. Milliken & Martins, 1996; Taylor, 500 Company and the academic senate of every 1981). This awareness of difference leads to British university all have something in performance pressures for tokens who must common: they are members of a tiny minority. both act for themselves and represent their The existence of such skewed groups is immedi- category. It can adversely affect their perform- ately obvious in cases where women are ance in work groups (e.g. Lord & Saenz, 1985), referred to as hyphenated group members (e.g. increase their perceptions of vulnerability ‘woman engineer’, ‘female professor’). (Niemann & Dovidio, 1998), and decrease Kanter (1977a, 1977b) was the first to study feelings of comfort (Bourhis, 1994) and job the impact of relative group proportions, satisfaction (Mellor, 1996; Milliken & Martins, especially skewed sex ratios, on group phenom- 1996; Yoder, 1994). ‘Polarization and group- ena. Kanter (1977b) carried out a qualitative boundary heightening’ refer to the contrast case study of 20 saleswomen in the 300-person drawn between tokens and dominants, which sales force of a multinational corporation and might be reflected in negative perceptions of concluded that, ‘The life of women in the cor- the relations between the two groups. The poration was influenced by the proportions in presence of the tokens can lead to dominants’ which they find themselves’ (p. 207). The exaggerating both their within-group common- enduring influence of her work is reflected in alities and differences between the two gender half the chapters of the recent edited volume groups. This overgeneralization leads to a tight- on Discrimination at work: The psychological and ening of group boundaries, as dominants organizational bases (Dipboye & Colella, 2005). emphasize their culture and remind tokens of Kanter distinguished four group types based their difference, isolating tokens from on the proportions of majority and minority informal, social and professional networks. groups, varying from ‘uniform’ (e.g. all group Finally, ‘assimilation and role entrapment’ refer members are men), through ‘skewed’ (e.g. a to the fact that tokens’ personal characteristics huge majority of men are the ‘dominants’, and tend to be distorted to fit the generalized view a tiny minority of women are ‘tokens’), ‘tilted’ of members of the category, and the target of (e.g. a large ‘majority’ of men and a ‘minority’ these processes is forced to confirm the per- of women) and ‘balanced’. Kanter was especi- ceiver’s stereotype. These processes are evident ally interested in skewed settings, and she when a token woman is mistaken for another proposed that token women’s proportional member of her category, treated as though she rarity was associated with three ‘perceptual resembles women on average, and forced to phenomena’ (‘visibility’, ‘polarization’ and play a gender-stereotypical role (trapped in her ‘assimilation’) and three parallel ‘interaction gender role). This experience can reduce job dynamics’ (‘performance pressures’, ‘group- satisfaction and be a source of stress (see boundary heightening’ and ‘role entrapment’). Kanter, 1977a, pp. 283–284). The majority of relevant studies have focused There is extensive evidence that token on gender diversity issues, but tokenism can women suffer in some of the ways Kanter

510 Hewstone et al. perceptions in ‘skewed’, ‘tilted’ and ‘balanced’ sex ratios predicted, whether as the first policewomen on & Snavely, 1983a, 1983b). In fact, visibility may patrol (S E. Martin, 1980; Ott, 1989), women have no effect on men (Sackett, DuBois, & Noe, academics (C. J. Young, Mackenzie, & Sherif, 1991) or even confer advantages such as 1980), women enlisted in the armed forces enhanced promotional opportunities (e.g. (e.g. Rustad, 1982), women on workers’ com- Grimm & Stern, 1974; Heikes, 1991; Ott, 1989; mittees in Israeli firms (Izraeli, 1983), women Yoder & Sinnett, 1985). Despite these gender physicians (Floge & Merrill, 1986), or the first differences, the phenomena Kanter outlined women to serve as corrections officers in men’s are best seen not specifically as gender effects, prisons ( Jurik, 1985). Token women are especi- but as consequences of membership in numer- ally likely to report being the target of stereo- ically small groups with low status (see Alexan- typing and discrimination (e.g. Beaton & der & Thoits, 1985; Frable, 1993). In fact, the Tougas, 1997; Floge & Merrill, 1986; Johnson & negative effects of distinctiveness may be Schulman, 1989; Yoder, Adams, Grove, & Priest, restricted to token or solo members of cultur- 1985), being perceived as physically weak ally stigmatized groups in a given context (Yoder, Adams, & Prince, 1983), and being seen (Crocker & Major, 1989; Frable, Blackstone, & to lack leadership qualities (Ott, 1989). Scherbaum, 1990; Major & Crocker, 1993; In short, compared with women in more Niemann & Dovidio, 1998). balanced settings, minority women in male The occupational inappropriateness of a domains experience greatest prejudice and dis- profession refers to its gender stereotyping, or crimination (Nieva & Gutek, 1981; see also the extent to which women or men stand out as Eagly, Makhijani, & Klonsky, 1992; Eagly & members of that profession. As Yoder (1991) Mladinic, 1994). These negative effects are noted, the gender stereotyping of an occu- typically magnified in the case of ‘solos’ (either pation has a strong normative component that single members of the minority, or very small includes two types of sex ratio (for the occu- minorities), who are especially likely to suffer pation as a whole, and for the organization as a from being perceptually distinct and the source whole) which should be considered alongside of attention (see Heilman, 1980; Taylor, 1981). Kanter’s (1977a, 1977b) focus on the sex ratio Critics have, however, identified a number of in the work group. Yoder pointed out that all of key limitations to Kanter’s theory and associ- the studies on women and men tokens involved ated research (see Yoder, 1991, 1994), much of gender-inappropriate occupations. Thus token which has described a skewed group, rather women have been studied as, for example, than comparing the experience of members in managers (Fairhurst & Snavely, 1983b), groups of varying proportions (for exceptions, academic faculty (e.g. Toren & Kraus, 1987), see Dworkin, Chafetz, & Dworkin, 1986; Izraeli, lawyers (e.g. MacCorquordale & Jensen, 1993) 1983; Ott, 1989; South, Bonjean, Markham, & and police officers (e.g. S. E. Martin, 1980). Corder, 1982; Spangler, Gordon, & Pipkin, Whereas token men have been studied as, for 1978). The most damaging critiques refer to example, nurses (e.g. Ott, 1989), social workers Kanter’s confounding numerical proportions (Kadushin, 1976), child-care workers (e.g. with three other factors— (gender) status, Seifert, 1973) and flight attendants ( J. L. Young occupational inappropriateness and intrusive- & James, 2001). From these studies Yoder ness. concluded that distinctive women in gender- Status is typically confounded with gender inappropriate occupations do tend to experi- (see e.g. Eagly, 1987; Geis, 1993; Ridgeway & ence performance pressures, isolation and role Diekema, 1992; Ridgeway & Smith-Lovin, 1999). encapsulation, but men do not. Relatedly, several studies have shown that token Intrusiveness refers to those pioneer men (e.g. male nurses: Floge & Merrill, 1986; members of the minority group who are the Fottler, 1976; Ott, 1989; male school teachers: first, or the first significant cohort, to break into Dworkin et al., 1986) avoid the negative conse- a new occupation or organization (Laws, 1975; quences of numerical imbalance (e.g. Fairhurst Yoder, 1991, 1994). If women are seen as

511 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 9(4)

‘intruders’, the benefits of decreased distinc- stereotypically male domains, which is where tiveness that Kanter envisaged may be gained at the male majority is likely to be most strongly the cost of one or more types of backlash skewed (Laws, 1975; Yoder, 1991, 1994). reaction from the majority. Increasing propor- Our research reports further tests of Kanter’s tions of the minority might worsen the situation hypotheses, and extends them in a number of for tokens if the majority views them as a threat ways. Previous research has typically blurred the to their status, and then react with increased distinction between the processes of visibility, discrimination (see Blalock, 1967; South et al., polarization and assimilation (and their associ- 1982), which does not level off until the ated interaction dynamics) and failed to assess minority proportion of the whole group them with unique dependent measures. We reaches about 30–40% (Allmendinger & devised a set of specific dependent measures to Hackman, 1995; P. Y. Martin, 1985; Pfeffer & tap each aspect of the theory. We also introduce Davis-Blake, 1987). Men in male-dominated the concept of perceived variability to this occupations may react especially strongly to research literature, a variable that has not yet women’s intruding, because jobs dominated by been related to Kanter’s theorizing, but does men are accorded higher prestige (e.g. Jacobs appear to be central to it. In particular, we are & Powell, 1985; but cf. Glick, 1991) and pay interested in the finding that group members better wages (Glick, 1991). These benefits are tend to perceive out-groups as being less likely to be eroded with the intrusion of women variable, or more homogeneous, than in-groups in significant numbers (Pfeffer & Davis-Blake, (the ‘out-group homogeneity’, or OH, effect; 1987; Reskin & Roos, 1990; Shaffer, Gresham, Jones, Wood, & Quattrone, 1981; for reviews, Clary, & Theilman, 1986; Toren, 1990). In see Linville, 1998; Ostrom & Sedikides, 1992); contrast, women may believe, or at least hope, but that under some circumstances there is an that the intrusion of men into their less presti- opposite, but weaker ‘in-group homogeneity’ gious, female-dominated occupations will (IH) effect (Simon & Brown, 1987; for reviews, increase their pay and prestige. see Devos, Comby & Deschamps, 1996; Voci, Based on this review of the literature, group 2000). The relevance of perceived variability to proportions can be associated with the negative Kanter’s (1977a, 1977b) theory is most obvious perceptual processes and interaction dynamics in her discussion of ‘assimilation’. She gives as outlined by Kanter (1977a, 1977b). However, an example dominants’ mistaking one token these effects will occur primarily, and be for another; this is the kind of within-group strongest, when the token group has low status confusion reported by Taylor, Fiske, Etcoff, and/or is stigmatized, and is attempting to pass and Ruderman (1978), a measure which some into a traditionally inappropriate occupation researchers have taken as a measure of per- for the first time. In the two studies reported ceived variability (Lorenzi-Cioldi, 1998; Lorenzi- below we were unable to remove all of the con- Cioldi, Eagly & Stewart 1995; Stewart, Vassar, founds found in prior research, which tend to Sanchez, & David, 2000). Kanter also stated that be features of gender relations outside the when proportions become less extreme (i.e. laboratory. However, because both our studies from skewed to tilted) the ‘minority’, as opposed were conducted using female and male aca- to ‘tokens’, ‘begin to become individuals differ- demics in a range of group proportions, we can entiated from each other’ (1977b, p. 966). explore Kanter’s phenomena as consequences However, we know of no research that explicitly of membership in numerical minority groups, compared perceived variability in skewed and rather than necessarily as gender effects. It tilted groups, although there is now an exten- remains true, nonetheless, that although uni- sive literature on gender and group size as versity women are not necessarily seen as occu- moderators of perceived group variability. pationally distinct (Niemann & Dovidio, 1998), they may still be seen as occupationally inappropriate (Laws, 1975) and intrusive, especially in

512 Hewstone et al. perceptions in ‘skewed’, ‘tilted’ and ‘balanced’ sex ratios

Gender and group size as moderators members of minority groups show a relative IH of perceived variability effect (e.g. Simon & Brown, 1987; Simon & Pettigrew, 1990; see also Mullen & Hu, 1989, for There is evidence that both gender and group meta-analytic support). Although, on statistical size can moderate perceived variability, although grounds, larger samples are more variable than how reliable the effects are, and what drives smaller ones (see Bartsch & Judd, 1993), this them, is debated (see Rubin, Hewstone, Crisp, cannot be the whole explanation. There is only Voci, & Richards, 2004). With regard to gender, a weak or nonsigniﬁcant correlation between Lorenzi-Cioldi (1993, 1998; Lorenzi-Cioldi perceived group size and OH (Simon & et al., 1995) has argued that the OH effect Mummendey, 1990), and participants who are appears to be relatively strong among men, but not assigned to groups do not perceive the weaker and even reversed among women. minority as more homogeneous than the Lorenzi-Cioldi and colleagues (1995) argued majority (Simon & Brown, 1987). that this gender effect may be best understood Simon (1992) proposed an explanation of in terms of status. As we noted above, gender is group-size effects in terms of category salience, typically confounded with status and power (see threat to self-esteem, and status. Being in a Ridgeway & Smith-Lovin, 1999), and these vari- minority, which tends to make group member- ables affect category differentiation (see ship more salient anyway (see Brewer, 1993; Brewer, 1993; Fiske, 1993). Thus high-status Mullen, Brown & Smith, 1992), may pose a groups tend to be perceived as collections of threat to group members’ self-esteem. Minority distinct individuals (i.e. heterogeneous), members may respond by perceiving their in- whereas low-status groups tend to be perceived group as more homogeneous; thus they stereo- as aggregates of interchangeable individuals type themselves more in terms of their minority (i.e. homogeneous). Lorenzi-Cioldi (1998) also group membership, promoting in-group soli- argued that gender is a more salient category darity and accentuating social identity (Tajfel & for women than men, because of their lower Turner, 1986; see Ellemers & van Rijswijk, status; moreover, men may ﬁnd it harder, or be 1997). Moreover, group size tends to be corre- more reluctant, to identify with their gender lated with status (see Farley, 1982); members of category than is the case for women (see majority groups who have relatively high in- Branscombe, 1998; Fajak & Haslam, 1998). group status show an OH effect, whereas the Hence women are more likely to both perceive typically low status of minority groups increases themselves and be perceived as more of a category salience and leads to an IH effect (see group, whereas men are more likely to perceive Lorenzi-Cioldi, 1998; Simon & Hamilton, 1994). themselves and be perceived as a collection of Gender and group size converge when being individuals (as reported by H. Young, van in a distinct minority heightens women’s con- Knippenberg, Ellemers, & de Vries, 1999; see sciousness of their stigmatized status and/or also Cross & Madson, 1997). The major gender group. This awareness does indeed weakness of the status account, however, is that increase their perceived similarity to women as where studies have included a direct measure of a group (Foster & Matheson, 1998; Hogg & status, they have consistently reported null Turner, 1987), which is consistent with an IH effects (see Lorenzi-Cioldi, 1998; Rubin et al., effect. This IH effect is especially likely when 2004), a result Lorenzi-Cioldi (1998) attributes group boundaries are impermeable, which to social desirability concerns. tends to lead members to identify more Group size, a salient attribute of many natural strongly with their in-group (Doosje, Ellemers, intergroup contexts and one that often covaries & Spears, 1995). with differences in status and power, can also Recently studies have also analyzed the affect perceived variability. Simon (1992; Simon effects of power on perceived group variability & Brown, 1987) argued that members of non- (see Guinote, 2004, for a review). Positions of minority groups show a relative OH effect, but power are often occupied by majority, rather

513 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 9(4) than minority, members, giving them direct because Brown and Smith were only able to control of important outcomes for minorities. study a female minority and a male majority. People are more attentive to those who have Moreover, although participants were drawn power in an effort to predict and control their from different faculties (which presumably outcomes (Fiske, 1993), and thus it would make differed in their gender proportions), the sense for less powerful minority members to sample size did not permit an analysis of this perceive greater variability in a more powerful variable, and hence could not test hypotheses majority outgroup, than in their ingroup. This based on Kanter’s work. In both our studies is exactly what Guinote, Judd, and Brauer we investigate whether group proportions (2002) found; (indeed they also showed that moderate the effects reported by Brown and powerful groups were actually more variable Smith; in our second study we were also able than powerless groups, a fact detected by un- to overcome the typical confound between involved observers; see also Keltner, Gruenfeld, gender and majority/minority status by con- & Anderson, 2003, for a similar argument sidering both men and women in majorities relating to status). But this effect is moderated and minorities. by several factors. Minority, powerless and low The present research integrates findings on status members may also perceive outgroups as both relative group proportions and perceived relatively homogeneous under conditions of group variability, and extends Brown and intergroup conflict and threat (Corneille, Smith’s (1989) study. We carried out this Yzerbyt, Rogier, & Buidin, 2001; Rothgerber, research in two university settings in the UK 1997), and the powerful are more likely to (Study 1) and Italy (Study 2), which provided individuate the less powerful when they feel the opportunity to test our main hypotheses responsible for their subordinates (Overbeck & under different conditions of organizational Park, 2001) or have a communal orientation diversity. Given that our research locations were (Chen, Lee-Chai, & Bargh, 2001). both universities, it might be argued that their Thus gender, group size, status and power typical liberal atmosphere would offer an (status apparently relating to both gender and unpromising context in which to research such size) can have an impact on perceptions of issues. However, studies investigating Kanter’s group variability, and outside the laboratory, of theory in university settings have tended to course, these characteristics often covary. This support it (e.g. Toren, 1990; Toren & Kraus, was the case for Brown and Smith’s (1989) fre- 1987; Yoder, Crumpton, & Zipp, 1989; C. J. quently cited study of men and women aca- Young et al., 1980). demics’ perceptions of their gender in-group and out-group in their university, where women Study 1 were in a very small numerical minority, and had low status (and probably low power) The research context for our first study was compared with men. Their study comes closest higher education in the UK where women are to integrating Kanter’s theory with research on distinctly underrepresented. Since women perceived variability. Brown and Smith entering a profession previously dominated by reported that both participant groups rated the men typically cluster at lower levels of status female minority as more homogeneous than (Allmendinger & Hackman, 1995; Lie & the male majority (i.e. the women rated their O’Leary, 1990), it is not surprising that the in-group more homogeneous than the out- underrepresentation of women in British uni- group, whereas the men rated their in-group versities is especially polarized at more senior more heterogenous than the out-group). levels.1 Unfortunately, it is impossible to attribute the Our first study tested hypotheses derived from results of this field study to a gender effect for Kanter’s (1977a, 1977b) work on sex ratios, and women academics, their minority group size, or from more recent literature on perceived their lower status in this setting, primarily group variability (e.g. Lorenzi-Cioldi, 1998;

514 Hewstone et al. perceptions in ‘skewed’, ‘tilted’ and ‘balanced’ sex ratios

Simon, 1992). We tested Kanter’s hypothesis and their academic status. We then classiﬁed that women would suffer greater visibility, each department in terms of the relative propor- polarization and assimilation in male-skewed tions of male staff.3 The departments selected than male-tilted settings. We also compared and their proportions of male staff were as women’s and men’s perceptions of group vari- follows: Male-skewed (M = 92% male: Engineer- ability under each sex ratio. For (high status) ing, Mathematics, Biology, Music, City Planning, men, we predicted an OH effect (Brown & Molecular and Medical Sciences, Business); Smith, 1989; Lorenzi-Cioldi, 1998), which Male-tilted (M = 73% male: Maritime and Trans- should be exaggerated when they are in a port Studies, Earth Sciences, Computer Science, skewed majority (see Brewer, 1993; Simon, Social Studies, Architecture, History, Education, 1992). This prediction is also consistent with English, European Studies, Law). Kanter’s theorizing, since she expects ‘domi- We sent all members of the original sample a nants’ in the skewed setting to see the smaller questionnaire in the internal mail. The cover group, ‘tokens’, as more distinct, to see women sheet explained that the survey was concerned and men as more polarized, and to assimilate with social perceptions in academic groups and token women members more to the stereotype. that it would take approximately 30 minutes to For (low status) women we predicted an IH complete. We assured participants that their effect (Brown & Smith, 1989; Lorenzi-Cioldi, responses would be confidential and anony- 1998; Simon, 1992), which would be accentu- mous, having no implications for themselves or ated when they are a token minority. Again, this their colleagues. To ensure that respondents hypothesis is consistent with Kanter’s theoriz- felt both anonymous and secure, they were ing, since she expects that token women in a asked to return their questionnaires in the male-skewed setting will feel more distinctive as unnamed internal mail envelope provided. The a subgroup and, because stigmatized, feel more first section of the questionnaire requested discomfort and dissatisfaction, all of which demographic information: gender, age, should lead them to emphasize in-group cohe- academic position, university department, siveness (Simon, 1992). length of time working in that department and whether the position was full-time or part-time. Method The following sections of the questionnaire Design and participants The design of the contained the dependent measures in the study was a two-factor quasi-experimental order in which they follow. We assessed per- design: 2 (participant gender: female/male) ceived variability first, so that these ratings 2 (group proportions: male-skewed/male- would not be affected by multiple measures tilted). We sent questionnaires to all full-time relating to gender issues, which might have members of the academic staff (676; 136 affected these perceptions, and limited compa- females, 540 males) in 20 departments of a rability with Brown and Smith’s (1989) study. British University.2 A total of 265 respondents in skewed and tilted departments returned Perceived dispersion For the purpose of replica- completed questionnaires (71 females, 194 tion, we assessed perceived variability in exactly males; response rate 39.2%), from which 69 the same way as Brown and Smith (1989). (1) were removed for having incomplete question- We used the range measure ( Jones et al., 1981), naires, leaving 188 (male-skewed: 12 females, which assesses the ‘perceived dispersion’ com- 77 males; male-tilted: 32 females, 67 males). ponent of variability (and not ‘stereotypicality’, see Park & Judd, 1990). It is simple to adminis- Procedure We obtained data on numbers of ter, and has been identiﬁed as one of the most female and male full-time academic staff in all robust measures of perceived variability university departments from the central uni- (Ostrom & Sedikides, 1992; Park & Judd, 1990). versity administration. We then contacted (2) Participants rated the variability of gender departments to verify their list of current staff, in- and out-groups on three dimensions—

515 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 9(4)

‘productivity’ (e.g. publications or research Polarization and group-boundary heightening We output), ‘communication skills’ and ‘adminis- used three measures to assess polarization. trative efficiency’—which ‘closely correspond Allmendinger and Hackman’s (1995) scale to the three criteria by which academics in of gender relations assessed the climate of British universities are judged for appointment gender relations within each department. This and promotion’ (Brown & Smith, 1989, p. 66). 7-item scale included items such as: ‘The We averaged ratings of in-group and out-group standing of women in this department has variability across the three dimensions to yield improved in the last few years’, and ‘Women’s indices of in-group and out-group variability opportunities for advancement in this depart- (Cronbach’s alphas = .727 and .362).4 (3) The ment have diminished over the last few years’ three scales were anchored with the endpoints (1, ‘disagree strongly’ to 7, ‘agree strongly’). ‘extremely unproductive/poor communication Scores on the three negative items were reverse- skills/inefficient’ (‘bottom 5% of all UK staff in coded, so that higher scores denote better comparable departments’) and ‘extremely pro- relations between gender groups, and scores ductive/good communication skills/efficient’ across all seven items were averaged to yield a (‘top 5% of all UK staff in comparable depart- reliable scale (alpha = .640). We also asked, ments’). (4) In a later section of the question- ‘how much impact do you feel female/male naire, participants rated how important each of members of staff have on important decisions the three dimensions was (1, not at all; 7, very). made concerning the department?’ (1, ‘not at To anchor their judgements, participants all’ to 7, ‘very much’), and ‘what status do you first marked with a ‘X’ on each of three 100 think female/male members of staff have in the mm scales where on average they thought department?’ (1, ‘very low’ to 7, ‘very high’). members of the target group in their depart- Four different measures assessed isolation ment fell.5 We then asked participants to go from formal, informal and social networks. Two back to each scale and mark where the most items assessed how much respondents felt they extreme target group members would fall, by contributed to activities in their department: (a) making two vertical slashes on each line; the by research seminars and (b) through depart- difference between the rated extremes (full mental meetings (1, ‘not at all’ to 7, ‘very range) was the measure of perceived dispersion much’; alpha = .517). Three items asked, ‘how for the target group. The next page of the ques- much time do you spend with other members of tionnaire asked respondents to make similar staff in your department’? (1, ‘none at all’ to 7, ratings for the other target group (order of ‘a great deal’): (a) formally (e.g. meetings); (b) rating target groups was randomized across informally (e.g. talking to, exchanging views questionnaires). with); and (c) socially (e.g. outside the department); these items formed a reliable scale Visibility and performance pressures Four items (alpha = .667). Two items each assessed: ‘how assessed visibility (how ‘noticeable’, ‘distinc- much support do you feel you get from tive’, ‘self-conscious’ or ‘comfortable’ respon- female/male members of staff in your depart- dents felt in their department; 1, ‘not at all’ to ment?’ (1, ‘none at all’ to 7, ‘very much’); and 7, ‘very’). A scale formed from the first two ‘how familiar are you with female/male items provided a reliable measure (alpha = members of staff in your department?’ (1, ‘not .732). An 11-item scale used by Allmendinger at all’ 7 to ‘very’). and Hackman (1995) assessed satisfaction with specific organizational features: compensation Assimilation and role entrapment Perceived (2 items); job security (2); work relationships variability (see above) was our main measure of (3); and growth opportunities (4). Respon- assimilation. Warr’s (1990) 12-item scale of dents rated each aspect of their job on a 7-point ‘Affective well-being’ assessed self-reported scale (1, ‘extremely dissatisfied’ to 7, ‘extremely stress at work. Respondents rated on a 6-point satisfied’; alpha = .727).6 scale (1, ‘never’ to 6, ‘all the time’) how their

516 Hewstone et al. perceptions in ‘skewed’, ‘tilted’ and ‘balanced’ sex ratios job makes them feel, thinking of the past Preliminary analyses To test whether respon- month, in terms of 12 affective adjectives (e.g. dents were aware of the proportions of the tense, gloomy, calm). Scores on positive words two gender groups in their department, we were reverse-coded, so that higher scores computed a 2 (gender) 2 (group propor- denote higher stress, and scores across all 12 tions) ANOVA on the perceived percentage of items were averaged to yield a highly reliable male staff minus the perceived percentage of scale (alpha = .915). female staff. Positive scores indicate a perceived male majority. This analysis yielded a main Perceived group size Finally, respondents were effect of department (F(1, 184) = 137.83, p < asked what respective proportions (as percent- .0005), qualiﬁed by a department by gender ages summing to 100) of full-time members of interaction (F(1, 184) = 6.56, p < .025). Simple academic staff in their department were women main effects tests revealed that women per- and men. ceived a larger difference in group sizes in skewed (M = 82.50) than tilted departments Results and discussion (M = 42.06) (F(1, 184) = 63.58, p < .0005), as

Overview We report our results in two parts: did men (Mskewed = 76.90 vs. Mtilted = 50.94) (F(1, (1) a number of preliminary analyses, to check 184) = 107.53, p < .0005). In the tilted depart- on our samples and possible confounds in this ments only, men also perceived a larger differ- quasi-experimental design; and (2) analyses of ence in group sizes (M = 50.94) than did the main dependent measures grouped by their women (M = 42.06) (F(1, 184) = 7.60, p = .006); relevance to Kanter’s (1977a, 1977b) theory, this gender effect does not qualify the key including perceived dispersion as a measure of result: that both women and men were aware of assimilation. The core design was a 2 (partici- differences in group size. pant gender) 2 (group proportions: male- Our quasi-experimental design requires that skewed/male-tilted) design and unless we take special care to investigate the possibility otherwise noted we used this design for the that other variables (e.g. academic status, age analysis of variance (ANOVA). For dependent and experience) covary with the variables of measures that involved separate ratings of in- interest. Unfortunately, given the background group and out-group, we added a within- to this research (viz. gender differences in uni- subjects factor (target group: in-group vs. versity departments and the relatively recent out-group) to this design and computed a attempts to prevent discrimination against mixed-model ANOVA, with repeated measures women), we would expect some confounds, on the last factor. Because there are, in fact, rel- which should nonetheless be acknowledged. atively many male and relatively few female aca- We first sought to compare actual gender demics, there are large differences in cell sizes; differences in proportions of senior and junior we therefore used a regression ANOVA to staff in male-skewed and male-tilted depart- prevent differences from one group contribut- ments, by referring to faculty lists for all the ing more to the overall OH effect than differ- departments from which our respondents were ences from the other group (Ostrom & drawn.7 We were hampered by the very small Sedikides, 1992). The means of all dependent number of senior women in skewed depart- measures are shown in Table 1. It could be ments, compared with other combinations of argued that the proportion factor would be seniority and department (male-skewed, senior: better analyzed as a regressor, rather than as a female, 3, male, 143; junior: 22, 19; male-tilted, categorical variable. We prefer the adopted senior: 16, 126; junior: 50, 95). We therefore analysis, however, precisely because Kanter’s tested the null hypothesis that there was no theory (1977a, 1977b) argues that the different association between gender and seniority (or, categories (i.e. tilted, skewed) are phenomeno- an odds ratio equal to 1) in each type of setting; logically different from each other, and indeed we rejected this hypothesis in both tilted (2(1) that the effects are categorical effects. = 20.54, p < .001) and skewed (2(1) = 14.90,

517 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 9(4)

Table 1. Mean ratings as a function of gender, group proportions, and target group (Study 1)

Participant gender Group proportions Target group Women Men

Measure Male-skewed Male-tilted Male-skewed Male-tilted

Visibility and performance pressures Visibility 4.88 4.80 5.01 4.86 Job and organizational satisfaction 4.95 4.93 4.82 4.80 Polarization and group-boundary heightening Gender relations 3.97 4.02 4.43 4.37 Impact In-group 3.08 4.31 5.88 5.84 Out-group 6.00 6.16 4.10 4.34 Status In-group 3.42 4.22 5.51 5.33 Out-group 5.75 5.75 4.33 4.47 Contribution to department 4.38 4.45 4.75 4.51 Time spent with colleagues 3.89 3.90 3.97 3.85 Support In-group 4.75 5.03 4.88 4.40 Out-group 4.25 4.47 4.66 4.60 Familiarity In-group 5.00 4.69 5.12 4.76 Out-group 4.58 4.41 4.78 4.59 Assimilation and role entrapment Perceived dispersion In-group 38.60 46.34 69.43 66.56 Out-group 70.56 64.12 40.57 55.29 Affective well-being 3.13 3.12 3.05 3.16

p < .001) departments. We then tested whether Women (M = 38.77 years) were significantly the difference between the odds ratios in the younger than men (M = 45.85 years). Because two types of department was significant. We did there were no effects involving the group pro- not reject the hypothesis that there was no portions factor, differences in participants’ age difference between these two ratios (2(1) = cannot account for any differences involving 0.93, p = .35). Thus, although gender was associ- group proportions, so we can rule out the ated with seniority in both types of department, second potential confound. we could rule out the first potential confound: Our final preliminary analysis was a 2 there was no evidence that this association was (gender) 2 (proportions) ANOVA on partici- different in the two settings. pants’ number of years in their department. Next, we computed a 2 (participant gender) Again, the only effect was a main effect for 2 (group proportions) ANOVA on partici- gender (F(1, 184) = 13.52, p < .0005). Women pants’ age, which revealed only a main effect (M = 5.63 years) had been members of their for gender (F(1, 184) = 15.05, p < .0005). department significantly fewer years than men

518 Hewstone et al. perceptions in ‘skewed’, ‘tilted’ and ‘balanced’ sex ratios

(M = 11.67 years), but again this effect did not ceived status revealed a main effect for target vary with group proportions. group (F(1, 184) = 2.48, p < .05), qualified by a To summarize, although these analyses gender by target group interaction (F(1, 184) = indicate that women staff were in more junior 70.07, p < .0005). Simple main effects tests positions, were younger, and had been in their showed that women thought the out-group (M departments for less time than men (all of which = 5.75) had higher status than the in-group (M we would expect if women were disadvantaged), = 4.00) (F(1, 184) = 47.04, p < .0005), whereas none of these variables was confounded with men thought the in-group had higher status (M the group proportions factor. = 5.43) than the out-group (M = 4.40) (F(1, 184) = 42.92, p < .0005). Thus both men and Visibility and performance pressures The women reported that men had higher status. ANOVAs using both the ‘visibility’ scale score In male-skewed departments, there was also and the measure of job/organizational satis- no evidence of greater boundary heightening. faction (Allmendinger & Hackman, 1995) Scale scores for contributions to departmental yielded no significant effects, thus giving no activities and time spent with colleagues yielded indication that token women (in male-skewed no significant effects, thus giving no evidence departments) felt more visible or had lower that token women in male-skewed departments levels of job satisfaction than minority women were more isolated from formal or informal in male-tilted departments. As satisfaction levels networks than women in male-tilted depart- are generally higher for more senior than ments. The ANOVA for support revealed a junior faculty (e.g. Niemann & Dovidio, 1998; main effect for target group (F(1, 184) = 3.97, Steene, Guinipero, & Newgren, 1985), we also p < .05), qualified by the gender by target group computed a separate 2 (gender) 2 (seniority interaction which was almost significant (F(1, of staff: senior/junior) ANOVA within the 184) = 3.60, p = .059). Simple main effects tests male-tilted departments only; however, this revealed that only women felt they received analysis revealed no significant differences. slightly less support from out-group (M = 4.41) Thus these first analyses provided no evidence than in-group (M = 4.95) colleagues (F(1, 184) either that token women felt particularly dis- = 5.93, p < .025). For familiarity, there was a tinctive and unsatisfied, or that minority main effect for target group; respondents rated women differed from majority men in either themselves more familiar with the gender in- respect. group (M = 4.91) than the out-group (M = 4.64) (F(1, 184) = 7.58, p = .0065). This last finding is Polarization and group-boundary heightening consistent with Park and Rothbart’s (1982) pre- The ANOVA on Allmendinger and Hackman’s diction that even in the case of gender groups, (1995) scale of departmental gender relations where there is extensive cross-group contact, revealed only a significant main effect for there is greater in-group familiarity. gender (F(1,184) = 6.16, p < .025); women Overall, these results do indicate stronger viewed the relations between gender groups in polarization for women than men. Women their department as slightly worse (M = 3.99) judged gender relations as worse, and only than did men (M = 4.40). The ANOVA on women reported receiving less support from impact yielded only a gender by target group gender out-group than in-group colleagues. interaction (F(1, 184) = 54.83, p < .0005). Both men and women felt that men had more Simple main effects tests revealed that women impact and status in their department, and thought the out-group (M = 6.11) had more reported being more familiar with colleagues of impact in the department than the in-group (M the same gender group. Once again, there were = 3.98) (F(1, 184) = 30.091, p < .0005), whereas no effects involving group proportions. men thought the in-group (M = 5.86) had more impact than the out-group (M = 4.21) (F(1, Assimilation and role entrapment Before com- 184) = 46.90, p < .0005). The ANOVA for per- puting the ANOVA for perceived dispersion, as

519 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 9(4) a measure of assimilation, we computed a 2 in-group, and considerably less out-group, vari- (gender) 2 (group proportions) ANOVA on ability (Min-group = 69.43; Mout-group = 40.47). For participants’ importance ratings for the three women, Brown and Smith’s results (Min-group = dimensions. There were no signiﬁcant effects, 55.60; Mout-group = 67.00) were again quite but both women (M = 5.70) and men (M = similar to those of women in our male-tilted

5.44) agreed in rating all three dimensions settings (Min-group = 46.34; Mout-group = 64.12), but quite important. The ANOVA on perceived women in our male-skewed settings tended to dispersion yielded a signiﬁcant group propor- see the in-group as considerably less variable, tions by target group interaction (F(1, 184) = and the out-group as somewhat more variable

87.42, p < .0005), which was qualified by a sig- (Min-group = 38.60; Mout-group = 70.56). nificant gender by proportions by target group The ANOVA for Warr’s (1990) ‘Affective well- interaction (F(1, 184) = 10.92, p < .005). In being’ scale yielded no significant effects, and male-tilted departments, women rated the in- the means shown in Table 1 indicate that stress group (M = 46.34) less variable than the out- levels were quite low. In the only other study we group (M = 64.12) (F(1, 97) = 14.55, p < .0005), know of that measured stress in relation to and men rated the in-group (M = 66.56) more group proportions, Ott (1989) also found no variable than the out-group (M = 55.29) difference in stress levels for women police in (F(1,97) = 12.25, p < .001). Exactly the same skewed versus tilted settings. Thus even though pattern of results was found in the male-skewed there is strong evidence of greater assimilation departments, but the effects were even stronger, in skewed settings, as measured by perceived and differences between mean ratings of in- dispersion, this is not necessarily reflected in and out-groups were much more extreme. higher stress levels. Indeed, if Simon (1992) is Women rated the in-group (M = 38.60) less correct, an IH effect for members of small variable than the out-group (M = 70.56) (F(1, minorities is a positive response to threat that 87) = 20.49), while men rated the in-group (M portrays the in-group as united and cohesive, = 69.43) more variable than the out-group (M = which may also provide social support to help 40.57) (F(1, 87) = 107.26, p < .0005). These protect against stress (see Cohen & Wills, 1985). results are consistent with an IH effect for Overall, the results of our first study showed women and an OH effect for men in both kinds no effects of visibility, but evidence of greater of department but, as predicted from both polarization and assimilation was reported by Kanter’s (1977a, 1977b) theory and the litera- women than men in academia. In interpreting ture on perceived variability (e.g. Lorenzi- these findings, it should be reiterated, that Cioldi, 1998; Simon, 1992), results are more these are not ‘pure’ gender effects; as we noted extreme in male-skewed than male-tilted earlier, women had less seniority, were younger departments. These results are also consistent and were relatively newer members of their with the conclusion that men in the majority departments than men. Thus, as earlier critics are seen as more variable than women in the of Kanter’s (1977a, 1977b) work pointed out minority by both majority men and minority (see Yoder, 1991, 1994), gender is confounded women (i.e. a main effect of target group; see with status (e.g. Ridgeway & Diekema, 1992). Brauer & Judd, 2000). Only one measure (perceived dispersion as an We also compared the mean perceived dis- index of assimilation) revealed an interaction persion of each target group, separately for with group proportions. Our results on this men and women, with the results reported by measure provided a strong replication of Brown Brown and Smith (1989), who did not compare and Smith’s (1989) findings, and extended tilted and skewed groups. For men, their results them to sex ratios of varying proportions. The

(Min-group = 65.17; Mout-group = 55.29) were very effects of group proportions were exactly as similar to our male-tilted settings (Min-group = predicted in our extrapolation from Kanter’s 66.56; Mout-group = 55.29), but men in our male- hypotheses. Taken together, however, the skewed settings tended to see slightly greater results of our ﬁrst study provide only limited

520 Hewstone et al. perceptions in ‘skewed’, ‘tilted’ and ‘balanced’ sex ratios support for Kanter’s hypotheses. We therefore Method carried out a second study, to replicate the Design and participants The design of the finding that perceived dispersion varies with study was a two-factor quasi-experimental extremity of group proportions, and to extend design: 2 (participant gender: female/male) the types of group proportions investigated. 4 (gender proportions: male-skewed/male- tilted/balanced/female-tilted). We sent ques- Study 2 tionnaires to all full-time members of the academic staff in eight departments of an One obvious, if understandable, limitation to Italian university. We randomly selected two our first study is that, like Brown and Smith male-skewed and two male-tilted departments, (1989), we were still only able to study men in all three balanced departments, and the sole a majority and women in a minority. In our female-tilted department that existed. Of the second study, we were able to address this issue, 348 staff (124 females, 224 males) sent ques- by moving to a new context, a university in Italy, tionnaires, 99 returned them (34 females, 65 in which there were some academic depart- males; response rate, 28%), and 11 respondents ments with a balanced sex ratio, and one had to be removed for having incomplete ques- department with a female-tilted sex ratio. As we tionnaires. The final number of participants noted earlier, Yoder (1991, 1994) has criticized was 88 (male-skewed: 5 females and 31 males; much of the work on Kanter’s theory for failing male-tilted: 4 females and 5 males; balanced: 17 to make comparisons between groups of females and 16 males; female-tilted: 7 females varying proportions (for notable exceptions, and 3 males). see Dworkin et al., 1986; Izraeli, 1983; Ott, 1989; South et al., 1982; Spangler et al., 1978). Procedure We followed the same procedure To our knowledge, our second study is the first as Study 1, except that four types of department to compare group proportions ranging from were included, and the questionnaire was male-skewed, though male-tilted and balanced, drastically shortened so that it took approxi- to female-tilted settings (we were unable to find mately 10 minutes to complete. It contained any female-skewed university departments). only measures of perceived dispersion, impact In this study we measured only a small subset and status (each involving separate ratings of of variables, and focused on perceived group female and male target groups. The depart- variability. We did this for two reasons. First, ments selected and their proportions of female and unavoidably, the response rate to a pilot and male staff were as follows: male-skewed (M = study in the Italian university was very low, and 92% male: Electronics and Informatics, Phil- we received feedback that the length of the osophy); male-tilted (M = 80% male: Biochem- survey had contributed to this. Second, in Study istry, History); balanced (M = 60% male: Biology, 1 we had only found an effect of group propor- Visual Arts and Music, Language and Litera- tions on one variable, perceived dispersion; ture); female-tilted (M = 69% female: Education). moreover, this was the first research to suggest this measure as an index of Kanter’s (1977a, Results and discussion 1977b) concept of assimilation, and we wanted Overview We carried out the same prelimi- to replicate this effect. nary analyses on respondents’ age and experi- Thus our second study sought to replicate ence as in Study 1; for this study, however, there the finding that perceived dispersion (an OH were no reliable effects of gender. We then effect for men, and an IH effect for women) analyzed the data using a 2 (participant was moderated by group proportions, and to gender) 4 (group proportions: male-skewed/ test whether perceived dispersion varied as a male-tilted/balanced/female-tilted) 2 (target linear function of group proportions. group: in-group/out-group) mixed model ANOVA, with repeated measures on the last factor. We had strong theoretical predictions

521 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 9(4) that the difference between ratings of in-group male-skewed departments, simple main effects and out-group would vary as a linear function tests revealed that women rated the in-group of the relative proportions of men and women (M = 55.20) less variable than the out-group (M (i.e. from male-skewed to male-tilted to = 68.40) (F(1, 34) = 7.02, p < .025), whereas balanced to female-tilted). We therefore tested men rated the in-group (M = 65.55) more these predictions (separately for female and variable than the out-group (M = 49.77) (F(1, male respondents) by regressing the relevant 34) = 62.15, p < .0005). These results again in-group minus out-group difference score on indicate an IH effect for minority women and the appropriate effects coding of the four levels an OH effect for majority men (or a target- of department. For female respondents, for group main effect: men in the majority are seen whom we predicted an IH effect, the four levels as more variable than women in the minority). of group proportion were coded as follows: There were no significant differences between male-skewed: –2; male-tilted: –1; balanced: +1; ratings of in-group and out-group variability in and female-tilted: +2. For male respondents, for the other three types of department. whom we predicted an OH effect, the four The regression of in-group minus out-group levels of group proportion were coded: male- differences in variability on the a priori weight- skewed: +2; male-tilted: +1; balanced: –1; and ings of the departments was significant for both female-tilted: –2. women ( = .406, p < .025) and men ( = .527, Because there are again large differences in p < .0005); the IH effect for women declined as cell sizes we used a regression ANOVA. The relative in-group size increased, and the OH means of all dependent measures are shown in effect for men declined as relative out-group Table 2. size increased. As Table 2 shows, perceived out- group homogeneity for men decreased steeply Perceived dispersion The three separate from male-skewed departments, and was ratings of in-group and out-group variability on minimal in balanced and female-tilted depart- the range measure were collapsed to yield ments; perceived in-group homogeneity for reliable indices of in-group and out-group women decreased steeply from male-skewed variability (alphas = .709 and .744, respectively). departments, and the means were in the direc- The ANOVA yielded a significant gender by tion of out-group homogeneity in the one target group interaction (F(1, 80) = 5.76, p < female-tilted department. .025), which was qualified by a significant gender by group proportions by target group Impact There were significant interactions of interaction (F(3, 80) = 20.21, p < .0005). For gender by target group (F(1, 80) = 36.17, p <

Table 2. Mean ratings as a function of gender, group proportions and target group (Study 2)

Participant gender group proportions Women Men

Male- Male- Female- Male- Male- Female- Measure Target group skewed tilted Balanced tilted skewed tilted Balanced tilted

Perceived In-group 55.20 70.25 56.10 66.86 65.55 68.73 59.23 45.56 dispersion Out-group 68.40 75.83 54.96 60.43 49.77 60.40 55.33 49.33 In-group 3.00 2.50 4.00 6.57 6.00 5.80 5.50 4.33 Impact Out-group 6.60 4.75 5.76 4.43 3.74 4.60 4.25 5.33 In-group 3.60 3.75 4.18 5.14 5.58 6.00 5.00 3.67 Status Out-group 5.60 6.00 5.35 4.86 4.45 4.80 4.31 4.67

522 Hewstone et al. perceptions in ‘skewed’, ‘tilted’ and ‘balanced’ sex ratios

.0005), and department by target group (F(3, Min-group = 4.18). In female-tilted departments 80) = 4.61, p < .05), which were qualified by the there was a nonsignificant tendency for women gender by department by target group inter- to think the in-group had higher status than the action (F(3, 80) = 45.95, p < .0005). Simple out-group (Min-group = 5.14; Mout-group = 4.86). main effects tests showed that women thought Men thought the in-group had more status than the out-group had more impact than the in- the out-group in male-skewed departments group in male-skewed departments (F(1, 34) = (F(1, 34) = 62.15, p < .0005; Min-group = 5.58 vs. 16.07, p < .0005; Mout-group = 6.60 vs. Min-group = Mout-group = 4.45); the same effect was marginal 3.00), male-tilted departments (F(1, 7) = 10.46, in balanced departments (F(1, 31) = 3.91, p < p < .025; Mout-group = 4.75 vs. Min-group = 2.50) and .06; Min-group = 5.00 vs. Mout-group = 4.31), and balanced departments (F(1, 31) = 24.84, means were not significantly different, but in p < .0005; Mout-group = 5.76 vs. Min-group = 4.00). the same direction in male-tilted departments Only in female-tilted departments, i.e.when (Min-group = 6.00; Mout-group = 4.80). In female- they were in the majority, did women think the tilted departments there was a nonsignificant in-group had more impact than the out-group tendency for men to think the out-group had

(F(1, 8) = 7.83, p < .025; Min-group = 6.57 vs. more status than the in-group (Mout-group = 4.67 Mout-group = 4.43). In contrast, men thought the vs. Min-group = 3.67). Overall, these ratings of in-group had more impact than the out-group status tend to follow the actual proportions of in male-skewed departments (F(1, 34) = 39.19, male and female senior staff; a large majority of p < .0005; Min-group = 6.00 vs. Mout-group = 3.74), full professors were men in all departments male-tilted departments (F(1,7) = 21.72, p < except the female-tilted department, where the

.005; Min-group = 5.80 vs. Mout-group = 4.60) and majority of full professors were women. balanced departments (F(1, 31) = 11.73, p = The regression of in-group minus out-group

.002; Min-group = 5.50 vs. Mout-group = 4.25). In differences in status on the a priori weightings female-tilted departments there was a non- of the departments was significant for both significant tendency for minority men to think women ( = .414, p < .025) and men ( = .286, the out-group had more impact than the in- p < .05); there was a linear decrease in relative group (Mout-group = 5.33; Min-group = 4.33). perceived in-group status as actual relative in- The regression of in-group minus out-group group size declined. differences in impact on the a priori weightings To summarize, our second study extended of the departments was significant for both the research by including gender-balanced and women ( = .592, p < .0005) and men ( = .368, female-tilted sex ratios. Although the difference p < .01); there was a linear decrease in relative in perceived dispersion for in-group and out- perceived in-group impact as actual relative in- group was only significant for men in the male- group size declined. skewed setting (where we replicated the OH effect found in Study 1 and Brown and Smith, Status There was a main effect of target group 1989), relative in-group dispersion for men and (F(1, 80) = 4.23, p < .05), which was qualified by women varied as a linear function of group pro- a gender by target group interaction (F(1, 80) portions. The OH effect for men tended to dis- = 25.82, p < .0005), and a gender by department appear as they lost their in-group majority by target group interaction (F(3, 80) = 16.77, status, and the tendency of women towards an p < .0001). Simple main effects tests showed IH effect disappeared as they lost their in-group that women thought the out-group had more minority status. However, because the OH status than the in-group in male-skewed depart- effect is stronger for men (Lorenzi-Cioldi, ments (F(1, 34) = 7.02, p < .05; Mout-group = 5.60 1998) and is a stronger effect than the IH effect vs. Min-group = 3.60), male-tilted departments (Voci, 2000), women never show a reliable OH (F(1, 7) = 10.46, p < .025; Mout-group = 6.00 vs. effect, nor do men show a reliable IH effect. Min-group = 3.75) and balanced departments These results confirm that perceived dispersion (F(1, 31) = 12.18, p < .001; Mout-group = 5.35 vs. is a useful variable for research testing Kanter’s

523 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 9(4)

(1977a, 1977b) hypotheses regarding the their departments as worse than men did, and effects of group proportions, because it reflects they reported receiving less support from their quite subtle quantitative and qualitative changes gender out-group than in-group, which men in intergroup perception and dynamics across did not. This evidence of polarization was different sex ratios. The results for perceptions strengthened by the findings that both women of impact and status were similar, in that the and men reported that men had more impact tendency to see men as having relatively more and status in their departments, and that they impact and status in most settings was reversed were more familiar with members of their in female-tilted settings. gender in-group than out-group (cf. Park & Rothbart, 1982).8 Women did not, however, General discussion report being more isolated from formal and informal departmental activities. Even where Our main aims in this research were to test there were effects involving gender in Study 1, Kanter’s (1977a, 1977b) hypotheses concerning we must emphasize that gender was con- group proportions in new ways and in new founded with group size. Women were only settings. We sought to identify dependent ever in the minority, and men in the majority; measures for each of the distinct perceptual and relative group proportions only varied phenomena and interaction dynamics Kanter within this constraint. Thus the above gender specified, and to introduce perceived group effects must be seen as effects not for women vs. variability (dispersion) as a new measure of men, but for minority women vs. majority men. assimilation (distorting personal characteristics The only measure on which we found any to fit a generalization, and thus assimilating effect of group proportions was perceived dis- intragroup differences). We did this in two uni- persion. Our findings for this measure are con- versity settings, in the second of which we could sistent with previous research suggesting that achieve something rarely done in this literature, gender and group size can moderate percep- namely compare men and women in majority, tions of group variability. Our findings replicate minority and balanced settings. We can claim those of Brown and Smith (1989) almost success in both these general aims, although the exactly—an OH effect for men, but an IH effect overall support for Kanter’s theory is quite for women. This result is consistent with modest. We discuss our findings with respect to Lorenzi-Cioldi’s (1998) conclusion, that the each of the three processes identified by Kanter, OH effect is a relatively strong effect among the evidence that gender and group size men, but weaker, even reversed, among women; moderate perceived variability, and possible and also Simon’s (1992) contention that confounds in our quasi-experimental designs. minorities tend to show an IH effect. We quali- In our first study we found almost no fied and extended this prior work, however, by evidence that the proportional rarity of token showing that men’s OH effect was accentuated women in male-skewed settings resulted in when they were in a skewed majority, whereas different experiences for them than for women’s IH effect was accentuated when they minority women in male-tilted departments. (as a token minority) were faced with a skewed Effects involving gender were also limited, majority of men. These effects are consistent rather than ubiquitous. Women did not report with Kanter’s (1977a, 1977b) theorizing. She being more ‘visible’ than men, nor did they would expect men in a skewed majority (domi- report lower job satisfaction (which Kanter nants) to assimilate distinct, token women, and believed would result from greater perform- token women to emphasize their in-group ance pressures). On a number of measures, coherence (which Simon, 1992, linked to the however, women did report perceptions and IH effect). Notwithstanding this clear effect of feelings consistent with their experiencing group proportions on perceived dispersion, greater polarization and group-boundary tight- token women did not report feeling more ening than men. They saw gender relations in stress, as would be predicted if the experience

524 Hewstone et al. perceptions in ‘skewed’, ‘tilted’ and ‘balanced’ sex ratios of greater assimilation were associated with role women’s relative proportions in both uni- entrapment. versities studied were still strikingly low, In our second study, we replicated and especially in traditional male domains (i.e. extended these results for perceived dispersion. male-skewed departments) and, as we noted We were able to report a rare test of group pro- earlier, universities all too often still do show portions ranging from male-skewed to female- gender-linked differences in the distribution of tilted settings (albeit including only one rewards (see Toren, 1990). female-tilted department). Once again, we Turning to the measure itself, perceived dis- found the strongest OH effect for men in male- persion, it could be argued that our findings do skewed settings. Moreover, relative in-group dis- not indicate assimilation but, rather, reflect real persion varied as a linear function of group group differences in perceived variability, always proportions. Perceived out-group homogeneity a potential issue in studies using real groups for men decreased steeply from male-skewed (Guinote, 2004; Guinote et al., 2002; Ostrom & departments, and was minimal in balanced and Sedikides, 1992).9 Brown and Smith (1989) female-tilted departments; whereas perceived noted that if academic women do experience in-group homogeneity for women decreased discriminatory selection practices (whether steeply from male-skewed departments, and the intentional or not), they might have to achieve means were in the direction of out-group homo- at a higher level than men to obtain employ- geneity in female-tilted departments. Thus per- ment or promotion; if this were the case, women ceived dispersion (which we have argued would be, in fact, more homogeneous than men provides an index of assimilation) is a measure with respect to research productivity (one of the that is quite sensitive to differences in group three dimensions we used). We tested this idea proportions and should, therefore, be included by comparing actual research output for men in future studies testing Kanter’s theory (1977a, and women, but we found no significant differ- 1977b). Results for the perceived impact and ence that might support this explanation.10 status of men and women in each department Thus, rather than minority women being, in followed the same pattern. Thus for men, fact, more homogeneous than majority men, we relative in-group variability, relative in-group suggest that our results are more likely an impact and relative in-group status varied as a indication of differences in how minority, and function of group proportions; the effect was especially token, women are perceived. In part strongest with a large in-group majority and because they are perceptually salient, minori- smallest with an in-group minority. For women, ties—and especially tokens—may be seen as relative out-group dispersion was accompanied more ‘entitative’ (i.e. having the nature of an by tendencies toward relative out-group impact entity or real thing; Campbell, 1958) than and status, except where women were in a majorities, with implications for various aspects majority, and only here were women rated of social perception and evaluation (see higher in impact and status than men. Hamilton, Sherman, & Lickel, 1998). Future In view of the fact that we found support for work in this area should therefore include Kanter’s theory (1977a, 1977b) on just one measures of both perceived variability and per- measure, we should consider carefully, first, the ceived entitativity. research setting and, second, the measure. One To conclude, in the rather benign, liberal possible explanation for the limited support groves of academe, we found only limited found is that in the context we investigated support for Kanter’s theory (1977a, 1977b). (namely, gender relations in higher education) Women of academe, although often in extreme women do not qualify as the kind of token minorities (tokens) were not especially likely to group for which Kanter’s theory seems fitted experience negative consequences associated (i.e. low status, stigmatized, occupationally with processes of visibility, polarization and inappropriate and/or intrusive). As academics assimilation. We did, however, report some we hope this is indeed the case! However, evidence that minority academic women

525 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 9(4)

reported more polarization than majority men had only one female staff member. Although did. Only perceived group dispersion (an index these solo-minority settings are of great interest of assimilation) varied systematically with group theoretically, we chose not to include them for proportions, as predicted by Kanter, proving a ethical reasons. Given the nature of our sensitive measure of how men’s and women’s questionnaire, using them would have meant that male staff would be rating one identifiable perceptions changed across skewed, tilted and female colleague when rating ‘women in your balanced sex ratios. Although we found the department’ and solo women’s responses would same OH effect for men, and IH effect for no longer be anonymous. We also approached women, reported by Brown and Smith (1989), three departments in which proportions of these effects were moderated by whether the in- female and male staff were balanced; however, group or out-group was in the majority, and the the absolute numbers and response rates in extremity of the difference in group propor- these departments were very low, especially for tions, and did not appear to reflect real group men (men: 11.8% ; women: 33.3%), so we did differences in variability. Undoubtedly, studying not include these departments in our analysis natural groups in organizations, as we have (but see Study 2). Finally, we did not collect data from colleagues in the psychology department, done, introduces challenges and complexities; because they might have been aware of the but we accept them as a worthwhile cost of hypotheses being tested. investigating issues concerning diversity where 3. Kanter’s (1977a, 1977b) criteria for skewed and they really matter—in the real world. tilted groups are, in fact, rather vague; we Finally, we hope, and believe, that our therefore followed Allmendinger and research has implications for that world, and Hackman’s (1995) criteria (skewed: 1–11% specifically for settings in which there is diver- minority members; tilted: 24–47% minority sity. Perhaps the major implication is that members). Relatedly, Gross and Miller (1997) members of (especially extreme) numerical have argued that the ‘Golden Section’ (61.8% majority and minority groups should be majority; 38.2% minority) may reflect the point at which, subjectively, majority size is recognized. informed about the nature of assimilation The range of majority sizes in our studies biases and how perceptions of group variability (73%–92%) clearly satisfies this criterion. are affected by group proportions. It seems 4. Because the alpha for the index of out-group especially significant that perceptions of vari- variability was quite low, we also computed three ability, impact and status tend to follow a similar separate analyses; since these analyses showed pattern. This may hold out some promise for exactly the same pattern of results, we interventions to increase the perception of proceeded to collapse them, as for in-group intragroup differences and so try to ensure that variability. We also followed the strategy of all members within an organization have the deleting items to increase the alpha. same opportunity to have an impact on the Correlations between the ‘communication’ and ‘administration’ items were substantially higher organization (e.g. have their voices heard, than between either of them and ‘productivity’. make their distinctive contributions) and to We therefore computed analyses using a achieve equal status and power within it. two-item measure; however, these yielded almost exactly the same results for analysis of variance Notes and simple main effects, and even means. To maintain comparability with Brown and Smith 1. Statistics compiled by the Association of (1989), we therefore retained all three items in University Teachers report that women our final analyses. represent 27% of the academic workforce, with 5. The mean ratings on these scales can be used as just 5.6% employed as full professors (reported measures of group evaluation, which we will not in The Guardian, October 14, 1997). discuss in detail, since our focus is on perceived 2. We did not use two departments because they group variability. In Study 1 we found that only either did not respond when asked to check staff women evaluated the in-group more positively details (one department), or had no female staff than the out-group, an effect that has been (one department). A further three departments reported previously (e.g. Brown & Smith, 1989;

526 Hewstone et al. perceptions in ‘skewed’, ‘tilted’ and ‘balanced’ sex ratios

see Eagly & Mladinic, 1994; Lorenzi-Cioldi, heterogeneous than women, except when they 1998), and may reflect social desirability are in the minority, and women tend to be seen concerns on the part of men. In Study 2 there as more homogeneous, except what they are in were no significant effects for this measure. the majority. Both these effects are consistent Because all three dimensions were positive, we with the literature reviewed above, showing (a) also analyzed the perceived dispersion data that majorities tend to show a greater outgroup using analysis of covariance (with the mean as homogeneity effect than minorities and (b) that covariate) to ensure that our effects were not powerful groups tend to be, and to be seen as, driven by the tendency to use one end of the more variable than powerless groups. Although scale. However, results were unchanged. we cannot choose between these interpretations, 6. In the original scale used by Allmendinger and it is important to acknowledge that the two Hackman (1995), there were also three items possible effects do mean two different things. measuring satisfaction with ‘management’. Since 10. We contacted all the departments used in Study management in British universities is often 1 and asked for their most recent publication perceived in terms of the Head of Department lists. We then computed a 2 (group proportions: (a fellow academic), we dropped these items male-skewed/male-tilted) 2 (gender: which might have evoked specific concerns and female/male) 2 (seniority: Grade 1/lecturers) disrupted the main purpose of the research. regression ANOVA on the number of journal 7. We classified staff by seniority on the basis of the articles published by 232 men and 32 women distinction drawn in British universities between academics. There were no significant main ‘Grade 1’ staff (professors, readers and senior effects or interactions (group proportions, lecturers) and lecturers. F = <1; gender, F = 1.70; seniority, F = <1; degrees 8. Given the reliable association between gender of freedom = 1, 257). and status reported in the preliminary analyses, it might be argued that the findings for impact and status merely reflect the predominance of Acknowledgments men among senior staff. However, Study 2 This article benefited greatly from Miles Hewstone’s reported that perceived impact and status did time as a Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in vary as a linear function of group proportions, the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, including his so these measures do tap more than the general conversations with Mary Brinton and statistical association between gender and seniority. advice from Lynn Gale. He gratefully acknowledges 9. Brauer and Judd (2000) have pointed out that, financial support provided by the William and Flora in designs like those used in our research, and Hewlett Foundation, and all authors are grateful to almost all studies on perceived variability which our academic colleagues for completing our surveys, have participant and target group factors, there and to Norman Miller for editorial advice on an is a statistical confound between the interaction earlier version. between target group and participant group, and the target group main effect (see also Ryan & Bogart, 1997). Thus the OH effect for men References and the IH effect for women that we have reported are also consistent with a main effect of Alexander, V. D., & Thoits, P. A. (1985). Token target group. Brauer and Judd discuss a number achievement: An examination of proportional of methodological strategies to address this representation and performance outcomes. Social problem, including the use of more than two Forces, 64, 332–340. participant groups and target groups. With Allmendinger, J., & Hackman, J. R. (1995). The gender groups, however, this is of course not more the better? A four-nation study of the possible. Theoretically, the two possible effects inclusion of women in symphony orchestras. Social (a stronger OH effect for men vs. a target group Forces, 74, 423–460. effect) are quite different. On the one hand, Bartsch, R. A., & Judd, C. M. (1993). perhaps men and women do differ in their Majority–minority status and perceived in-group tendency to differentiate gender in- and variability revisited. European Journal of Social out-groups, an effect that we have shown varies Psychology, 23, 471–468. with group proportions. On the other hand, Beaton, A. M., & Tougas, F. (1997). The perhaps men tend to be seen as more representation of women in management: The

527 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 9(4)

more, the merrier? Personality and Social Psychology Perceived intragroup variability as a function of Bulletin, 23, 773–782. group status and identiﬁcation. Journal of Blalock, H. M. (1967). Toward a theory of minority Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 410–436. group relations. New York: Wiley. Dworkin, A. G., Chafetz, J. S., & Dworkin, R. J. Bourhis, R. Y. (1994). Power, gender, and intergroup (1986). The effects of tokenism on work discrimination: Some minimal group experiments. alienation among urban public school teachers. In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.), The psychology Work and Occupations, 13, 399–420. of prejudice: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 7, Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior. A pp. 171–208). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Branscombe, N. R. (1998). Thinking about one’s Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. gender group’s privileges or disadvantages: (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A Consequences for well-being in women and men. meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3–22. British Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 167–184. Eagly, A. H., & Mladinic, A. (1994). Are people Brauer, M., & Judd, C. M. (2000). Deﬁning variables prejudiced against women? Some answers from in relationship to other variables: When research on attitudes, gender stereotypes, and interactions suddenly turn out to be main effects. judgements of competence. In W. Stroebe & Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 410–423. M. Hewstone (Eds.), European Review of Social Brewer, M. B. (1993). Social identity, distinctiveness, Psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 1–36). Chichester, UK: and in-group homogeneity. Social Cognition, 11, Wiley. 150–164. Ellemers, N., & van Rijswijk, W. (1997). Identity Brown, R., & Smith, A. (1989). Perceptions of and by needs versus social opportunities: The use of minority groups: The case of women in academia. group-level and individual-level management European Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 61–75. strategies. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60, 52–65. Campbell, D. T. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and Fairhurst, G. T., & Snavely, B. K. (1983a). Majority other indices of the status of aggregates of persons and token minority group relationships: Power as social entities. Behavioral Science, 3, 14–25. acquisition and communication. Academy of Chen, S., Lee-Chai, A. Y., & Bargh, J. (2001). Management Review, 8, 292–300. Relationship orientation as a moderator of the Fairhurst, G. T., & Snavely, B. K. (1983b). A test of effects of social power. Journal of Personality and the social isolation of male tokens. Academy of Social Psychology, 80, 173–187. Management Review, 26, 353–361. Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social Fajak, A., & Haslam, S. A. (1998). Gender solidarity support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological in hierarchical organizations. British Journal of Bulletin, 98, 310–357. Social Psychology, 37, 73–94. Corneille, O., Yzerbyt, V. Y., Rogier, A., & Buidin, G. Farley, J. (1982). Majority–minority relations. (2001). Threat and the group attribution error: Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. When threat elicits judgments of extremity and Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people: The homogeneity. Personality and Social Psychology impact of power on stereotyping. American Bulletin, 27, 437–446. Psychologist, 48, 621–628. Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and Floge, L., & Merrill, D. (1986). Tokenism self-esteem: The self-protective properties of reconsidered: Male nurses and female physicians stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608–630. in a hospital setting. Social Forces, 64, 925–947. Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Foster, M. D., & Matheson, K. (1998). Perceiving and Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, feeling discrimination: Motivation or inhibition 122, 5–37. for collective action. Group Processes & Intergroup Devos, T., Comby, L., & Deschamps, J.-C. (1996). Relations, 1, 165–174. Asymmetries in judgements of in-group and Fottler, M. P. (1976). Attitudes of female nurses out-group variability. In W. Stroebe & toward the male nurses: A study of occupational M. Hewstone (Eds.), European Review of Social segregation. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 95–144). Chichester, UK: 17, 98–110. Wiley. Frable, D. E. S. (1993). Dimensions of marginality: Dipboye, R. L., & Colella, A. (Eds.) (2005). Distinctions among those who are different. Discrimination at work: The psychological and Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 370–380. organizational bases. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Frable, D. E. S., Blackstone, T., & Scherbaum, C. Doosje, B., Ellemers, N., & Spears, R. (1995). (1990). Marginal and mindful: Deviants in social

528 Hewstone et al. perceptions in ‘skewed’, ‘tilted’ and ‘balanced’ sex ratios

interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Jacobs, J. A., & Powell, B. (1985). Occupational Psychology, 59, 140–149. prestige: A sex-neutral concept? Sex Roles, 12, Geis, F. L. (1993). Self-fulfilling prophecies: A 1061–1071. social-psychological view of gender. In A. E. Beall Johnson, R. A., & Schulman, G. I. (1989). & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of gender Gender-role composition and role entrapment in (pp. 9–54). New York: Guilford. decision-making groups. Gender & Society, 3, Glick, P. (1991). Trait-based and sex-based 355–372. discrimination in occupational prestige, Jones, E. E., Wood, G. C., & Quattrone, G. A. (1981). occupational salary, and hiring. Sex Roles, 25, Perceived variability of personal characteristics in 351–378. in-groups and out-groups: The role of knowledge Grimm, J., & Stern, R. (1974). Sex roles and internal and evaluation. Personality and Social Psychology labor market structures: The ‘female’ Bulletin, 7, 523–528. semi-professions. Social Problems, 21, 690–05. Jurik, N. (1985). An officer and a lady: Gross, S. R., & Miller, N. (1997). The ‘Golden Organizational barriers to women working as Section’ and bias in perceptions of social correctional officers in men’s prisons. Social consensus. Personality and Social Psychology Review, Problems, 32, 375–388. 1, 241–271. Kadushin, A. (1976). Men in a women’s profession. Guinote, A. (2004). Group size, outcome Social Work, 21, 440–447. dependency, and power: Effects on perceived and Kanter, R. M. (1977a). Some effects of proportions actual group variability. In V. Yzerbyt, C. M. Judd, on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to & O. Corneille (Eds.), The psychology of group token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82, perception: Perceived variability, entitativity, and 965–990. essentialism (pp. 221–236). New York: Psychology Kanter, R. M. (1977b). Men and women of the Press. corporation. New York: Basic Books. Guinote, A., Judd, C. M., & Brauer, M. (2002). Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. Effects of power on perceived and objective group (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. variability: Evidence that more powerful groups Psychological Review, 110, 265–284. are more variable. Journal of Personality and Social Laws, J. L. (1975). The psychology of tokenism: An Psychology, 82, 708–721. analysis. Sex Roles, 1, 51–67. Hamilton, D. L., Sherman, S. J., & Lickel, B. (1998). Lie, S. S., & O’Leary, V. E. (1990). In the same boat? Perceiving social groups: The importance of the Academic women around the world. In S. S. Lie & Entitativity Continuum. In C. Sedikides, V. E. O’Leary (Eds.), Storming the tower: Women in J. Schopler, & C. A. Insko (Eds.), Intergroup the academic world (pp. 17–29). New York: Nichols cognition and intergroup behavior (pp. 47–74). G/P Publishing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Linville, P. W. (1998). The heterogeneity of Heikes, E. J. (1991). When men are the minority: homogeneity. In J. Cooper & J. Darley (Eds.), The case of men in nursing. Sociological Quarterly, Attribution processes and social interaction: The legacy 32, 389–401. of Edward E. Jones (pp. 423–487). Washington, DC: Heilman, M. E. (1980). The impact of situational American Psychological Association. factors on personnel decisions concerning women: Lord, C. G., & Saenz, D. S. (1985). Memory deficits Varying the sex composition of the applicant pool. and memory surfeits: Differential cognitive Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 26, consequences of tokenism for tokens and 386–395. observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Hogg, M., & Turner, J. (1987). Intergroup behavior, 49, 918–926. self-stereotyping, and the salience of social Lorenzi-Cioldi, F. (1993). They all look alike, but so categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 26, do we . . . sometimes: Perceptions of in-group and 325–340. out-group homogeneity as a function of sex and Izraeli, D. (1983). Sex effects or structural effects? context. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, An empirical test of Kanter’s theory of 111–124. proportions. Social Forces, 62, 153–165. Lorenzi-Cioldi, F. (1998). Group status and Jackson, P. B., Thoits, P. A., & Taylor, H. F. (1995). perceptions of homogeneity. In W. Stroebe & Composition of the workplace and psychological M. Hewstone (Eds.), European Review of Social well-being: The effects of tokenism on America’s Psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 31–75). Chichester, UK: Black elite. Social Forces, 74, 543–557. Wiley.

529 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 9(4)

Lorenzi-Cioldi, F., Eagly, A. H., & Stewart, T. L. Park, B., & Rothbart, M. (1982). Perception of (1995). Homogeneity of gender groups in memory. out-group homogeneity and levels of social Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 193–217. categorization: Memory for the subordinate MacCorquordale, P., & Jensen, G. (1993). Women in attributes of in-group and out-group members. the law: Partners or tokens? Gender & Society, 7, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 582–593. 1051–1068. Major, B., & Crocker, J. (1993). Social stigma: The Pettigrew, T. F., & Martin, J. (1987). Shaping the consequences of attributional ambiguity. In D. M. organizational context for Black American Mackie & D. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Affect, cognition, inclusion. Journal of Social Issues, 43, 41–78. and stereotyping: Interactive processes in group Pfeffer, J., & Davis-Blake, A. (1987). The effect of the perception (pp. 345–370). New York: Academic proportion of women on salaries: The case of Press. college administrators. Administrative Science Martin, P. Y. (1985). Group sex composition in work Quarterly, 32, 1–24. organizations: A structural-normative model. Reskin, B. F., & Roos, P. A. (1990). Job cues, gender Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 4, 311–349. cues: Explaining women’s inroads into male Martin, S. E. (1980). Breaking and entering: occupations. Philadelphia: Temple University Policewomen on patrol. Berkeley, CA: University of Press. California Press. Ridgeway, C. L., & Diekema, D. (1992). Are gender Mellor, S. (1996). Gender composition and gender differences status differences? In C. L. Ridgeway representation in local unions: Relationships (Ed.), Gender, interaction, and inequality between women’s participation in local ofﬁce and (pp. 157–180). New York: Springer-Verlag. women’s participation in local activities. Journal of Ridgeway, C. L., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1999). The Applied Psychology, 80, 706–720. gender system and interaction. Annual Review of Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for Sociology, 25, 181–216. common threads: Understanding the multiple Riordan, C. M., Schaffer, B. S., & Stewart, M. M. effects of diversity in organizational groups. (2005). Relational demography within groups: Academy of Management Review, 21, 402–433. Through the lens of discrimination. In R. L. Mullen, B., Brown, R., & Smith, C. (1992). In-group Dipboye & A. Colella (Eds.), Discrimination at work: bias as a function of salience, relevance, and The psychological and organizational bases status: An integration. European Journal of Social (pp. 37–62). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Psychology, 22, 103–122. Rothgerber, H. (1997). External intergroup threat as Mullen, B., & Hu, L. (1989). Perceptions of in-group an antecedent to perceptions of in-group and and out-group variability: A meta-analytic out-group homogeneity. Journal of Personality and integration. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 10, Social Psychology, 73, 1206–1211. 233–252. Rubin, J. M., Hewstone, M., Crisp, R. J., Voci, A., & Niemann, Y. F., & Dovidio, J. F. (1998). Relationship Richards, Z. (2004). Gender out-group of solo status, academic rank, and perceived homogeneity: The roles of differential familiarity, distinctiveness to job satisfaction of racial/ethnic gender differences and group size. In V. Yzerbyt, minorities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 55–71. C. M. Judd, & O. Corneille (Eds.), The psychology of Nieva, V. F., & Gutek, B. A. (1981).Women and work: A group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity and psychological perspective. New York: Praeger. essentialism (pp. 203–220). New York: Psychology Ostrom, T. M., & Sedikides, C. (1992). Out-group Press. homogeneity effects in natural and minimal Rustad, M. (1982). Women in khaki: The American groups. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 536–552. enlisted woman. New York: Praeger. Ott, E. M. (1989). Effects of the male-female ratio at Ryan, C. S., & Bogart, L. M. (1997). Development of work: Policewomen and male nurses. Psychology of new group members’ in-group and out-group Women Quarterly, 13, 41–58. stereotypes: Changes in perceived group variability Overbeck, J. R., & Park, B. (2001). When power does and ethnocentrism. Journal of Personality and Social not corrupt: Superior individuation processes Psychology, 73, 719–732. among powerful perceivers. Journal of Personality Sackett, P. R., DuBois, C. L. Z., & Noe, A. W. (1991). and Social Psychology, 81, 549–565. Tokenism in performance evaluation: The effects Park, B., & Judd, C. M. (1990). Measures and models of work group representation on male-female and of perceived group variability. Journal of Personality white-black differences in performance ratings. and Social Psychology, 59, 173–191. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 263–267.

530 Hewstone et al. perceptions in ‘skewed’, ‘tilted’ and ‘balanced’ sex ratios

Seifert, K. (1973). Some problems of men in child and stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social care center work. Child Welfare, 52, 167–171. Psychology, 36, 778–793. Shaffer, D. R., Gresham, A., Clary, E. G., & Toren, N. (1990). Would more women make a Theilman, T. J. (1986). Sex ratios as a basis for difference? Academic women in Israel. In S. S. Lie occupational evaluations: A contemporary view. & V. E. O’Leary (Eds.), Storming the tower: Women in Social Behavior and Personality, 14, 77–83. the academic world (pp. 74–85). New York: Nichols Simon, B. (1992). The perception of in-group and G/P Publishing. out-group homogeneity: Reintroducing the Toren, N., & Kraus, V. (1987). The effects of intergroup context. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone minority size on women’s position in academia. (Eds.), European Review of Social Psychology (Vol. 3, Social Forces, 65, 1090–1100. pp. 1–30). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Voci, A. (2000). Perceived group variability and the Simon, B., & Brown, R. (1987). Perceived intragroup salience of personal and social identity. In homogeneity in minority-majority contexts. Journal W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 703–711. of Social Psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 177–222). Simon, B., & Hamilton, D. L. (1994). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Self-stereotyping and social context: The effects of Warr, P. B. (1990). The measurement of well-being relative in-group size and in-group status. Journal of and other aspects of mental health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 699–711. Occupational Psychology, 63, 193–210. Simon, B., & Mummendey, A. (1990). Perceptions of Yoder, J. D. (1991). Rethinking tokenism: Looking relative group size and group homogeneity: We beyond numbers. Gender & Society, 5, 178–192. are the majority and they are all the same. Yoder, J. D. (1994). Looking beyond numbers: The European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 351–356. effects of gender status, job prestige, and Simon, B., & Pettigrew, T. F. (1990). Social identity occupational gender-typing on tokenism and perceived group homogeneity. European processes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 150–159. Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 269–286. Yoder, J. D., Adams, J., Grove, S., & Priest, R. F. South, S. J., Bonjean, C. M., Markham, W. T., & (1985). To teach is to learn: Overcoming tokenism Corder, J. (1982). Social structure and intergroup with mentors. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, interaction: Men and women of the federal 119–131. bureaucracy. American Sociological Review, 47, Yoder, J. D., Adams, J., & Prince, H. (1983). The 587–599. price of a token. Journal of Political and Military Spangler, E., Gordon, M. A., & Pipkin, R. M. (1978). Sociology, 11, 325–337. Token women: An empirical test of Kanter’s Yoder, J. D., Crumpton, P., & Zipp, J. (1989). The hypothesis. American Journal of Sociology, 84, power of numbers in influencing hiring decisions. 160–170. Gender & Society, 3, 269–276. Steene, J., Guinipero, L., & Newgren, J. (1985). A Yoder, J. D., & Sinnett, L. (1985). Is it all in the profile of management faculty: Teaching, numbers? A case study of tokenism. Psychology of research, and career satisfaction. Journal of Business Women Quarterly, 9, 412–418. Education, 60, 347–352. Young, C. J., Mackenzie, D. I., & Sherif, C. W. Stewart, T. L., Vassar, P. M., Sanchez, D. T., & David, (1980). In search of token women in academia. S. E. (2000). Attitude towards women’s societal Psychology of Women Quarterly, 4, 508–525. roles moderates the effect of gender cues on Young, H., van Knippenberg, A., Ellemers, N., & target individuation. Journal of Personality and Social de Vries, N. (1999). The asymmetrical perception Psychology, 79, 143–157. of men and women. Group Processes & Intergroup Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity Relations, 2, 259–278. theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & Young, J. L., & James, E. H. (2001). Token majority: W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations The work attitudes of male flight attendants. Sex (pp. 7–24). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Roles, 45, 299–319. Taylor, S. E. (1981). A categorization approach to stereotyping. In D. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive Paper received 14 February 2005; revised version accepted processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior 7 September 2005. (pp. 83–114). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Taylor, S. E., Fiske, S. T., Etcoff, N. L., & Ruderman, A. J. (1978). Categorical bases of person memory

531 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 9(4)

Biographical notes ALBERTO VOCI is associate professor of social psychology at the University of Padua, Italy. His MILES HEWSTONE is Professor of Social Psychology research interests are prejudice reduction, and Fellow of New College, Oxford University. He perceptions of group variability, the antecedents has published widely on the topics of attribution of in-group bias and, more broadly, the theory, social cognition, stereotyping, and motivational and cognitive processes related to the intergroup relations. His current research focuses dynamics between personal and social identity. on the reduction of intergroup conﬂict. He is co-founding editor of the European Review of Social LAURA CONWAY (formerly a student at Cardiff Psychology, and a former editor of the British University) is a researcher for Mensline Australia, Journal of Social Psychology. He is a Fellow of the a support service for men dealing with family and British Academy and an Honorary Fellow of the relationship difﬁculties. She has previously worked British Psychological Society. He was the recipient as a senior researcher on the English Longitudinal of the Kurt Lewin Award, for Distinguished Study of Ageing at the National Centre of Social Research Achievement, from the European Research, London, and for the British Medical Association for Experimental Social Psychology in Association, where she contributed to a wide 2005. range of health policy publications.

RICHARD J. CRISP is Reader in Social Psychology at GIORGIA MARLETTA studied psychology at the the University of Birmingham. His research University of Padua, Italy. She is now a work interests span social cognition and intergroup psychologist, specializing in Human Resources relations, with particular emphasis on the development (potential assessment, educational antecedents, processes and consequences of processes and career development). At present multiple social categorization. she contributes to the degree in Counseling and Pedagogical Research at the University of ALBERTA CONTARELLO is Professor of Social Bergamo, Italy. Psychology, University of Padua, Italy. She has published on the topics of nonverbal aspects of HAZEL WILLIS is a Senior Lecturer in Social interpersonal relations, the social psychology of Psychology at the University of Gloucestershire, emotions and social relationships, and Cheltenham, UK. Her research interests are connections between social psychology and focused broadly around intergroup processes and literature, with a special focus on gender issues. the perception of group variability and are Her current research interests concern the social focused speciﬁcally on the accuracy of ingroup construction of knowledge, and qualitative and outgroup perception. research in social psychology.

532