Sex Roles (2018) 78:394–408
DOI 10.1007/s11199-017-0800-9
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
The Academic Conference as a Chilly Climate for Women: Effects
of Gender Representation on Experiences of Sexism, Coping
Responses, and Career Intentions
Jacklyn Biggs 1,2 & Patricia H. Hawley 1,3 & Monica Biernat 1
Published online: 20 June 2017
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017
Abstract Across many disciplines, women are underrepre-
sented in faculty positions relative to men. The present re-
search focuses on the academic conference as a setting be-
cause it is a gateway to an academic career and a context in
which women might experience sexism. We surveyed 329
presenters (63% women) from three U.S. national academic
conferences, which differed in women-to-men ratios, about
their perceptions of the conference climate, their coping tactics
(e.g., gender performance, silence, or voice), and their inten-
tions to exit the conference or academia. The greater the rep-
resentation of women at the conference relative to men, the
less likely were women to perceive sexism and to feel they had
to behave in a masculine manner in that setting. In contrast,
women who perceived the conference as sexist and felt si-
lenced also expressed increased intentions to exit from aca-
demic careers. Men’s perceptions of sexism predicted in-
creased intentions to exit from that particular conference, but
not from academia. Because conferences signal the norms of a
discipline, it is important to explore their climates as they
relate to gender. Perhaps especially for new and aspiring
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article
(doi:10.1007/s11199-017-0800-9) contains supplementary material,
which is available to authorized users.
* Jacklyn Biggs
jacklynbiggs@ku.edu
1
Department of Psychology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS,
USA
2
Present address: Center for Public Partnerships and Research,
University of Kansas, 1617 St. Andrews Dr., Lawrence, KS 66047,
USA
3
Present address: College of Education, Texas Tech University,
Lubbock, TX, USA
female academics, they may signal devalued status and lack
of fit and as such play an inadvertent role in the Bleaky
pipeline.^ We discuss strategies that conference organizers
could implement to mitigate sexist climates, including broader
inclusion of women in speaking and leadership roles and ex-
plicit attention to cues that women belong.
Keywords Sexism . Academic settings . Gender equality .
Organizational climate . Career commitment
Women have made considerable progress in terms of their
representation in academia, yet men still outnumber women
in faculty positions. In the social sciences, only 33.7% of the
faculty were women in 2010 (National Science Foundation
2010). Data from the American Association of University
Professors indicate that fewer women attain faculty positions
than would be expected based on the number of female doc-
torates entering the job market (Monroe and Chiu 2010).
Moreover, women tend to occupy lower status positions in
academia and earn less money than men do (Ceci and
Williams 2011; Monroe and Chiu 2010). Although some of
these gendered salary gaps in academia have decreased over
time, others have increased (Ceci et al. 2014).
Women’s paths to success in academia continue to be com-
plicated by sexist attitudes toward women that put them at a
disadvantage (Katila and Meriläinen 1999; Monroe and Chiu
2010). Recent treatments of women’s underrepresentation
have focused on gender differences in skills and interests,
family-related obstacles, hindrances at the level of early prep-
aration, lack of role models, and gender bias (Monroe and
Chiu 2010; Shaw and Stanton 2012; van Anders 2004). Is it
possible that the contexts in which scientists socialize create
obstacles in and of themselves? The present study explores
Sex Roles (2018) 78:394–408
perceptions of sexism in one of these contexts that before now
has largely gone unexplored: the scientific conference.
Two main questions guided this research. First, we ex-
plored the extent to which women’s representation within an
academic conference was related to both women’s and men’s
perceptions of conference climate pertaining to sexism, cop-
ing responses employed while at the conference (e.g., silence
and voice, gender performance), and desires to leave academia
or discontinue conference attendance as a consequence to
these perceptions (i.e., exit intentions). Second, for both men
and women, we examined the extent to which perceptions of
sexism were related to coping responses and intentions to exit
the conference and academic contexts, independent of gender
representation at the conference. We examined these questions
in three social science conferences using an anonymous, self-
report online survey. The conferences were chosen because
they reflect three key varying proportions of female-to-male
presenters: a higher proportion of women, a higher proportion
of men, and a relatively equal representation. Although ours is
not the first study to examine conference climate (e.g., Settles
and O’Connor 2014, discussed in detail below), our research
uniquely compares men’s and women’s experiences across
conference type (i.e., gender representation), and examines
how perceptions of sexism are related to attendees’ coping
responses as well as their intentions to remain in or exit from
academia. Our focus on conference experiences in these ways
provides a unique empirical examination of how the range of
subjective experiences at the conference are associated with
academic exit intentions for women and men.
Organizational life can be understood as a reflection of
cultural attitudes (Gherardi 1994; Priola 2007; Riley et al.
2006). Along these lines, Riley et al. (2006) contend that the
normative culture of academia in the United States is mascu-
line because it is reflective of a masculine-dominant society
(i.e., one in which men are ascribed more power than women
are; see also Eagly and Karau 2002; Wilson et al. 2010). A
masculine-normative culture is characterized by the mainte-
nance of men’s dominant status through practices and dis-
course, including tenure standards, role assignments, and ex-
pectations of independence (Knights and Richards 2003).
Professional conferences are an integral part of academia,
and as such they too are likely to be situated within and there-
fore reflective of the masculine normative culture. For exam-
ple, a competitive ethos is inherent to the conference atmo-
sphere: Prospective presenters compete for limited slots to
give talks, some of which are more desirable than others.
Participation on panels is competitive as well, as are network-
ing opportunities especially with high status others (who are
more likely to be men than they are to be women). In short, the
academic conference is a publically visible context where sta-
tus and prestige may be attained. The lack of childcare may
additionally limit young parents’ (particularly women’s) abil-
ity to attend and participate. This backdrop may lend itself to
395
expressions and practices that are inadvertently stacked
against women.
Expressions of Sexism at Conferences
Sexism consists of the attitudes, behaviors, and practices that
Breflect negative evaluations based on gender or support un-
equal status of women and men^ (Swim and Hyers 2009, p.
407) and ranges from highly visible and blatant to less obvious
and subtle expressions. An organization’s climate is defined as
the collective of individuals’ subjective perceptions of the
values of the organization as derived through interactions with
others in the environment and aspects of the physical space
(Settles and O’Connor 2014). Regardless of the visibility of
sexist behaviors and practices, a climate that is perceived to
devalue women relative to men might serve as another hurdle
in women’s academic career paths. Normative practices and
behaviors at the conference that privilege men and devalue
women create a sexist climate (Hall and Sandler 1982; Janz
and Pyke 2000; Settles et al. 2006, 2007). Specifically, a sexist
climate at the conference may be evident in shared personal
stories, reputed reports and anecdotes (i.e., reputational
climate; Janz and Pyke 2000), the attitudes and behaviors that
attendees witness or personally experience (i.e., sexist
attitudes and treatment; Riger et al. 1997; Swim et al. 1995),
and the materials and content presented (Janz and Pyke 2000;
Riger et al. 1997). Sexist expressions may include
condescending remarks, patronizing comments, off-colored
jokes, power-differentiated flirtatiousness, or exclusion from
discussions and activities (Burgess and Borgida 1999; Caza
and Cortina 2007; Cortina 2008; Swim et al. 2004). Content or
materials presented may be sexually suggestive, or exclude
the contributions of women or feminist perspectives, all of
which can signal a devalued status of women within the con-
text (Janz and Pyke 2000).
Furthermore, perceptions of climate—although subjective
by definition—matter. Women who perceive a sexist climate
in their department reported experiencing more sexual harass-
ment and scholarly alienation as well as less job satisfaction
and influence in their departments (Settles et al. 2006, 2013).
Moreover, a recent study of men’s and women’s perceptions
of the climate at an academic conference found that women
perceived the climate as more sexist and exclusionary than
men did and that women reported experiencing more incivility
(Settles and O’Connor 2014). In this same study, perceptions
of climate sexism and positive climate mediated the relation-
ship between perceived incivility at the conference and men’s
and women’s personal feelings of intellectual and social ex-
clusion from the conference. That is, sexist and negative cli-
mate perceptions drove the relationship between incivility and
feelings of conference exclusion; incivility alone was not di-
rectly predictive of feeling conference exclusion. Taken
396
together, these results demonstrate that sexist climates are re-
lated to important professional outcomes, including satisfac-
tion, influence, and exclusion.
Women’s Numerical Representation
and Conferences
Women’s numerical representation within a specific academic
context may also influence perceptions of the climate. Low
representation of women in light of the existing power structure
intensifies negative outcomes for professional women (Yoder
1991, 1994). Kanter (1977) proposed that group culture chang-
es as the proportion of women relative to men changes.
According to this line of reasoning, because academia has tra-
ditionally been and continues to be predominantly occupied by
men, the culture is masculine (Toren 1990). Increasing
women’s representation in principle should influence percep-
tions of the climate in a more favorable direction for women
(Kanter 1977; Yoder 1991). Recent research on the stereotype
inoculation model (Dasgupta 2011) also points to the role of
numerical representation in increasing positive outcomes for
members of devalued groups. This latter model suggests that
the presence of both Bingroup experts^ and Bingroup peers^ in
a given context increases identification, self-efficacy, and mo-
tivation in achievement domains (Stout et al. 2011). Following
this logic, increasing women’s numerical representation may
serve as an antidote to sexist climates. Likewise, when profes-
sional women were underrepresented relative to men, women
were more likely to express exit intentions and less job satis-
faction than when women were equally or predominantly rep-
resented (Burke and McKeen 1996).
Academic social science conferences, the focus of the pres-
ent research, certainly include women. However, the confer-
ences are likely situated within masculine norms, particularly
when the numerical presence of women is low. A sexist climate
may accordingly and disproportionately influence women’s be-
haviors at the conference and lead to increased exit intentions
for the conference itself and the academic career path.
Coping with Perceived Sexism in a Conference
Context
A sexist climate may elicit several behavioral coping re-
sponses from women (and men) while at the conference. For
instance, attendees may choose to speak out against sexism at
the conference (i.e., express voice) or they may stay silent and
say nothing (i.e., silence). Moreover, women and men may
behave in gender stereotypic ways in order to fit in with norms
of the conference context (i.e., gender performance). We
chose to focus on these coping responses (i.e., voice, silence,
gendered performance), recognizing though that these may
Sex Roles (2018) 78:394–408
not cover the full breadth of coping responses employed at
the conference setting.
Conference attendees who experience or witness sexism can
choose to express their discontent about sexism or to ignore it.
Voice is conceptualized as speaking out against sexist treatment
and is considered an agentic, active response to sexism (Barreto
and Ellemers 2005; Garcia et al. 2005). Expression of voice is
argued to be empowering for women (Gilligan 1982) because it
has the potential to alter group norms and (Settles et al. 2007)
found that female academics who expressed voice experienced
more job satisfaction than women who did not.
Engaging in voice, however, is not without potential nega-
tive consequence (Garcia et al. 2005; Major et al. 2002).
People are motivated to maintain ingroup solidarity (see
Levine and Moreland 2002), and vocal expression challeng-
ing prevailing norms threatens to undermine said solidarity.
Thus, perceived costs to voice include hostility, dislike, and
even ostracism (Kaiser and Miller 2001; Stangor et al. 2002).
To avoid such consequences, self-silencing may occur. An al-
ternate more common response to sexist treatment is to ignore
the transgression (Barreto and Ellemers 2005), even despite a
private desire to say something (Swim and Hyers 1999).
Additionally, women may resist publicly commenting during
meetings or refrain from asking questions after a symposium
because they think they will not be taken seriously or that they
are questioning the status quo (Kriwy et al. 2013; Rowe 1990).
The advantages of silence include a reduced chance of hostility
and dislike; however, silence is neither an effective mechanism
of cultural change nor a path to personal agency.
Gender is Bsomething we think and something we do^
(Gherardi 1994, p. 592) and may be performed in stereotypi-
cally masculine or feminine ways as a means of coping with
sexist climates. One such coping response is to assimilate
oneself to masculine norms by enacting a masculine gendered
performance (i.e., agentic, independent, and aggressive; Katila
and Meriläinen 1999). Doing so may reduce evaluation based
on gender (Schmitt et al. 2003) and increase evaluations of
Bfit^ because the norms of the group are not subverted (Deaux
and Major 1987; Heilman et al. 2004; Katila and Meriläinen
1999; Powell et al. 2009).
Alternatively, women may cope with a sexist climate
through feminine gendered performance. These behaviors
and attitudes include communal actions such as helping and
nurturance or passivity (i.e., low dominance; Lun et al. 2009).
Women may engage in stereotypical feminine performance to
fit with what is expected of women (i.e., prescriptive
stereotypes; Burgess and Borgida 1999) and to avoid backlash
for not behaving in accordance with gender stereotypic behav-
ior (Heilman 2001; Rudman 1998). Of course, behaving in
ways that are consistent with feminine stereotypes may in-
crease the perceived Black of fit^ with masculine norms and
expectations (Eagly and Karau 2002; Heilman 2001, 2004).
Masculine conference settings may therefore shift women’s
Sex Roles (2018) 78:394–408
gendered performance coping responses toward masculine
and/or feminine stereotypic behavior (i.e., self-stereotyping;
Chiu et al. 1998; Hogg and Turner 1987; Lun et al. 2009).
Indeed, they may engage in both of these coping responses at
different times during the same conference. Both masculine
and feminine gendered performance might help women fit in
with the varying gendered behavioral demands of numerous
conference contexts, but they risk contributing to a sense of
inauthenticity (Ryan and Deci 2004).
Conference and Academia Exit Intentions
One response to perceived inequity is to simply leave the
group (Tajfel 1975), particularly when it seems as though
the situation will not improve (Farrell 1983; Hirschman
1970). In social identity theory terms, leaving the group (here,
the conference and/or academia), and joining another is a so-
cial mobility strategy (Tajfel and Turner 1986). Leaving may
be motivated by low perceived similarity or low feelings of
belongingness (i.e., a lack of Bambient belonging^; Cheryan
et al. 2009), which can be communicated via subtle stereotyp-
ic cues in the context (Cheryan et al. 2009; Cheryan and Plaut
2010). Indeed, perceived dissimilarity with people in a do-
main, even when controlling for gender proportions, can lead
to a lack of interest in that domain (Cheryan and Plaut 2010).
In the conference context, climate cues communicating sex-
ism (i.e., reputation, actions, beliefs, and materials) may signal
to women that they do not belong and therefore contribute to
their exit intentions. Moreover, men who hold nonsexist atti-
tudes may also perceive a sexist climate as unwelcoming and
express exit intentions as well. Exiting, like silence, does noth-
ing to change the status quo, and the loss of human capital
when well-trained individuals leave the field is a major
concern. Understanding the role of sexism perceptions
in exit intentions for women and men is a central goal
of our research.
The Present Study
We examined female and male conference-goers’ perceptions
of sexist conference climate, whether these perceptions dif-
fered based on women’s numerical representation at the con-
ference, and how these perceptions predicted coping re-
sponses and intentions to attend future conference meetings
and pursue or maintain careers in academia. Conferences
serve to socialize aspiring academics on practices and norms
of the field (Egri 1992); they also provide a medium through
which aspiring academics get their first experiences with col-
leagues from other institutions. If a conference climate is sex-
ist, the young academic may conclude that the field shares
397
these attitudes and that women do not belong (Cheryan et al.
2009; Settles and O’Connor 2014).
Our initial hypotheses focus on expected mean differences
in perceived conference climate based on gender, conference
type (relative representation of women), and their interaction.
Because sexism generally targets women (Benokraitis 1997),
we hypothesized that women would perceive more sexism
than men would (Hypothesis 1a: main effect of participant
gender), that the conference numerically dominated by wom-
en would be perceived as the least sexist (Hypothesis 1b: main
effect of conference), and that the gender difference would be
strongest in the conference setting where men are numerically
dominant and eliminated in the context where women are
numerically dominant (Hypothesis 1c: interaction be-
tween participant gender and conference type). As wom-
en become more highly represented across conferences,
the group culture may shift in the direction of a reduc-
tion of sexist attitudes and behavior, and, accordingly, a
reduction of gender differences in perceptions of sexism
should emerge (Burke and McKeen 1996).
Silence, saying nothing, and voice, confronting, are two
complementary coping responses. Because both should be
heightened in those who perceive sexism, we predicted that
women would be more likely to use both strategies than men
would (Hypothesis 2a), that the conference where women
were underrepresented would produce the highest levels of
both silence and voice (Hypothesis 2b), and that the gender
difference would be most evident in the context where men
are numerically dominant and least evident when women are
numerically dominant (Hypothesis 2c).
We conceptualized engagement in gendered behavior—
both feminine and masculine—as additional coping re-
sponses. Masculine gendered performance reflects assimila-
tion to valued conference norms (Riley et al. 2006) and is
gender-normative behavior for men, whereas feminine gen-
dered performance is generally counter-normative for aca-
demic conferences and for men, but gender-normative for
women. For these reasons, we expected a gender difference
in feminine gender performance (Hypothesis 3a), but no gen-
der difference in masculine gender performance (Hypothesis
3b). We also predicted a Gender x Conference interaction such
that men’s gender performance would not vary across confer-
ence contexts but that women would be particularly likely to
engage in masculine and feminine gender performance in the
most masculinized conference setting, when men are numer-
ically dominant (Hypothesis 3c).
With regard to exit intentions, we had somewhat different
predictions regarding exiting the conference versus exiting
academia more broadly. With regard to exiting the conference,
we predicted that women would be more likely than men
would be to seek to exit the conference dominated by men,
but not the other conferences (a Gender x Conference interac-
tion, Hypothesis 4a). We thought it less likely that conference
398
experiences would directly impact women’s broader career
intentions, but expected a gender main effect (women more
likely to report intentions to leave academia than men do;
Hypothesis 4b), and viewed the question of conference impact
as exploratory.
Our study also addresses the question of how perceptions
of conference climate are related to coping responses and exit
intentions for women and men. We expected that perceptions
of a sexist climate would positively predict engagement in
silence, voice, and masculine and feminine gender perfor-
mance, as well as academic and conference exit intentions
for women (Hypothesis 5). Perceived sexism and feelings of
devaluation may prompt disengagement (silence, exit
intentions; Tsui and Gutek 1999), but may also encourage
voice as a means to change the situation (Farrell 1983;
Hirschman 1970). Perceptions of sexism may also prompt
women to engage in both masculine- and feminine-gendered
performance: masculine in order to meet expectations for suc-
cess and feminine to avoid backlash (Rudman 1998).
We additionally hypothesized that silence and gendered
performance (both masculine and feminine) would positively
predict conference and academic exit intentions (Hypothesis
6a), whereas voice would negatively predict these intentions
(Hypothesis 6b). Silence may be reflective of experiencing
detachment and a lack of belonging (Tsui and Gutek 1999),
and having to perform gender in order to fit in with others’
gendered expectations may also contribute to a lack of ambi-
ent belonging (Cheryan et al. 2009; Good et al. 2012), inau-
thenticity, and ill-being (Ryan and Deci 2004). Expressing
voice, on the other hand, is an active attempt to change, rather
than to escape, the situation (Hirschman 1970; Farrell 1983).
Therefore, women who express voice may do so despite social
risks because they wish to change the normative culture of a
conference (Crosby et al. 2003). Finally, we predicted that
silence, voice, and gender performance would serve as medi-
ators of the relationship between climate perceptions and exit
intentions for women (Hypothesis 7).
Our predictions mainly target women, given the greater
relevance of sexism for their lives. But men may find sexist
climates unappealing as well, and some of the relationships
found for women may hold for men. Still, we had less clear
predictions regarding the effects of conference climate percep-
tions on coping responses and exit intentions in men.
Method
Participants
Online conference programs were consulted to derive a list of
potential participants to the present study, as described in more
detail in the following. The final sample included 329 present-
ing conference participants from three national social science
Sex Roles (2018) 78:394–408
conferences: 205 women (62.3%); 275 (83.7%) Caucasian, 11
(3.3%) East Asian, 6 (1.8%) African American, 6 (1.8%)
South Asian, 22 (6.6%) other not listed/decline to answer;
Mage = 35.22, SD = 10.41, range = 21–69 who responded to
an online survey. The sample consisted of academics at dif-
ferent stages in their career: Undergraduate students (7, 2.1%),
graduate students (111, 33.5%), post docs (23, 6.9%), assistant
professors (69, 20.8%), associate professors (36, 10.9%), full
professors (39, 11.8%), as well as non-tenure track profession-
al Ph.D.s (15, 4.5%). A power analysis indicated that a sample
size of 152 was needed to detect significance (p < .05), which
was achieved.
Procedure and Measures
The sample consisted of presenters who attended one of three
U.S. national academic, scientific conferences held in 2011.
Two of the conferences were multidisciplinary social science
meetings studying human development and behavior
(Conference LW, for lowest representation of women to
men, and Conference MW, more women than men), whereas
the other was a psychology-dominant social science meeting
studying human social behavior (Conference EW, equal rep-
resentation of women and men). Specific names of the con-
ferences are kept anonymous per the IRB protocol.
Conferences were chosen based on their general topic of study
(i.e., human behavior) and varied gender numerical
representations.
Names and affiliations of participants identified for the
sample were found in publicly available conference programs,
and we used internet search engines to find publicly available
email addresses for all presenters (regardless of authorship
order). Some email addresses could not be found, leaving a
total potential presenter pool of 853 from Conference LW.
Because LW was the smallest conference, we oversampled
by issuing email invitations to all 853 identified presenters,
then we used that number as a basis for sampling from
Conference EW (where n = 853 reflects 27.72% of total pre-
senters) and Conference MW (12.8% of total presenters) using
Microsoft Excel’s random selection tool.
Research assistants recorded participants’ gender when
possible using all available public information, such as pho-
tographs and personal and professional bios. These proce-
dures are biased and may not depict the exact representation
of women at these conferences; however, they capture a sub-
jective and general numerical representation of women of the
conference. Categorization of conferences was based on the
collective gender representation of the presenters invited to
participate in the study. Conference MW had the greatest pro-
portion of women presenters/co-presenters in 2011 (71.6%
women), Conference LW had the smallest proportion (38%
women), and Conference EW was roughly at parity (53.6%
Sex Roles (2018) 78:394–408
women). The final sample of 329 reflects these gender distri-
butions as well.
Participants were recruited through an email invitation sent
directly to them, approximately 1–3 months after the confer-
ences took place. Response rates from each conference were
relatively low (10.8–17.6%), but this was expected given the
survey conditions (i.e., electronic survey, academic
participants; Cook et al. 2000). The survey was conducted
using Qualtrics software. Demographic items were
placed at the beginning of every survey, and each scale
appeared on a separate page. The order of presentation
of the following measures was randomized, as was the
order of items within each scale. A full list of items can
be found in an online supplement.
Sexist Climate
Conference climate was measured with three subscales: repu-
tational climate, perceptions of sexist attitudes and treatment,
and impressions of the conference material. Reputational
climate refers to the climate that attendees Bhave heard about^
and was operationalized using seven items, five from an
adapted version of Janz and Pyke’s (2000) Perceptions of
Chilly Climate Survey (PCCS). The PCCS was originally
developed for a classroom context; we changed wording
slightly to reflect the conference context. For example, we
changed Bteaching staff^ to Ba member at this conference^
and added references to colleagues (e.g., BI have heard of
one or more instances where a member at this conference
engaged in inappropriate physical contact toward a female
student or colleague^). Two additional items assessing the
reputational climate at conference after-parties and social
events were included: BThe atmosphere at conference after-
parties/events is sexualized or otherwise inappropriate^ and BI
have heard conference after-parties/events are centered around
alcohol.^ All items were rated on 1 (never) to 7 (many times)
scales. Items were averaged to create a reputational climate
index, such that higher numbers reflect more perceived sexism
(α = .75).
Seven additional items were included to assess sexist atti-
tudes and treatment that attendees perceived and observed
within the conference context. Items were selected from three
different existing scales and minimally adapted to reference
the conference context: The PCCS (Janz and Pyke 2000; e.g.,
BA woman must out-perform a male colleague to be taken
seriously at this conference^), the Modern Sexism Scale
(MSS; Swim et al. 1995; e.g., BMany members at this confer-
ence believe that society has reached the point where women
and men have equal opportunities for achievement,^ reverse
scored) and the Academic Work Environment Scale for
Women (AWESW; Riger et al. 1997; e.g., BMembers at this
conference respect both male and female colleagues equally,^
reverse scored). All were measured on 1 (strongly disagree) to
399
7 (strongly agree) response scales. After reverse scoring
such that high numbers indicate greater perception of
sexist attitudes, an average across the seven items was
computed (α = .62).
Sexist perceptions of the conference material (i.e., sexism
present in research presented via talks, posters, etc.) were
measured using (a) one item adapted from the PCCS for the
conference context (Janz and Pyke 2000): BResearch is pre-
sented from a broad range of perspectives throughout the con-
ference (i.e., includes the perspectives of women, feminists,
minorities, etc)^ reverse scored; (b) one item from the
AWESW (Riger et al. 1997): BDuring the conference, infor-
mal gatherings and conversations about conference material
tend to include female students or colleagues^ (reverse
scored); and (c) three other items created by the research team
to assess perceptions of sexist content in talks and/or posters
and audience reactions: BTalks or posters at this conference
have been presented from a gender stereotypical perspective^;
BAudience reactions to talks or posters at this conference have
been uncomfortable (e.g., cat calls, whistles, snickers)^; and
BTalks or posters given at the conference have contained gra-
tuitous sexual content through verbal and/or visual
presentations.^ Responses were made on 1 (strongly disagree)
to 7 (strongly agree) scales. After reverse scoring where nec-
essary such that high numbers reflect greater perceptions of
sexism, an average was computed (α = .61). (We also mea-
sured participants’ personal experiences of microinequities
during the conference. Due to overlap with the perceived sex-
ism items and multicollinearity issues, microinequities were
not included in the present analyses.)
Voice and Silence
The extent to which participants engaged in silence (α = .66)
and expressed voice (α = .68) were measured with three and
two items each, respectively. The silence items were devel-
oped based on work by Powell et al. (2009), Swim and Hyers
(1999), and Swim et al. (2010), designed to reflect outwardly
saying nothing in response to sexism and refraining from
speaking up during meetings, discussions, and presentations:
BWhile at the conference, to what extent do you . . . refrain
from speaking up during meetings or discussions? . . . resist
commenting during and/or after talks/presentations? . . . say
nothing in response to sexist comments or behaviors?^ Voice
items were based on Gilligan (1982), Settles et al. (2007), and
Garcia et al. (2005): BWhile at the conference to what extent
do you . . . confront someone who made a sexist comment or
behaved in a sexist way? . . . express concerns to others re-
garding sexist comments or behaviors?^. Items were mea-
sured on 1 (never) to 7 (many times) scales. The voice items
and the third silence item included the following option: BN/A
because I’ve not encountered sexist behaviors or comments.^
These N/A responses were treated as missing data in the
400
ANOVAs we report here. For the SEM analysis, in which all
variables were considered simultaneously, missing values
were imputed using full information maximum likelihood
(FIML; Enders 2010). Item responses for each measure were
averaged such that higher scores indicated more engagement
in either silence or giving voice.
Gendered Performance
Gendered performance was operationalized as personal en-
gagement in stereotypically feminine or masculine behaviors.
Two items measuring feminine gendered performance (α =
.65) were developed from the theoretical work of
Walkerdine (1989): BWhile at the conference, to what extent
do you… behave in typically feminine ways, such as being
soft-spoken and yielding? . . . try to act like Bone of the
girls^?^ Two items measuring masculine gender performance
(α = .67) were developed based on work on assimilation (Sam
and Berry 2010) and gendered behavior in masculine domains
(Deaux and Major 1987; Katila and Meriläinen 1999): BWhile
at the conference, to what extent do you . . . behave in stereo-
typically masculine ways, such as being competitive . . .
try to act like ‘one of the guys’?^ Responses were made
on 1 (never) to 7 (many times) scales and were aver-
aged such that higher scores indicated higher levels of
masculine or feminine gender performance.
Exit Intentions
Three items focused on intent to exit tenure-track academia as
a profession (α = .69; BI intend to pursue or continue a tenure-
track academic career,^ BI feel well-suited to the academic
atmosphere of my chosen discipline,^ and BI am confident
that I can succeed in a tenure-track academic career,^ all re-
verse scored). Three additional items measured intent to exit
from the conference (α = .69; e.g., BI plan to attend this con-
ference in the future,^ BI intend to continue my membership in
the academic society associated with this conference,^ and BI
like attending this conference,^ all reverse scored). These
items were informed by the work of Cortina et al. (2001)
and Lim et al. (2008). All items were measured on 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) scales and were averaged such
that higher values capture stronger intentions to exit.
Analytic Procedure
Scale development was theory-driven, as discussed in the pri-
or measures. Before mean differences or predictive paths were
investigated, a multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) was conducted to specify the theoretically derived mea-
surement model and to ensure the data fit the theoretical model
(Brown 2006). Measurement equivalence (i.e., factorial in-
variance) across men and women was tested. Establishing
Sex Roles (2018) 78:394–408
factorial invariance (i.e., configural invariance, weak invari-
ance, and strong invariance) indicates that we measured the
same construct across groups for cross-group comparisons
(Brown 2006). All these criteria were met.
We also examined whether participants from the three con-
ferences differed on demographic variables. Race/ethnicity
did not differ across conferences nor did academic status,
but participants from the EW conference (M = 33.57,
SD = 9.53) were significantly younger than those from the
MW (M = 36.51, SD = 11.02) and LW conferences
(M = 36.93, SD = 10.33), F(2320) = 3.88, p < .03.
Therefore, all mean level analyses include controls for age.
Results
Overview
To address Hypotheses 1–4, which concern mean differences
in climate perceptions, coping responses, and exit intentions
by gender and conference type, a series of Conference x
Participant Gender MANOVAs was conducted, using GLM
procedures to account for unequal cell sizes. Structural equa-
tion modeling (SEM) was then used to examine Hypotheses
5–7, which concern the extent to which climate perceptions
affected coping responses and exit intentions for men and
women, independently. In the SEM model, the BClimate^ la-
tent construct was based on three parcels reflecting the repu-
tational climate, sexist attitudes and treatment, and conference
material subscales. All other latent constructs are based on
individual scale items as outlined in the measure descriptions.
An overview of the data can be seen in Table 1, which
reports means on the climate, coping, and exit intentions in-
dexes, along with correlations among all indexes, separately
for women and men. The correlational findings indicate that
the sexist climate scales are modestly intercorrelated for wom-
en and men (rs = .26–.43), justifying their joint consideration
in a MANOVA. The four coping responses showed a mixed
pattern of intercorrelations. Silence and voice were not corre-
lated for women (r = .05) and only weakly correlated for men
(r = .21), but because we predicted similar patterns for these
two variables, both are considered in a single MANOVA.
The modest correlations between feminine and masculine
gendered performance (rs = .32 and .35) warranted their
joint consideration in a separate MANOVA, as did the
small but significant correlations between the two exit
variables (rs = .18 and .19).
Sexist Climate
Hypothesis 1a was that women would perceive the conference
climate as more sexist than men would. The MANOVA in-
cluding the three climate indexes revealed a reliable omnibus
Sex Roles (2018) 78:394–408 401

Table 1 Descriptive statistics and correlations among measures by gender

Measure Women Men Correlations

M (SD) M (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Climate-REP 2.23a (1.05) 2.10b (.80) – .37** .41** .05 .33** .34** .15* -.05 -.003
2. Climate-SAT 3.08a (.85) 2.83b (.63) .43** – .33** .23** .14* .18* .08* .20 .13
3. Climate-CM 2.62a (.62) 2.35b (.59) .26** .40** – .16* .23* .20** .18** .11 .10
4. Silence 3.55 a (1.57) 3.10b (1.46) .11 .14 .16 – .05 .11 .37** .04 .22**
5. Voice 2.54 a (1.53) 2.09 b (1.37) .25 .02 .18 .21* – .17 .004 -.06 -.07
6. MasGP 2.59 a (1.37) 2.63 a (1.39) .18 .05 .13 .08 .22 – .32** -.07 .004
7. FemGP 2.31 a (1.27) 1.57 b (.84) .11 -.03 .21* .35** .37** .35** – -.05 .10
8. ExitConf 1.95 a (1.26) 1.81 a (1.24) .16 .27** .35** .16 .16 .08 .06 – .19**
9. ExitAcad 2.49 a (1.41) 1.19 b (1.16) -.03 .001 .13 .15 -.03 .02 .12 .18* –

Correlations for women (n = 206) are presented above the diagonal, and for men (n = 123), below, with the exception of correlations with Bvoice^, where
n = 90 for women and n = 48 for men. Different subscripts for the means for women and men indicate signficiant gender differences (p < .05)
Climate- REP Reputational Climate, Climate-SAT Sexist Attitudes and Treatment, Climate – CM Conference Material, Mas GP Masculine Gendered
Performance, FemGP Feminine Gendered Performance, ExitConf Exit Conference, ExitAcad Exit Academia
*p < .05. **p < .01

main effect of gender, F(3301) = 7.22, p < .001 (see means in
Table 1), which held for each of the three individual climate
indexes, Fs(1303) = 6.77, 7.92, and 19.52, for reputational
climate, sexist attitudes and treatment, and conference mate-
rials, respectively, ps < .01, ηp2 = .02, .03, .06. Also consistent
with Hypothesis 1b, the main effect of conference was signif-
icant, F(6602) = 7.53, p < .001, again on all three climate
indexes, Fs(2303) = 12.23, 9.36, and 3.95, respectively, p-
s < .03, ηp2 = .07, .06, .03. The lowest levels of sexism were
perceived in the conference dominated by women
(MMW = 1.68, 2.79, and 2.45, SDs = .73, .74, .48 for reputa-
tional, sexist attitudes, and conference materials, respectively),
compared to the EW (MEW = 2.41, 3.22, and 2.53, SDs = .93,
.79, .56) and LW conferences (MLW = 2.40, 2.83, and 2.62,
SDs = 1.05, .74, .85). These effects were qualified by the
predicted Conference × Gender interaction, F(6602) = 3.34,
p = .003. Univariate analyses indicated that the interaction was
significant for the reputational climate, F(2303) = 5.39,
p = .005, ηp2 = .03, and conference materials,
F(2303) = 3.21, p = .042, ηp2 = .02, indexes, although not
for the sexist attitudes and treatment index, F(2303) = .30,
p = .73. These interactions (with their means) are presented
in Fig. 1. As predicted in Hypothesis 1c, the gender difference
in perceived sexism was strongest in the LW conference
(d = .89 for reputational climate, d = .78 for conference ma-
terials, ps < .0001), and it was nonsignificant in both the EW
and LW conferences (ps > .06).
Coping Responses
Coping responses to sexism included silence and voice.
Consistent with Hypothesis 2a, the MANOVA indicated an
omnibus main effect of gender, F(2128) = 4.80, p = .010,
which held for both silence, F(1129) = 5.13, p = .025, ηp2 =
.04, and voice, F(1129) = 5.54, p = .020, ηp2 = .04. As can be
seen in Table 1, women reported both more silence and voice
than men did. Hypothesis 2b was not supported in that there
was no main effect of conference type, F(4256) = 1.17,
p = .32, but the interaction predicted in Hypothesis 2c was
significant at the omnibus level, F(4256) = 2.66, p = .033, and
for voice in particular, F(2129) = 4.10, p = .019, ηp2 = .06, but
not silence (F(2129) = 1.45, p = .239). Women (M = 3.48,
SD = 1.58) reported more voice than men (M = 1.91,
SD = 1.07) only in the conference where they were underrep-
resented (LW, p < .001, d = 1.16), but not in the EW
(Mwomen = 2.47, SD = 1.55, Mmen = 2.06, SD = 1.47) or
MW conferences (Mwomen = 1.94, SD = 1.08, Mmen = 2.42,
SD = 1.63; ps > .08). Additionally, women at the LW confer-
ence expressed more voice than did women at either the EW
(d = .63) or MW (d = 1.12) conference, ps < .01 (who did not
differ from each other).
Gendered performance—both masculine and feminine—
reflect additional coping responses to perceived sexism. In
Hypotheses 3a and 3b, we predicted a main effect of gender
on feminine, but not masculine performance. The omnibus
gender effect was significant, F(2305) = 9.84, p < .001, and
as predicted, univariate analyses indicated that women en-
gaged in more feminine gendered performance than men did
(see Table 1), F(1306) = 17.30, p < .001, ηp2 = .05, but men
and women were equally likely to engage in masculine gen-
dered performance, F(1306) = .06, p > .81. We additionally
predicted a Gender x Conference interaction (Hypothesis 3c),
but the omnibus test was not significant, F(4610) = 1.87,
p = .11, and therefore we did not support the hypothesis that
402 Sex Roles (2018) 78:394–408

Fig. 1 Conference x Gender

interactions on sexist climate
indexes: (a) Reputational Climate Women Men
2.89
and (b) Conference Materials,
where bars represent standard

Mean
2.47
errors 2.31
2.01
1.66 1.74

LW - Low representation of women EW - Equal representation of MW - More women then men

women
Conference type
(a) Sexist Reputational Climate

3.5 Women Men

2.97
3
2.60
Mean

2.51
2.5 2.34 2.41
2.17
2

1.5

1
LW - Low representation of women
(b) Sexist Conference Materials
EW - Equal representation of MW - More women then men
women
Conference type

women’s gendered performance would vary by conference
context.
Exit Intentions
The MANOVA including intentions to exit the conference and
academia indicated only a main effect of gender,
F(2297) = 3.12, p = .046 which held at the univariate level
only for academia exit intentions, F(1298) = 5.94, p = .015,
ηp2 = .02, but not conference exit intentions, F(1298) = 1.10,
p = .25. Thus, we found no support for Hypothesis 4a, which
predicted a Gender x Conference interaction on conference
exit intentions (interaction F < 1), but did support
Hypothesis 4b, with women more likely to intend to leave
academics than men were (see Table 1).
Effects of Sexist Conference Climate Perceptions
on Coping and Exit Intentions
Structural equation modeling using MPlus (Version 7, 2012)
was used to test whether conference climate predicted
women’s and men’s coping responses and exit intentions.
The measurement model was established using CFA. We test-
ed the model separately for women and men, but due to
sample size limitations we were unable to further delineate
by conference. Fit to our theorized two-group model was ac-
ceptable, χ2 (254, n = 329) = 365.82, p < .01, RMSEA = .05,
95% CI [.04, .06], NNFI = .91, CFI = .93. All reported effects
are standardized; see Fig. 2 for final model and Table 1 for
correlations among constructs by gender.
For women, as predicted in Hypothesis 5, perceptions of
the climate as sexist significantly predicted silence (β = .21,
SE = .09, p = .013), voice (β = .40, SE = .14, p = .003),
feminine performance (β = .34, SE = .10, p = .001), masculine
performance (β = .40, SE = .10, p < .001), and academic exit
intentions (β = .16, SE = .08, p = .044), but not conference exit
intentions (β = .10, SE = .09, p > .05, p = .241). Support was
less strong for Hypothesis 6 in that only silence significantly
predicted academic exit intentions (β = .20, SE = .06,
p = .001); the other coping responses did not (ps > .20).
Silence also mediated the path between sexist climate and exit
intentions (Hypothesis 7): Those women who responded to
perceived climate sexism with silence during the conference
were the most likely to intend to exit the academy. Again
however, only silence played this mediating role for women.
Predictions for men were less certain, but as can be seen in
Fig. 2, results for men were fairly comparable to those for
women. Perceptions of the climate as sexist significantly
Sex Roles (2018) 78:394–408
Silence Exit:
Academia
Sexist
Voice
Climate
Exit:
Masculine Conference
Gendered
Performance
Feminine
Gendered
Performance
Fig. 2 Final structural equation model of the significant relationships
among the latent constructs for women and men. Model fit was good,
χ2 (254, n = 329) = 365.82, p < .01, RMSEA = .05, 90% CI [.04, .06],
NNFI = .91, CFI = .93. Standardized coefficients (β) are reported, with
coefficients for women listed first; for men, second.*p < .05. **p < .01.
***p < .001
predicted engagement in silence (β = .26, SE = .12, p = .025),
feminine performance (β = .45, SE = .18, p = .013), and
masculine performance (β = .25, SE = .12, p = .029), but not
voice (β = .27, SE = .17, p = .098). One noteworthy difference
in findings for men was that sexist climate predicted intention
to exit the conference (β = .63, SE = .10, p < .001), but not
academia (β = .15, SE = .08, p = .059). There were no indirect
paths from sexist climate perceptions to exit intentions for
men (ps > .20).
The structural models for men and for women were com-
pared to see if they statistically differed from one another.
Examination of both Chi-square difference tests (ps < .05)
and Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC) indicated that sep-
arate models for men and women were appropriate
(AIC f r e e = 16,638.17; AIC m a l e = f e m a l e = 16,643.03;
AICfemale=male = 16,647.81).
Discussion
Women’s underrepresentation in academia compared to men’s
compels research on understanding obstacles to women’s suc-
cess and the reasons women exit academic careers, including
the role of the conference context (see also Settles and
O’Connor 2014). To our knowledge, our research is the first
to specifically examine women’s and men’s numerical repre-
sentation at conferences, sexist climate perceptions, coping
responses, and exit intentions. Moreover, the present
study documents systematic differences by gender and
type of conference (i.e., gender representation) as well
as connections among sexist climate, silencing, and ac-
ademic exit intentions for women.
403
Representation, Climate, Coping, and Exit Intentions
Our first set of research questions (Hypotheses 1–4) addressed
the extent to which perceptions of sexism, silence and voice,
gender performance, and exit intentions varied by gender of
the participant and conference type (i.e., numerical represen-
tation). Previous research has suggested that gender propor-
tions in professional contexts influence professional out-
comes, including the culture of the organization (i.e., the cli-
mate) and exit intentions for women (Burke and McKeen
1996). Twenty years on, our work suggests that this may still
be the case.
Women overall were more likely to report perceiving sex-
ism than men did across all conferences, as we expected
(Hypothesis 1). In general, women are more likely the target
of sexist attitudes and behaviors than are men (Benokraitis
1997). Regarding numerical representation, we found that
both women and men perceived the conference climate as
least sexist when there were more women than men present.
At the same time, men and women differed in their percep-
tions of the conference with lowest female representation:
Women perceived this climate as the most sexist whereas
men did not. Men’s perceptions in the LW condition in fact
did not differ from the equal representation nor the female
majority representation conditions. Furthermore, although
women generally perceived more sexism than men do overall,
this gender difference in perceptions was only reliable when
women were in the minority in the conference setting. Thus, if
low representation of women contributes to a climate problem
in the eyes of women, male attendees appear to be unaware of
this perception.
We also examined various coping responses to sexism by
men and women, including silence and voice, and gendered
performance (Hypotheses 2 and 3). As predicted, women en-
gaged in more silence and voice than did men, regardless of
numerical representation. Contrary to our expectation, how-
ever, there was no main effect of conference type for silence or
voice. The predicted interaction (Hypothesis 2c) did not
emerge for silence, but did for voice. Thus, the conference
where women perceived the most sexism, they also expressed
the most voice. Also as predicted, women were more likely to
engage in feminine performance than men were, regardless of
conference context (Hypothesis 3a). With regard to masculine
gender performance, we expected and found no gender differ-
ences (Hypothesis 3b) because these behaviors are normative
in the competitive atmosphere of academia (Katila and
Meriläinen 1999; Schmitt et al. 2003). However, we did not
support Hypothesis 3c, that women’s gendered performance
would vary across conference contexts. Instead, the predicted
interacton was nonsignificant; neither men nor women’s gen-
dered performance varied across conferences.
Regarding exit intentions, overall intentions to exit the con-
ference were very low and did not vary by gender or
404
conference type. All of the conferences seemed to provide
enough interest and value that participants (at least those
who were inclined to respond to our survey) intended to attend
again. Intentions to exit academic careers also did not vary by
conference, and therefore we did not support our prediction
that women in particular would flee from the setting in which
few women were represented (Hypothesis 4a). However,
women expressed greater intent to exit academia than men
did. This finding is consistent with Hypothesis 4b and with
other research pointing to the loss of women in the professo-
riate in many social and biological science fields. This loss of
women generally happens in the transition from Ph.D. to as-
sistant professorship (Ceci et al. 2014). Many reasons under-
lying this Bleaky pipeline^ have been discussed in the litera-
ture, including gender stereotypes surrounding STEM topics
(Steffens et al. 2010), lack of role models for women (Drury
et al. 2011; Stout et al. 2011), gendered hiring practices
(Sheltzer and Smith 2014), and work-family balance pressures
(Goulden et al. 2011; van Anders 2004). The present study
focused on sexist climate, but regrettably cannot differentiate
among these other possible reasons behind exit intentions.
Sexist Climate, Coping Responses, and Exit Intentions
In addition to the mean difference results, we also explored
linear relationships in a structural equations modeling frame-
work. Consistent with Hypothesis 5, perceptions of a sexist
climate increased the likelihood that during the conference
women reported engaging in silence, expressing voice, and
engaging in both feminine and masculine performance.
Interestingly, silence and voice were uncorrelated for women,
but feminine and masculine performance were positively re-
lated, as were silence and feminine performance. These find-
ings suggest that the coping responses were not mutually ex-
clusive, and instead may have been engaged strategically,
throughout the conference. Future research would benefit by
considering moment-to-moment responses to a sexist climate,
and to whom voice was expressed and under what conditions.
Also as hypothesized, women’s academic exit intentions
were predicted by sexist climate and by silencing responses.
Indeed, one woman conferee commented, B…covert sexism
persists—men do all the talking at most meetings at the uni-
versity as well as conferences...^ Perceptions of a sexist con-
ference climate can signal to women the extent to which the
field values women’s contributions relative to men’s, as well
as may contribute to a lack of belongingness (Cheryan et al.
2009; Cheryan and Plaut 2010). Although we predicted a
broader role for coping responses in mediating the effects of
climate sexism on exit intentions, we found that only silence
played this role (Hypothesis 7). Those women who responded
with silence expressed greater intention to exit from academia,
and silence mediated the climate-exit relationship.
Sex Roles (2018) 78:394–408
We were uncertain what to expect among men. We found
that for men, perceptions of a sexist climate predicted all of the
coping strategies except voice; even when men perceived sex-
ism, they were not likely to speak out about it. The effect on
feminine gender performance is particularly surprising; men
who behaved in stereotypically feminine ways were behaving
outside of the gender expectations for men as well as for the
academic conference expectations for success (Burgess and
Borgida 1999; Knights and Richards 2003; Moss-Racusin
et al. 2010). Moreover, men’s perceptions of sexism were
positively associated with their desire to exit from the confer-
ence, but not from academia. Thus, men appear more likely
than women to confine their perceptions of sexism to the
conference itself rather than to the field as a whole.
Because the loss of women in social science fields occurs at
the Ph.D. to assistant professor level, some have argued that
Bchilly climate^ cannot account for women’s lesser tendency to
remain in academe: BThe deleterious effect of chilly climate
accrues over time as women feel isolated and disrespected by
male colleagues...graduate students and postdocs are hardly
aware of chilly climate; thus although it is possible that chilly
climate may cause leakage in the post-hiring stage, it is highly
unlikely that it does so before one even applies for a job^ (Ceci
et al. 2011, pp. 256–257). In addition to our doubting the as-
sumption that chilly departmental or disciplinary climates have
no effect on students, our findings additionally suggest that the
climate at professional conferences may be one mechanism by
which graduate students and postdocs receive messages that
deter their commitment to academic careers.
Practice Implications
That women perceive more sexism at conferences than men
do should come as no surprise. Women’s perceptions are in
part a consequence of experiences of microaggressions and
thwarted efforts, and perhaps shared experiences with other
women. In the conference with few women, however, despite
women’s high perceptions of sexism and reports of voice, men
did not perceive the sexism in the same way. This lack of
perception by men—despite voice expressed by women at
that conference—makes it unlikely that the climate will posi-
tively change. Men may doubt women’s experiences and may
react in ways that marginalize women further. This risk is
heightened if men in that context worry that gains for women
imply losses for men (i.e., a zero-sum perspective; Kehn and
Ruthig 2013; Ruthig et al. 2017). This worry may be even
greater in men if they themselves have had a personal experi-
ence that they believe to be related to discrimination in which
a woman was favored. In the words of one young male par-
ticipant from the LW conference:
I just finished ...graduate school and I have a great pub-
lication record... I sometimes feel frustrated when I see a
Sex Roles (2018) 78:394–408
female and/or minority secure a good assistant professor
position when their publication record is clearly not as
good as a white male's... I believe this is an issue that is
worth discussing publicly.
Alternatively, if men (and women) in a given context hold
beliefs that sexism no longer exists (Swim et al. 1995), the
status quo favoring men may be sustained (e.g., Becker and
Swim 2012). One woman observed:
I think the biggest problem in our field regarding gender
issues is... that there are still some offenders... enough
that many women I know have had the experience... of a
man in the field behaving inappropriately towards
them... but I suspect many men in my field think it is
still more rare than it actually is.
The present research suggests that conference climate may
affect not only behavior at the conference itself but also aca-
demic decisions downstream. The finding that women who
engaged in silencing during the conference expressed greater
desire to exit from academic careers is concerning. The con-
ference is a reflection of the academic discipline, and for many
new and aspiring academics the conference might have pro-
vided early socialization into the norms of the discipline. For
women in particular, the conference may have signaled their
devalued status and lack of fit (Tsui and Gutek 1999), which in
turn triggered silence that predicted academic exit intentions.
Men expressed intention to exit the conference to the extent
they perceived it as sexist, but sexist conference climate
served as more of an obstacle to women’s than men’s careers.
Participants also responded to perceived sexism with voice,
but voice frequency was low overall and voice was unrelated
to conference and academic exit intentions. However, expres-
sion of voice is agentic and empowering (Gilligan 1982); it
can also bring attention to objectionable situations (Crosby
et al. 2003) and change the norms of the context. It is some-
what encouraging that women at the LW conference—who
perceived the most sexism overall—also engaged in the most
voice and expressed no greater intent to exit academia than
their female counterparts at other conferences did.
Given these considerations regarding men’s perceptions
and beliefs as well as women’s silence and voice, perhaps a
more explicit challenging of sexism may be necessary to
broadly change conference norms and increase feelings of
inclusion for women. Such a challenge may begin, for exam-
ple, with a grassroots establishment of a women’s group with-
in the broader society. Doing so not only provides space for
women to express their views and experiences, but also sig-
nals to the rest of the society that such a group was necessary
in the first place. Moreover, conference organizers could ac-
tively implement strategies to mitigate sexist climates. For
instance, they could do more to increase the representation
405
of women speakers on panels and could take steps signifying
that women are welcome (e.g., on-site childcare, implementa-
tion of anti-discrimination policy). Additionally, societies
hosting conferences should strive to make visible women’s
influence and input at the conference (Katila and Meriläinen
1999). To this end, conferences should have women involved
in all levels of conference leadership (Eagly and Carli 2007)
and include women’s perspectives on research topics during
the conference as well on their conference experiences.
Finally, inappropriate advertising material, sexualized social
gatherings, blatantly bad behavior, inappropriate images in
posters and slides could be explicitly censured (see Biernat
and Hawley 2017). One woman commented:
Most of the gender-based harassment I see is directed
toward the female PhD students... It’s generally sexual-
ized situations (flirtatiousness, efforts to create compro-
mised situations, etc).... It’s almost all at the parties
where the women stop attending when they Bgrow up^
and become faculty members, but a subset of men reg-
ularly attend... the students are taken by their Bfame^
and enjoy the attention until they realize... sexualized
motives.
Limitations and Future Directions
Academic conferences, as the powerful socializing contexts
they are, have not been the target of much empirical research
(but see Settles and O’Connor 2014); we found no published
and validated measures of conference perceptions, experi-
ences, coping responses, or exit intentions. Thus, we
employed and adapted measures from those validated in other
contexts or were created based on social psychological and
feminist literature. Doing so unavoidably leads to some degree
of measurement error. At the same time, however, measure-
ment error tends to lead to Type II rather than Type I errors.
That we found significant patterns in the expected directions
indicates to us that our efforts were not entirely fruitless.
Nonetheless, future research on conference contexts should
(a) be undertaken energetically because of its importance
and (b) validate measures relevant to conferences and conduct
longitudinal studies to speak to causality.
On this latter point of causality stands another limitation of
the present study: Namely, the patterns revealed associated
with gender representation may not have been due to repre-
sentation per se, but rather to fundamental differences in con-
ference content. The degree to which content topics were
causally or spuriously associated with gender representation
cannot be discerned by the present study alone. The three
conferences differed not only in numerical representation of
women, but also in overall size and disciplinary focus.
Though confounded in the real world, future research should
406
explore ways to tease apart the effects of gender representation
and disciplinary content at conferences on outcomes. In
the end, we believe our focus on gender representation
is a strength of the present study that opens the doors to
future work.
Additionally, the overall survey response rates were low,
especially by men in the majority women condition. Those
who chose to respond may not have represented men’s and
women’s perceptions as a whole because participating in our
survey represents some degree of expression of voice. It is
also possible the participants may be among the most commit-
ted to staying at the conferences. Those who have left, or are
considering leaving, may prefer silence and may have been
underrepresented in our sample.
An important conceptual limitation of our research project
was that it did not address race or racism perceptions, and
therefore the study privileged Western and White cultural no-
tions of gender. We recognize that race meaningfully inter-
sects with gender (i.e., gendered races; Galinsky et al. 2013)
and that by considering gender differences in the absence of
race/ethnicity, experiences of Women of Color are min-
imized. We also recognize that racism (and heterosex-
ism) can be important additional components of climate.
Future work on conference climate should examine oth-
er facets of climate and incorporate racial and sexual
minority participants’ perspectives.
Conclusions
Our results illuminate the ways in which gender representa-
tions at conferences stand to impact the conference climate
vis-à-vis sexism and the ways sexist climates are in turn relat-
ed to women’s and men’s coping responses and academic
career intentions. Sexism perceptions varied by gender and
conference type, and perceived sexism uniquely contributed
to women’s career exit intentions and to men’s conference exit
intentions. Sexist conference climates, especially to the extent
they trigger silencing in women, may play an important role in
women’s intention to leave academic careers. Further work is
needed to delineate this effect and to develop effective mech-
anisms for change.
Acknowledgements The present manuscript is based on data from the
first author’s doctoral dissertation.
References
Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. (2005). The perils of political correctness:
Men’s and women’s responses to old-fashioned and modern sexist
views. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68, 75–88. doi:10.1177/
019027250506800106.
Becker, J. C., & Swim, J. K. (2012). Reducing endorsement of benevolent
and modern sexist beliefs: Differential effects of addressing harm
Sex Roles (2018) 78:394–408
versus pervasiveness of benevolent sexism. Social Psychology,
43(3), 127–137. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000091.
Benokraitis, N. V. (1997). Sex discrimination in the 21st century. In N. V.
Benokraitis (Ed.), Subtle sexism: Current practice and prospects for
change (pp. 5–33). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
Biernat, M., & Hawley, P. (2017). Sexualized images in professional
contexts: Effects on anticipated experiences and perceived climate
for women and men. Manuscript under review.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research.
New York: Guilford Press.
Burgess, D., & Borgida, E. (1999). Who women are, who women should
be: Descriptive and prescriptive gender stereotyping in sex discrim-
ination. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, 665–692. doi:10.
1037/1076-8971.5.3.665.
Burke, R. J., & McKeen, C. A. (1996). Do women at the top make a
difference? Gender proportions and the experiences of managerial
and professional women. Human Relations, 49, 1093–1104. doi:10.
1177/001872679604900804.
Caza, B. B., & Cortina, L. M. (2007). From insult to injury: Explaining
the impact of incivility. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29,
335–350. doi:10.1080/01973530701665108.
Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2011). Understanding current causes of
women’s underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 108, 3157–3162. doi:10.1073/
pnas.1014871108.
Ceci, S. J., Williams, W. M., Sumner, R. A., & DeFraine, W. C. (2011).
Do subtle cues about belongingness constrain women’s career
choices? Psychological Inquiry, 22(4), 255–258. doi:10.1080/
1047840X.2011.619112.
Ceci, S. J., Ginther, D. K., Kahn, S., & Williams, W. M. (2014). Women
in academic science: A changing landscape. Psychological Science
i n t h e P u b l i c I n t e re s t , 1 5 ( 3 ) , 7 5 – 1 4 1 . d o i : 1 0 . 11 7 7 /
1529100614541236.
Cheryan, S., & Plaut, V. C. (2010). Explaining underrepresentation: A
theory of precluded interest. Sex Roles, 63, 475–488. doi:10.1007/
s11199-010-9835-x.
Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Davies, P. G., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Ambient
belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in
computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
97, 1045–1060. doi:10.1037/a0016239.
Chiu, C., Hong, Y., Lam, I. C., Fu, J. H., Tong, J. Y., & Lee, V. S. (1998).
Stereotyping and self-presentation: Effects of gender stereotype ac-
tivation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 1, 81–96. doi:10.
1177/1368430298011007.
Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of
response rates in web- or internet-based surveys. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 60, 821–836. doi:10.1177/
00131640021970934.
Cortina, L. M. (2008). Unseen injustice: Incivility as modern discrimina-
tion in organizations. The Academy of Management Review: Special
Topic Forum on Stigma and Stigmatization, 33, 55–75. doi:10.2307/
20159376.
Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Langhout, R. D. (2001).
Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 64–80. doi:10.1037/1076-
8998.6.1.64.
Crosby, F. J., Iyer, A., Clayton, S., & Downing, R. A. (2003). Affirmative
action: Psychological data and the policy debates. American
Psychologist, 58, 93–115. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.58.2.93.
Dasgupta, N. (2011). Ingroup experts and peers as social vaccines who
inoculate the self-concept: The stereotype inoculation model.
Psychological Inquiry, 22(4), 231–246. doi:10.1080/1047840X.
2011.607313.
Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An integra-
tive model of gender-related behavior. Psychological Review, 94,
369–398. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.369.
Sex Roles (2018) 78:394–408
Drury, B. J., Siy, J. O., & Cheryan, S. (2011). When do female role
models benefit women? The importance of differentiating recruit-
ment from retention in STEM. Psychological Inquiry, 22(4), 265–
269. doi:10.1080/1047840X.2011.620935.
Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth
about how women become leaders. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice
toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598. doi:10.
1037/0033-295X.109.3.573.
Egri, C. P. (1992). Academic conferences as ceremonials: Opportunities
for organizational integration and socialization. Journal of
M a n a g e m e n t E d u c a t i o n , 1 6 , 9 0 – 11 5 . d o i : 1 0 . 11 7 7 /
105256299201600107.
Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. New York: Guilford
Press.
Farrell, D. (1983). Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect as responses to job
dissatisfaction: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of
Management Journal, 26, 496–607. doi:10.2307/255909.
Galinsky, A. D., Hall, E. V., & Cuddy, A. J. (2013). Gendered races:
Implications for interracial marriage, leadership selection, and ath-
letic participation. Psychological Science, 24(4), 498–506. doi:10.
1177/0956797612457783.
Garcia, D. M., Reser, A. H., Amo, R. B., Redersdorff, S., & Branscombe,
N. R. (2005). Perceivers’ responses to in-group and out-group mem-
bers who blame a negative outcome on discrimination. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 769–780. doi:10.1177/
0146167204271584.
Gherardi, S. (1994). The gender we think, the gender we do in our ev-
eryday organizational lives. Human Relations, 47, 591–611. doi:10.
1177/001872679404700602.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and
women's development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Good, C. D., Rattan, A., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Why do women opt out?
Sense of belonging and women’s representation in mathematics.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 700–717. doi:
10.1037/a002665.
Goulden, M., Mason, M. A., & Frasch, K. (2011). Keeping women in the
science pipeline. Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, 638(1), 141–162. doi:10.1177/0002716211416925.
Hall, R. M., & Sandler, B. R. (1982). The classroom climate: A chilly one
for women? The project on the status and education of women.
Washington, DC: The Association of American Colleges http://
eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED215628.pdf.
Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereo-
types prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal
of Social Issues, 57, 657–674. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00234.
Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tamkins, M. M. (2004).
Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male
gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 416–427.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.416.
Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in
firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Hogg, M. A., & Turner, J. C. (1987). Intergroup behaviour, self-
stereotyping and the salience of social categories. British Journal
of Social Psychology, 26, 325–340. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1987.
tb00795.x.
Janz, T. A., & Pyke, S. W. (2000). A scale to assess student perceptions of
academic climates. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 30, 89–
122.
Kaiser, C. R., & Miller, C. T. (2001). Stop complaining! The social costs
of making attributions to discrimination. Personality and Social
P s y c h o l o g y B u l l e t i n , 2 7 ( 2 ) , 2 5 4 – 2 6 3 . d o i : 1 0 . 11 7 7 /
0146167201272010.
407
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York:
Basic Books.
Katila, S., & Meriläinen, S. (1999). A serious researcher or just another
nice girl? Doing gender in a male-dominated scientific community.
Gender, Work and Organization, 6, 163–173. doi:10.1111/1468-
0432.00079.
Kehn, A., & Ruthig, J. C. (2013). Perceptions of gender discrimination
across six decades: The moderating roles of gender and age. Sex
Roles, 69(5–6), 289–296. doi:10.1007/s11199-013-0303-2.
Knights, D., & Richards, W. (2003). Sex discrimination in UK academia.
Gender, Work & Organization, 10, 213–238. doi:10.1111/1468-
0432.t01-1-00012.
Kriwy, P., Gross, C., & Gottburgsen, A. (2013). Look who’s talking:
Compositional effects of gender and status on verbal contributions
at sociology conferences. Gender, Work and Organization, 20(5),
545–560. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2012.00603.x.
Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (2002). Group reactions to loyalty and
disloyalty. In S. Thye & E. Lawler (Eds.), Group cohesion, trust,
and solidarity (pp. 203–228). New York: Elsevier Science.
Lim, S., Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2008). Personal and workgroup
incivility: Impact on work and health outcomes. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93, 95–107. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.95.
Lun, J., Sinclair, S., & Cogburn, C. (2009). Cultural stereotypes and the
self: A closer examination of implicit self-stereotyping. Basic and
Applied Social Psychology, 31, 117–127. doi:10.1080/
01973530902880340.
Major, B., Gramzow, R. H., McCoy, S. K., Levin, S., Schmader, T., &
Sidanius, J. (2002). Perceiving personal discrimination: The role of
group status and legitimizing ideology. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 82, 269–282. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.3.269.
Monroe, K. R., & Chiu, W. F. (2010). Gender equality in the academy:
The pipeline problem. Political Science & Politics, 43, 303–308.
doi:10.1017/S104909651000017X.
Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Rudman, L. A. (2010). When men
break the gender rules: Status incongruity and backlash against mod-
est men. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 11, 140–151. doi:10.
1037/a0018093.
National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics.
(2010). Survey of doctorate recipients. Retrieved from http://www.
nsf.gov/statistics.
Powell, A., Bagilhole, B., & Dainty, A. (2009). How women engineers do
and undo gender: Consequences for gender equality. Gender, Work
and Organization, 16, 411–428. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2008.
00406.x.
Priola, V. (2007). Being female and doing gender: Narratives of women in
education management. Gender and Education, 19, 21–40. doi:10.
1080/09540250601087728.
Riger, S., Stokes, J., Raja, S., & Sullivan, M. (1997). Measuring percep-
tions of the work environment for female faculty. The Review of
Higher Education, 21, 63–78. doi:10.1353/rhe.1997.0015.
Riley, S., Frith, H., Archer, L., & Veseley, L. (2006). Institutional sexism
in academia. The Psychologist, 19, 94–100.
Rowe, M. P. (1990). Barriers to equality: The power of subtle discrimi-
nation to maintain unequal opportunity. Employee Responsibilities
and Rights Journal, 3, 153–163. doi:10.1007/BF01388340.
Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The
costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 629–645. doi:10.
1037/0022-3514.74.3.629.
Ruthig, J. C., Kehn, A., Gamblin, B. W., Vanderzanden, K., & Jones, K.
(2017). When women’s gains equal men’s losses: Predicting a zero-
sum perspective of gender status. Sex Roles, 76, 17–26. doi:10.1007/
s11199-016-0651-9.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Autonomy is no illusion: Self-
determination theory and the empirical study of authenticity, aware-
ness, and will. In J. Greenberg, S. L. Koole, & T. Pyszczynski (Eds.),
408
Handbook of experimental existential psychology (pp. 449–479).
New York: Guilford Press.
Sam, D. L., & Berry, J. W. (2010). Acculturation: When individuals and
groups of different cultural backgrounds meet. Perspectives on
P s y c h o l o g i c a l S c i e n c e , 5 , 4 7 2– 4 8 1. d oi :1 0 . 11 7 7/
1745691610373075.
Schmitt, M. T., Ellemers, N., & Branscombe, N. R. (2003). Perceiving
and responding to gender discrimination in organizations. In S. A.
Haslam, D. van Knippenberg, M. J. Platow, & N. Ellemers (Eds.),
Social identity at work: Developing theory for organizational
practice (pp. 277–292). New York: Psychology Press.
Settles, I. H., & O’Connor, R. C. (2014). Incivility at academic confer-
ences: Gender differences and the mediating role of climate. Sex
Roles, 71, 71–82. doi:10.1007/s11199-014-0355-y.
Settles, I. H., Cortina, L. M., Malley, J., & Stewart, A. J. (2006). The
climate for women in academic science: The good, the bad, and the
changeable. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 47–58. doi:10.
1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00261.x.
Settles, I. H., Cortina, L. M., Stewart, A. J., & Malley, J. (2007). Voice
matters: Buffering the impact of a negative climate for women in
science. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 270–281. doi:10.
1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00370.x.
Settles, I. H., Cortina, L. M., Buchanan, N. T., & Miner, K. N. (2013).
Derogation, discrimination, and (dis)satisfaction with jobs in sci-
ence: A gendered analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37,
197–191. doi:10.1177/0361684312468727.
Shaw, A. K., & Stanton, D. E. (2012). Leaks in the pipeline: Separating
demographic inertia from ongoing gender differences in academia.
Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 279, 3736–3741. doi:10.1098/
rspb.2012.0822.
Sheltzer, J. M., & Smith, J. C. (2014). Elite male faculty in the life
sciences employ fewer women. PNAS Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(28),
10107–10112. doi:10.1073/pnas.1403334111.
Stangor, C., Swim, J. K., Van Allen, K. L., & Sechrist, G. B. (2002).
Reporting discrimination in public and private contexts. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 82(1), 69–74. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.82.1.69.
Steffens, M. C., Jelenec, P., & Noack, P. (2010). On the leaky math
pipeline: Comparing implicit math-gender stereotypes and math
withdrawal in female and male children and adolescents. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 947–963. doi:10.1037/
a0019920.
Stout, J. G., Dasgupta, N., Hunsinger, M., & McManus, M. A. (2011).
STEMing the tide: Using ingroup experts to inoculate women's self-
concept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2),
255–270. doi:10.1037/a0021385.
Sex Roles (2018) 78:394–408
Swim, J. K., & Hyers, L. L. (1999). Excuse me—What did you just say?
Women’s public and private responses to sexist remarks. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 68–88. doi:10.1006/jesp.1998.
1370.
Swim, J. K., & Hyers, L. L. (2009). Sexism. In T. Nelson (Ed.),
Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 407–
430). New York: Psychology Press.
Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and
racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 199–214. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.68.2.199.
Swim, J. K., Mallett, R., & Stangor, C. (2004). Understanding subtle
sexism: Detection and use of sexist language. Sex Roles, 51(3–4),
117–128. doi:10.1023/B:SERS.0000037757.73192.06.
Swim, J. K., Eyssell, K. M., Murdoch, E. Q., & Ferguson, M. J. (2010).
Self-silencing to sexism. Journal of Social Issues, 66, 493–507. doi:
10.1111/j.1540-4560.2010.01658.x.
Tajfel, H. (1975). The exit of social mobility and the voice of social
change: Notes on the social psychology of intergroup relations.
Social Science Information, 14, 101–118. doi:10.1177/
053901847501400204.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup
behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), The psychology of
intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Toren, N. (1990). Would more women make a difference? In S. Stiver Lie
& V. E. O'Leary (Eds.), Storming the tower: Women in the academic
world (pp. 74–85). London: Kogan.
Tsui, A. S., & Gutek, B. A. (1999). Demographic differences in organi-
zations: Current research and future directions. Lanham: Lexington
Books.
van Anders, S. M. (2004). Why the academic pipeline leaks: Fewer men
than women perceive barriers to becoming professors. Sex Roles, 5,
511–521. doi:10.1007/s11199-004-5461-9.
Walkerdine, V. (1989). Femininity as performance. Oxford Review of
Education, 15, 267–279. doi:10.1080/0305498890150307.
Wilson, J. Z., Marks, G., Noone, L., & Hamilton-McKenzie, J. (2010).
Retaining a foothold on the slippery paths of academia: University
women, indirect discrimination, and the academic marketplace.
Gender and Education, 22, 535–545. doi:10.1080/
09540250903354404.
Yoder, J. D. (1991). Rethinking tokenism: Looking beyond numbers.
G e n d e r a n d S o c i e t y, 5 , 1 7 8 – 1 9 2 . d o i : 1 0 . 11 7 7 /
089124391005002003.
Yoder, J. D. (1994). Looking beyond numbers: The effects of gender
status, job prestige, and occupational gender-typing on tokenism
processes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 150–159. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2786708 .