Information that a workplace employs mostly women increased women's interest in hypothetical jobs and their expectation that they would feel they belonged there, according to four studies published in PLOS One. In some comparisons, the makeup of the workforce affected this sense more than whether the advertisement emphasized exceptional innate talent or dedication. The researchers suggest that existing representation may encourage interest among more women. However, the studies examined assessments and intentions, rather than actual job applications.
The research examines a possible factor behind women's underrepresentation in fields such as science, technology, politics and academia. Previous work has linked women's lower interest to messages that present success as the result of exceptional natural intellectual ability, a quality stereotypically attributed more often to men. Because such fields often also have fewer women, it is difficult to separate the effects of the two factors. Stella F. Lourenco of Emory University and her colleagues studied the issue with 1,680 participants in the US through the online platform Prolific.
In the first study, 96 people estimated the ratio of men to women in 30 occupations and rated how much they would feel they belonged in each. They also assessed the need for innate talent, the competitiveness of the work environment and their similarity to the people working there. Their average estimates were close to the actual gender distribution in the occupations. Women expected a stronger sense of belonging where they believed more women worked, even when the other perceptions were taken into account. No corresponding association was recorded for men.
In the second study, 194 participants read a fictional advertisement emphasizing either exceptional innate talent or dedication. In both cases, they assumed men outnumbered women, estimating the proportion of women at about 40% on average. Those who expected a greater female presence reported more interest and a stronger expectation of belonging, while the wording of the advertisement no longer predicted either response once these estimates were taken into account. When workplace culture and similarity to staff were also considered, expected representation remained associated with interest, but not with a sense of belonging.
The third study, involving 399 people, explicitly stated in the advertisements that 75% of employees were either men or women, while also varying the emphasis on talent or dedication. Women were more interested in jobs with a female majority, where their interest reached the same level as men's. They also expected a greater sense of belonging even when the advertisement emphasized exceptional talent. In fact, they felt they would belong more in a workplace with a female majority that emphasized talent than in a male-dominated workplace that emphasized dedication. Men's responses were not affected by the gender of the majority.
The fourth study involved 991 people and examined ratios of 60% to 40%, 75% to 25% and 90% to 10%. It was the only study in the series whose design and analyses had been registered before it was conducted. Women reported more interest and a greater expectation of belonging when they made up 75% or 90% of the workforce, compared with the corresponding male majorities. At a ratio of 60% to 40%, the differences were small.
As the male majority increased in the fourth study, the gap between women and men in their expected sense of belonging grew. Men showed some preference for workplaces where men were in the majority, but the pattern was less consistent. Women were also more interested in advertisements that emphasized effort and commitment. However, once perceived workplace culture and similarity to staff were taken into account, the wording no longer predicted a sense of belonging, while the effect of representation remained.
Overall, perceptions of a fiercely competitive workplace and a sense of similarity to employees were also strongly associated with interest and the expectation of belonging. The researchers suggest that the gender ratio may serve as a signal of how supportive or competitive a work environment is. In their view, improving representation and changing messages about the requirements for success may be more effective when pursued together. Changing perceptions of innate talent alone may not be enough.
The findings have clear limitations: hypothetical advertisements do not necessarily show how people will act when looking for an actual job. The effects were generally small to moderate, and only the final study was preregistered. The research therefore provides evidence of how representation shapes expectations about a job, while leaving open the question of its effect on actual career decisions.
Comments