We investigated the effect of gender stereotypic and counter-stereotypic images on male and female high school students' science comprehension and anxiety. We predicted stereotypic images to induce stereotype threat in females and impair science performance. Counter-stereotypic images were predicted to alleviate threat and enhance female performance. Students read one of three chemistry lessons, each containing the same text, with photograph content varied according to stereotype condition. Participants then completed a comprehension test and anxiety measure. Results indicate that female students had higher comprehension after viewing counter-stereotypic images (female scientists) than after viewing stereotypic images (male scientists). Male students had higher comprehension after viewing stereotypic images than after viewing counter-stereotypic images. Implications for alleviating the gender gap in science achievement are discussed.

Across two studies, we tested whether perceived social costs and benefits of confrontation would similarly predict confronting discrimination both when it was experienced and when it was observed as directed at others. Female undergraduate participants were asked to recall past experiences and observations of sexism, as well as their confronting behaviors. Path modeling in Study 1 ( N = 148) demonstrated that women were more likely to report confronting if they believed that the confrontation would make a difference (perceived benefits), or they were less concerned about social sanctions (perceived costs), and the prediction patterns were similar for both experienced and observed sexism. Study 2 ( N = 166) replicated the results of Study 1, as well as tested the moderating influence of gender identification. In situations of higher perceived social costs, women who were less strongly identified with their gender group were more responsive to the perceived benefits of the confrontation when deciding whether to confront on behalf of the self. The results of the two studies suggest that researchers should investigate methods for enhancing perceived social benefits and reducing perceived social costs when designing intervention programs aimed at increasing confrontation and decreasing the prevalence of discrimination.

American undergraduate participants (N=205) read an interview transcript and then evaluated male interviewers and a female job applicant to investigate perceptions of women who receive benevolent or hostile sexism (relative to non-sexist controls). As predicted, positive evaluations of the male interviewer in the benevolent and hostile sexist conditions negatively predicted participants' hiring decisions-an effect that was fully mediated by low ratings of applicant competence. In accord with ambivalent sexism theory's claim that women who challenge male dominance are not eligible for protective paternalism, participants' hostile sexism scores predicted lower ratings of applicant competence and hireability, but only when the interviewer was a benevolent sexist. Implications for workplace discrimination are discussed.

The present study examined the causal role of amount of Black ancestry in targets' perceived fit with Black prototypes and perceivers' categorization of biracial targets. Greater Black ancestry increased the likelihood that perceivers categorized biracial targets as Black and perceived targets as fitting Black prototypes (e.g., experiencing racial discrimination, possessing stereotypic traits). These results persisted, controlling for perceptions of phenotype that stem from ancestry information. Perceivers' beliefs about how society would categorize the biracial targets predicted perceptions of discrimination, whereas perceivers' beliefs about the targets' self-categorization predicted trait perceptions. The results of this study support the Black ancestry prototype model of affirmative action, which reveals the downstream consequences of Black ancestry for the distribution of minority resources (e.g., affirmative action) to biracial targets.

Past research has shown that valuing gender conformity is associated with both positive and negative consequences for self-esteem and positive affect. The current research (women, n = 226; men, n = 175) explored these conflicting findings by separating out investing in societal gender ideals from personally valuing one's gender identity (private regard) and investigating the relationship to self-esteem, through either autonomous (behaviors that are freely chosen) or pressured (behaviors engaged in due to pressure from others or situation) motivation for gender-consistent behavior (communal behavior for women and agentic behavior for men). Confirming predictions, structural equation modeling revealed that investment in gender ideals predicted pressured but not autonomous motivation whereas private regard predicted autonomous but not pressured motivation. Additionally, autonomous motivation for gender-consistent behavior was positively associated with self-esteem whereas pressured motivation was negatively associated with self-esteem. Thus, investing or valuing one's gender identity was not shown to be costly for the self directly, but to instead influence self-esteem through motivation to enact gender-conforming behavior. Although the present research demonstrates a positive link between some aspects of gender conformity and self-esteem, we discuss how gender-conforming behavior can still have negative consequences (e.g., communal behavior in the context of male-sex-typed domains).