Bystanders to Bias: Witnessing Gendered Microaggressions Affects Men’s and Women’s Outcomes in STEM Small Group Contexts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
= 753), we randomly assigned computer science and engineering students to witness microaggressions targeting female students, or control interactions, using a video manipulation. Witnessing microaggressions-compared to the control-resulted in heightened gender-specific stereotyping concerns, with women being concerned about appearing incompetent and men being concerned with appearing sexist. For both women and men, witnessing microaggressions resulted in decreased enthusiasm for participating in group work. Moreover, for women, the relationship between decreased enthusiasm and witnessing microaggressions was partially mediated by increased concerns about being stereotyped as incompetent. Across the experiments, mixed results emerged regarding the effect of witnessing microaggressions on the recall of engineering content in the video. This research extends previous work focused on personally experiencing microaggressions to merely witnessing them, showing that positivity toward anticipated group work is diminished for both women and men when they see peers engaging in microaggressions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".