Numerous attempts to improve diversity by way of changing the hearts of decision makers have fallen short of the desired outcome. One underappreciated factor that contributes to bias resides not in decision makers’ hearts, but instead in their minds. People possess images, or mental representations, for specific roles and professions. Which mental image or representation springs spontaneously to mind depends on the current status quo within a field. Whether or not an individual or groups’ appearance matches visual stereotypes results in perceptually mediated preferences and prejudices, both of which harbor pernicious assumptions about who belongs in a professional setting and why. Leveraging these scientific insights can enact change. Shifting visible exemplars can change people’s mental representations and their heart’s evaluative reactions to others.
AllportG. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Perseus Books.
2.
AltN. P.GoodaleB. M.LickD. J.JohnsonK. L. (2019). Threat in the company of men: Ensemble perception and threat evaluations of groups varying in sex ratio. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 10, 152–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617731498
3.
AndersenS. M.ChenS. (2002). The relational self: An interpersonal social-cognitive theory. Psychological Review, 109, 619–645.
4.
BailensonJ. N.IyengarS.YeeN.CollinsN. A. (2008). Facial similarity between voters and candidates causes influence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 935–961.
5.
BridgemanB.WendlerC. (1991). Gender differences in predictors of college mathematics performance and in college mathematics course grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(2), 275–284.
6.
BrinkmanL.TodorovA.DotschR. (2017). Visualizing mental representations: A primer on noise-based reverse correlation in social psychology. European Review of Social Psychology, 28, 331–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2017.1381469
7.
CarpinellaC. M.HehmanE.FreemanJ. B.JohnsonK. L. (2016). The gendered face of partisan politics: Consequences of facial sex-typicality for vote choice. Political Communication, 33, 21–38.
8.
CarpinellaC. M.JohnsonK. L. (2013). Appearance-based politics: Sex-typed facial cues communicate political party affiliation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 156–160.
9.
ChambersD. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The draw-a-scientist test. Science Education, 67, 255–265.
10.
CheryanS.PlautV. C.DaviesP. G.SteeleC. M. (2009). Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1045–1060.
11.
CheryanS.SiyJ. O.VichayapaiM.DruryB. J.KimS. (2011). Do female and male role models who embody STEM stereotypes hinder women’s anticipated success in STEM?Social Psychological & Personality Science, 2(6), 656–664.
12.
DasguptaN. (2011). Ingroup experts and peers as social vaccines who inoculate the self- concept: The stereotype inoculation model. Psychological Inquiry, 22, 231–246.
13.
DoverT. L.KaiserC. R.MajorB. (2020). Mixed signals: The unintended effects of diversity initiatives. Social Issues and Policy Review, 14(1), 152–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12059
14.
FreemanJ. B.JohnsonK. L. (2016). More than meets the eye: Split-second social perception. Trends in Cognitive Science, 20, 362–374.
15.
FreemanJ. B.PaukerK.SanchezD. T. (2016). A perceptual pathway to bias: Interracial exposure reduces abrupt shifts in real-time race perception that predict mixed-race bias. Psychological Science, 27, 502–517.
16.
GaitherS. E.PaukerK.JohnsonS. P. (2012). Biracial and monoracial infant own-race face perception: An eye tracking study. Developmental Science, 15, 775–782.
17.
GlassJ. L.SasslerS.LevitteY.MichelmoreK. M. (2013). What’s so special about STEM? A comparison of women’s retention in STEM and professional occupations. Social Forces, 92(2), 723–756.
18.
GoodaleB. M.AltN. P.LickD. J.JohnsonK. L. (2018). Groups at a glance: Perceivers infer social belonging in a group based on perceptual summaries of sex ratio. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147, 1660–1676.
19.
HansenF. (2003, April). Diversity’s business case doesn’t add up. Workforce, 28–32.
20.
HehmanE.CarpinellaC. M.JohnsonK. L.LeitnerJ. B.FreemanJ. B. (2014). Early processing of gendered facial cues predicts the electoral success of female politicians. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 5, 815–824.
21.
HehmanE.FlakeJ. K.FreemanJ. B. (2018). The faces of group members share physical resemblance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44, 3–15.
22.
HigginbothamG. D.ZhengZ.UhlsY. (2020). Beyond checking a box: A lack of authentically inclusive representation has costs at the box office. Center for Scholars and Storytellers.
IsraelT.BettergarciaJ. N.DelucioK.AvellarT. R.HarknessA.GoodmanJ. A. (2017). Reactions of law enforcement to LGBTQ diversity training. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 28(2), 197–226. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21281
25.
JohnsonK. L.TassinaryL. G. (2007). Compatibility of basic social perceptions determines perceived attractiveness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, 5246–5251.
26.
KellyD. J.QuinnP. C.SlaterA. M.LeeK.GibsonA.SmithM.GeL.PascalisO. (2005). Three-month-olds, but not newborns, prefer own-race faces. Developmental Science, 8(6), F31–F36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2005.0434a.x
27.
LickD. J. (2015, Spring). Prejudice is in the eye of the beholder: Harnessing visual adaptation to understand and combat interpersonal bias [Doctoral dissertation]. UCLA Escholarship, University of California, Los Angeles. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7df9q6m7
28.
LickD. J.JohnsonK. L. (2013). Fluency of visual processing explains prejudiced evaluations following categorization of concealable stigmas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 419–425.
29.
LickD. J.JohnsonK. L. (2014). Recalibrating gender perception: Face aftereffects and the perceptual underpinnings of gender-related biases. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 1259–1276.
30.
LickD. J.JohnsonK. L. (2015). The interpersonal consequences of processing ease: Fluency as a metacognitive foundation for prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 143–148.
31.
LickD. J.JohnsonK. L. (2016). Perceptually mediated preferences and prejudices. Psychological Inquiry, 27, 335–340.
32.
LickD. J.JohnsonK. L.RuleN. O. (2015). Disfluent processing of nonverbal cues helps to explain anti-bisexual prejudice. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 39, 275–288.
33.
MillerD. I.NollaK. M.EaglyA. H.UttalD. H. (2018). The development of children’s gender-science stereotypes: A meta-analysis of 5 decades of U.S. draw-a-scientist studies. Child Development, 6, 1943–1955.
NolandM.MoranT.KotschwarB. (2016). Is gender diversity profitable? Evidence from a global survey. Peterson Institute for International Economics. https://www.piie.com/publications/wp/wp16-3.pdf
OlivolaC. Y.SussmanA. B.TsetsosK.KangO. E.TodorovA. (2012). Republicans prefer Republican-looking leaders: Political facial stereotypes predict candidate electoral success among right-leaning voters. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 3, 605–613.
39.
PaluckE. L.GreenD. P. (2009). Prejudice reduction: What works? A critical look at evidence from the field and laboratory. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 339–367.
40.
PascalisO.de HaanM.NelsonC. A. (2002). Is face processing species-specific during the first year of life?Science, 17, 1321–1323. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1070223
41.
PascalisO.ScottL. S.KellyD. J.ShannonR. W.NicholsonE.ColemanM.NelsonC. A. (2005). Plasticity of face processing in infancy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 5297–5300.
42.
QuinnP. C.UttleyL.LeeK.GibsonA.SmithM.SlaterA. M.PascalisO. (2008). Infant preference for female faces occurs for same- but not other-race faces. Journal of Neuropsychology, 2(1), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1348/174866407X231029
43.
QuinnP. C.YahrJ.KuhnA.SlaterA. M.PascalisO. (2002). Representation of the gender of human faces by infants: A preference for female. Perception, 31(9), 1109–1121. https://doi.org/10.1068/p3331
44.
Ramsey-RennelsJ. L.LangloisJ. H. (2006). Infants’ differential processing of female and male faces. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(2), 59–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2006.00407.x
45.
RuleN. O.AmbadyN. (2008). The face of success: Inferences from chief executive officers’ appearance predict company profits. Psychological Science, 19, 109–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-9280.2008.02054.x
46.
RuleN. O.AmbadyN. (2011). Judgments of power from college yearbook photos and later career success. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 2, 154–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550610385473
47.
SchugJ.AltN. P.LuP. S.GosinM.FayJ. (2017). Gendered race in mass media: Invisibility of Asian men and Black women in popular magazines. Psychology of Popular Media, 6, 222–236.
48.
ShropshireJ. S. (2016, Winter). The role of masculinity in science: Testing individual’s gendered representations of STEM [Master’s thesis]. UCLA Escholarship, University of California Los Angeles.
Smith-DoerrL.AlegriaS. N.SaccoT. (2017). How diversity matters in the US science and engineering workforce: A critical review considering integration in teams, fields, and organizational contexts. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, 3(0), 139. https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2017.142
51.
SteinkeJ.LapinskiM. K.CrockerN.Zietsman-ThomasA.WilliamsY.HigdonS.KuchibhotlaE. S. (2007). Assessing media influences on middle school-aged children’s perceptions of women in science using the Draw-A-Scientist Test (DAST). Science Communication, 29, 35–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547007306508
52.
StoutJ. G.DasguptaN.HunsingerM.McManusM. 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.
53.
WeisbuchM.PaukerK.AmbadyN. (2009). The subtle transmission of race bias via televised nonverbal behavior. Science, 326, 1711–1714. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1178358
