2015 Association for Women in Psychology Conference

Very little is known regarding the experiences of women of color in psychology; however, their joint social categorizations as both women and ethnic minorities have led some to believe that they likely experience a “double disadvantage” or “double jeopardy” (Carter, Pearson, & Shavlik, 1969). Intersectionality theorists, on the other hand, have cautioned against an over-simplified, additive perspective. They argue that the experiences of ethnic minority women cannot be adequately or accurately encapsulated by the mere sum of their singular identities as “women” and “persons of color.” Instead, they suggest that ethnic minority women are likely to experience “intersectional invisibility,” or an inability to be fully recognized by either subordinate group, effectively rendering their voices and perspectives socially silent or neglected (Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008). In supporting the leadership pipeline of women of color in psychology, we need to consider solutions to help with their overall experience, retention, and advancement toward upward mobility. Though limited in scope, there are some literature, including anthologies, that speak to the experiences of women of color in higher education and the multidimensionality of their identities. These narratives offer number of viable possibilities in supporting women of color in higher education. These include but are not limited to: mentoring, building supportive professional networks, and opportunities for leadership development. Ultimately, the success of our profession rests with the diversity of its members and leaders. As such, the present proposal challenges existing ideologies and practices that hinder this potential and offers recommendations that promote the leadership pipeline for women of color in academia.

The experience of sexual identity for females no longer represents a strict adherence to a static course of development (Diamond, 2008). Thompson & Morgan (2008) reported that 42% of their female sample expressed a degree of sexual identity uncertainty and label difficulty. This point has become contentious as many are pushing away from the oppressive nature of the gender and sexual binaries (Iantaffi & Bockting, 2011). Method This study utilized a qualitative research method to explore the differences in the ways three generations of sexual minority females viewed the process of sexual identity labels, development, and gender identity. Eighteen participants (13 cisgender, 4 transgender, and 1 agender/gender non-conforming), ranging in ages from 20 to 67 years old, completed a semi-structured interview. Preliminary Results Currently, data has undergone open and comparative-coding procedures utilized in the grounded theory method (Charmaz, 2006). Two teams of graduate students have assisted in the coding process. While data is currently undergoing analysis, this project will be complete by the March conference. At this time, a number of themes have emerged. First, struggling to define and express an authentic identity is the strongest theme. Participants noted how labels that represent the gender binary and restrictive notions of sexuality did not fit their sense of self. Second, negative perception and rejection within the LGBTQ community. Third, participants discussed the importance of feminism on both their sexual and gender identities. Many participants in the oldest generation reported involvement in feminist organizations, culminating in a fusion between feminism and sexual identity. In younger generations, feminist ideals pervade struggles for representation and equality. Discussion It is expected that themes representing an intersection of sexual and gender identities will emerge. Such findings will further an understanding of female sexual identity that is fluid and requires greater social protection to achieve equal standing.

Despite the growing number of women in the labor force and increased opportunity for salary negotiation, women, in comparison to men, do not ask for more (Babcock & Laschever, 2003). Meta-analyses (Stuhlmacher & Walters, 1999; Walters, Stuhlmacher, & Meyer, 1998) confirm the existence of gender differences in negotiation behavior and outcomes. The impact of gender on negotiation performance was carefully reviewed with a focus on the situation; the review suggested that women’s performance is impacted by stereotype threat and empowerment. The mere mention of a negative stereotype about one’s social group (stereotype threat) can lead to poor outcomes on stereotype relevant tasks (Steele, 1997). Stereotype activation positively affects men’s negotiation performance but negatively affects women’s (Kray et al., 2001). The effects of experiencing power indicate increased approach behavior (Keltner et al., 2003) and increased connections between one’s goals and actions (Galinsky et al., 2003). Men’s negotiation performance is less affected by the experience of power compared to women’s (Hong, 2013). The current study examined the impact of stereotype threat, hypothesized to undermine women’s performance, and an empowering instructional set. expected to enhance negotiation performance. Using a home-purchasing negotiation task, 45 women negotiated after receiving one of three instructional sets: a control, stereotype threat and empowerment. Preliminary analyses suggested that women’s negotiation is impacted by the situation; women respondents performance (final offer) was more easily undermined than enhanced. Post performance measures confirmed women’s discomfort with negotiating in the stereotype threat condition. Implications for training women to negotiate are discussed.