Cited by 225Diversity and Career in MedicineGender Diversity and InequalityCareer Development and Diversity

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 64 of the 66 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Does Stereotype Threat Affect Women in Academic Medicine?

Open access
Burgess, Diana Jill, Joseph, Anne, van Ryn, Michelle, Carnes, Molly·2012·Academic Medicine

Abstract

Multiple complex factors contribute to the slow pace of women's advancement into leadership positions in academic medicine. In this article, the authors propose that stereotype threat--under which individuals who are members of a group characterized by negative stereotypes in a particular domain perform below their actual abilities in that domain when group membership is emphasized--may play an important role in the underrepresentation of women in leadership positions in academic medicine. Research to objectively assess the impact of stereotype threat for women in academic medicine is feasible and necessary to confirm this hypothesis. Still, a number of conditions present in the academic medicine community today have been shown to trigger stereotype threat in other settings, and stereotype threat fits with existing research on gender in academic medicine. In the meantime, academic health centers should implement relatively simple measures supported by experimental evidence from other settings to reduce the risk of stereotype threat, including (1) introducing the concept of stereotype threat to the academic medicine community, (2) engaging all stakeholders, male and female, to promote identity safety by enacting and making faculty aware of policies to monitor potential instances of discrimination, and training faculty to provide performance feedback that is free of gender bias, (3) counteracting the effects of sex segregation at academic health centers by increasing exposure to successful female leaders, (4) reducing gender stereotype priming by avoiding stereotypically male criteria for promotion, grants, and awards, and (5) building leadership efficacy among female physicians and scientists.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/acm.0b013e318248f718

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 66 references

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Carnes, 2008, 17, 1453
  2. Eagly, 2002, Psychol Rev, 109, 573, 10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Rosser, 2003, 36, 71
  4. Schein, 1996, 17, 33
  5. Marchant, 2007, 16, 998
  6. Carnes, 2005, 14, 684
  7. McIntyre, 2005, Curr Res Soc Psychol, 10, 116

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Burgess, D. J., Joseph, A., van Ryn, M., & Carnes, M.
Affiliations
Minneapolis VA Health Care System (US)
Corresponding author
Burgess, Diana Jill
Venue
Academic Medicine
Published
2012-04
Volume
87
Issue
4
Pages
506-512
ISSN
1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2002021389
Cited by
225
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 69 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
FWCI
21.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Academic Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL085631)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (DP4GM096822, R01GM088477)
  • National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (DP4 GM096822)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Diversity and Career in Medicine
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Diversity and Inequality
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Career Development and Diversity
Keywords
stereotype threat, women in academic medicine, gender equity, underrepresentation of women, sex segregation, leadership effectiveness, academic medical centers, anti-discrimination policy
MeSH terms
Academic Medical Centers, Achievement, Faculty, Medical, Female, Humans, Leadership, Male, Physicians, Women, Prejudice, Stereotyping, Women's Rights

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review