arbiter
JournalsAccount

Exploring the scientist stereotypes among a U.S. sample through an intersectional lens: How Black and White men and women (mis)align with scientist traits

Sheba M. Aikawa et al.

Group Processes and Intergroup Relations2026https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302261417969article
AJG 2ABDC B
Weight
0.50

Abstract

Although stereotypical scientist traits are more associated with men than women, it is unclear how the addition of race could alter these effects. Specifically, Black women possess dual marginalized identities but also are perceived as more masculine than White women. Across four experiments ( N = 1,115) with White and Black participants, we consistently found that participants believed society views White men as the most likely to possess scientist traits, followed by White women and then Black men and women. In Studies 2a (White participants) and 2b (Black participants), we found that although the trait content of the scientist stereotype was largely unique, the selected traits showed the most overlap with White men and the least overlap with Black men and women. These findings highlight the importance of considering gendered and racialized stereotypes in STEM, which may perpetuate disparities in these fields.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302261417969

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{sheba2026,
  title        = {{Exploring the scientist stereotypes among a U.S. sample through an intersectional lens: How Black and White men and women (mis)align with scientist traits}},
  author       = {Sheba M. Aikawa et al.},
  journal      = {Group Processes and Intergroup Relations},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302261417969},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Exploring the scientist stereotypes among a U.S. sample through an intersectional lens: How Black and White men and women (mis)align with scientist traits

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.