Gender productivity gap among star performers in STEM and other scientific fields.

We examined the gender productivity gap in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and other scientific fields (i.e., applied psychology, mathematical psychology), specifically among star performers. Study 1 included 3,853 researchers who published 3,161 articles in mathematics. Study 2 included 45,007 researchers who published 7,746 articles in genetics. Study 3 included 4,081 researchers who published 2,807 articles in applied psychology and 6,337 researchers who published 3,796 articles in mathematical psychology. Results showed that (a) the power law with exponential cutoff is the best-fitting distribution of research productivity across fields and gender groups and (b) there is a considerable gender productivity gap among stars in favor of men across fields. Specifically, the underrepresentation of women is more extreme as we consider more elite ranges of performance (i.e., top 10%, 5%, and 1% of performers). Conceptually, results suggest that individuals vary in research productivity predominantly because of the generative mechanism of incremental differentiation, which is the mechanism that produces power laws with exponential cutoffs. Also, results suggest that incremental differentiation occurs to a greater degree among men and certain forms of discrimination may disproportionately constrain women's output increments. Practically, results suggest that women may have to accumulate more scientific knowledge, resources, and social capital to achieve the same level of increase in total outputs as their male counterparts. Finally, we offer recommendations on interventions aimed at reducing constraints for incremental differentiation among women that could be useful for narrowing the gender productivity gap specifically among star performers. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

Not all nonnormal distributions are created equal: Improved theoretical and measurement precision.

We offer a four-category taxonomy of individual output distributions (i.e., distributions of cumulative results): (1) pure power law; (2) lognormal; (3) exponential tail (including exponential and power law with an exponential cutoff); and (4) symmetric or potentially symmetric (including normal, Poisson, and Weibull). The four categories are uniquely associated with mutually exclusive generative mechanisms: self-organized criticality, proportionate differentiation, incremental differentiation, and homogenization. We then introduce distribution pitting, a falsification-based method for comparing distributions to assess how well each one fits a given data set. In doing so, we also introduce decision rules to determine the likely dominant shape and generative mechanism among many that may operate concurrently. Next, we implement distribution pitting using 229 samples of individual output for several occupations (e.g., movie directors, writers, musicians, athletes, bank tellers, call center employees, grocery checkers, electrical fixture assemblers, and wirers). Results suggest that for 75% of our samples, exponential tail distributions and their generative mechanism (i.e., incremental differentiation) likely constitute the dominant distribution shape and explanation of nonnormally distributed individual output. This finding challenges past conclusions indicating the pervasiveness of other types of distributions and their generative mechanisms. Our results further contribute to theory by offering premises about the link between past and future individual output. For future research, our taxonomy and methodology can be used to pit distributions of other variables (e.g., organizational citizenship behaviors). Finally, we offer practical insights on how to increase overall individual output and produce more top performers. (PsycINFO Database Record