What makes the pipeline leak? Women's gender-based rejection sensitivity and men's hostile sexism as predictors of expectations of success for their own and the respective other gender group.

In academia, the proportion of women decreases with each career level. In this research, we examined how this so-called leaky pipeline relates to gender-based relative expectations of success. The participants were students from social sciences where women are the majority among students, such that it is more readily - but erroneously - inferred that gender discrimination is not an issue. We assumed that gender-based relative expectations of success should be predicted by two variables. Women students should experience higher gender-based rejection sensitivity than men students, with gender-based rejection sensitivity mitigating relative success expectations in women, but not in men. Men students should exhibit higher hostile-sexist attitudes toward women than women students, with hostile sexism reducing men students' but not women students' relative success expectations. We tested our hypotheses in an (under-)graduate sample of women and men students enrolled in educational or psychological majors (N = 372). Results show that a quarter of the women students expected men to be more successful than women and that proportionately more women than men students indicated that women have worse chances of success than men in the job they aspire to. Women were more concerned about being treated differently because of their gender than men, and men held more sexist attitudes toward women than women, with gender-based rejection sensitivity contributing to women students' and sexism to men students' expectation that their own gender group will less likely succeed in their aimed for future job. Implications how the leaky pipeline can be patched are discussed.

Can I dismiss the stereotype - as my teacher did? Influence of stereotype activation and an immigrant teacher on student learning.

Lower vocabulary in German is repeatedly reported for students with Turkish migration background attending school in Germany. We investigated whether in students of Turkish descent (a) learning vocabulary is impaired when the teacher activates the negative stereotype that students with Turkish family language learn less well and (b) whether a Turkish-origin teacher, as an ingroup expert model, can mitigate negative effects of the activation of the stereotype. In an experimental study, Turkish- and German-origin students (N = 182) living in Germany worked individually on a tablet on a vocabulary learning task instructed by a teacher in a video tutorial who introduced herself with either a Turkish or German name. Before the task, the teacher either mentioned that students in general (no stereotype activation) or students who speak Turkish in their families (stereotype activation) often have difficulties acquiring new vocabulary. A multiple-group regression analysis showed that Turkish-origin students learned significantly more under stereotype activation with the Turkish-origin teacher than in all other conditions. Results suggest that students are particularly motivated to learn when the teacher represents their ingroup targeted by negative stereotypes and openly addresses potential difficulties students of the stigmatized ingroup may encounter. We discuss the findings in light of the literature on stereotype threat and on the role of ingroup expert models.