Table 3.

Dependent measures by participant type and target stereotypicality.

	Target stereotypicality
	STEM-stereotypic Mean (SD)	Feminine-stereotypic Mean (SD)
Pilot experiment
Friendship formation
STEM men	2.65 (0.85)	2.80 (0.83)
STEM women	2.93 (0.83)	3.00 (0.79)
Non-STEM women	2.75 (0.70)	2.94 (0.63)
Friendship integration
STEM men	2.13 (0.79)	1.86 (0.66)
STEM women	2.23 (0.55)	1.81 (0.60)
Non-STEM women	2.24 (0.75)	2.28 (0.69)
Experiment 1
Friendship formation
STEM men	2.70 (0.85)	2.71 (0.83)
STEM women	2.90 (0.79)	2.60 (0.81)
Non-STEM women	2.88 (0.83)	2.70 (0.67)
Friendship integration
STEM men	2.07 (0.87)	2.17 (0.76)
STEM women	2.33 (0.80)	2.06 (0.89)
Non-STEM women	2.27 (0.77)	2.33 (0.57)
Experiment 2
Friendship formation
STEM men	2.84 (0.91)	2.84 (0.90)
STEM women	2.85 (0.84)	2.54 (0.96)
Non-STEM women	2.87 (0.81)	3.01 (0.73)
Friendship integration
STEM men	2.07 (0.80)	2.07 (0.72)
STEM women	2.23 (0.71)	2.02 (0.72)
Non-STEM women	2.43 (0.70)	2.47 (0.62)
Reputational influence
STEM men	1.71 (0.86)	1.75 (0.85)
STEM women	1.57 (0.82)	1.51 (0.78)
Non-STEM women	1.64 (0.84)	1.61 (0.88)
Reputational harm
STEM men	2.84 (0.62)	2.81 (0.55)
STEM women	2.83 (0.50)	2.98 (0.44)
Non-STEM women	2.88 (0.63)	2.74 (0.52)

Note. Reputational “influence” and “harm” reflect degree and direction of reputational concerns.