R male and female instructors across the fields (which resulted in

R male and female instructors across the fields (which resulted in two z-scored variables, one for “AZD-8055 custom synthesis brilliant” and one for “genius”), and then (2) averaging male and female instructors’ standardized scores for “brilliant” and “genius” within each field (4 scores) to derive a single number–the field’s GDC-0084MedChemExpress RG7666 brilliance language score. The words “brilliant” and “genius” were chosen because they map most directly onto the intellectual traits that are prized in fields such as mathematics, physics, philosophy, etc. [1]. We found the same results, however, when we included the weaker term “smart” in the set of words denoting a brilliance focus. Thus, our results do not hinge on a particular configuration of search terms. It is also worth noting that other terms were considered but could not ultimately be used because they appeared very infrequently in the reviews (e.g., “gifted” was only used an average of 5.81 times per million words, vs. 75.10 for “brilliant” and 27.27 for “genius”) or because they do not uniquely target intellectual ability (e.g., a person can be “talented” in many ways). We should point out that, because the brilliance language score is an average of male and female instructors’ separate averages, it weights the two gender-specific scores equally, and it is thus not influenced by whether there are more male or female instructors in a field. As jasp.12117 a result, any relationships we identify between this score and fpsyg.2016.01503 women’s representation are not trivial– they are not simply the artifacts of correlating two different measures of gender diversity. The same algorithm was used to construct the composite usage score for the control superlatives “excellent” and “amazing,” which were selected because they were roughly matched in intensity with the focal terms “brilliant” and “genius” (all being very positive) and were also used relatively frequently by students. However, similar results were found forPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0150194 March 3,6 /”Brilliant” “Genius” on RateMyProfessors Predict a Field’s Diversityanalogous, but less frequent, control superlatives such as “fantastic” and “wonderful.” Thus, the results reported below are not specific to a particular set of control terms.Academics’ Ability BeliefsThe data on academics’ ability beliefs, as well as three of the four competing hypotheses (concerning a field’s workload, relative emphasis on systemizing vs. empathizing, and selectivity) were taken from Leslie, Cimpian, et al.’s study of academics [1]. We describe these measures briefly here and list the items in Table A in the S1 File. For full details, we refer the reader to [1] and its supplemental materials (http://bit.ly/1SP8k39). To assess field-specific ability beliefs, Leslie, Cimpian, et al. asked 1820 academics from 30 disciplines (both in and beyond STEM) to rate the extent to which they, as well as other people in their field, agree with four statements concerning what is required for success in their field (e.g., “Being a top scholar of [discipline] requires a special aptitude that just can’t be taught”). Participants’ ratings were averaged to create a composite measure of each field’s ability beliefs ( = 0.90).Competing HypothesesLeslie, Cimpian, et al. [1] assessed a field’s work demands by asking participants to report the number of hours they worked in a given week, both on and off campus (see Table A in the S1 File). To assess the extent to which a field relies on systemizing versus empathizing, Leslie, Cimp.R male and female instructors across the fields (which resulted in two z-scored variables, one for “brilliant” and one for “genius”), and then (2) averaging male and female instructors’ standardized scores for “brilliant” and “genius” within each field (4 scores) to derive a single number–the field’s brilliance language score. The words “brilliant” and “genius” were chosen because they map most directly onto the intellectual traits that are prized in fields such as mathematics, physics, philosophy, etc. [1]. We found the same results, however, when we included the weaker term “smart” in the set of words denoting a brilliance focus. Thus, our results do not hinge on a particular configuration of search terms. It is also worth noting that other terms were considered but could not ultimately be used because they appeared very infrequently in the reviews (e.g., “gifted” was only used an average of 5.81 times per million words, vs. 75.10 for “brilliant” and 27.27 for “genius”) or because they do not uniquely target intellectual ability (e.g., a person can be “talented” in many ways). We should point out that, because the brilliance language score is an average of male and female instructors’ separate averages, it weights the two gender-specific scores equally, and it is thus not influenced by whether there are more male or female instructors in a field. As jasp.12117 a result, any relationships we identify between this score and fpsyg.2016.01503 women’s representation are not trivial– they are not simply the artifacts of correlating two different measures of gender diversity. The same algorithm was used to construct the composite usage score for the control superlatives “excellent” and “amazing,” which were selected because they were roughly matched in intensity with the focal terms “brilliant” and “genius” (all being very positive) and were also used relatively frequently by students. However, similar results were found forPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0150194 March 3,6 /”Brilliant” “Genius” on RateMyProfessors Predict a Field’s Diversityanalogous, but less frequent, control superlatives such as “fantastic” and “wonderful.” Thus, the results reported below are not specific to a particular set of control terms.Academics’ Ability BeliefsThe data on academics’ ability beliefs, as well as three of the four competing hypotheses (concerning a field’s workload, relative emphasis on systemizing vs. empathizing, and selectivity) were taken from Leslie, Cimpian, et al.’s study of academics [1]. We describe these measures briefly here and list the items in Table A in the S1 File. For full details, we refer the reader to [1] and its supplemental materials (http://bit.ly/1SP8k39). To assess field-specific ability beliefs, Leslie, Cimpian, et al. asked 1820 academics from 30 disciplines (both in and beyond STEM) to rate the extent to which they, as well as other people in their field, agree with four statements concerning what is required for success in their field (e.g., “Being a top scholar of [discipline] requires a special aptitude that just can’t be taught”). Participants’ ratings were averaged to create a composite measure of each field’s ability beliefs ( = 0.90).Competing HypothesesLeslie, Cimpian, et al. [1] assessed a field’s work demands by asking participants to report the number of hours they worked in a given week, both on and off campus (see Table A in the S1 File). To assess the extent to which a field relies on systemizing versus empathizing, Leslie, Cimp.