Research Article Derogation, Discrimination, and (Dis)Satisfaction With Jobs in Science: A Gendered Analysis Isis H. Settles 1 , Lilia M. Cortina 2 , NiCole T. Buchanan 1 , and Kathi N. Miner 3 Abstract In the current study of 353 science and engineering faculty members, we examined whether three types of gender-based mistreatment might ‘‘chill’’ individuals’ perceptions of the professional climate, which might in turn undermine satisfaction with their jobs. We also tested gender differences in these relationships. Results indicated that for women, the relationship between gender discrimination (e.g., unequal access to resources) and job satisfaction was mediated by scholarly alienation and a negative workplace climate; gender derogation (e.g., disparaging comments) was related to organizational sexism toward women (OSTW), which was associated with perceptions of scholarly alienation and a negative workplace climate; these perceptions in turn predicted lower job satisfaction. For men, gender derogation was indirectly related to job satisfaction via scholarly alienation, and OSTW was indirectly related to job satisfaction via both climate variables. Analyses indicated that most of these indirect effects were stronger for women than men. We discuss these results for both sexes and suggest reasons why men’s climate perceptions may be ‘‘chilled’’ by exposure to sexism toward women. We also discuss implications for individuals working with women in male-dominated environments, such as organizational administrators and clinical practitioners. Keywords organizational climate, work (attitudes toward), human sex differences, sex discrimination, sexism, job satisfaction, STEM Experiences of gender-based mistreatment are harmful to targets and have been associated with numerous negative psy- chological outcomes (Avina & O’Donohue, 2002; Munson, Hulin, & Drasgow, 2000; O’Connell & Korabik, 2000; Settles, Buchanan, & Colar, 2012; Settles, Harrell, Buchanan, & Yap, 2011) and work outcomes, such as lower job satisfaction (Cortina, Fitzgerald, & Drasgow, 2002; Murrell, Olson, & Frieze, 1995; Schneider, Swan, & Fitzgerald, 1997). Gender- based mistreatment is harmful not only to women directly tar- geted but also to women who witness the mistreatment of other women. For example, Glomb et al. (1997) found that the impact of sexual harassment directed toward women in one’s workgroup was similar to the effect of women’s direct sexual harassment. Direct and indirect experiences of gender-based mistreatment have most often been examined for women, in part because this type of mistreatment is more likely to be directed toward women than men (Hesson-McInnis & Fitzger- ald, 1997), especially in male-dominated environments such as the academy (Grauerholz, 1996) and the law (Upton, Panter, Daye, Allen, & Wightman, 2012). However, more recently, a few studies have found that observed hostility toward women is related to lower job satisfaction and psychological well- being for both men and women (Miner-Rubino & Cortina, 2004, 2007). Because of the negative impact of the different forms of gender-based mistreatment on women and men, it is important for researchers to gain a better sense of the under- lying reason for their harm. In the present study, we examine whether two perceptions of the workplace climate mediate the relationships between three types of gender-based mistreatment and job satisfaction. We do so in a sample of male and female science and engineering faculty members, and we investigate whether the proposed meditational relationships differ for men and women. 1 Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA 2 Department of Psychology and Department of Women’s Studies, Univer- sity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA 3 Department of Psychology and Women’s and Gender Studies, Texas A & M University, College Station, TX, USA Corresponding Author: Isis H. Settles, Michigan State University, 316 Physics Road, Room 252C, Department of Psychology, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA. Email: settles@msu.edu Psychology of Women Quarterly 37(2) 179-191 ª The Author(s) 2012 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0361684312468727 pwq.sagepub.com