Are gender-science stereotypes barriers for women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics? Exploring when, how, and to whom in an experimentally-controlled setting.

Alba Sebastián-Tirado, Sonia Félix-Esbrí, Cristina Forn, Carla Sanchis-Segura
Author Information
  1. Alba Sebastián-Tirado: Departament de Psicologia Bàsica, Clínica i Psicobiologia, Universitat Jaume I, Castelló de la Plana, Spain.
  2. Sonia Félix-Esbrí: Departament de Psicologia Bàsica, Clínica i Psicobiologia, Universitat Jaume I, Castelló de la Plana, Spain.
  3. Cristina Forn: Departament de Psicologia Bàsica, Clínica i Psicobiologia, Universitat Jaume I, Castelló de la Plana, Spain.
  4. Carla Sanchis-Segura: Departament de Psicologia Bàsica, Clínica i Psicobiologia, Universitat Jaume I, Castelló de la Plana, Spain.

Abstract

Based on Social Cognitive Career Theory principles, the present study sought to investigate whether stereotype threat experiences could act as a barrier and reduce the persistence of women in math-intensive activities. More specifically, we assessed whether the experimental activation of stereotypes about women's lower math capabilities affected the performance, persistence, and self-selected difficulty of engineering students in a math task which required sustained effort. We also evaluated the relationships between these effects and the participants' pre-testing gender-science stereotypes and math self-concept. A sample of 340 engineering students (175 and 165 self-identified as males and females, respectively) were recruited and randomly assigned to a control (Con) or stereotype threat (StA) condition to form four similarly sized groups. All participants rated their self-concept in four academic domains (math, chemistry, physics, and coding), completed the gender-science Implicit Association Test, and a "reading comprehension task" that served to promote the stereotype threat manipulation immediately before facing a modified version of the Math Effort Task (M-MET). We observed that, in the control condition, M-MET performance, self-selected difficulty, and persistence were similar in female and male participants, independent of their gender-science implicit stereotypes but correlated to their math self-concept scores. In contrast, the StA condition triggered opposite effects in female and male students, so they showed decreased/enhanced M-MET performance and self-selected difficulty, respectively. This experimental condition also resulted in enhanced persistence of the male students without affecting the number of trials completed by female students. These effects were correlated with the strength of the participants' gender-science implicit stereotypes but not with their math self-concept scores. In fact, as revealed by finer-grain analyses, stereotype threat only had a significant impact on individuals harboring stereotypical gender-science implicit associations. Therefore, it is concluded that: (1) stereotypes can promote differences between male and female engineering students in their performance, self-confidence, and persistence in math-related activities; (2) These effects seem to be more prominent in individuals implicitly perceiving science as a masculine domain. The relevance of these findings to explain women's enhanced abandonment rates of math-intensive studies is discussed.

Keywords

References

  1. Psychol Bull. 2014 Jul;140(4):1174-204 [PMID: 24773502]
  2. Psychol Rev. 1977 Mar;84(2):191-215 [PMID: 847061]
  3. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2008 Nov;137(4):691-705 [PMID: 18999361]
  4. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001;52:1-26 [PMID: 11148297]
  5. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2012 Oct;103(4):635-646 [PMID: 22746674]
  6. Eur J Neurosci. 2017 Jul;46(2):1738-1748 [PMID: 28544058]
  7. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2003 Mar;29(3):371-81 [PMID: 15273014]
  8. PLoS One. 2009 Aug 12;4(8):e6598 [PMID: 19672310]
  9. Child Dev. 2014 Jan-Feb;85(1):250-63 [PMID: 23713580]
  10. Front Psychol. 2015 Feb 11;6:49 [PMID: 25717308]
  11. PLoS One. 2016 Jan 11;11(1):e0146487 [PMID: 26752551]
  12. Psychol Methods. 2022 Apr 11;: [PMID: 35404628]
  13. Front Psychol. 2018 Jul 24;9:1261 [PMID: 30087637]
  14. Psychol Methods. 2018 Dec;23(4):617-634 [PMID: 29595293]
  15. Child Dev. 2011 May-Jun;82(3):766-79 [PMID: 21410915]
  16. Annu Rev Psychol. 2016;67:415-37 [PMID: 26361054]
  17. J Appl Psychol. 2008 Nov;93(6):1314-34 [PMID: 19025250]
  18. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Feb 2;107(5):1860-3 [PMID: 20133834]
  19. J Sch Psychol. 2015 Feb;53(1):25-44 [PMID: 25636259]
  20. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2010 Nov;99(5):740-54 [PMID: 20822288]
  21. Behav Res Methods. 2018 Feb;50(1):195-212 [PMID: 28342071]
  22. Psychol Rev. 2008 Apr;115(2):336-56 [PMID: 18426293]
  23. Arch Sex Behav. 2012 Jun;41(3):557-70 [PMID: 22130691]
  24. Front Psychol. 2015 Apr 27;6:415 [PMID: 25964765]
  25. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998 Jun;74(6):1464-80 [PMID: 9654756]
  26. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001 Jun;80(6):942-58 [PMID: 11414376]
  27. Educ Psychol Rev. 2013 Jun 1;25(2):211-243 [PMID: 23894223]
  28. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1995 Nov;69(5):797-811 [PMID: 7473032]
  29. Sex Roles. 2010 Oct;63(7-8):475-488 [PMID: 20930923]
  30. J Sleep Res. 2003 Jun;12(2):113-24 [PMID: 12753348]
  31. Scand J Psychol. 2007 Aug;48(4):329-38 [PMID: 17669223]
  32. Psychol Bull. 2010 Nov;136(6):1123-35 [PMID: 21038941]
  33. Front Psychol. 2022 Aug 12;13:918439 [PMID: 36033057]
  34. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Nov 30;118(48): [PMID: 34810255]
  35. J Soc Psychol. 2013 May-Jun;153(3):299-333 [PMID: 23724702]
  36. Science. 2010 Nov 26;330(6008):1234-7 [PMID: 21109670]
  37. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003 Aug;85(2):197-216 [PMID: 12916565]
  38. Educ Psychol Rev. 2017 Mar;29(1):119-140 [PMID: 28458499]
  39. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2000 Jan;25(1):68-81 [PMID: 10620382]
  40. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002 Jul;83(1):44-59 [PMID: 12088131]
  41. Psychol Bull. 2004 Mar;130(2):261-88 [PMID: 14979772]
  42. Front Psychol. 2020 Oct 07;11:552355 [PMID: 33162905]
  43. J Couns Psychol. 2010 Apr;57(2):205-18 [PMID: 20495610]
  44. Am Psychol. 1997 Jun;52(6):613-29 [PMID: 9174398]
  45. Psychol Sci. 2005 Jul;16(7):572-8 [PMID: 16008792]
  46. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2007 May;136(2):256-76 [PMID: 17500650]
  47. J Abnorm Psychol. 2012 Aug;121(3):553-8 [PMID: 22775583]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0stereotypesmathpersistencestudentsgender-sciencestereotypethreatperformanceengineeringeffectsself-conceptconditionfemalemaleimplicitself-selecteddifficultyM-METwhetherwomenmath-intensiveactivitiesexperimentalwomen'salsoparticipants'respectivelycontrolStAfourparticipantscompletedpromotecorrelatedscoresenhancedindividualsscienceBasedSocialCognitiveCareerTheoryprinciplespresentstudysoughtinvestigateexperiencesactbarrierreducespecificallyassessedactivationlowercapabilitiesaffectedtaskrequiredsustainedeffortevaluatedrelationshipspre-testingsample340175165self-identifiedmalesfemalesrecruitedrandomlyassignedConformsimilarlysizedgroupsratedacademicdomainschemistryphysicscodingImplicitAssociationTest"readingcomprehensiontask"servedmanipulationimmediatelyfacingmodifiedversionMathEffortTaskobservedsimilarindependentcontrasttriggeredoppositeshoweddecreased/enhancedresultedwithoutaffectingnumbertrialsstrengthfactrevealedfiner-grainanalysessignificantimpactharboringstereotypicalassociationsThereforeconcludedthat:1candifferencesself-confidencemath-related2seemprominentimplicitlyperceivingmasculinedomainrelevancefindingsexplainabandonmentratesstudiesdiscussedbarrierstechnologymathematics?Exploringexperimentally-controlledsettingSTEMgenderassociationtest

Similar Articles

Cited By