National differences in gender-science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Volumn 106, Issue 26, 2009, Pages 10593-10597

  Nosek, Brian A ^a   Smyth, Frederick L ^a   Sriram, N ^a   Lindner, Nicole M ^a   Devos, Thierry ^b   Ayala, Alfonso ^c   Bar Anan, Yoav ^a,s   Bergh, Robin ^d   Cai, Huajian ^e   Gonsalkorale, Karen ^f   Kesebir, Selin ^a   Maliszewski, Norbert ^g   Neto, Félix ^h   Olli, Eero ⁱ   Park, Jaihyun ^j   Schnabel, Konrad ^k   Shiomura, Kimihiro ^l   Tulbure, Bogdan Tudor ^m   Wiers, Reinout W ⁿ   Somogyi, Mónika ^o   Akrami, Nazar ^d   Ekehammar, Bo ^d   Vianello, Michelangelo ^p   Banaji, Mahzarin R ^q   Greenwald, Anthony G ^r   more..

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

^b SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Electoral Institute of Veracruz   (Mexico)

^d UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^e SUN YAT SEN UNIVERSITY   (China)

^f UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^g UNIVERSITY OF WARSAW   (Poland)

^h UNIVERSITY OF PORTO   (Portugal)

ⁱ Equality and Anti Discrimination Ombud   (Norway)

^j CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

^k HUMBOLDT UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^l IWATE PREFECTURAL UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^m TRANSILVANIA UNIVERSITY OF BRASOV   (Romania)

ⁿ UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^o EÖTVÖS LORÁND UNIVERSITY   (Hungary)

^p UNIVERSITY OF PADOVA   (Italy)

^q HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^r UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^s BEN GURION UNIVERSITY OF THE NEGEV   (Israel)

more..

Author keywords

Culture; Implicit Association Test; Implicit social cognition; Social psychology

Indexed keywords

ACHIEVEMENT; ARTICLE; CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY; FEMALE; GENDER BIAS; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; IMPLICIT ASSOCIATION TEST; MALE; MATHEMATICS; NORMAL HUMAN; PREDICTION; PREDICTIVE VALIDITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOLOGIC TEST; REINFORCEMENT; SCIENCE; SEX DIFFERENCE; STEREOTYPY;

ACHIEVEMENT; EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MATHEMATICS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SCIENCE; SELF CONCEPT; SEX FACTORS; STEREOTYPING;

EID: 67649774585     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: 10916490     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0809921106     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Gonzales P, et al (2004) Highlights from the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2003 (US Dept of Ed, Washington, DC) (NCES no. 2005-005).
2. Martin MO, Mullis IVS, Chrostowski SJ (2004) TIMSS 2003 Technical Report (TIMSS and PIRLS Int Study Ctr, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA).
3. Jacobs JE, Eccles JS (1985) Gender differences in math ability: The impact of media reports on parents. Ed Researcher 14:20-25.
4. Hyde JS, Lindberg SM, Linn MC, Ellis AB, Williams CC (2008) Gender similarities characterize math performance. Science 321:494-495.
5. Guiso L, Monte F, Sapienza P, Zingales L (2008) Culture, gender and math. Science 320:1164-1165.
6. Hyde JS, Linn MC (2006) Gender similarities in mathematics and science. Science 314:599-600. (Pubitemid 44646369)
7. Lummis M, Stevenson HW (1990) Gender differences in beliefs and achievement: A cross-cultural study. Dev Psychol 26:254-263.
8. Baker DP, Jones DP (1993) Creating gender equality: Cross-national gender stratification and mathematical performance. Sociol Ed 66:91-103.
9. Spelke ES (2005) Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics and science? Am Psychol 60:950-958.
10. Halpern DF, et al (2007) The science of sex differences in science and mathematics. Psychol Sci Pub Int 8:1-51.
11. Frome PM, Eccles JS (1998) Parents' influence on children's achievement-related perceptions. J Pers Soc Psychol 74:435-452. (Pubitemid 128455691)
12. Furnham A, Reeves E, Budhani S (2002) Parents think their sons are brighter than their daughters: Sex differences in parental self-estimations and estimations of their children's multiple intelligences. J Gen Psychol 163:24-39.
13. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A (2007) G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Rsch Methods 39:175-191.
14. Kiefer AK, Sekaquaptewa D (2007) Implicit stereotypes, gender identification, and math-related outcomes: A prospective study of female college students. Psychol Sci 18:13-18.
15. Li Q (1999) Teachers' beliefs and gender differences in mathematics: A review. Ed Rsch 41:63-76.
16. Meece J, Eccles-Parsons J, Kaczala C, Goff S, Futterman R (1982) Sex differences in math achievement: Toward a model of academic choice. Psychol Bull 91:324-348.
17. Schmader T, Johns M, Barquissau M (2004) The costs of accepting gender differences: The role of stereotype endorsement in women's experience in the math domain. Sex Roles 50:835-850. (Pubitemid 39038763)
18. Hyde JS, Fennema E, Ryan M, Frost LA, Hopp C (1990) Gender comparisons of mathematics attitudes and affect: A meta-analysis. Psychol Women Quart 14:299-324.
19. Bell AE, Spencer SJ, Iserman E, Logel CER (2003) Stereotype threat and women's performance in engineering. J Engin Ed 92:307-312.
20. Inzlicht M, Ben-Zeev T (2000) A threatening intellectual environment: Why females are susceptible to experiencing problem-solving deficits in the presence of males. Psychol Sci 11:365-371.
21. Shih M, Pittinsky TL, Ambady N (1999) Stereotype susceptibility: Identity salience and shifts in quantitative performance. Psychol Sci 10:80-83.
22. Spencer SJ, Steele CM, Quinn DM (1999) Stereotype threat and women's math performance. J Exp Soc Psychol 35:4-28.
23. Steele CM (1997) A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. Am Psychol 52:613-629. (Pubitemid 127458590)
24. Steele CM, Spencer SJ, Aronson J (2002) in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed Zanna M (Academic, San Diego), pp 379-440.
25. Schmader T, Johns M (2003) Converging evidence that stereotype threat reduces working memory capacity. J Pers Soc Psychol 85:440-452. (Pubitemid 37170557)
26. Ceci SJ, Williams MW (2007) Why aren't more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence, (Amer Psych Assoc, Washington, DC).
27. National Academy of Sciences (2007) Beyond bias and barriers: Fulfilling the potential of women in academic science and engineering (Natl Acad Press, Washington, DC).
28. Shanks DR (1995) The psychology of associative learning (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge).
29. De Houwer J, Beckers T (2002) A review of recent developments in research and theories on human contingency learning. Quart J Exp Psychol 55B:289-310.
30. Eagly AH, Steffen VJ (1984) Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. J Pers Soc Psychol 15:543-558.
31. Hoffman C, Hurst N (1990) Gender stereotypes: Perception or rationalization? J Pers Soc Psychol 58:197-208.
32. Jussim L (1991) Social perception and social reality: A reflection-construction model. Psychol Rev 98:54-73.
33. Jussim L, Harber KD, Crawford JT, Cain TR, Cohen F (2005) Social reality makes the social mind: Self-fulfilling prophecy, stereotypes, bias, and accuracy. Int Stud: Soc Behav Comm Biol Art Sys 6:85-102.
34. Murphy MC, Steele CM, Gross JJ (2007) Signaling threat: How situational cues affect women in math, science and engineering settings. Psychol Sci 18:879-885.
35. Nisbett RE, Wilson TD (1977) Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychol Rev 84:231-259.
36. Greenwald AG, Banaji MR (1995) Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychol Rev 102:4-27.
37. Nosek BA, Greenwald AG, Banaji MR (2006) in Social Psychology and the Unconscious: The Automaticity of Higher Mental Processes, ed Bargh JA (Psychology Press, New York), pp 265-292.
38. Nosek BA, et al (2007) Pervasiveness and correlates of implicit attitudes and stereotypes. Euro Rev Soc Psychol 18:36-88.
39. Nosek BA, Greenwald AG, Banaji MR (2005) Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: II. Method variables and construct validity. Pers Soc Psychol Bul 31:166-180. (Pubitemid 40176558)
40. Kiefer AK, Sekaquaptewa D (2007) Implicit stereotypes and women's math performance: How implicit gender-math stereotypes influence women's susceptibility to stereotype threat. J Exp Soc Psychol 43:825-832.
41. Nosek BA, Banaji MR, Greenwald AG (2002) Math = male, me = female, therefore math ≠ me. J Pers Soc Psychol 83:44-59.
42. Fiske AP, Kitayama S, Markus HR, Nisbett RE (1998) in The Handbook of Social Psychology, eds Gilbert DT, Fiske ST, Lindzey G (McGraw-Hill, Boston), pp 915-981.
43. Martin MO, Mullis IVS, Gonzalez EJ, Chrostowski SJ (2004) TIMSS 2003 International Science Report (TIMSS and PIRLS Int Study Ctr, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA).
44. Mullis IVS, Martin MO, Gonzalez EJ, Chrostowski SJ (2004) TIMSS 2003 International Mathematics Report (TIMSS and PIRLS Int Study Ctr, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA).
45. Greenwald AG, McGhee DE, Schwarz JLK (1998) Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. J Pers Soc Psychol 74:1464-1480. (Pubitemid 128658112)