Understanding the Paradox in Math-Related Fields: Why Do Some Gender Gaps Remain While Others Do Not?

Sex Roles

Volumn 66, Issue 3-4, 2012, Pages 184-190

  Cheryan, Sapna ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Education; Gender disparities; Gender roles; Stereotypes; Underrepresentation

Indexed keywords

EID: 84856533778     PISSN: 03600025     EISSN: 15732762     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11199-011-0060-z     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. Adler, P. A., Kless, S. J., & Adler, P. (1992). Socialization to gender roles: Popularity among elementary school boys and girls. Sociology of Education, 65, 169-187. doi: 10. 2307/2112807.
2. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Oxford: Addison-Wesley.
3. Barbercheck, M. (2001). Mixed messages: Men and women in advertisements in Science. In M. Wyer, M. Barbercheck, D. Geisman, H. O. Ozturk, & M. Wayne (Eds.), Women, science, and technology: A reader in feminist science studies (pp. 117-131). London: Routledge.
4. Barman, C. (1999). Students' views about scientists and school science: Engaging K-8 teachers in a national study. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10, 43-54. doi: 10. 1023/A: 1009424713416.
5. Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1982). Consequences in high school and college of sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability: A longitudinal perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 598-622. doi: 10. 2307/1162546.
6. Bodzin, A., & Gehringer, M. (2001). Breaking science stereotypes. Science and Children, 38, 36-41.
7. Borg, A. (1999). What draws women to and keeps women in computing? The Annuals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 869, 102-105. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1749-6632. 1999. tb08362. x.
8. Bridgeman, B., & Wendler, C. (1991). Gender differences in predictors of college mathematics performance and in college mathematics course grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 275-284. doi: 10. 1037//0022-0663. 83. 2. 275.
9. Buldu, M. (2006). Young children's perceptions of scientists: A preliminary study. Educational Research, 48, 121-132. doi: 10. 1080/00131880500498602.
10. Ceci, S. J., Williams, W. M., & Barnett, S. M. (2009). Women's underrepresentation in science: Sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 218-261. doi: 10. 1037/a0014412.
11. Cejka, M. A., & Eagly, A. H. (1999). Gender-stereotypic images of occupations correspond to the sex segregation of employment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 413-423. doi: 10. 1177/0146167299025004002.
12. Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The draw a scientist test. Science Education, 67, 255-265. doi: 10. 1002/sce. 3730670213.
13. Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Davies, P. G., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 1045-1060. doi: 10. 1037/a0016239.
14. Cheryan, S., Drury, B. J., & Vichayapai, M. (2011a). Enduring influence of STEM-stereotypic role models on women's academic aspirations. Unpublished manuscript.
15. Cheryan, S., Meltzoff, A. N., & Kim, S. (2011b). Classrooms matter: The design of virtual classrooms influences gender disparities in computer science classes. Computers & Education, 57, 1825-1835. doi: 10. 1016/j. compedu. 2011. 02. 004.
16. Cheryan, S., Siy, J. O., Vichayapai, M., Drury, B. J., & Kim, S. (2011c). Do female and male role models who embody STEM stereotypes hinder women's anticipated success in STEM? Social Psychology and Personality Science. Advance online publication. doi: 10. 1177/1948550611405218.
17. Cohoon, J. M. (2011). Design physical space that has broad appeal. Promising Practices. Retrieved from http://www. ncwit. org/images/practicefiles/DesignPhysicalSpaceBroadAppeal_AffectingWomensEntryPersistenceComputingPhysicalSpace_WEB. pdf.
18. Congressional Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering and Technology Development (2000). The land of plenty: Diversity as America's competitive edge in science, engineering and technology. Retrieved from http://www. nsf. gov/od/cawmset.
19. Correll, S. J. (2001). Gender and the career choice process: The role of biased self-assessments. American Journal of Sociology, 106, 1691-1730. doi: 10. 1086/321299.
20. Darves, B. (2005). Women in medicine force change in workforce dynamics. New England Journal of Medicine Retrieved from http://www. nejmjobs. org/career-resources/women-in-medicine. aspx.
21. Davies, P. G., Spencer, S. J., Quinn, D. M., & Gerhardstein, R. (2002). Consuming images: How television commercials that elicit stereotype threat can restrain women academically and professionally. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1615-1628. doi: 10. 1177/014616702237644.
22. Diekman, A. B., & Eagly, A. H. (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of the past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1171-1188. doi: 10. 1177/0146167200262001.
23. Diekman, A. B., & Eagly, A. H. (2008). Of men, women, and motivation: A role congruity account. In J. Y. Shah & W. L. Gardner (Eds.), Handbook of motivation science (pp. 434-447). New York: Guilford.
24. Diekman, A. B., Brown, E., Johnston, A., & Clark, E. (2010). Seeking congruity between goals and roles: A new look at why women opt out of STEM careers. Psychological Science, 21, 1051-1057. doi: 10. 1177/0956797610377342.
25. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
26. Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Boston: Harvard Business.
27. Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 735-754. doi: 10. 1037//0022-3514. 46. 4. 735.
28. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408-423. doi: 10. 1037//0003-066X. 54. 6. 408.
29. Eccles, J. S. (1986). Gender-roles and women's achievement. Educational Researcher, 15, 15-19. doi: 10. 2307/1175495.
30. Epstein, D. (1998). Real boys don't work: 'Underachievement', masculinity and the harassment of 'sissies'. In D. Epstein, J. Elwood, V. Hey, & J. Maw (Eds.), Failing boys (pp. 96-108). Buckingham: Open University Press.
31. Epstein, D., Elwood, J., Hey, V., & Maw, J. (1998). Failing boys? Issues in gender and achievement. Buckingham: Open University Press.
32. Finson, K. D. (2003). Applicability of the DAST-C to the images of scientists drawn by students of different racial groups. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 15, 15-26. doi: 10. 1007/BF03174741.
33. Finson, K. D., Beaver, J. B., & Cramond, B. L. (1995). Development and field test of a checklist for the Draw A Scientist Test. School Science and Mathematics, 95, 195-205. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1949-8594. 1995. tb15762. x.
34. Flick, L. (1990). Scientists in residence program improving children's image of science and scientists. School Science and Mathematics, 90, 204-214. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1949-8594. 1990. tb15536. x.
35. Fort, D. C., & Varney, H. L. (1989). How students see scientists: Mostly male, mostly white, and mostly benevolent. Science and Children, 26, 8-13.
36. Guan, A., & Jain, R. (2011, April 20). Record number of women declare CS. The Harvard Crimson. Retrieved from http://www. thecrimson. com/article/2011/4/20/female-computer-science-concentrators.
37. Gunderson, E. A., Ramirez, G., Levine, S. C., & Beilock, S. L. (2011). The role of parents and teachers in the development of gender-related math attitudes. Sex Roles, this issue. doi: 10. 1007/s11199-011-9996-2.
38. Hakim, C. (2000). Work-lifestyle choices in the 21st century: Preference theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
39. Heilman, M. E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. Research in Organizational Behavior, 5, 269-298.
40. Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., & Lamon, S. J. (1990). Gender differences in mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 139-155. doi: 10. 1037//0033-2909. 107. 2. 139.
41. Hyde, J. S., Lindberg, S. M., Linn, M. C., Ellis, A. B., & Williams, C. C. (2008). DIVERSITY: Gender similarities characterize math performance. Science, 321, 494-495. doi: 10. 1126/science. 1160364.
42. Inzlicht, M., & Ben-Zeev, T. (2000). A threatening intellectual environment: Why females are susceptible to experiencing problem-solving deficits in the presence of males. Psychological Science, 11, 365-371. doi: 10. 1111/1467-9280. 00272.
43. Jones, M. G., Howe, A., & Rua, M. J. (2000). Gender differences in students' experiences, interests, and attitudes toward science and scientists. Science Education, 84, 180-192. doi: 10. 1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200003)84: 2< 180:: AID-SCE3> 3. 0. CO; 2-X.
44. Katz, D., & Braly, K. (1933). Racial stereotypes of one hundred college students. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 28, 280-290. doi: 10. 1037/h0074049.
45. Kendall, L. (1999). Nerd nation: Images of nerds in US popular culture. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 2, 260-283. doi: 10. 1177/136787799900200206.
46. Kimball, M. M. (1989). A new perspective on women's math achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 198-214. doi: 10. 1037//0033-2909. 105. 2. 198.
47. Lippa, R. (1998). Gender-related individual differences and the structure of vocational interests: The importance of the people-things dimension. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 996-1009. doi: 10. 1037//0022-3514. 74. 4. 996.
48. Lippman, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York: Harcourt Brace.
49. Marsh, H. W., & Yeung, A. S. (1998). Longitudinal structural equation models of academic self-concept and achievement: Gender differences in the development of math and English constructs. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 705-738. doi: 10. 2307/1163464.
50. Misa, T. J. (2010). Gender codes: Why women are leaving computing. Hoboken: Wiley.
51. Morgan, C., Isaac, J. D., & Sansone, C. (2001). The role of interest in understanding the career choices of female and male college students. Sex Roles, 44, 295-320. doi: 10. 1023/A: 1010929600004.
52. Murphy, M. C., Steele, C. M., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Signaling threat: How situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychological Science, 18, 879-885. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1467-9280. 2007. 01995. x.
53. National Academy of Engineering of the National Academies, Committee on Public Understanding of Engineering Messages (2008). Changing the conversation: Messages for improving public understanding of engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
54. National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). Postsecondary Institutions in the United States: Fall 2000 and Degrees and Other Awards Conferred: 1999-2000, NCES 2002-156. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education.
55. National Science Foundation. (2009). TABLE C-4. Bachelor's degrees, by sex and field: 1997-2006. Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2009, Division of Science Resource Statistics. Retrieved from http://www. nsf. gov/statistics/wmpd/tables. cfm.
56. Newton, L. D., & Newton, D. P. (1988). Primary children's conceptions of science and the scientist: Is the impact of a National Curriculum breaking down the stereotype? International Journal of Science Education, 20, 1137-1149. doi: 10. 1080/0950069980200909.
57. Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & Turner, J. C. (1994). Stereotyping and social reality. Malden: Blackwell.
58. Phillips, S. P., & Austin, E. B. (2009). The feminization of medicine and population health. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 301, 863-864. doi: 10. 1001/jama. 2009. 155.
59. Pion, G. M., & Lipsey, M. W. (1981). Public attitudes toward science and technology: What have the surveys told us? Public Opinion Quarterly, 45, 303-316. doi: 10. 1086/268666.
60. Pollack, W. S. (1999). Real boys: Rescuing our sons from the myths of boyhood. New York: Owl Books.
61. Poole, G. (1994). How to manage your nerds. Forbes, 154, 132.
62. Ridgeway, C. L. (2011). Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the modern world. New York: Oxford University Press.
63. Rosin, H. (2011, June 9). The End of Men. The Atlantic, Retrieved from http://www. theatlantic. com/magazine/archive/2010/05/the-end-of-men/8135/.
64. Sandberg, C. (2009). Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg: Unedited. Retrieved from http://postcards. blogs. fortune. cnn. com/2009/10/05/facebook-coo-sheryl-sandberg-unedited/.
65. Schibeci, R. A. (1986). Images of science and scientists and science education. Science Education, 70, 139-149. doi: 10. 1002/sce. 3730700208.
66. Schibeci, R. A., & Sorensen, I. (1983). Elementary school children's perceptions of scientists. School Science and Mathematics, 83, 14-20. doi: 10. 1002/sce. 3730670508.
67. Sekaquaptewa, D., & Thompson, M. (2003). Solo status, stereotype threat, and performance expectancies: Their effects on women's performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 68-74. doi: 10. 1016/S0022-1031(02)00508-5.
68. Skelton, C. (2001). Schooling the boys: Masculinities and primary education. Florence: Taylor & Francis.
69. Smith, W. S., & Erb, T. O. (1986). Effect of women science career role models on early adolescents. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 667-676. doi: 10. 1002/tea. 3660230802.
70. Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women's math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4-28. doi: 10. 1006/jesp. 1998. 1373.
71. Steele, J. (2003). Children's gender stereotypes about math: The role of stereotype stratification. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 2587-2606. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1559-1816. 2003. tb02782. x.
72. Steinke, J. (2005). Cultural representations of gender and science. Science Communication, 27, 27-63. doi: 10. 1177/1075547005278610.
73. Steinke, J., Lapinski, M. K., Crocker, N., Zietsman-Thomas, A., Williams, Y., Evergreen, S. H., et al. (2007). Assessing media influences on middle school-aged children's perceptions of women in science using the Draw-A-Scientist Test (DAST). Science Communication, 29, 35-64. doi: 10. 1177/1075547007306508.
74. Stockard, J., & Wood, J. W. (1984). The myth of female underachievement: A reexamination of sex differences in academic underachievement. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 825-838. doi: 10. 2307/1163004.
75. Stout, J. G., Dasgupta, N., Hunsinger, M., & McManus, M. (2011). STEMing the tide: Using ingroup experts to inoculate women's self-concept and professional goals in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 255-270. doi: 10. 1037/a0021385.
76. The Council of Economic Advisers. (2000). Opportunities and gender pay equity in new economy occupations. Retrieved from http://clinton3. nara. gov/WH/EOP/CEA/html/whitepapers. html.
77. Tittle, C. K. (1986). Gender research and education. American Psychologist, 41, 1161. doi: 10. 1037//0003-066X. 41. 10. 1161.
78. Twenge, J. M. (1997). Changes in masculine and feminine traits over time: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 36, 305-325. doi: 10. 1007/BF02766650.
79. U. S. Department of Education. (2006). National Center for Education Statistics. 2005-06 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Retrieved from http://nces. ed. gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_275. asp.
80. van Houtte, M. (2004). Why boys achieve less at school than girls: The difference between boys' and girls' academic culture. Educational Studies, 30, 159-173. doi: 10. 1080/0305569032000159804.