Corrigendum: The Gender-Equality Paradox in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education (Psychological Science, (2018), 29, 4, (581-593), 10.1177/0956797617741719);The Gender-Equality Paradox in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education

Psychological Science

Volumn 29, Issue 4, 2018, Pages 581-593

  Stoet, Gijsbert ^a   Geary, David C ^b  

^a LEEDS METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

Author keywords

cognitive ability; cross cultural differences; educational psychology; open materials; science education; sex differences

Indexed keywords

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT; ADOLESCENT; EDUCATION; ENGINEERING; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; MALE; MATHEMATICS; MOTIVATION; SCIENCE; SEX RATIO; SEXISM; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; STUDENT; TECHNOLOGY;

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE; ADOLESCENT; ENGINEERING; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERNATIONALITY; MALE; MATHEMATICS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MOTIVATION; SCIENCE; SEX DISTRIBUTION; SEXISM; STUDENTS; TECHNOLOGY;

EID: 85043700102     PISSN: 09567976     EISSN: 14679280     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0956797619892892     Document Type: Erratum

References (33)

1. Burke R. J., Mattis M. C., (2007). Women and minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: Upping the numbers. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.
2. Ceci S. J., Ginther D. K., Kahn S., Williams W. M., (2014). Women in academic science: A changing landscape. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 15, 75–141.
3. Ceci S. J., Williams W. M., (2011). Understanding current causes of women’s underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 108, 3157–3162.
4. Ceci S. J., Williams W. M., Barnett S. M., (2009). Women’s underrepresentation in science: Sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 218–261.
5. Cheryan S., Ziegler S. A., Montoya A. K., Jiang L., (2017). Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others? Psychological Bulletin, 143, 1–35.
6. Eccles J., (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In Spence J. T., (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives: Psychological and sociological approaches (pp. 75–146). San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.
7. Eccles J., Jacobs J. E., (1986). Social forces shape math attitudes and performance. Signs, 11, 367–380.
8. Ellison G., Swanson A., (2010). The gender gap in secondary school mathematics at high achievement levels. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 28, 109–128.
9. Else-Quest N. M., Hyde J. S., Linn M. C., (2010). Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 103–127.
10. Gardner A., (2016). How important are GCSE choices when it comes to university? Retrieved from http://university.which.co.uk/advice/gcse-choices-university/how-important-are-gcse-choices-when-it-comes-to-university
11. Guiso L., Monte F., Sapienza P., Zingales L., (2008). Culture, gender, and math. Science, 320, 1164–1165.
12. Gunderson E. A., Ramirez G., Levine S. C., Beilock S. L., (2012). The role of parents and teachers in the development of gender-related math attitudes. Sex Roles, 66, 153–166.
13. Hyde J. S., Mertz J. E., (2009). Gender, culture, and mathematics performance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 106, 8801–8807.
14. Imai K., Keele L., Tingley D., (2010). A general approach to causal mediation analysis. Psychological Methods, 15, 309–334.
15. Imai K., Keele L., Yamamoto T., (2010). Identification, inference and sensitivity analysis for causal mediation effects. Statistical Science, 25(1), 51–71.
16. Lippa R. A., Collaer M. L., Peters M., (2010). Sex differences in mental rotation and line angle judgments are positively associated with gender equality and economic development across 53 nations. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 990–997.
17. National Science Foundation. (2017). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2017 (Special Report NSF 17-310). Arlington, VA: National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics.
18. OECD. (2016a). PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework: Science, reading, mathematic and financial literacy. Paris, France: Author.
19. OECD. (2016b). PISA 2015 results: Excellence and equity in education (Vol. 1). Paris, France: Author.
20. Pinker S., (2008). The sexual paradox: Men, women and the real gender gap. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
21. Pittau M. G., Zelli R., Gelman A., (2010). Economic disparities and life satisfaction in European regions. Social Indicators Research, 96, 339–361.
22. Reilly D., (2012). Gender, culture, and sex-typed cognitive abilities. PLOS ONE, 7(7), Article e39904. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0039904
23. Schmitt D. P., (2015). The evolution of culturally-variable sex differences: Men and women are not always different, but when they are.. It appears not to result from patriarchy or sex role socialization. In Shackelford T. K., Hansen R. D., (Eds.), The evolution of sexuality (pp. 221–256). London, England: Springer.
24. Stoet G., Bailey D. H., Moore A. M., Geary D. C., (2016). Countries with higher levels of gender equality show larger national sex differences in mathematics anxiety and relatively lower parental mathematics valuation for girls. PLOS ONE, 11(4), Article e0153857. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0153857
25. Stoet G., Geary D. C., (2015). Sex differences in academic achievement are not related to political, economic, or social equality. Intelligence, 48, 137–151.
26. Su R., Rounds J., (2016). All STEM fields are not created equal: People and things interests explain gender disparities across STEM fields. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 189. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00189
27. Tingley D., Yamamoto T., Hirose K., Keele L., Imai K., (2014). Mediation: R package for causal mediation analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 59(5). doi:10.18637/jss.v059.i05
28. United Nations Development Programme. (2016). Human development report 2016. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
29. Universities and Colleges Admissions Service. (2015). Tips on choosing A level subjects. Retrieved from https://www.ucas.com/sites/default/files/tips_on_choosing_a_levels_march_2015_0.pdf
30. Wang M., Degol J., (2013). Motivational pathways to STEM career choices: Using expectancy-value perspective to understand individual and gender differences in STEM fields. Developmental Review, 33, 304–340.
31. Wang M., Eccles J. S., Kenny S., (2013). Not lack of ability but more choice: Individual and gender differences in choice of careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Psychological Science, 24, 770–775.
32. Williams W. M., Ceci S. J., (2015). National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 112, 5360–5365.
33. World Economic Forum. (2015). The global gender gap report 2015. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.