Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Feminist Forum
  • Published:
Sex Roles Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite the ubiquity of harmful math attitudes that disadvantage girls, girls are now performing just as well as boys in math in the U.S. (Hyde et al. 1990; Hyde et al. 2008). At the same time, stark gender disparities remain in who chooses to pursue math-related careers (National Science Foundation 2009). Why have gender disparities persisted in some math-related domains but not others? I suggest that considering the extent to which math-related domains are stereotyped as masculine can help explain why women do not seek out math-related careers, even as they perform just as well in math. Changing current stereotypes of math-related careers to make them less incongruent with the female gender role may help to recruit more women into these careers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Oxford: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodzin, A., & Gehringer, M. (2001). Breaking science stereotypes. Science and Children, 38, 36–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buldu, M. (2006). Young children’s perceptions of scientists: A preliminary study. Educational Research, 48, 121–132. doi:10.1080/00131880500498602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The draw a scientist test. Science Education, 67, 255–265. doi:10.1002/sce.3730670213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cheryan, S., Drury, B. J., & Vichayapai, M. (2011a). Enduring influence of STEM-stereotypic role models on women’s academic aspirations. Unpublished manuscript.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Boston: Harvard Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, J. S. (1986). Gender-roles and women’s achievement. Educational Researcher, 15, 15–19. doi:10.2307/1175495.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, D., Elwood, J., Hey, V., & Maw, J. (1998). Failing boys? Issues in gender and achievement. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fort, D. C., & Varney, H. L. (1989). How students see scientists: Mostly male, mostly white, and mostly benevolent. Science and Children, 26, 8–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Hakim, C. (2000). Work-lifestyle choices in the 21st century: Preference theory. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heilman, M. E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. Research in Organizational Behavior, 5, 269–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendall, L. (1999). Nerd nation: Images of nerds in US popular culture. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 2, 260–283. doi:10.1177/136787799900200206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lippman, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York: Harcourt Brace.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Misa, T. J. (2010). Gender codes: Why women are leaving computing. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & Turner, J. C. (1994). Stereotyping and social reality. Malden: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pollack, W. S. (1999). Real boys: Rescuing our sons from the myths of boyhood. New York: Owl Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole, G. (1994). How to manage your nerds. Forbes, 154, 132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L. (2011). Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the modern world. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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/.

  • Sandberg, C. (2009). Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg: Unedited. Retrieved from http://postcards.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/10/05/facebook-coo-sheryl-sandberg-unedited/.

  • Schibeci, R. A. (1986). Images of science and scientists and science education. Science Education, 70, 139–149. doi:10.1002/sce.3730700208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skelton, C. (2001). Schooling the boys: Masculinities and primary education. Florence: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinke, J. (2005). Cultural representations of gender and science. Science Communication, 27, 27–63. doi:10.1177/1075547005278610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Tittle, C. K. (1986). Gender research and education. American Psychologist, 41, 1161. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.41.10.1161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Twenge, J. M. (1997). Changes in masculine and feminine traits over time: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 36, 305–325. doi:10.1007/BF02766650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Preparation of this article was supported by an NSF CAREER award (DRL-0845110). I thank Jenessa Shapiro and Kaiser-Cheryan lab members, especially Cheryl Kaiser and Martin Ryan, for their helpful feedback.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Box 351525, Seattle, WA, 98195-1525, USA

    Sapna Cheryan

Authors
  1. Sapna Cheryan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sapna Cheryan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cheryan, S. Understanding the Paradox in Math-Related Fields: Why Do Some Gender Gaps Remain While Others Do Not?. Sex Roles 66, 184–190 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0060-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0060-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation