The association of science as being male is linked to gender-specific attributions of success: across a broad range of fields and age groups, success has been shown to be implicitly attributed to innate talent for males and to hard work for females ( Proudfoot et al., 2015 Verniers and Martinot, 2015). This stereotype is present even in societies with high levels of gender-equity (e.g., Miller et al., 2015). Of course, even though such choices seem to be free at the first glance, they are constrained by cultural expectations and stereotypes that associate science and mathematics with stereotypically male, rather than stereotypically female traits (e.g., Thébaud and Charles, 2018).Ī wide-spread stereotype that influences women’s paths into STEM (or non-STEM) fields is the implicit association of science and mathematics with “male” traits ( Nosek et al., 2002). To a large extent, however, the underrepresentation of women in STEM fields seems to reflect choices that girls and women make themselves, e.g., by choosing hobbies, academic specializations, study subjects, or career paths leading them into less math-intensive or non-STEM fields ( Ceci et al., 2014). There areindications that women face implicit negative biases when decision-makers judge their abilities and performance in math-intensive STEM fields, for instance when teachers grade girls ( Hofer, 2015) or when faculty members rate applicants ( Moss-Racusin et al., 2012). Biological factors and differences in basic cognitive abilities may contribute to the phenomenon, but cannot explain the substantial cross-cultural and historic variability in gender inequality in entry into STEM ( Berkowitz et al., in press Wang and Degol, 2017 Stoet and Geary, 2018). Analysts generally agree that the underrepresentation of women in math-intensive STEM fields results from the interplay of multiple factors. The dimension of this gender gap and possible explanations for its sustained existence have been analyzed from many perspectives, and based on large data sets, in recent years (for overviews, see for example: Ceci et al., 2014 Miller et al., 2015 Cheryan et al., 2017 Wang and Degol, 2017 Stoet and Geary, 2018). A relatively small, but significant portion of the effect of gender on belonging uncertainty was mediated by women’s higher belief in brilliance.Īlthough the gender-gap in achievement in STEM fields has narrowed down in recent years, women remain underrepresented in many math-intensive fields ( Ceci et al., 2014 Wang and Degol, 2017). For both genders, there was a small, positive correlation ( r = 0.19) of belief in brilliance and belonging uncertainty. Women showed higher beliefs in brilliance than men did, and also reported higher levels of belonging uncertainty. Field-specific ability beliefs of both men and women emphasized brilliance more in more math-intensive fields (Mathematics, Physics) than in less math-intensive fields (Engineering). In the present study, we investigated field-specific ability beliefs as well as belonging uncertainty in a sample of n = 1294 male and female university students from five STEM fields (Mathematics, Physics, Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, and Mechanical Engineering) at a prestigious technical university in Switzerland. A possible mediating mechanisms between cultural expectations and stereotypes on the one hand, and women’s underrepresentation in math-intensive STEM fields on the other hand, is that women may be more likely than men to feel that they do not belong in these fields. 2Faculty of Education, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, GermanyĪ wide-spread stereotype that influences women’s paths into STEM (or non-STEM) fields is the implicit association of science and mathematics with “male” and with requiring high levels of male-associated “brilliance.” Recent research on such “field-specific ability beliefs” has shown that a high emphasis on brilliance in a specific field goes along with a low share of female students among its graduates.1ETH Zürich, Department of Humanities, Social and Political Sciences, Zurich, Switzerland.Anne Deiglmayr 1,2* Elsbeth Stern 1 Renate Schubert 1
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |