Do Growth Mindsets in Math Benefit Females? Identifying Pathways between Gender, Mindset, and Motivation
Despite efforts to increase female representation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), females continue to be less motivated to pursue STEM careers than males. A short-term longitudinal study used a sample of 1449 high school students (grades 9–12; 49% females) to examine pathways from gender and mindset onto STEM outcomes via motivational beliefs (i.e., expectancy beliefs, task value, and cost). Mindset, motivational beliefs, and STEM career aspirations were assessed between the fall and winter months of the 2014–2015 school year and math grades were obtained at the conclusion of the same year. Student growth mindset beliefs predicted higher task values in math. Task values also mediated the pathway from a growth mindset to higher STEM career aspirations. Expectancy beliefs mediated the pathway between gender and math achievement. This mediated pathway was stronger for females than for males, such that females had higher math achievement than males when they endorsed a growth mindset. Findings suggest possible avenues for improving female’s interest in STEM.
KeywordsAchievement motivation Growth mindset STEM career aspirations Gender differences
This study was supported by National Science Foundation Grant 1503181.
J.L.D. conceptually designed the study, interpreted the results, and drafted and revised the manuscript; M.T.W contributed to the conceptual design of the study and interpretation of the results, and reviewed and revised drafts of the manuscript; Y.Z. carried out analyses, drafted the analytic plan and reviewed drafts of the manuscript; J.A. drafted the method section and reviewed drafts of the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
A review conducted by the Institutional Review Board approved the study to be consistent with the protection of the rights and welfare of human subjects and to meet the requirements of the Federal Guidelines. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Anderman, E. M., Eccles, J. S., Yoon, K. S., Roeser, R., Wigfield, A., & Blumenfeld, P. (2001). Learning to value mathematics and reading: Relations to mastery and performance-oriented instructional practices. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 76–95.Google Scholar
- Dearing, E., & Hamilton, L. C. (2006). Best practices in quantitative methods for developmentalists: V. Contemporary advances and classic advice for analyzing mediating and moderating variables. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 71, 88–104.Google Scholar
- Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia, PA: The Psychology Press.Google Scholar
- Dweck, C. S., & Sorich, L. A. (1999). Mastery-oriented thinking. In C. R. Snyder (Ed.), Coping: The psychology of what works (pp. 232–251). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C. Y., & Hong, Y. Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A word from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267–285.Google Scholar
- Eccles, J. S. (2007). Where are all the women? Gender differences in participation in physical science and engineering. In S. J. Ceci & W. M. Williams (Eds.), Why aren’t more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 199–210). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Eccles, J., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J., & Midgley, C. (1983). Expectancies, values and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
- Harackiewicz, J. M., Durik, A. M., Barron, K. E., Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., & Tauer, J. M. (2008). The role of achievement goals in the development of interest: Reciprocal relations between achievement goals, interest, and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- National Science Foundation. (2011). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. Arlington: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
- Park, D., Gunderson, E. A., Tsukayama, E., Levine, S. C., & Beilock, S. L. (2016). Young children’s motivational frameworks and math achievement: Relation to teacher-reported instructional practices, but not teacher theory of intelligence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 300–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.Google Scholar
- Smith, J. L., Lewis, K. L., Hawthorne, L., & Hodges, S. D. (2013). When trying hard isn’t natural: Women’s belonging with and motivation for male-dominated STEM fields as a function of effort expenditure concerns. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 131–143.Google Scholar
- Trautwein, U., Marsh, H. W., Nagengast, B., Lüdtke, O., Nagy, G., & Jonkmann, K. (2012). Probing for the multiplicative term in modern expectancy–value theory: A latent interaction modeling study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 763–777.Google Scholar
- Wang, M.-T., Degol, J. L., & Ye, F. (2015). Math achievement is important, but task values are critical too: Examining the intellectual and motivational factors leading to gender disparities in STEM careers. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–9.Google Scholar
- Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. L. (2017). Gender gap in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM): Current knowledge, implications for practice, policy, and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 229, 119–140.Google Scholar
- Wang, M. T., Chow, A., Degol, J. L., & Eccles, J. S. (2017a). Does everyone’s motivational beliefs about physical science decline in secondary school? Heterogeneity of adolescents’ achievement motivation trajectories in physics and chemistry. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46, 1821–1838.Google Scholar
- Wang, M. T., Ye, F., & Degol, J. L. (2017b). Who chooses STEM careers? Using a relative cognitive strength and interest model to predict careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46, 1805–1820.Google Scholar