Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Committed to STEM? Examining Factors that Predict Occupational Commitment among Asian and White Female Students Completing STEM U.S. Postsecondary Programs

  • 307 Accesses

Abstract

Although it is well known that women have relatively high rates of attrition from STEM occupations in the United States, there is limited empirical research on the views and experiences of female STEM degree-earners that may underlie their commitment to their chosen fields. Utilizing survey data from 229 women completing STEM degrees at two U.S. universities, the present study examines how perceptions of occupational affordances and interactions with others in the field predict their occupational STEM commitment. Additionally, the study employs an intersectional lens to consider whether the patterns of association are different for Asian women and White women. Multivariate regression analyses reveal that although communal goal affordances do not significantly predict women’s occupational STEM commitment, agentic goal affordances are a strong predictor of such commitment. Regarding experiences with others in the field, results reveal that classmate interactions are not associated with STEM commitment, whereas positive faculty interactions do significantly predict such commitment. However, further analyses reveal racial differences in these patterns because agentic goal affordances are much weaker predictors of occupational STEM commitment for Asian women than for White women, and results indicate that faculty interactions are significant predictors of STEM commitment only for White women. Thus, our results strongly suggest that the theoretical models of motivation and support that underlie much of the discussion around women in STEM do not similarly apply to women from all racial backgrounds and that more research is needed that considers how both gender and race simultaneously shape STEM engagement and persistence.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Abele, A. E., & Wojciszke, B. (2007). Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 751–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.751.

  2. Amelink, C. T., & Creamer, E. G. (2010). Gender differences in elements of the undergraduate experience that influence satisfaction with the engineering major and the intent to pursue engineering as a career. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(1), 81–92.

  3. Andersen, M. L. (2005). Thinking about women: A quarter century’s view. Gender & Society, 19(4), 437–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205276756.

  4. Aven, F. F., Parker, B., & McEvoy, G. M. (1993). Gender and attitudinal commitment to organizations: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business Research, 26(1), 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(93)90043-O.

  5. Beasley, M. A., & Fischer, M. J. (2012). Why they leave: The impact of stereotype threat on the attrition of women and minorities from science, math and engineering majors. Social Psychology of Education, 15(4), 427–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-012-9185-3.

  6. Beede, D. N., Julian, T. A., Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Khan, B., & Doms, M. E. (2011). Women in STEM: A gender gap to innovation. Economics and Statistics Administration Issue Brief No. 04–11.https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1964782.

  7. Bettinger, E., & Long, B. T. (2005). Do faculty serve as role models? Impact of instructor gender on female students. American Economic Review, 95(2), 152–157. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282805774670149.

  8. Brown, E. R., Smith, J. L., Thoman, D. B., Allen, J. A., & Muragishi, G. (2015). From bench to bedside: A communal utility value intervention to enhance students’ biomedical science motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(4), 1116–1135. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000033.

  9. Browne, I., & Misra, J. (2003). The intersection of gender and race in the labor market. Annual Review of Sociology, 29(1), 487–513. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.100016.

  10. Cech, E., Rubineau, B., Silbey, S., & Seron, C. (2011). Professional role confidence and gendered persistence in engineering. American Sociological Review, 76(5), 641–666. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122411420815.

  11. Charette, R. (2013). The STEM crisis is a myth. IEEE Spectrum, 50(9), 44–59 Retrieved from http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-is-a-myth.

  12. Chen, C., & Stevenson, H. W. (1995). Motivation and mathematics achievement: A comparative study of Asian-American, Caucasian-American, and east Asian high school students. Child Development, 66(4), 1215–1234. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131808.

  13. Cheryan, S. (2012). Understanding the paradox in math-related fields: Why do some gender gaps remain while others do not? Sex Roles, 66(3–4), 184–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/x11199-011-0060-z.

  14. Cheryan, S., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2000). When positive stereotypes threaten intellectual performance: The psychological hazards of "model minority" status. Psychological Science, 11(5), 399–402. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00277.

  15. Correll, S. J. (2001). Gender and the career choice process: The role of biased self-assessments. American Journal of Sociology, 106(6), 1691–1730. https://doi.org/10.1086/321299.

  16. Correll, S. J. (2004). Constraints into preferences: Gender, status, and emerging career aspirations. American Sociological Review, 69(1), 93–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240406900106.

  17. Diekman, A., Brown, E., Johnston, A., & Clark, E. (2010). Seeking congruity between goals and roles: A new look at why women opt of science technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. Psychological Science, 21(8), 1051–1057. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610377342.

  18. Diekman, A. B., Weisgram, E. S., & Belanger, A. L. (2015). New routes to recruiting and retaining women in STEM: Policy implications of a communal goal congruity perspective. Social Issues and Policy Review, 9(1), 52–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12010.

  19. Diekman, A. B., Steinberg, M., Brown, E. R., Belanger, A. L., & Clark, E. K. (2017). A goal congruity model of role entry, engagement, and exit: Understanding communal goal processes in STEM gender gaps. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21(2), 142–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868316642141.

  20. Eagly, A. H. (1997). Sex differences in social behavior: Comparing social role theory and evolutionary psychology. American Psychologist, 52, 1380–1383. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1380.b.

  21. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573.

  22. Eccles, J. S. (1994). Understanding women's educational and occupational choices. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18(4), 585–609. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1994.tb01049.x.

  23. 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.

  24. Eccles, J. (2009). Who am I and what am I going to do with my life? Personal and collective identities as motivators of action. Educational Psychologist, 44(2), 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520902832368.

  25. Eccles, J. S. (2015). Gendered socialization of STEM interests in the family. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 7(2), 116–132.

  26. Echambadi, R., & Hess, J. D. (2007). Mean-centering does not alleviate collinearity problems in moderated multiple regression models. Marketing Science, 26(3), 438–445. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1060.0263.

  27. Ecklund, E. H., Lincoln, A. E., & Tansey, C. (2012). Gender segregation in elite academic science. Gender & Society, 26(5), 693–717. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243212451904.

  28. Ehrlinger, J., Plant, E. A., Hartwig, M. A., Voseen, J. J., Columb, C. J., & Brewer, L. E. (2018). Do gender differences in perceived prototypical computer scientists and engineers contribute to gender gaps in computer science and engineering? Sex Roles, 78(1), 40–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0763-x.

  29. Fouad, N., Singh, R., Cappaer, K., Chang, W., & Wan, M. (2016). Comparison of women engineers who persist in or depart from engineering. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 92, 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.11.002.

  30. Gibson, C. E., Losee, J., & Vitiello, C. (2014). A replication attempt of stereotype susceptibility (Shih, Pittinsky, & Ambady, 1999): Identity salience and shifts in quantitative performance. Social Psychology, 45(3), 194–198. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000184.

  31. Glass, J., Sassler, S., Levitte, Y., & Michelmore, K. (2013). What’s so special about STEM? A comparison of women’s retention in STEM and professional occupations. Social Forces, 92(2), 723–756. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sot092.

  32. Good, C., Rattan, A., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Why do women opt out? Sense of belonging and women's representation in mathematics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(4), 700–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026659.

  33. Grunspan, D., Eddy, S., Brownell, S., Wiggins, B., Crowe, A., & Goodreau, S. (2016). Males under-estimate academic performance of their female peers in undergraduate biology classrooms. PLoS One, 11(2), e0148405. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148405.

  34. Hanson, S., & Meng, Y. (2008). Science majors and degrees among Asian-American students: Influence of race and sex in “model minority” experiences. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 14(3), 225–252. https://doi.org/10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.v14.i3.10.

  35. Kuh, G. D., & Hu, S. (2001). The effects of student-faculty interaction in the 1990s. The Review of Higher Education, 24(3), 309–332. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2001.0005.

  36. Lane, K. A., Goh, J. X., & Driver-Linn, E. (2012). Implicit science stereotypes mediate the relationship between gender and academic participation. Sex Roles, 66(3), 220–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0036-z.

  37. Lawson, K. M., Kooiman, L. Y., & Kuchta, O. (2018). Professors’ behaviors and attributes that promote us women’s success in male-dominated academic majors: Results from a mixed methods study. Sex Roles, 78(7–8), 542–560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0809-0.

  38. Leaper, C. (2015). Do I belong?: Gender, peer groups, and STEM achievement. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 7(2), 166–179.

  39. Lee, J., & Zhou, M. (2015). The Asian American achievement paradox. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

  40. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Sheu, H., Schmidt, J., Brenner, B. R., & Gloster, C. S. (2005). Social cognitive predictors of academic interests and goals in engineering: Utility for women and students at historically black universities. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(1), 84–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167-52.1.84.

  41. Leslie, L. L., McClure, G. T., & Oaxaca, R. L. (1998). Women and minorities in science and engineering: A life sequence analysis. The Journal of Higher Education, 69(3), 239–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1998.11775134.

  42. Mann, A., & DiPrete, T. (2013). Trends in gender segregation in the choice of science and engineering majors. Social Science Research, 42(6), 1519–1541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.07.002.

  43. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z.

  44. Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20–52. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1842.

  45. Moon, A., & Roeder, S. S. (2014). A secondary replication attempt of stereotype susceptibility (Shih, Pittinsky, & Ambady, 1999): Identity salience and shifts in quantitative performance. Social Psychology, 45(3), 199–201. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000184.

  46. Morgan, S. L., Gelbgiser, D., & Weeden, K. A. (2013). Feeding the pipeline: Gender, occupational plans, and college major selection. Social Science Research, 42(4), 989–1005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.03.008.

  47. Morris, L. K., & Daniel, L. G. (2008). Perceptions of a chilly climate: Differences in traditional and non-traditional majors for women. Research in Higher Education, 49(3), 256–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-007-9078-z.

  48. Moss-Racusin, C., Dovidio, J., Brescoll, V., Graham, M., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(41), 16474–16479. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211286109.

  49. National Science Board. (2016). Science and engineering indicators 2016. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation (NSB-2016-1). Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsb20161/#/report

  50. National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2017). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2017. Special Report NSF 17–310. Arlington, VA. Retrieved from www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/

  51. Ohland, M., Sheppard, S., Lichtenstein, G., Eris, O., Chachra, D., & Layton, R. (2008). Persistence, engagement, and migration in engineering programs. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 259–278. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00978.x.

  52. Pennington, C. R., Kaye, L. K., Qureshi, A. W., & Heim, D. (2018). Controlling for prior attainment reduces the positive influence that single-gender classroom initiatives exert on high school students’ scholastic achievements. Sex Roles, 78(5–6), 385–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0799-y.

  53. Pietri, E. S., Johnson, I. R., & Ozgumus, E. (2018). One size may not fit all: Exploring how the intersection of race and gender and stigma consciousness predict effective identity-safe cues for black women. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 74, 291–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.06.021.

  54. Ridgeway, C. L. (2001). Gender, status, and leadership. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 637–655. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00233.

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

  56. Ridgeway, C. L., & Correll, S. J. (2004). Unpacking the gender system: A theoretical perspective on gender beliefs and social relations. Gender & Society, 18(4), 510–531. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243204265269.

  57. Risman, B. J. (2004). Gender as a social structure: Theory wrestling with activism. Gender & Society, 18(4), 429–450. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243204265349.

  58. Robnett, R. D., & Leaper, C. (2013). Friendship groups, personal motivation, and gender in relation to high school students' STEM career interest. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23(4), 652–664. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12013.

  59. Sandler, B. R., & Hall, R. M. (1982). The classroom climate: A chilly one for women. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges.

  60. Sax, L. J., Bryant, A. N., & Harper, C. E. (2005). The differential effects of student-faculty interaction on college outcomes for women and men. Journal of College Student Development, 46(6), 642–657. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2005.0067.

  61. Sax, L. J., Lehman, K. J., Jacobs, J. A., Kanny, M. A., Lim, G., Monje-Paulson, L., & Zimmerman, H. B. (2017). Anatomy of an enduring gender gap: The evolution of women’s participation in computer science. The Journal of Higher Education, 88(2), 258–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2016.1257306.

  62. Seron, C., Silbey, S. S., Cech, E., & Rubineau, B. R. (2016). Persistence is cultural: Professional socialization and the reproduction of sex segregation. Work and Occupations, 43(2), 178–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888415618728.

  63. Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder: Westview Press.

  64. Shapiro, J. R., & Williams, A. M. (2012). The role of stereotype threats in undermining girls’ and women’s performance and interest in STEM fields. Sex Roles, 66(3), 175–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0051-0.

  65. Shen, F. C., Wang, Y. W., & Swanson, J. L. (2011). Development and initial validation of the internalization of Asian American stereotypes scale. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17(3), 283–294. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024727.

  66. Shih, M., Pittinsky, T. L., & Ambady, N. (1999). Stereotype susceptibility: Identity salience and shifts in quantitative performance. Psychological Science, 10(1), 80–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00111.

  67. Singh, R., Fouad, N. A., Fitzpatrick, M. E., Liu, J. P., Cappaert, K. J., & Figuereido, C. (2013). Stemming the tide: Predicting women engineers' intentions to leave. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(3), 281–294.

  68. Singh, R., Zhang, Y., Wan, M., & Fouad, N. A. (2018). Why do women engineers leave the engineering profession? The roles of work–family conflict, occupational commitment, and perceived organizational support. Human Resource Management, 57(4), 901–914. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21900.

  69. Stout, J. G., Dasgupta, N., Hunsinger, M., & McManus, M. A. (2011). STEMing the tide: Using ingroup experts to inoculate women's self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 255–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021385.

  70. Stout, J. G., Grunberg, V. A., & Ito, T. A. (2016). Gender roles and stereotypes about science careers help explain women and men’s science pursuits. Sex Roles, 75, 490–499. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0647-5.

  71. Tang, M., Fouad, N. A., & Smith, P. L. (1999). Asian Americans' career choices: A path model to examine factors influencing their career choices. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54(1), 142–157. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1998.1651.

  72. Varnum, M. E. W., Grossman, I., Kitayama, S., & Nisbett, R. E. (2010). The origin of cultural differences in cognition: The social orientation hypothesis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(1), 9–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721409359301.

  73. Wang, M. T., 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(5), 770–775. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612458937.

  74. Williams, J. C., & Phillips, K. W. (2016). Tools for change: Boosting the retention of women in the stem pipeline. Journal of Research in Gender Studies, 6(1), 11–75. https://doi.org/10.22381/JRGS6120161.

  75. Xie, Y., & Shauman, K. A. (2003). Women in science: Career processes and outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  76. Young, D., Rudman, L., Buettner, H., & McLean, M. (2013). The influence of female role models on women's implicit science cognitions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37(3), 283–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684313482109.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (HRD-1432673; PIs: Jennifer Glass and Sharon Sassler; Co-PIs: Yael Levitte and Catherine Riegle-Crumb). This research was also supported by NICHD grant 5 R24 HD042849, awarded to the Population Research Center at The University of Texas at Austin. Opinions reflect those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the granting agencies.

Author information

Correspondence to Catherine Riegle-Crumb.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Riegle-Crumb, C., Peng, M. & Russo-Tait, T. Committed to STEM? Examining Factors that Predict Occupational Commitment among Asian and White Female Students Completing STEM U.S. Postsecondary Programs. Sex Roles 82, 102–116 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01038-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • STEM
  • Occupations
  • Postsecondary
  • Race
  • Affordances
  • Faculty
  • Peers