Advertisement

Parents’ Beliefs about High School Students’ Spatial Abilities: Gender Differences and Associations with Parent Encouragement to Pursue a STEM Career and Students’ STEM Career Intentions

  • 303 Accesses

Abstract

In the present study, we investigated whether parents’ beliefs about their high school aged adolescents’ spatial abilities (i.e., spatial visualization, mental manipulation, and navigation abilities) differed based on their child’s gender. We also examined whether these beliefs related to parents’ encouragement of their child to pursue a Science, Technology, Engineering, or Mathematics (STEM) career as well as students’ actual STEM major and career intentions. Data were collected from 117 pairs of U.S. high school students and one of their parents. We found that parents of young men thought their child had higher mental manipulation and navigation abilities than did parents of young women, even after statistically controlling for adolescents’ actual spatial abilities. Parents who perceived that their child had higher mental manipulation ability were more likely to encourage their child to pursue a STEM career, and those students were more likely to report that they intended to pursue a STEM career. These findings suggest that parents’ beliefs about how good their child is at spatial tasks may be based more strongly on gender stereotypes than on their child’s actual spatial abilities. Helping to make parents aware of these beliefs could be a potential lever of intervention to increase women’s participation in STEM careers.

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

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 199

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Breiner, J. M., Harkness, S. S., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112, 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00109.x.

  2. Casey, M. B., Nuttall, R. L., & Pezaris, E. (1997). Mediators of gender differences in mathematics college entrance test scores: A comparison of spatial skills with internalized beliefs and anxieties. Developmental Psychology, 33(4), 669–680. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.33.4.669.

  3. Ceci, S. J., Williams, W. M., & Barnett, S. M. (2009). Women's underrepresentation in science: Sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 218–261. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014412.

  4. Chhin, C. S., Bleeker, M. M., & Jacobs, J. E. (2008). Gender-typed occupational choices: The long-term impact of parents' beliefs and expectations. In H. G. Watt & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Gender and occupational outcomes: Longitudinal assessments of individual, social, and cultural influences (pp. 215–234). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11706-008.

  5. Dasgupta, N., & Stout, J. G. (2014). Girls and women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: STEMing the tide and broadening participation in STEM careers. Policy Insights From the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1, 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732214549471.

  6. Eccles, J. S. (2007). Families, schools, and developing achievement-related motivations and engagement. In J. E. Grusec & P. D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and research (pp. 665–691). New York: Guilford Press.

  7. Eccles, J. (1983). Expectancies, values and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives: Psychological and sociological approaches (pp. 75–146). San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.

  8. Eccles, J. S., Arberton, A., Buchanan, C. M., Janis, J., Flanagan, C., & Harold, R. (1993a). School and family effects on the ontogeny of children’s interests, self-perceptions, and activity choices. In J. E. Jacobs (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation, 1992: Developmental perspectives on motivation (Vol. 40, pp. 145–208). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

  9. Eccles, J. S., Jacobs, J. E., Harold, R. D., Yoon, K. S., Abreton, A., & Freedman-Doan, C. (1993b). Parents and gender-role socialization during the middle childhood and adolescent years. In S. Oskamp & M. Costanzo (Eds.), Gender issues in contemporary society (Vol. 6, pp. 59–83). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

  10. Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2017). Spontaneous spatial strategy use in learning from scientific text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49, 66–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.01.002.

  11. Frome, P. M., & Eccles, J. S. (1998). Parents' influence on children's achievement-related perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 435–452. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.2.435.

  12. Furnham, A. (2000). Parents' estimates of their own and their children's multiple intelligences. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 18(4), 583–594. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151000165869.

  13. Furnham, A., & Thomas, C. (2004). Parents' gender and personality and estimates of their own and their children's intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(5), 887–903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.10.011.

  14. Furnham, A., Reeves, E., & Budhani, S. (2002). Parents think their sons are brighter than their daughters: Sex differences in parental self-estimations and estimations of their children's multiple intelligences. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 163(1), 24–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221320209597966.

  15. Gladstone, J. R., Häfner, I., Turci, L. A., Kneißler, H., & Muenks, K. (2018). Associations between parents’ and students’ motivational beliefs in mathematics and mathematical performance: The role of gender. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 54, 221–234.

  16. Gliem, J. A., & Gliem, R. R. (2003, October). Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. Paper presented at the Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education, Columbus, Ohio.

  17. Gogol, K., Brunner, M., Goetz, T., Martin, R., Ugen, S., Keller, U., … Preckel, F. (2014). “My questionnaire is too long!” the assessments of motivational-affective constructs with three-item and single-item measures. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39, 188–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.04.002.

  18. Goldman, R. D., & Hewitt, B. N. (1976). The scholastic aptitude test “explains” why college men major in science more often than college women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 23(1), 50–54. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.23.1.50.

  19. Gunderson, E. A., Ramirez, G., Beilock, S. L., & Levine, S. C. (2012). The relation between spatial skill and early number knowledge: The role of the linear number line. Developmental Psychology, 48(5), 1229–1241. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027433.

  20. Hall, C., Dickerson, J., Batts, D., Kauffmann, P., & Bosse, M. (2011). Are we missing opportunities to encourage interest in STEM fields? Journal of Technology Education, 23, 32–46. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v23i1.a.4.

  21. Halpern, D. F. (2013). Sex differences in cognitive abilities (4th ed.). New York: Psychology Press.

  22. Halpern, D. F., Straight, C. A., & Stephenson, C. L. (2011). Beliefs about cognitive gender differences: Accurate for direction, underestimated for size. Sex Roles, 64(5–6), 336–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9891-2.

  23. Harackiewicz, J. M., Rozek, C. S., Hulleman, C. S., & Hyde, J. S. (2012). Helping parents to motivate adolescents in mathematics and science: An experimental test of a utility-value intervention. Psychological Science, 23(8), 899–906. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611435530.

  24. Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [white paper]. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/ public/process2012.Pdf

  25. Hyde, J. S. (2014). Gender similarities and differences. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 373–398. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115057.

  26. Hyde, J. S. (2016). Sex and cognition: Gender and cognitive functions. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 38, 53–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2016.02.007.

  27. Ing, M. (2014). Can parents influence children’s mathematics achievement and persistence in STEM careers? Journal of Career Development, 41(2), 87–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845313481672.

  28. Jansen, P., Schmelter, A., Quaiser-Pohl, C., Neuburger, S., & Heil, M. (2013). Mental rotation performance in primary school age children: Are there gender differences in chronometric tests? Cognitive Development, 28(1), 51–62.

  29. Lazarides, R., Harackiewicz, J. M., Canning, E., Pesu, L., & Viljaranta, J. (2015). The role of parents in students' motivational beliefs and values. In C. M. Rubie-Davies, J. M. Stephens, & P. Watson (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of social psychology of the classroom (pp. 53–66). London: Routledge.

  30. Levine, S. C., Foley, A., Lourenco, S., Ehrlich, S., & Ratliff, K. (2016). Sex differences in spatial cognition: Advancing the conversation. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 127–155. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1380.

  31. Lubinski, D. (2010). Spatial ability and STEM: A sleeping giant for talent identification and development. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 344–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.03.022.

  32. Lyons, I. M., Ramirez, G., Maloney, E. A., Rendina, D. N., Levine, S. C., & Beilock, S. L. (2018). Spatial anxiety: A novel questionnaire with subscales for measuring three aspects of spatial anxiety. Journal of Numerical Cognition, 4, 526–553. https://doi.org/10.5964/jnc.v4i3.154.

  33. Maeda, Y., & Yoon, S. Y. (2013). A meta-analysis on gender differences in mental rotation ability measured by the Purdue spatial visualization tests: Visualization of rotations (PSVT: R). Educational Psychology Review, 25(1), 69–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-012-9215-x.

  34. Maltese, A. V., & Tai, R. H. (2011). Pipeline persistence: Examining the association of educational experiences with earned degrees in STEM among U.S. students. Science Education, 95, 877–907. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20441.

  35. Miller, D. I., & Halpern, D. F. (2013). Can spatial training improve long-term outcomes for gifted STEM undergraduates? Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 141–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.03.012.

  36. Moakler Jr., M. W., & Kim, M. M. (2014). College major choice in STEM: Revisiting confidence and demographic factors. The Career Development Quarterly, 62(2), 128–142. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2014.00075.x.

  37. National Research Council. (2006). Learning to think spatially. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11019.

  38. National Research Council. (2014). Advancing diversity in the US industrial science and engineering workforce. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13512.

  39. National Science Board. (2015). Revisiting the STEM workforce: A companion to Science and Engineering Indicators 2014. Arlington: National Science Foundation (NSB-2015-10).

  40. Newcombe, N. S. (2016). Thinking spatially in the science classroom. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 10, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2016.04.010.

  41. Newcombe, N. S., Levine, S. C., & Mix, K. S. (2015). Thinking about quantity: The intertwined development of spatial and numerical cognition. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 6(6), 491–505. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1369.

  42. Parsons, J. E., Adler, T. F., & Kaczala, C. M. (1982). Socialization of achievement attitudes and beliefs: Parental influences. Child Development, 53(2), 310–321. https://doi.org/10.2307/1128973.

  43. Pesu, L. A., Aunola, K., Viljaranta, J., & Nurmi, J. E. (2016). The development of adolescents’ self-concept of ability through grades 7-9 and the role of parental beliefs. Frontline Learning Research, 4, 92–109. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v4i3.249.

  44. Peters, M., & Battista, C. (2008). Applications of mental rotation figures of the Shepard and Metzler type and description of a mental rotation stimulus library. Brain and Cognition, 66(3), 260–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2007.09.003.

  45. Poon, W. Y., Leung, K., & Lee, S. Y. (2002). The comparison of single item constructs by relative mean and relative variance. Organizational Research Methods, 5(3), 275–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428102005003005.

  46. Reilly, D., & Neumann, D. L. (2013). Gender-role differences in spatial ability: A meta-analytic review. Sex Roles, 68(9–10), 521–535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-013-0269-0.

  47. Rozek, C. S., Svoboda, R. C., Harackiewicz, J. M., Hulleman, C. S., & Hyde, J. S. (2017). Utility-value intervention with parents increases students’ STEM preparation and career pursuit. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(5), 909–914. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1607386114.

  48. Shea, D. L., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2001). Importance of assessing spatial ability in intellectually talented young adolescents: A 20-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 604–614. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.3.604.

  49. Shepard, R. N., & Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science, 171, 701–703. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.171.3972.701.

  50. Simpkins, S. D., Davis-Kean, P. E., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Math and science motivation: A longitudinal examination of the links between choices and beliefs. Developmental Psychology, 42(1), 70–83. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.1.70.

  51. Simpkins, S. D., Fredricks, J. A., & Eccles, J. S. (2012). Charting the Eccles' expectancy-value model from mothers' beliefs in childhood to youths' activities in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 48, 1019–1032. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027468.

  52. Sonnert, G. (2009). Parents who influence their children to become scientists: Effects of gender and parental education. Social Studies of Science, 39, 927–941. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312709335843.

  53. Stieff, M., Dixon, B. L., Ryu, M., Kumi, B. C., & Hegarty, M. (2014). Strategy training eliminates sex differences in spatial problem solving in a stem domain. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 390–402. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034823.

  54. Syzmanowicz, A., & Furnham, A. (2011). Gender differences in self-estimates of general, mathematical, spatial and verbal intelligence: Four meta analyses. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 493–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.07.001.

  55. Szymanowicz, A., & Furnham, A. (2013). Gender and gender role differences in self- and other-estimates of multiple intelligences. The Journal of Social Psychology, 153, 399–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2012.754397.

  56. Tiedemann, J. (2000). Parents' gender stereotypes and teachers' beliefs as predictors of children's concept of their mathematical ability in elementary school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 144–151. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.1.144.

  57. Tosto, M. G., Hanscombe, K. B., Haworth, C., Davis, O. S., Petrill, S. A., Dale, P. S., … Kovas, Y. (2014). Why do spatial abilities predict mathematical performance? Developmental Science, 17(3), 462–470. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12138

  58. Uttal, D. H., & Cohen, C. A. (2012). Spatial thinking and STEM education: When, why, and how? Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 57, 147–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394293-7.00004-2.

  59. Uttal, D. H., Meadow, N. G., Tipton, E., Hand, L. L., Alden, A. R., Warren, C., … Newcombe, N. S. (2013). The malleability of spatial skills: A meta-analysis of training studies. Psychological Bulletin, 139(2), 352–402. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028446

  60. Ventura, M., Shute, V., Wright, T. J., & Zhao, W. (2013). An investigation of the validity of the virtual spatial navigation assessment. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00852.

  61. Voyer, D., Voyer, S. D., & Saint-Aubin, J. (2017). Sex differences in visual-spatial working memory: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(2), 307–334. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1085-7.

  62. Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 817–835. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016127.

  63. Walter, E., & Dassonville, P. (2011). Activation in a frontoparietal cortical network underlies individual differences in the performance of an embedded figures task. PLoS One, 6(7), e20742. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020742.

  64. Wang, X. (2013). Why students choose STEM majors: Motivation, high school learning, and postsecondary context of support. American Educational Research Journal, 50(5), 1081–1121. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831213488622.

  65. Watt, H. M., Hyde, J. S., Petersen, J., Morris, Z. A., Rozek, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2017). Mathematics—A critical filter for STEM-related career choices? A longitudinal examination among Australian and US adolescents. Sex Roles, 77, 254–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0711-1.

  66. West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications (pp. 56–75). Newbery Park: Sage.

  67. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015.

  68. Willis, G. B. (2004). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

  69. Yee, D. K., & Eccles, J. S. (1988). Parent perceptions and attributions for children's math achievement. Sex Roles, 19(5–6), 317–333. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00289840.

  70. Yoon, S. Y., & Mann, E. L. (2017). Exploring the spatial ability of undergraduate students: Association with gender, STEM majors, and gifted program membership. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(4), 313–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217722614.

  71. Zhang, X., Hu, B. Y., Ren, L., & Fan, X. (2017). Pathways to reading, mathematics, and science: Examining domain-general correlates in young Chinese children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 51, 366–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.09.004.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Katherine Muenks.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval and Informed Consent

Data collection was approved by the Georgetown University Institutional Review Board (Study 2016–0152), and informed consent was received by all participants.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 27 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Muenks, K., Peterson, E.G., Green, A. et al. Parents’ Beliefs about High School Students’ Spatial Abilities: Gender Differences and Associations with Parent Encouragement to Pursue a STEM Career and Students’ STEM Career Intentions. Sex Roles (2019) doi:10.1007/s11199-019-01072-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Motivation
  • Parental attitudes
  • Parental expectations
  • Human sex differences
  • STEM
  • Attitudes
  • Occupational aspirations