Modeling gender counter-stereotypic group behavior: a brief video intervention reduces participation gender gaps on STEM teams
In STEM project group teams, men speak for more time (Meadows and Sekaquaptewa, in: Proceedings of ASEE annual conference, 2011) and engage in more active technical participation than women, which can have negative long-term consequences (Cheryan et al. in Psychol Bull 143:1–35, 2017; Lord et al. in IEEE Trans Educ 54(4):610–618, 2011). In the current study, we tested the effects of a brief counter-stereotypic video intervention on gender gaps in verbal participation on mixed-gender teams of STEM students (N = 143). Participants viewed either a control video of an engineering student team behaving in a gender stereotype-consistent way (men talked longer and presented more technical information than women) in a group presentation and group interview, or a gender counter-stereotypic intervention version (roles reversed) prior to engaging in their own STEM group project task in a laboratory setting. Analysis of video footage of the groups showed that men spoke longer than women in the control condition, but men and women spoke for equal time in the intervention condition. This result was corroborated by participants’ self-report of their verbal participation in their group.
KeywordsTeaching intervention Group dynamics Behavior change STEM Stereotypes
The authors wish to recognize the contributions of the following individuals who served as research assistants for this project: Sophie Bright, Haben Debassai, Jenna Dehne, Nader Hakim, Katie Hu, Laura Knutilla, Subramonian Mahadevan, Adrianna Pierce, Golnoosh Rasoulifar, Kelsey Reimenschneider, Jennifer Schoenberger, Linsa Varghese, Julianne Vernon, and Jakob Williams. This study was funded by the National Science Foundation, Grant No. 1137031. “Research Initiation Grant: Developing strategies to improve women’s active participation in engineering student group project teams.” D. Sekaquaptewa, co-PI, with L. A. Meadows, co-PI.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest with respect to their authorship or the publication of this article.
- Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1-62). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Cialdini, R. B. (1984). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
- Cialdini, R. B. (2016). Pre-suasion: A revolutionary way to influence and persuade. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
- Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 201–234.Google Scholar
- Dasgupta, N., McManus Scircle, M., & Hunsinger, M. (2015). Female peers in small work groups enhance women’s motivation, verbal participation, and career aspirations in engineering. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/04/03/1422822112.
- Haidet, P., Kubitz, K., & McCormack, W. T. (2014). Analysis of the team-based learning literature: TBL comes of age. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 25(3–4), 303–333.Google Scholar
- Love, A. G., Dietrich, A., Fitzgerald, J., & Gordon, D. (2014). Integrating collaborative learning inside and outside of the classroom. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 25(3/4), 177–196.Google Scholar
- Meadows, L., & Sekaquaptewa, D. (2011). The effect of group gender composition on student participation and learning in undergraduate engineering project teams. In Proceedings of ASEE annual conference (pp. 2011–1319).Google Scholar
- Meadows, L. A., & Sekaquaptewa, D. (2013). The influence of gender stereotypes on role adoption in student teams. In Proceedings of the 120th ASEE annual conference exposition (pp. 1–16). Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education.Google Scholar
- Michaelsen, L. K., Davidson, N., & Major, C. H. (2014). Team-based learning practices and principles in com-parison with cooperative learning and problem-based learning. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 25(3/4), 57–84.Google Scholar
- Nosek, B. A., Smyth, F. L., Sriram, N., Lindner, N. Am., Devost, T., Ayala, A., et al. (2009). National differences in gender-science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 106(26), 10593–10597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- O’Dwyer, L. M., & Parker, C. E. (2014). A primer for analyzing nested data: Multilevel modeling in SPSS using an example from a REL study (REL (2015-046). Washington, DC: US.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Education Laboratory Northeast & Islands. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.
- Page, S. (2007). The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies. NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Paluck, E. L. (2017, October). Messy Interventions. In Presentation at the group processes pre-conference to the society for experimental social psychology annual meeting. Boston, MA.Google Scholar
- President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). (2012). Report to the President: Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-engage-to-excel-final_2-25-12.pdf. Accessed 21 October 2013.
- Wilson, D. M., Bell, P., Jones, D., & Hansen, L. (2010). A cross sectional study of belonging in engineering communities. International Journal of Engineering Education, 26(3), 687–698.Google Scholar