Abstract
The present study examines the gendered nature of implicitly held beliefs related to STEM careers. It tests predictions from balanced identity theory on the relations between implicit STEM gender stereotypes and implicit STEM identity, as well as predictions from the associative-propositional model related to exposure to counter-stereotypical exemplars in a sample of U.S. college-aged heterosexual romantic couples that varied in whether the woman majored in STEM or in female-dominated majors (FDM). Gender-STEM stereotypes and Self-STEM identification, as measured by Implicit Associations Tasks, were examined in 117 college women majoring in STEM or in FDM and in their romantic partners, some of whom were also majoring in STEM. Women in STEM majors evidenced stronger STEM identities while also demonstrating reduced Gender/STEM stereotypes in comparison to women in FDM and men in STEM. For women, implicit STEM stereotypes predicted implicit STEM identity which in turn predicted majoring in STEM, consistent with predictions from balanced identity theory. There was no support for the hypothesis that men’s exposure to counter-stereotypical women through their romantic relationships influenced their own implicit stereotypes, inconsistent with the associative-propositional model. Women in STEM fields and their romantic partners also evidenced more similar levels of STEM gender stereotypes when compared to the other couples. Dissemination of these results may encourage other STEM-talented women in similar pursuits.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barth, J. M., Dunlap, S., & Chappetta, K. (2016). The influence of romantic partners on women in STEM majors. Sex Roles, 75, 110–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0596-z.
Ceci, S. J., Williams, W. M., & Burnett, S. M. (2009). Women’s underrepresentation in science: Sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 218–261. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014412.
Corbett, C., & Hill, C. (2015). Solving the equation: The variables for women’s success in engineering and computing. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women. https://www.aauw.org/research/solving-the-equation/. Accessed 20 June 2018.
Cundiff, J. L., Vescio, T. K., Loken, E., & Lo, L. (2013). Do gender-science stereotypes predict science identification and science career aspirations among undergraduate science majors? Social Psychology of Education, 16, 541–554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-013-9232-8.
Diekman, A. B., & Steinberg, M. (2013). Navigating social roles in pursuit of important goals: A communal goal congruity account of STEM pursuits. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 487–501. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12042.
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, 142–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868316642141.
Dunlap, S. T., Barth, J. M., & Chappetta, K. (2018). Gender roles in the romantic relationships of women in STEM and female-dominated majors: A study of heterosexual couples. Gender Issues. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-018-9223-3.
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social role interpretation. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Gawronski, B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2006). Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 692–731. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.692.
Gilmartin, S. K. (2005). The centrality and costs of heterosexual romantic love among first- year college women. Journal of Higher Education, 76(6), 609–633. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2005.0040.
Greenwald, A. G., Banaji, M. R., Rudman, L. A., Farnham, S. D., Nosek, B. A., & Mellott, D. S. (2002). A unified theory of implicit attitudes, stereotypes, self-esteem, and self-concept. Psychological Review, 109, 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.1.3.
Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Benaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.197.
Herr, N. (2018). Mediation with dichotomous outcomes. Retrieved from http://www.nrhpsych.com/mediation/logmed.html. Accessed 3 July 2018.
Hill, C., Corbett, C., & St. Rose, A. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Retrieved from https://www.aauw.org/research/why-so-few/. Accessed 20 Feb 2018.
Holland, D. C., & Eisenhart, M. A. (1990). Educated in romance: Women, achievement, and college culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kapoor, U., Pfost, K. S., House, A. E., & Pierson, E. (2010). Relation of success and nontraditional career choice to selection for dating and friendship. Psychological Reports, 107, 177–184. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.107.1.177-184.
MacKinnon, D. P., & Dwyer, J. H. (1993). Estimating mediated effects in prevention studies. Evaluation Review, 17, 144–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X9301700202.
Miller, D. I., Eagly, A. H., & Linn, M. C. (2015). Women’s representation in science predicts national gender-science stereotypes: Evidence from 66 nations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 631–644. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000005.
Murray, S. L., Derrick, J., Leder, S., & Holmes, J. G. (2008). Balancing connectedness and self-protection goals in close relationships: A levels of processing perspective on risk regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 429–459. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.3.429.
Murray, S. L., Aloni, M., Holmes, J. G., Derrick, J. L., Stinson, D. A., & Leder, S. (2009a). Fostering partner dependence as trust insurance: The implicit contingencies of the exchange script in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 324–348. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012856.
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., Aloni, M., Pinkus, R., Derrick, J. L., & Leder, S. (2009b). Commitment insurance: Compensating for the autonomy costs of interdependence in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 256–278. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014562.
Murray, S. L., Leder, S., McGregor, J. C. D., Holmes, J. G., Pinkus, R. T., & Harris, B. (2009c). Becoming irreplaceable: How comparisons to the partner’s alternatives differentially affect low and high self-esteem people. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1180–1191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.07.001.
Murray, S. L., Lamarche, V. M., Gomillion, S., Seery, M. D., & Kondrak, C. (2017). In defense of commitment: The curative power of violated expectations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113, 697–729. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000102.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Barriers and opportunities for 2-year and 4-year STEM degrees: Systemic change to support diverse student pathways. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/21739
National Research Council (2010). Gender differences at critical transitions in the careers of science, engineering, and mathematics faculty. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12062
Nosek, B. A., & Smyth, F. L. (2011). Implicit social cognitions predict sex differences in math engagement and achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 1125–1156. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831211410683.
Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002a). Harvesting implicit group attitudes and beliefs from a demonstration web site. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1037//1089-2699.6.1.101.
Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002b). Math= male, me= female, therefore math≠ me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 44–59. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.83.1.44.
Nosek, B. A., Smyth, F. L., Sriram, N., Lindner, N. M., Devos, T., Ayala, A., & Greenwald, A. G. (2009). National differences in gender-science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of American, 106, 10593–10597. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0809921106.
Park, L. E., Cook, K. E., & Greenwald, A. G. (2001). Implicit indicators of women’s persistence in math, science, and engineering. Psi Chi Journal of Undergraduate Research, 6, 145–152 https://www.psichi.org/page/journal_past#.W-RW_DFReUl. Accessed 4 May 2018.
Park, L. E., Young, A. F., Troisi, J. D., & Pinkus, R. T. (2011). Effects of everyday romantic goal pursuit on women’s attitudes toward math and science. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1259–1273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211408436.
Payne, K., & Lundberg, K. (2014). The affect misattribution procedure: Ten years of evidence on reliability, validity, and mechanisms. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(12), 672–686. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12148.
Smeding, A. (2012). Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): An investigation of their implicit gender stereotypes and stereotypes’ connectedness to math performance. Sex Roles, 67, 617–629. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0209-4.
Smyth, F. L., & Nosek, B. A. (2015). On the gender-science stereotypes held by scientists: Explicit accord with gender-ratios, implicit accord with scientific identity. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(415). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00415.
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.
Su, R., Rounds, J., & Armstrong, P. I. (2009). Men and things, women and people: A meta-analysis of sex differences in interests. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 859–884. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017364.
Xue, Y., & Larson, R. C. (2015, May). STEM crisis or STEM surplus? Yes and yes. Monthly Labor Review, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved from. https://doi.org/10.21916/mlr.2015.14.
Yang, Y., Barth, J. M., & ASERT. (2015). Gender differences in stem undergraduates’ vocational interests: People-thing orientation and goal affordances. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 91, 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.09.007.
Acknowledgements
The present research was supported by Grant #HRD 1136266 from the National Science Foundation awarded to Joan Barth and the Alabama STEM Education Research Team (ASERT) which includes Rosanna E. Guadagno, Debra McCallum, Carmen L Taylor, and Beth Todd. Mary Verstatae is an additional Co-PI and coordinated data collection at the University of Akron that was part of the larger study. R. Guadagno is now at the University of Texas-Dallas and C. Burkhalter is now at the University of Alabama-Huntsville. We wish to thank Shannon Murphy, Jessy Minney, and Lauren Roberts for assistance with data collection for the Couples Survey.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
Joan M. Barth has received research grants from the National Science Foundation. Joan M. Barth declares that she has no conflict of interest. Sarah T. Dunlap declares that she has no conflict of interest.
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 18 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dunlap, S.T., Barth, J.M. Career Stereotypes and Identities: Implicit Beliefs and Major Choice for College Women and Men in STEM and Female-Dominated Fields. Sex Roles 81, 548–560 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-1013-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-1013-1