Social Psychology of Education

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 443–466 | Cite as

Losing its expected communal value: how stereotype threat undermines women’s identity as research scientists

  • Jessi L. SmithEmail author
  • Elizabeth R. Brown
  • Dustin B. Thoman
  • Eric D. Deemer


The worry or concern over confirming negative gender group stereotypes, called stereotype threat, is one explanation for women’s worldwide underrepresentation in undergraduate science classes and majors. But how does stereotype threat translate into fewer women motivated for science? In this quantitative study with a sample from the US, we use Expectancy Value Theory to examine whether and how stereotype threat concerns might influence women’s science identification. To do this, we collected survey data from 388 women enrolled in introductory physics (male-dominated) and biology (female-dominated) undergraduate laboratory classes at three universities. We examined multiple indirect effect paths through which stereotype threat could be associated with science identity and the associated future motivation to engage in scientific research. In addition to replicating established expectancy-value theory motivational findings, results support the novel prediction that one route through which stereotype threat negatively impacts women’s science identity is via effects on perceptions about the communal utility value of science. Especially among women in physics who expressed greater stereotype threat concerns than women in biology, science identification was lower to the extent that stereotype threat reduced how useful science was seen for helping other people and society. Implications for ways to create an inclusive learning context that combats stereotype threat concerns and broadens undergraduate women’s participation in science are discussed.


Gender Science identification Science education Expectancy value Stereotype threat Motivation 



We are grateful to Justin Chase and other members of the Motivation and Diversity Lab for assistance with participant recruitment. This project was supported by a grant (award number HRD-1036767) from the Gender in Science and Engineering Division of the National Science Foundation. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are our own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.


  1. Ahlqvist, S., London, B., & Rosenthal, L. (2013). Unstable identity compatibility: How gender rejection sensitivity undermines success of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields. Psychological Science, 24, 1644–1652. doi: 10.1177/0956797613476048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aronson, J., Lustina, M. J., Good, C., & Keough, K. (1999). When White men can’t do math: Necessary and sufficient factors in stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 29–46. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1998.1371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: An essay on psychology and religion. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  4. Blickenstaff, J. C. (2005). Women and science careers: Leaky pipeline or gender filter? Gender and Education, 17, 369–386. doi: 10.1080/09540250500145072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cadinu, M., Maass, A., Frigerio, S., Impagliazzo, L., & Lationotti, S. (2003). Stereotype threat: The effect of expectancy on performance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 267–285. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cadinu, M., Maass, A., Rosbianca, A., & Kiesner, J. (2005). Why do women underperform under stereotype threat? Evidence for the role of negative thinking. Psychological Science, 16, 572–578. doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01577.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carr, P. B., & Steele, C. M. (2010). Stereotype threat affects financial decision making. Psychological Science, 21, 1411–1416. doi: 10.1177/0956797610384146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chemers, M. M., Zurbriggen, E. L., Syed, M., Goza, B. K., & Bearman, S. (2011). The role of efficacy and identity in science career commitment among underrepresented minority students. Journal of Social Issues, 67, 469–491. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01710.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Davies, P. G., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 1045–1060. doi: 10.1037/a0016239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Croizet, J. C., Désert, M., Dutrévis, M., & Leyens, J. (2001). Stereotype threat, social class, gender, and academic under-achievement: When our reputation catches up to us and takes over. Social Psychology of Education, 3–4, 295–310. doi: 10.1023/A:1011336821053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crosby, F. (1984). The denial of personal discrimination. American Behavioral Scientist, 27, 371–386. doi: 10.1177/000276484027003008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dasgupta, N. (2011). Ingroup experts and peers as social vaccines who inoculate the self-concept: The stereotype inoculation model. Psychological Inquiry, An International Journal for the Advancement of Psychological Theory, 22(4), 231–246. doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2011.607313.Google Scholar
  13. Derks, B., Inzlicht, M., & Kang, S. (2008). The neuroscience of stigma and stereotype threat. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 11, 163–181. doi: 10.1177/1368430207088036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Diekman, A. B., Brown, E. R., Johnston, A. M., & Clark, E. K. (2010). Seeking congruity between goals and roles: A new look at why women opt out of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. Psychological Science, 21, 1051–1057. doi: 10.1177/0956797610377342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Diekman, A. B., Clark, E. K., Johnston, A. M., Brown, E. R., & Steinberg, M. (2011). Malleability in communal goals and beliefs influence attraction to STEM careers: Evidence for a goal congruity perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 902–918. doi: 10.1037/a0025199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Doosje, B., Ellemers, N., & Spears, R. (1995). Perceived intragroup variability as a function of group status and identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 410–436. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1995.1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dyer, J., & McWhinnie, S. (2011). A survey of chemistry and physics postdoctoral researchers’ experiences and career intentions. International Journal of Gender, Science, and Technology, 3, 596–619.Google Scholar
  18. Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Eccles, J.S. (1989). Bringing young women to math and science. In M. Crawford & M. Gentry (Eds.) Gender and thought: Psychological perspectives (pp. 36–58). New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4612-3588-0_3
  20. Eccles, J. S. (2005). Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.). Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 105–121) New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  21. Eccles, J. S. (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, 78–89. doi: 10.1080/00461520902832368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eccles, J. S., Barber, B., & Jozefowicz, D. (1999). Linking gender to educational, occupational, and recreational choices: Applying the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. In W. B. Swann, Jr., J. H. Langlois, & L. A. Gilbert (Eds.), Sexism and stereotypes in modern society: The gender science of Janet Taylor spence (pp. 153–192). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/10277-007
  23. Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109–132. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. European Commission. (2012). She figures 2012: Gender in research and innovation. Retrieved November 2014 from
  25. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 77–83. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Forbes, C. E., Schmader, T., & Allen, J. J. B. (2008). The role of devaluing and discounting in performance monitoring: A neurophysiological study of minorities under threat. SCAN, 3, 253–261. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsn012.Google Scholar
  27. Glynn, S. M., & Koballa, T. R. (2006). Motivation to learn in college science. In J. Mintzes & W. H. Leonard (Eds.), Handbook of college science teaching (pp. 25–32). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.Google Scholar
  28. Glynn, S. M., Taasoobshirazi, G., & Brickman, P. (2009). Science motivation questionnaire: Construct validation with nonscience majors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 127–146. doi: 10.1002/tea.20267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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, 700–717. doi: 10.1037/a0026659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hammond, R. (2009). Chien-Shiung Wu: Pioneering nuclear physicist (makers of modern science). New York, NY: Chelsea House Publications.Google Scholar
  31. 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, 899–906. doi: 10.1177/0956797611435530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Helgeson, V. S. (1994). The relation of agency and communion to well-being: Evidence and potential explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 412–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hulleman, C. S., Godes, O., Hendricks, B. L., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). Enhancing interest and performance with a utility value intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 880–895. doi: 10.1037/a0019506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2009). Promoting interest and performance in high school science classes. Science, 326, 1410–1412. doi: 10.1126/science.1177067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. International Union of Pure and Applied Physics. (June, 2000). Women in physics working group. Retrieved November 2014 from
  36. Inzlicht, M., & Ben-Zeev, T. (2000). A threatening intellectual environment: Why females are susceptible to experiencing problem-solving deficits in the presence of males. Psychological Science, 11, 365–371. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jacobs, J. E., Davis-Kean, P., Bleeker, M., Eccles, J. S., & Malanchuk, O. (2005). “I can, but I don’t want to”: The impact of parents, interest, and activities on gender differences in math. In A. M. Gallagher & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Gender differences in mathematics: An integrative psychological approach (pp. 246–263). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Jacobs, J. E., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). The impact of mothers’ gender-role stereotypic beliefs on mothers’ and children’s ability perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 932–944. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.63.6.932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Karpinski, A., & Hilton, J. L. (2001). Attitudes and the implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 774–788. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.81.5.774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Keller, J., & Sekaquaptewa, D. (2008). Solo status and women’s spatial test performance: The role of individuation tendencies. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 1044–10553. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Konrad, A. M., Ritchie, J. E., Lieb, P., & Corrigall, E. (2000). Sex differences and similarities in job attribute preferences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 593–641. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.126.4.593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lawrence, J. S., & Crocker, J. (2009). Academic contingencies of self-worth impair positively- and negatively-stereotyped students’ performance in performance-goal settings. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 868–874. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2009.05.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lent, R. W., Hackett, G., & Brown, S. D. (1996). A social cognitive framework for studying career choice and transition to work. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 21, 3–31.Google Scholar
  44. Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self evaluation of one’s social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 302–318. doi: 10.1177/0146167292183006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Maddux, W. W., & Brewer, M. B. (2005). Gender differences in relational and collective bases for trust. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 8, 159–171. doi: 10.1177/1368430205051065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemas and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 63–78. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.35.2.63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Martinez, E. D., Botos, J., Dohoney, K. M., Geiman, T. M., Kolla, S. S., Olivera, A., et al. (2007). Falling off the academic bandwagon. Women are more likely to quit at the postdoc to principal investigator transition. EMBO Reports, 8, 977–981. doi: 10.1038/sj.embor.7401110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Marx, D. M., & Goff, P. A. (2005). Clearing the air: The effect of experimenter race on target’s test performance and subjective experience. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 645–657. doi: 10.1348/014466604X17948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McGee, R., Jr, & Keller, J. L. (2007). Identifying future scientists: Predicting persistence into research training. CBE Life Science Education, 6, 316–331. doi: 10.1187/cbe.07-04-0020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. McGee, R., Jr, Saran, S., & Krulwich, T. A. (2012). Diversity in the biomedical research workforce: Developing talent. Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine, 79, 397–411. doi: 10.1002/msj.21310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. McKinsey & Company. (2007). Women matter: Gender diversity, a corporate performance driver.
  52. Morgan, C., Isaac, J. D., & Sansone, C. (2001). The role of interest in understanding the career choices of female and male college students. Sex Roles, 44, 295–320. doi: 10.1023/A:1010929600004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Murphy, M. C., Steele, C. M., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Signaling threat: How situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychological Science, 18, 879–885. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01995.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2012). Mplus: The comprehensive modeling program for applied researchers [Computer software]. Los Angeles: Author.Google Scholar
  55. National Science Board. (2012). Science and engineering indicators 2012. NSB 10-01. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  56. National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2011). Science & engineering degrees: 19662008. Detailed statistical tables NSF 11-136. Arlington, VA.
  57. Nature Neuroscience. (2010). Wanted: Women in research. Nature Neuroscience, 13, 267. doi: 10.1038/nn0310-267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nguyen, H. H. H., & Ryan, A. M. M. (2008). Does stereotype threat affect test performance of minorities and women? A meta-analysis of experimental evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1314–1334. doi: 10.1037/a0012702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002). Math=male, me=female, therefore math≠me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 44–59. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.83.1.44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Nosek, B. A., et al. (2009). National differences in gender-science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. PNAS, 106, 10593–10597. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0809921106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Nye, C. D., Su, R., Rounds, J., & Drasgow, F. (2012). Vocational interests and performance: A quantitative summary over 60 years of research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 384–403. doi: 10.1177/1745691612449021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Osborne, J. W., & Jones, B. D. (2011). Identification with academics and motivation to achieve in school: How the structure of the self influences academic outcomes. Educational Psychology Review, 23, 131–158. doi: 10.1007/s10648-011-9151-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Osborne, J. W., & Walker, C. (2006). Stereotype threat, identification with academics, and withdrawal from school: Why the most successful students of colour might be most likely to withdraw. Educational Psychology, 26, 563–577. doi: 10.1080/01443410500342518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Oswald, D. L., & Harvey, R. D. (2000). Hostile environments, stereotype threat, and math performance among undergraduate women. Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social, 4, 338–356. doi: 10.1007/s12144-000-1025-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pohlmann, K. (2001). Agency- and communion-orientation in life goals: Impacts on goal pursuit strategies and psychological wellbeing. In P. Schmuck & K. M. Sheldon (Eds.), Life goals and well-being: Towards a positive psychology of human striving (pp. 68–84). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe and Huber.Google Scholar
  66. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717–731. doi: 10.3758/BF03206553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2012, February). Report to the president: Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
  68. Pronin, E., Steele, C. M., & Ross, L. (2003). Identity bifurication in response to stereotype threat: Women and mathematics. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 152–168. doi: 10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00088-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rahm, J., & Charbonneau, P. (1997). Probing stereotypes through students’ drawings of scientists. American Journal of Physics, 65, 774–778. doi: 10.1119/1.18647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Ramsey, L. R., Betz, D. E., & Sekaquaptewa, D. (2013). The effects of an academic environment intervention on science identification among women in STEM. Social Psychology of Education, 16, 377–397. doi: 10.1007/s11218-013-9218-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Schmader, T. (2002). Gender identification moderates stereotype threat effects on women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 194–201. doi: 10.1006/jesp.2001.1500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Schmader, T., Johns, M., & Barquissau, M. (2004). The costs of accepting gender differences: The role of stereotype endorsement in women’s experience in the math domain. Sex Roles, 50, 835–850. doi: 10.1023/B:SERS.0000029101.74557.a0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sekaquaptewa, D., & Thompson, M. (2003). Solo status, stereotype threat, and performance expectancies: Their effects on women’s performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 68–74. doi: 10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00508-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1995). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  75. 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, 175–183. doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-0051-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Smith, J. L. (2004). Understanding the process of stereotype threat: A review of mediational variables and new performance goal directions. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 177–206. doi: 10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034020.20317.89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Smith, J. L., Cech, E., Metz, A., Huntoon, M., & Moyer, C. (2014a). Giving back or giving up: Native American student experiences in science and engineering. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20, 413–429. doi: 10.1037/a0036945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Smith, C. S., & Hung, L. C. (2008). Stereotype threat: Effects on education. Social Psychology of Education, 11, 243–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 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. doi: 10.1177/0146167212468332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Smith, J. L., Thoman, D. B., Deemer, E. D., & Zazworsky, L. (2014b). Motivation under the microscope: Understanding undergraduate science students’ multiple motivations for research. Motivation and Emotion, 38, 496–512. doi: 10.1007/s11031-013-9388-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Smith, J. L., & White, P. H. (2001). Development of the domain identification measure: A tool for investigating stereotype threat effects. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 1040–1057. doi: 10.1177/00131640121971635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Smith, J. L., & White, P. H. (2002). An examination of implicitly activated, explicitly activated, and nullified stereotypes on mathematical performance: It’s not just a woman’s issue. Sex Roles, 47, 179–191. doi: 10.1023/A:1021051223441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4–28. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1998.1373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Stangor, C., Carr, C., & Kiang, L. (1998). Activating stereotypes undermines task performance expectations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1191–1197. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.75.5.1191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613–629. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.52.6.613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Steele, J., James, J. B., & Barnett, R. (2002a). Learning in a man’s world: Examining the perceptions of undergraduate women in male-dominated academic areas. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 46–50. doi: 10.1111/1471-6402.00042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Aronson, J. (2002b). Contending with group image: The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 379–440. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(02)80009-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. STEMconnector. (2012). Where are the STEM students? What are their career interests? Where are the STEM jobs?
  89. 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, 255–272. doi: 10.1037/a0021385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 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. doi: 10.1037/a0017364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Swann, W. B., Jr, & Bosson, J. K. (2010). Self and Identity. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., pp. 589–628). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  92. Thoman, D. B., Smith, J. L., Brown, E. R., Chase, J., & Lee, J. Y. K. (2013). Beyond performance: A motivational experiences model of stereotype threat. Educational Psychology Review, 25, 211–243. doi: 10.1007/s10648-013-9219-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Thoman, D. B., White, P. H., Yamawaki, N., & Koishi, H. (2008). Variations of gender-math stereotype content affect women’s vulnerability to stereotype threat. Sex Roles, 58, 702–712. doi: 10.1007/s11199-008-9390-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Tine, M., & Gotlieb, R. (2013). Gender-, race-, and income-based stereotype threat: The effects of multiple stigmatized aspects of identity on math performance and working memory function. Social Psychology of Education, 16, 353–376. doi: 10.1007/s11218-013-9224-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Urry, M. (July, 2002). The status of women in physics—an international meeting on what, why, and how to change. American Physical Society. Retrieved November 2014 from
  96. Walsh, P. E., & Smith, J. L. (2007). Opposing standards within the cultural worldview: Terror management and American women’s desire for uniqueness versus inclusiveness. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 103–113. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00335.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Wang, M., & Degol, J. (2013). Motivational pathways to STEM career choices: using expectancy-value perspective to understand individual and gender differences in STEM fields. Developmental Review, 33, 304–340. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2013.08.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Webb, R. M., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2002). Mathematical facile adolescents with math-science aspirations: New perspectives on their educational and vocational development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 785–794. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.94.4.785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Weisgram, E. S., Bigler, R. S., & Liben, L. S. (2010). Gender, values, and occupational interests among children, adolescents, and adults. Child Development, 81, 778–796. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01433.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Wickware, P. (1997). Along the leaky pipeline. Nature, 390, 202–203. doi: 10.1038/36639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Woodcock, A., Hernandez, P. R., Estrada, M., & Schultz, P. W. (2012). The consequences of chronic stereotype threat: Domain disidentification and abandonment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 635–646. doi: 10.1037/a0029120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Xie, Y., & Shauman, K. A. (2003). Women in science: Career processes and outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  103. Young, D. M., Rudman, L. A., Buettner, H. M., & McLean, M. C. (2013). The influence of female role models on women’s implicit science cognitions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, 283–292. doi: 10.1177/036168431348210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jessi L. Smith
    • 1
    Email author
  • Elizabeth R. Brown
    • 2
  • Dustin B. Thoman
    • 3
  • Eric D. Deemer
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyMontana State UniversityBozemanUSA
  2. 2.University of North FloridaJacksonvilleUSA
  3. 3.California State University Long BeachLong BeachUSA
  4. 4.Department of Educational StudiesPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations