Abstract
Gender gaps in representation in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) fields persist across many societies, although the size of the gap varies. Based on cultural psychological perspectives, we consider how the culturally ascribed meaning and purpose of academic choice (i.e., as a means of expressing the self or securing one’s future) can inform students’ STEM interest and motivation as a function of their gender. We argue that a self-expressive construction of academic choice may lead men and women to diverge in their academic choices, since their preferences have been gendered throughout their lives. Specifically, a focus on expressing the self can push women away from STEM, and men toward it, given that it is considered a masculine domain. On the other hand, a security-oriented construction of academic choice may lead men and women to show similar levels of motivation to pursue STEM due to its potential lucrativeness. In two experimental studies, we examined whether temporary activation of goals related to self-expression or future security affect STEM interest and motivation as a function of gender among American students. Study 1 documented that the activation of a self-expressive construction of academic choice led to lower STEM interest and motivation among women compared to a control condition. Activation of security goals led to greater STEM interest and motivation among men only. Study 2 partially replicated this pattern for STEM and Business fields using a regulatory focus manipulation. The studies provide initial evidence for the role of culturally shaped understandings of academic choice in gender gaps in academic motivation. We end with a discussion on the sociocultural shaping of academic choice among both women and men.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
We included measures of authenticity, locus of control, gender essentialism, and implicit theories of intelligence in this study for exploratory purposes as potential control variables. However, these variables were not included in the analyses since they did not show any relationship with the outcome measure.
Y-axis represents marginal means, and error bars represent standard errors, in all figures.
Due to a procedural error, we did not measure subjective social standing.
References
Abowitz, D., & Knox, D. (2003). Goals of college students: Some gender differences. College Student Journal, 37, 550–556.
Adams, G., Garcia, D. M., Purdie-Vaughns, V., & Steele, C. M. (2006). The detrimental effects of a suggestion of sexism in an instruction situation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(5), 602–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.10.004.
Adams, G., Dobles, I., Gómez, L. H., Kurtiş, T., & Molina, L. E. (2015). Decolonizing psychological science: Introduction to the special thematic section. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 3(1), 213–238. https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.1766.
Adams, G., & Markus, H. R. (2004). Toward a conception of culture suitable for a social psychology of culture. In M. Schaller & C. S. Crandall (Eds.), The psychological foundations of culture (pp. 335–360). Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.1766.
Carli, L. L., Alawa, L., Lee, Y., Zhao, B., & Kim, E. (2016). Stereotypes about gender and science: Women ≠ scientists. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(2), 244–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843156226.
Cech, E. A. (2013). The self-expressive edge of occupational sex segregation. American Journal of Sociology, 119(3), 747–789. https://doi.org/10.1086/673969.
Charles, M. (2011a). What gender is science? Contexts, 10(2), 22–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536504211408795.
Charles, M. (2011b). A world of difference: International trends in women’s economic status. Annual Review of Sociology, 37, 355–371. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102548.
Charles, M. (2017). Venus, Mars, and math: Gender, societal affluence, and eighth graders’ aspirations for STEM. Socius, 3, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/237802311769717.
Charles, M., & Bradley, K. (2009). Indulging our gendered selves? Sex segregation by field of study in 44 countries. American Journal of Sociology, 114(4), 924–976. https://doi.org/10.1086/595942.
Charles, M., Harr, B., Cech, E., & Hendley, A. (2014). Who likes math where? Gender differences in eighth-graders’ attitudes around the world. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 24(1), 85–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/09620214.2014.895140.
Cheryan, S. (2012). Understanding the paradox in math-related fields: Why do some gender gaps remain while others do not? Sex Roles, 66(3), 184–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0060-z.
Cheryan, S., Meltzoff, A. N., & Kim, S. (2011). Classrooms matter: The design of virtual classrooms influences gender disparities in computer science classes. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1825–1835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.004.
Cheryan, S., & Plaut, V. C. (2010). Explaining underrepresentation: A theory of precluded interest. Sex Roles, 63(7), 475–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9835-x.
Cheryan, S., Master, A., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2015). Cultural stereotypes as gatekeepers: Increasing girls’ interest in computer science and engineering by diversifying stereotypes. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00049.
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(6), 1045–1060. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016239.
Cole, E. R., & Zucker, A. N. (2007). Black and white women’s perspectives on femininity. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.13.1.1.
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.
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.
Croft, A., Schmader, T., & Block, K. (2015). An underexamined inequality cultural and psychological barriers to men’s engagement with communal roles. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(4), 343–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314564789.
Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(2), 117–132. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.2675.
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(8), 1051–1057. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610377342.
Diekman, A. B., Clark, E. K., Johnston, A. M., Brown, E. R., & Steinberg, M. (2011). Malleability in communal goals and beliefs influences attraction to stem careers: Evidence for a goal congruity perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(5), 902–918. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025199.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (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.
Eastwick, P. W., Luchies, L. B., Finkel, E. J., & Hunt, L. L. (2014). The predictive validity of ideal partner preferences: A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(3), 623–665. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032432.
Else-Quest, N. M., Mineo, C. C., & Higgins, A. (2013). Math and science attitudes and achievement at the intersection of gender and ethnicity. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37(3), 293–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684313480694.
Emerson, K. T., & Murphy, M. C. (2015). A company I can trust? Organizational lay theories moderate stereotype threat for women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(2), 295–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214564969.
Flore, P. C., & Wicherts, J. M. (2015). Does stereotype threat influence performance of girls in stereotyped domains? A meta-analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 53(1), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.10.002.
Freeman, C. E. (2004). Trends in educational equity of girls and women (NCES 2005-016). Retrieved Aug 1, 2017, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005016.pdf.
Gilmartin, S. K. (2005). The centrality and costs of heterosexual romantic love among first-year college women. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(6), 609–633. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2005.11772302.
Guimond, S., Chatard, A., Martinot, D., Crisp, R. J., & Redersdorff, S. (2006). Social comparison, self-stereotyping, and gender dif- ferences in self-construals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(2), 221–242. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.2.221.
Hall, W. M., Schmader, T., & Croft, E. (2015). Engineering exchanges: Daily social identity threat predicts burnout among female engineers. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(5), 528–534. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615572637.
Hanson, S. L. (2006). African American women in science: Experiences from high school through the post-secondary years and beyond. In J. Bystydzienski, & S. Bird (Eds.), Removing barriers: Women in academic science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (pp. 123–141). Indiana University Press.
Harris, A. C. (1996). African American and Anglo-American gender identities: An empirical study. Journal of Black Psychology, 22(2), 182–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/00957984960222004.
Hegarty, P., & Pratto, F. (2001). The effects of social category norms and stereotypes on explanations for intergroup differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(5), 723–735. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.5.723.
Henrich, J., Heine, S., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X.
Higgins, E. T., Roney, C. J. R., Crowe, E., & Hymes, C. (1994). Ideal versus ought predilections for approach and avoidance: Distinct self-regulatory systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(2), 276–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.2.276.
Hill, C., Corbett, C., & Rose, S. (2010). A. Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. AAUW. Retrieved Aug 1, 2017, http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED509653.pdf.
Holland, D. C., & Eisenhart, M. A. (1990). Educated in romance: Women, achievement, and college culture. University of Chicago Press.
Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, cultural change, and democracy: The human development sequence. Cambridge University Press.
Kagitcibasi, C. (2005). Autonomy and relatedness in cultural context: Implications for self and family. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(4), 403–422. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022105275959.
Kagitcibasi, C. (2007). Family, self, and human development across cultures: Theory and applications. Routledge.
Kim, H. S., & Markus, H. R. (1999). Deviance or uniqueness, harmony or conformity? A cultural analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(4), 785–800. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.4.785.
Kim, H. S., & Sherman, D. K. (2007). “Express yourself”: Culture and the effect of self- expression on choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.1.
Leslie, S. J., Cimpian, A., Meyer, M., & Freeland, E. (2015). Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science, 347(6219), 262–265. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1261375.
Ma, Y. (2009). Family socioeconomic status, parental involvement, and college major choices—Gender, ace/ethnic, and nativity patterns. Sociological Perspectives, 52(2), 211–234. https://doi.org/10.1525/sop.2009.52.2.211.
MacPhee, D., Farro, S., & Canetto, S. S. (2013). Academic self-efficacy and performance of underrepresented STEM majors: Gender, ethnic, and social class patterns. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13(1), 347–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12033.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (2010). Cultures and selves: A cycle of mutual constitution. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 420–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610375557.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (2003). Models of agency: Sociocultural diversity in the construction of action. In V. Murphy-Berman, & J. J. Berman (Eds.), Cross-cultural differences in perspectives on the self (pp. 18–74). University of Nebraska Press.
Markus, H. R., & Schwartz, B. (2010). Does choice mean freedom and well-being? Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 344–355. https://doi.org/10.1086/651242.
Markus, H. R., & Hamedani, M. G. (2007). Sociocultural psychology: the dynamic interdependence among self systems and social systems. In S. Kitayama, & D. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (pp. 3–39). Guilford.
Meyer, M., Cimpian, A., & Leslie, S. J. (2015). Women are underrepresented in fields where success is believed to require brilliance. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00235.
Michniewicz, K. S., Vandello, J. A., & Bosson, J. K. (2014). Men’s (mis)perceptions of the gender threatening consequences of unemployment. Sex Roles, 70(3), 88–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-013-0339-3.
Morgan, C. L., Isaac, J. D., & Sansone, C. (2001). The role of interest in understanding the career choices of female and male college students. Sex Roles, 44(5), 295–320. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010929600004.
Mullen, A. L. (2014). Gender, social background, and the choice of college major in a liberal arts context. Gender & Society, 28(2), 289–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243213512721.
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(10), 879–885. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01995.x.
Nguyen, H. H. D., & Ryan, A. M. (2008). Does stereotype threat affect test performance of minorities and women? A meta-analysis of experimental evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1314–1334. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012702.
Nosek, B. A., Smyth, F. L, Sriram, N., Lindner, N., Devos, 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 Sciences, 106(26), 10593–10597. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0809921106.
Pajares, F. (2005). Gender differences in mathematics self-efficacy beliefs. In A. M. Gallagher, & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Gender differences in mathematics: An integrative psychological approach (pp. 294–315). Cambridge University Press.
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(9), 1259–1273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211408436.
Riegle-Crumb, C. (2005). The cross-national context of the gender gap in math and science. In L. V. Hodges, & B. Schneider (Eds.), The social organization of schooling (pp. 227–243). Russell Sage Foundation.
Riemer, H., Shavitt, S., Koo, M., & Markus, H. R. (2014). Preferences don’t have to be personal: Expanding attitude theorizing with a cross-cultural perspective. Psychological Review, 121(4), 619–648. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037666.
Rudman, L. A., & Heppen, J. B. (2003). Implicit romantic fantasies and women’s interest in personal power: A glass slipper effect? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(11), 1357–1370. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203256906.
Savani, K., Markus, H. R., & Conner, A. L. (2008). Let your preference be your guide? Preferences and choices are more tightly linked for North Americans than for Indians. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(4), 861–876. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0011618.
Settles, I. H. (2006). Use of an intersectional framework to understand Black women’s racial and gender identities. Sex Roles, 54(9), 589–601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9029-8.
Sikora, J., & Pokropek, A. (2012). Gender segregation of adolescent science career plans in 50 countries. Science Education, 96(2), 234–264. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20479.
Soylu Yalcinkaya, N., & Adams, G. (2020). A cultural psychological model of cross-national variation in gender gaps in STEM participation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 24(4), 345–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868320947005.
Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52(6), 613–629. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.6.613.
Stephens, N. M., Fryberg, S. A., & Markus, H. R. (2011). When choice does not equal freedom: A sociocultural analysis of agency in working-class American contexts. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(1), 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550610378757.
Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2012). Can stereotype threat explain the gender gap in mathematics performance and achievement? Review of General Psychology, 16(1), 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026617.
Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2018). The gender-equality paradox in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Psychological Science, 29(4), 581–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617741719.
Van Veelen, R., Derks, B., & Endedijk, M. D. (2019). Double trouble: How being outnumbered and negatively stereotyped threatens career outcomes of women in STEM. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 150. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00150.
Walton, G. M., & Spencer, S. J. (2009). Latent ability: Grades and test scores systematically underestimate the intellectual ability of negatively stereotyped students. Psychological Science, 20(9), 1132–1139. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02417.x.
Welzel, C., & Inglehart, R. (2010). Agency, values, and well-being: A human development model. Social Indicators Research, 97(1), 43–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9557-z.
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2012). Biosocial construction of sex differences and similarities in behavior. In M. P. Zanna, & J. M. Olson (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 55–123). Academic Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The work reported in this paper is based on the first author's doctoral dissertation.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Soylu Yalcinkaya, N., Adams, G. Expressing the self or achieving security through academic choices: Implications for gender gaps in STEM pursuit. Soc Psychol Educ 25, 1507–1526 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-022-09736-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-022-09736-0