Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Why Females Choose STEM Majors: Understanding the Relationships Between Major, Personality, Interests, Self-Efficacy, and Anxiety

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Journal for STEM Education Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Gender disparities in science, engineering, technology, and mathematics (STEM) degrees continue to be a global problem. Increasing equitable participation in STEM majors requires understanding how and why these disparities arise. This study examined relationships between female’s selection of a STEM major, personality, STEM interest, STEM self-efficacy, and mathematics anxiety, and the relationship between those factors that affects gender disparities. Quantitative survey data from established instruments on these factors were collected from 128 female undergraduate students, including STEM (n = 60) and non-STEM majors (n = 68). Multiple Linear Regression, Binary Logistic Regression, and MANOVA were used to determine STEM self-efficacy. STEM self-efficacy was a significant variable explaining STEM interest, math anxiety, and majoring in STEM. The personality trait of openness was more significant in the female STEM majors than the non-STEM majors. This research has implications for identifying female STEM majors who may have math anxiety, decreasing those students’ math anxiety, and recruiting females who would be open to a STEM career.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests: evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121(2), 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.121.2.219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Association of University Women. (2013). Improving girls’ and women’s opportunities in science, technology, engineering, and math. Breaking Through Barriers for Women and Girls. AAUW Educational Foundation. http://www.aauw.org/files/2013/02/position-on-STEM-education-111.pdf

  • Ancis, J. R., & Phillips, S. D. (1996). Academic gender bias and women’s behavioral agency self-efficacy. Journal of Counseling & Development, 75(2), 131–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.

  • Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1997). Applications of self-efficacy theory to the career assessment of women. Journal of Career Assessment, 5(5), 383–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/106907279700500402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bieri Buschor, C., Berweger, S., Keck Frei, A., & Kappler, C. (2014). Majoring in STEM—what accounts for women’s career decision making? A mixed methods study. Journal of Educational Research, 107(3), 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2013.788989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blotnicky, K. A., Franz-Odendaal, T., French, F., & Joy, P. (2018). A study of the correlation between STEM career knowledge, mathematics self-efficacy, career interests, and career activities on the likelihood of pursuing a STEM career among middle school students. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: experiments in nature and design. Harvard University Press.

  • Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 1: Theoretical models of human development (5th ed., pp. 993–1023). Wiley.

  • Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, vol. 1: theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 793–828). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caprile, M., Addis, E., Castaño, C., Klinge, I., Larios, M., Meulders, D., & Vázquez, C. (2012). Meta-analysis of gender and science research: synthesis report. Luxembourg: Publications Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ceci, S. J., Williams, M., & Barnett, S. M. (2009). Females’ underrepresentation in science: sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 218–261. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, P. D., & Simpson, P. A. (2015). Does personality matter? Applying Holland’s typology to analyze students’ self-selection into science, technology, engineering, and mathematics majors. Journal of Higher Education, 86(5), 725–750.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.

  • Costa Jr., P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1984). Personality as a lifelong determinant of well-being. In C. Malatesta & C. Izard (Eds.), Affective processes in adult development and aging (pp. 141–157). Sage.

  • Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Holland, J. L. (1984). Personality and vocational interests in an adult sample. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(3), 390–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Fruyt, F., & Mervielde, I. (1996). Personality and interests as predictors of educational streaming and achievement. European Journal of Personality, 10, 405–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downing, R. A., Crosby, F. J., & Blake-Beard, S. (2005). The perceived importance of developmental relationships on women undergraduates’ pursuit of science. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 419–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00242.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, J. S. (2007). Where are all the women? Gender differences in participation in physical sciences and engineering. In W. J. Ceci & W. M. Williams (Eds.), Why aren’t more women in science? (pp. 199–210). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, J. S., & Jacobs, J. E. (1986). Social forces shape math attitudes and performance. Signs, 11(2), 367–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2013). She figures 2012: Gender in research and innovation. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2777/38520.

  • Gasser, C. E., Larson, L. M., & Borgen, F. H. (2004). Contributions of personality and interests to explaining the educational aspirations of college students. Journal of Career Assessment, 12(4), 347–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzales, L. M., Allum, J. R., & Sowell, R. S. (2013). Graduate enrollment and degrees: 2002 to 2012. Council of Graduate Schools. Retrieved March 6, 2021, from https://www.cgsnet.org/ckfinder/userfiles/files/GEDReport_2012.pdf.

  • Hackett, G. (1985). Role of mathematics self-efficacy in the choice of math-related majors of college women and men: A path analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32(1), 47–56. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.32.1.47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackett, G., & Betz, N. E. (1982, March). Mathematics self-efficacy expectations, math performance, and the consideration of math-related majors. Paper presented at The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, New York.

  • Hackett, G., Casas, J. M., Betz, N. E., & Rocha-Singh, I. A. (1992). Gender, ethnicity, and social cognitive factors predicting the academic achievement of students in engineering. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39(4), 527–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartman, R. O., & Betz, N. E. (2007). The five-factor model and career self-efficacy: general and domain-specific relationships. Journal of Career Assessment, 15(2), 145–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holland, J. (1966). The psychology of vocational choice: a theory of personality types and model environments. Waltham: Blaisdell Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopko, D. R., Mahadevan, R., Bare, R. L., & Hunt, M. K. (2003). The Abbreviated Math Anxiety Scale (AMAS): construction, validity, and reliability. Assessment, 10(2), 178–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191103010002008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory—Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • John, O., Naumann, L., & Soto, C. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative big five trait taxonomy: history, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. John, R. Robins, & L. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 114–158). New York: Gilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaleva, S., Pursiainen, J., Hakola, M., Rusanen, J., & Muukkonen, H. (2019). Students’ reasons for STEM choices and the relationship of mathematics choice to university admission. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(43). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0196-x.

  • Kang, J., & Keinonen, T. (2017). The effect of inquiry-based learning experiences on adolescents’ science-related career aspiration in the Finnish context. International Journal of Science Education, 39(12), 1669–1689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang, J., Hense, J., Scheersoi, A., & Keinonen, T. (2019). Gender study on the relationships between science interest and future career perspectives. International Journal of Science Education, 41(1), 80–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1534021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lapan, R. T., Boggs, K. R., & Morrill, W. H. (1989). Self-efficacy as a mediator of investigative and realistic general occupational themes on the Strong-Campbell Interest Inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36(2), 176–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.36.2.176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lapan, R. T., Shaughnessy, P., & Boggs, K. (1996). Efficacy expectations and vocational interests as mediators between sex and choice of math/science college majors: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49(3), 277–291. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1996.0044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson, L. M., Wei, M., Wu, T., Borgen, F. H., & Bailey, D. C. (2007). Discriminating among educational majors and career aspirations in Taiwanese undergraduates: the contribution of personality and self-efficacy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(4), 395–408. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.54.4.395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson, L. M., Wu, T. F., Bailey, D. C., Gasser, C. E., Bonitz, V. S., & Borgen, F. H. (2010). The role of personality in the selection of a major: with and without vocational self-efficacy and interests. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(2), 211–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leaper, C., & Starr, C. R. (2019). Helping and hindering undergraduate women’s STEM motivation: experiences with STEM encouragement, STEM-related gender bias, and sexual harassment. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 43(2), 165–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interests, choice, and performance [Monograph]. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 79–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lesko, A. C., & Corpus, J. H. (2006). Discounting the difficult: how high math-identified women respond to stereotype threat. Sex Roles, 54(1/2), 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-8873-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liao, H., Armstrong, P. I., & Rounds, J. (2008). Development and initial validation of public domain Basic Interest Markers [Monograph]. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(1), 159–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2007.12.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Litzler, E., Samuelson, C. C., & Lorah, J. A. (2014). Breaking it down: engineering student STEM confidence at the intersection of race/ethnicity and gender. Research in Higher Education, 55(8), 810–832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lomax, R. G., & Hahs-Vaughn, D. L. (2012). An introduction to statistical concepts (3rd ed.). Routledge.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mann, A., & DiPrete, T. A. (2013). Trends in gender segregation in the choice of science and engineering majors. Social Science Research, 42, 1519–1541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.07.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr., P. T. (1990). Personality in adulthood. Guilford Press.

  • McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr., P. T. (1996). Toward a new generation of personality theories: theoretical contexts for the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality: theoretical perspectives (pp. 51–87). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(5–6), 295–320. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010929600004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Science Committee on Science and Engineering Indicators. (2014). Science and engineering indicators 2014. Retrieved April 13, 2016, from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/index.cfm.

  • Nauta, M. M. (1997). Women in mathematics, science, and engineering college majors: a model predicting career aspirations based on ability, self-efficacy, role model influence, and role conflict (Doctoral Theses). Available from Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. Paper 12226.

  • Nosek, B. A., & Smyth, F. L. (2011). Implicit social cognitions predict sex differences in math engagement and achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 48(5), 1125–1156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Meara, K. (2016). Whose problem is it? Gender differences in faculty thinking about campus service. Teachers College Record, 118(8), 1–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2017). The pursuit of gender equality: an uphill battle. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264281318-en.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Packard, B. W., & Nguyen, D. (2003). Science career-related possible selves of adolescent girls: a longitudinal study. Journal of Career Development, 29(4), 251–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, T. A., Burke, P. F., & Aubusson, P. (2017). Why school students choose and reject science: a study of the factors that students consider when selecting subjects. International Journal of Science Education, 39(6), 645–662. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1299949.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen, D. E., & Minnotte, K. L. (2018). University service work in STEM departments: gender, perceived injustice, and consequences for faculty. Sociological Focus, 51(3), 217–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perez-Felkner, L., McDonald, S., & Schneider, B. (2014). What happens to high-achieving females after high school? Gender and persistence on the postsecondary STEM pipeline. In I. Schoon & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Gender differences in aspirations and attainment: a life course perspective (pp. 285–320). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Plake, B. S., & Parker, C. S. (1982). The development and validation of a revised version of the Mathematics Anxiety Rating Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 42(2), 551–557. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448204200218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosser, S. (2012). More gender diversity will mean better science. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 59(10), B22–B23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubinstein, G. (2004). The big five among male and female students of different faculties. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1495–1503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.09.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmela-Aro, K. (2020). The roll of motivation and academic wellbeing: the transition from secondary to further education in STEM in Finland, 28(S1), (pp. S121-S134). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1062798720000952

  • Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1996). The language of personality: lexical perspectives on the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality: theoretical perspectives (pp. 21–50). Guilford Press.

  • Simon, R. A., Aulls, M. W., Dedic, H., Hubbard, K., & Hall, N. C. (2015). Exploring student persistence in STEM programs: a motivational model. Canadian Journal of Education, 38(1), 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, T. D., & Dillow, S. A. (2015). Digest of Education Statistics 2013 (NCES 2015-011). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved April 13, 2016, from http://nces.ed.gov/2015011.pdf/2015011.pdf.

  • Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 4–28. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1998.1373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szelényi, K., Denson, N., & Inkelas, K. K. (2013). Women in STEM majors and professional outcome expectations: the role of living-learning programs and other college environments. Research in Higher Education, 54(8), 851. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-013-9299-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talley, K. G., & Ortiz, A. M. (2017). Women’s interest development and motivations to persist as college students in STEM: a mixed methods analysis of views and voices from a Hispanic-Serving Institution. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0059-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tenenbaum, L. S., Anderson, M. K., Jett, M., & Yourick, D. L. (2014). An innovative near-peer mentoring model for undergraduate and secondary students: STEM focus. Innovative Higher Education, 39(5), 375–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program. http://www2.ed.gov/programs/triomcnair/index.html

  • United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (2019). Women in science. Fact Sheet No. 55. http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/fs55-women-in-science-2019-en.pdf

  • United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (2012). STEM-designated degree program list 2012 revised. https://www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Document/2014/stem-list.pdf

  • Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: the disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96(3), 465–490. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.96.3.465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, K. (2012). Gender differences in interest, perceived personal capacity, and participation in STEM-related activities. Journal of Technology Education, 24(1), 18–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, C. J. (2004). Just ask! Why surveyed women did not pursue IT courses or careers. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 23(2), 28–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whiston, S. C. (1993). Self-efficacy of women in traditional and nontraditional occupations: differences in working with people and things. Journal of Career Development, 19(3), 175–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wigfield, A., & Meece, J. L. (1988). Math anxiety in elementary and secondary school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 210–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.2.210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. C., Phillips, K. W., & Hall, E. V. (2016). Tools for change: boosting the retention of women in the STEM pipeline. Journal of Research in Gender Studies, 6(1), 11–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, J. M., Lounsbury, J. W., & Han, L. D. (2013). Key personality traits of engineers for innovation and technology development. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 30, 157–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2013.01.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mathematics Education, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA, USA

    Jennifer McKinney & David Glassmeyer

  2. Applied Quantitative Research and Educational Analysis, Department of Secondary and Middle Grades Education, Bagwell College of Education, Kennesaw State University, 580 Parliament Garden Way NW, MD#0122, Kennesaw, GA, 30144, USA

    Mei-Lin Chang

Authors
  1. Jennifer McKinney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mei-Lin Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David Glassmeyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mei-Lin Chang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McKinney, J., Chang, ML. & Glassmeyer, D. Why Females Choose STEM Majors: Understanding the Relationships Between Major, Personality, Interests, Self-Efficacy, and Anxiety. Journal for STEM Educ Res 4, 278–300 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-021-00050-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-021-00050-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation