Abstract
Numerous theories have been developed to explain the lower participation of women than men in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, and associated programs have been developed to address this gap. The theories and programs are predicated on an implicit and, sometimes, explicit assumption that the gap has arisen as a result of stereotypes, implicit bias, microaggressions, or other social or ‘cultural’ factors that impede women’s entry into these fields or expel those who have entered them. These theories and programs are now a cottage industry in and of themselves, but if the assumptions underlying them are incorrect, they ironically ensure a continuing gap in STEM fields. We will briefly discuss this issue and relate some of our experiences attempting to publish data that runs counter to the prevailing views.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Basford, T. E., Offermann, L. R., & Behrend, T. S. (2014). Do you see what I see? Perceptions of gender microaggressions in the workplace. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38, 340–349.
Blanton, H., Jaccard, J., Klick, J., Mellers, B., Mitchell, G., & Tetlock, P. E. (2009). Strong claims and weak evidence: Reassessing the predictive validity of the IAT. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 567.
Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2015). Women have substantial advantage in STEM faculty hiring, except when competing against more-accomplished men. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, e1532.
Del Río, C., & Alonso-Villar, O. (2015). The evolution of occupational segregation in the United States, 1940–2010: Gains and losses of gender–race/ethnicity groups. Demography, 52(3), 967–988.
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, 25–44.
Ganley, C. M., Mingle, L. A., Ryan, A. M., Ryan, K., Vasilyeva, M., & Perry, M. (2013). An examination of stereotype threat effects on girls’ mathematics performance. Developmental Psychology, 49, 1886–1897.
Geary, D. C. (1996). Sexual selection and sex differences in mathematical abilities. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19, 229–284.
Geary, D. C. (2010). Male, female: The evolution of human sex differences (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Greenwald, A. G., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2015). Statistically small effects of the implicit association test can have societally large effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 553–561.
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464.
Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Klauer, K. C. (2005). Validity of the salience asymmetry interpretation of the implicit association test: Comment on Rothermund and Wentura (2004). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 420–425.
Greenwald, A. G., Poehlman, T. A., Uhlmann, E. L., & Banaji, M. R. (2009). Understanding and using the implicit association test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 17–41.
Hartocollis, A. (2016, June 26). Tutors see stereotypes and gender Bias in SAT. Testers See None of the Above.http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/27/us/tutors-see-stereotypes-and-gender-bias-in-sat-testers-see-none-of-the-above.html?_r=1
Hicks, S. R. (2004). Explaining postmodernism: Skepticism and socialism from Rousseau to Foucault. Scholary Publishing, Inc. Tempe, AZ.
Hill, C., Corbett, C., & St Rose, A. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, D.C.: American Association of University Women.
Humphreys, L. G., Lubinski, D., & Yao, G. (1993). Utility of predicting group membership and the role of spatial visualization in becoming an engineer, physical scientist, or artist. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 250–261.
Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581–592.
Lilienfeld, S. O. (2017). Microaggressions: Strong claims, inadequate evidence. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 138–169.
Lippa, R. A., Collaer, M. L., & Peters, M. (2010). Sex differences in mental rotation and line angle judgments are positively associated with gender equality and economic development across 53 nations. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 990–997.
Lofstedt, J. (2003). Gender and veterinary medicine. The Canadian Veterinary Journal, 44, 533–535.
Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (1992). Gender differences in abilities and preferences among the gifted: Implications for the math/science pipeline. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 61–66.
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.
Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002). Harvesting implicit group attitudes and beliefs from a demonstration web site. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 101–115.
Oswald, F. L., Mitchell, G., Blanton, H., Jaccard, J., & Tetlock, P. E. (2013). Predicting ethnic and racial discrimination: A meta-analysis of IAT criterion studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 171–192.
Picho, K., Rodriguez, A., & Finnie, L. (2013). Exploring the moderating role of context on the mathematics performance of females under stereotype threat: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Social Psychology, 153, 299–333.
Rothermund, K., & Wentura, D. (2004). Underlying processes in the implicit association test: Dissociating salience from associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 139–165.
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.
Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2012). Can stereotype threat explain the sex gap in mathematics performance and achievement? Review of General Psychology, 16, 93–102.
Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2015). Sex differences in academic achievement are not related to political, economic, or social equality. Intelligence, 48, 137–151.
Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2018). The gender equality paradox in STEM education. Psychological Science, 29, 581–593.
Su, R., Rounds, J., & Armstrong, P. I. (2009). Men and things, women and people. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 859–884.
Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Thiederman, S. (2015). 3 keys to defeating unconscious bias. San Diego, CA: Cross-Cultural Communications.
Walton, G. M., Logel, C., Peach, J. M., Spencer, S. J., & Zanna, M. P. (2015). Two brief interventions to mitigate a “chilly climate” transform women’s experience, relationships, and achievement in engineering. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 468–485.
Williams, W. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2015). National hiring experiments reveal 2: 1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 112, 5360–5365.
World Economic Forum. (2015). The global gender gap report 2015. Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Geary, D.C., Stoet, G. (2020). Ideological Blinders in the Study of Sex Differences in Participation in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Fields. In: Allen, D.M., Howell, J.W. (eds) Groupthink in Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36822-7_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36822-7_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-36821-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-36822-7
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)