Abstract
Higher education institutions provide critical opportunities for students to acquire the skills necessary to enter the STEM workforce and serve as vital partners in the STEM educational-occupational pipeline. It is important that colleges and universities ensure that all undergraduates interested in STEM professions have the opportunity to see themselves as potential STEM candidates. However, a perception exists that STEM is not open to all students interested in STEM domains. In particular, undergraduates may be under the impression that entrance into STEM pathways is contingent on fixed intelligence or innate brilliance in order to succeed at the postsecondary level. Due to these perceptions, first-year students may prematurely exclude themselves from STEM participation due to a misalignment between their self-perceptions and the attributes they believe are required for STEM attainment. The purpose of this research was to investigate whether relationships existed among students’ concepts of innate intelligence and disciplinary brilliance and students’ self-perceptions of their ability and interest to major in STEM. First-year students’ perceptions from a predominately non-STEM sample were measured and compared across four STEM domains: Life Sciences (biology/chemistry), Physical Sciences (math/physics), Applied Physical Sciences (computer science/engineering), and Health Sciences (premed/medical sciences). Comparative single-group structural equation models are presented, in addition to findings of whether students’ gender identity influenced their overall perceptions of STEM undergraduate pathways.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
The full dataset employed in this study is available to researchers from the corresponding author. An abbreviated dataset, stripped of demographic information, is publicly available in eGrove, the University of Mississippi's Institutional Repository: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/libpubs/21/
References
Aronson, J., Lustina, M. J., Good, C., Keough, K., Steele, C. M., & Brown, J. (1999). When White men can’t do math: Necessary and sufficient factors in stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 29–46. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1998.1371
Ballen, C. J., Blum, J. E., Brownell, S., Hebert, S., Hewlett, J., Klein, J. R., McDonald, E. A., Monti, D. L., Nold, S. C., Slemmons, K. E., Soneral, P. A. G., & Cotner, S. (2017). A call to develop course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) for nonmajors courses. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 16(2), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-12-0352
Beier, M. E., Kim, M. H., Saterbak, A., Leautaud, V., Bishnoi, S., & Gilberto, J. M. (2019). The effect of authentic project-based learning on attitudes and career aspirations in STEM. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21465
Bian, L., Leslie, S.-J., & Cimpian, A. (2017). Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children’s interests. Science, 355(6323), 389–391. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah6524
Bian, L., Leslie, S.-J., & Cimpian, A. (2018). Evidence of bias against girls and women in contexts that emphasize intellectual ability. American Psychologist, 73(9), 1139–1153. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000427
Bian, L., Leslie, S.-J., Murphy, M. C., & Cimpian, A. (2018). Messages about brilliance undermine women’s interest in educational and professional opportunities. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 76, 404–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.11.006
Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78(1), 246–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x
Blaney, J. (2020). Undergraduate STEM leadership: Understanding the gender gap in self-rated leadership ability by exploring women’s meaning-making. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 26(2), 177–197. https://doi.org/10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.2020029561
Blaney, J. M. (2020). Gender and leadership development in undergraduate computing: A closer look at women’s leadership conceptions. Computer Science Education, 30(4), 469–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2020.1816769
Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Handron, C., & Hudson, L. (2013). The stereotypical computer scientist: Gendered media representations as a barrier to inclusion for women. Sex Roles, 69(1), 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-013-0296-x
Cheryan, S., & Plaut, V. C. (2010). Explaining underrepresentation: A theory of precluded interest. Sex Roles, 63(7–8), 475–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9835-x
Cheryan, S. (2012). Understanding the paradox in math-related fields: Why do some gender gaps remain while others do not? Sex Roles, 66(3–4), 184–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0060-z
Cheryan, S., Ziegler, S. A., Montoya, A. K., & Jiang, L. (2017). Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others? Psychological Bulletin, 143(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000052
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
Cimpian, A., & Leslie, S.-J. (2017). The brilliance trap. Scientific American, 317(3), 60–65. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0917-60
Costa, A., & Faria, L. (2018). Implicit theories of intelligence and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00829
Cotner, S., Thompson, S., & Wright, R. (2017). Do biology majors really differ from non–STEM majors? CBE—Life Sciences Education, 16(3), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-11-0329
Cvencek, D., Nasir, N. S., O’Connor, K., Wischnia, S., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2015). The development of math–race stereotypes: “They say Chinese people are the best at math.” Journal of Research on Adolescence, 25(4), 630–637. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12151
De Castella, K., & Byrne, D. (2015). My intelligence may be more malleable than yours: The revised implicit theories of intelligence (self-theory) scale is a better predictor of achievement, motivation, and student disengagement. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 30(3), 245–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-015-0244-y
Deiglmayr, A., Stern, E., & Schubert, R. (2019). Beliefs in “brilliance” and belonging uncertainty in male and female STEM students. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01114
Dodeen, H. M. (2003). Effectiveness of valid mean substitution in treating missing data in attitude assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(5), 505–513. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930301674
Dolan, E. L. (2016). Course-based undergraduate research experiences: Current knowledge and future directions. Committee on Strengthening Research Experiences for Undergraduate STEM Students, pp. 1–34.
Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6(4), 267–285.
Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories: Elaboration and extension of the model. Psychological Inquiry, 6(4), 322–333.
Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Psychology Press.
Eccles, J. S. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives: Psychological and sociological approaches (pp. 75–146). Freeman.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
Fink, A., Cahill, M. J., McDaniel, M. A., Hoffman, A., & Frey, R. F. (2018). Improving general chemistry performance through a growth mindset intervention: Selective effects on underrepresented minorities. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(3), 783–806. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RP00244K
Finson, K. D. (2002). Drawing a scientist: What we do and do not know after fifty years of drawings. School Science and Mathematics, 102(7), 335–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2002.tb18217.x
Flanigan, A. E., Peteranetz, M. S., Shell, D. F., & Soh, L. K. (2017). Implicit intelligence beliefs of computer science students: Exploring change across the semester. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 48, 179–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.10.003
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
Galanti, T. M., & Miller, A. D. (2021). From high school to college calculus: Beliefs about sense-making and mistakes. Journal for STEM Education Research, 4(1), 73–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-020-00039-7
George, K. L., Sax, L. J., Wofford, A. M., & Sundar, S. (2022). The tech trajectory: Examining the role of college environments in shaping students’ interest in computing careers. Research in Higher Education, 63, 871–898. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-021-09671-7
Godwin, A., Potvin, G., Hazari, Z., & Lock, R. (2016). Identity, critical agency, and engineering: An affective model for predicting engineering as a career choice: Identity, critical agency, and engineering careers. Journal of Engineering Education, 105(2), 312–340. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20118
González-Pérez, S., Mateos de Cabo, R., & Sáinz, M. (2020). Girls in STEM: Is it a female role-model thing? Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02204
Grimalt-Álvaro, C., Couso, D., Boixadera-Planas, E., & Godec, S. (2022). “I see myself as a STEM person”: Exploring high school students’ self-identification with STEM. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(5), 720–745. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21742
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (Eighth edition). Cengage Learning.
Hannover, B., & Kessels, U. (2004). Self-to-prototype matching as a strategy for making academic choices. Why high school students do not like math and science. Learning and Instruction, 14(1), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2003.10.002
Hazari, Z., Sadler, P. M., & Sonnert, G. (2013). The science identity of college students: Exploring the intersection of gender, race, and ethnicity. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(5), 82–91.
Hidi, S. (2006). Interest: A unique motivational variable. Educational Research Review, 1(2), 69–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2006.09.001
Hong, Y., Chiu, C., Dweck, C. S., Lin, D.M.-S., & Wan, W. (1999). Implicit theories, attributions, and coping: A meaning system approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(3), 588–599. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.3.588
Jiang, S., Simpkins, S. D., & Eccles, J. S. (2020). Individuals’ math and science motivation and their subsequent STEM choices and achievement in high school and college: A longitudinal study of gender and college generation status differences. Developmental Psychology, 56(11), 2137–2151. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001110
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
Lindberg, S. M., Hyde, J. S., Petersen, J. L., & Linn, M. C. (2010). New trends in gender and mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(6), 1123–1135. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021276
Kyriazos, T. A. (2018). Applied psychometrics: Sample size and sample power considerations in factor analysis (EFA, CFA) and SEM in general. Psychology, 09(08), 2207–2230. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2018.98126
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
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES). (2021). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21321/report. Accessed July 2022
Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002). Math = male, me = female, therefore math ≠ me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 44–59. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44
Palmer, R. T., Maramba, D. C., & Dancy, T. E. (2011). A qualitative investigation of factors promoting the retention and persistence of students of color in STEM. The Journal of Negro Education, 80(4), 491–504.
Paunesku, D., Walton, G. M., Romero, C., Smith, E. N., Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2015). Mind-set interventions are a scalable treatment for academic underachievement. Psychological Science, 26(6), 784–793. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615571017
Perez-Felkner, L., McDonald, S.-K., Schneider, B., & Grogan, E. (2012). Female and male adolescents’ subjective orientations to mathematics and the influence of those orientations on postsecondary majors. Developmental Psychology, 48(6), 1658–1673. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027020
Plasman, J. S., Gottfried, M., & Williams, D. (2021). Following in their footsteps: The relationship between parent STEM occupation and student STEM coursetaking in high school. Journal for STEM Education Research, 4(1), 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-020-00040-0
Robins, R. W., & Pals, J. L. (2002). Implicit self-theories in the academic domain: Implications for goal orientation, attributions, affect, and self-esteem change. Self & Identity, 1(4), 313–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860290106805
Rossiter, M. W. (1982). Women scientists in America: Struggles and strategies to 1940. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Sax, L. J., Allison Kanny, M., Jacobs, J. A., Whang, H., Weintraub, D. S., & Hroch, A. (2016). Understanding the changing dynamics of the gender gap in undergraduate engineering majors: 1971–2011. Research in Higher Education, 57(5), 570–600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-015-9396-5
Shapiro, C. A., & Sax, L. J. (2011). Major selection and persistence for women in STEM. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2011(152), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.404
Simonton, D. K. (1988). Scientific genius: A psychology of science. Cambridge University Press.
Storage, D., Charlesworth, T. E. S., Banaji, M. R., & Cimpian, A. (2020). Adults and children implicitly associate brilliance with men more than women. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 90, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.104020
Trytten, D. A., Lowe, A. W., & Walden, S. E. (2012). “Asians are good at math. What an awful stereotype” The model minority stereotype’s impact on Asian American engineering students. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(3), 439–468. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb00057.x
Tyson, W., Lee, R., Borman, K. M., & Hanson, M. A. (2007). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) pathways: High school science and math coursework and postsecondary degree attainment. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 12(3), 243–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824660701601266
Varadarajan, S., & Ladage, S. (2022). Exploring the role of scaffolds in problem-based learning (PBL) in an undergraduate chemistry laboratory. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 23(1), 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1039/d1rp00180a
Wang, M. T., & 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(4), 304–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2013.08.001
Xu, Y. J. (2013). Career outcomes of STEM and non-STEM college graduates: Persistence in majored-field and influential factors in career choices. Research in Higher Education, 54(3), 349–382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-012-9275-2
Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational Psychologist, 47(4), 302–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.722805
You, S. (2013). Gender and ethnic differences in precollege mathematics coursework related to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) pathways. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 24(1), 64–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2012.681384
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 341–352.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1994). The personal involvement inventory: Reduction, revision, and application to advertising. Journal of Advertising, 23(4), 59–70.
Zhao, S., Setoh, P., Storage, D., & Cimpian, A. (2022). The acquisition of the gender‐brilliance stereotype: Age trajectory, relation to parents’ stereotypes, and intersections with race/ethnicity. Child Development, 93(5). https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13809
Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge and thank the anonymous peer reviewers for their insight and valuable contributions to this work.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The author declares no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
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
Kelly, S.L. Perceptions of Brilliance, Intelligence, Ability, and Interest: Understanding First-year Students’ Inclinations Towards STEM Pathways. Journal for STEM Educ Res 6, 75–101 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-023-00086-w
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-023-00086-w