Why Are Some STEM Fields More Gender Balanced Than Others?

Women obtain more than half of U.S. undergraduate degrees in biology, chemistry, and mathematics, yet they earn less than 20% of computer science, engineering, and physics undergraduate degrees (National Science Foundation, 2014a). Gender differences in interest in computer science, engineering, and...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Psychological bulletin 2017-01, Vol.143 (1), p.1-35
Hauptverfasser: Cheryan, Sapna, Ziegler, Sianna A, Montoya, Amanda K, Jiang, Lily
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 35
container_issue 1
container_start_page 1
container_title Psychological bulletin
container_volume 143
creator Cheryan, Sapna
Ziegler, Sianna A
Montoya, Amanda K
Jiang, Lily
description Women obtain more than half of U.S. undergraduate degrees in biology, chemistry, and mathematics, yet they earn less than 20% of computer science, engineering, and physics undergraduate degrees (National Science Foundation, 2014a). Gender differences in interest in computer science, engineering, and physics appear even before college. Why are women represented in some science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields more than others? We conduct a critical review of the most commonly cited factors explaining gender disparities in STEM participation and investigate whether these factors explain differential gender participation across STEM fields. Math performance and discrimination influence who enters STEM, but there is little evidence to date that these factors explain why women's underrepresentation is relatively worse in some STEM fields. We introduce a model with three overarching factors to explain the larger gender gaps in participation in computer science, engineering, and physics than in biology, chemistry, and mathematics: (a) masculine cultures that signal a lower sense of belonging to women than men, (b) a lack of sufficient early experience with computer science, engineering, and physics, and (c) gender gaps in self-efficacy. Efforts to increase women's participation in computer science, engineering, and physics may benefit from changing masculine cultures and providing students with early experiences that signal equally to both girls and boys that they belong and can succeed in these fields.
doi_str_mv 10.1037/bul0000052
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1866655933</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1835380289</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a447t-267875c9d25a051ec54b2f12e5e872dff19ef06f395b27be91280c5e4bf5796b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqN0U1LwzAYB_AgipsvFz-AFLyIUM1L0yReZI5tChs7OPEY0vQp2-jambSHfXszNh14EHNIIPz4kyd_hK4IvieYiYesLfF2cXqEukQxFZOE82PUxZixmCqsOujM-2UggqfsFHWoEIxiIrvo8WO-iXoOord6FbbZYBINF1DmPprU4XYEVQ4uejalqSzk0WxuqmjazMH5pwt0UpjSw-X-PEfvw8Gs_xKPp6PXfm8cmyQRTUxTIQW3KqfcYE7A8iSjBaHAQQqaFwVRUOC0YIpnVGSgCJXYckiygguVZuwc3e5y167-bME3erXwFsrwJKhbr4lM05Rzxdg_KONMYipVoDe_6LJuXRUGCYonlJHwXX8rmkosJRNB3e2UdbX3Dgq9douVcRtNsN5WpA8VBXy9j2yzFeQ_9LuTQ5pZG732G2tcs7AleNs6B1WzDdMkYZpowr4AX-OVug</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1826808837</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Why Are Some STEM Fields More Gender Balanced Than Others?</title><source>APA PsycARTICLES</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>MEDLINE</source><creator>Cheryan, Sapna ; Ziegler, Sianna A ; Montoya, Amanda K ; Jiang, Lily</creator><contributor>Albarracín, Dolores</contributor><creatorcontrib>Cheryan, Sapna ; Ziegler, Sianna A ; Montoya, Amanda K ; Jiang, Lily ; Albarracín, Dolores</creatorcontrib><description>Women obtain more than half of U.S. undergraduate degrees in biology, chemistry, and mathematics, yet they earn less than 20% of computer science, engineering, and physics undergraduate degrees (National Science Foundation, 2014a). Gender differences in interest in computer science, engineering, and physics appear even before college. Why are women represented in some science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields more than others? We conduct a critical review of the most commonly cited factors explaining gender disparities in STEM participation and investigate whether these factors explain differential gender participation across STEM fields. Math performance and discrimination influence who enters STEM, but there is little evidence to date that these factors explain why women's underrepresentation is relatively worse in some STEM fields. We introduce a model with three overarching factors to explain the larger gender gaps in participation in computer science, engineering, and physics than in biology, chemistry, and mathematics: (a) masculine cultures that signal a lower sense of belonging to women than men, (b) a lack of sufficient early experience with computer science, engineering, and physics, and (c) gender gaps in self-efficacy. Efforts to increase women's participation in computer science, engineering, and physics may benefit from changing masculine cultures and providing students with early experiences that signal equally to both girls and boys that they belong and can succeed in these fields.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0033-2909</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-1455</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1037/bul0000052</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27732018</identifier><identifier>CODEN: PSBUAI</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Psychological Association</publisher><subject>Belonging ; Biology ; Chemistry ; Computer science ; Culture ; Discrimination ; Engineering ; Engineering - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Female ; Gender ; Gender differences ; Gender differentiation ; Gender inequality ; Human ; Human Sex Differences ; Humans ; Male ; Masculinity ; Mathematics ; Mathematics - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Occupational Interests ; Participation ; Physics ; Science - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Science and technology ; Self-efficacy ; STEM ; STEM education ; Students ; Technology ; Technology - statistics &amp; numerical data ; United States ; Women</subject><ispartof>Psychological bulletin, 2017-01, Vol.143 (1), p.1-35</ispartof><rights>2016 American Psychological Association</rights><rights>(c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).</rights><rights>2016, American Psychological Association</rights><rights>Copyright American Psychological Association Jan 2017</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a447t-267875c9d25a051ec54b2f12e5e872dff19ef06f395b27be91280c5e4bf5796b3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,30976</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27732018$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Albarracín, Dolores</contributor><creatorcontrib>Cheryan, Sapna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ziegler, Sianna A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Montoya, Amanda K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jiang, Lily</creatorcontrib><title>Why Are Some STEM Fields More Gender Balanced Than Others?</title><title>Psychological bulletin</title><addtitle>Psychol Bull</addtitle><description>Women obtain more than half of U.S. undergraduate degrees in biology, chemistry, and mathematics, yet they earn less than 20% of computer science, engineering, and physics undergraduate degrees (National Science Foundation, 2014a). Gender differences in interest in computer science, engineering, and physics appear even before college. Why are women represented in some science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields more than others? We conduct a critical review of the most commonly cited factors explaining gender disparities in STEM participation and investigate whether these factors explain differential gender participation across STEM fields. Math performance and discrimination influence who enters STEM, but there is little evidence to date that these factors explain why women's underrepresentation is relatively worse in some STEM fields. We introduce a model with three overarching factors to explain the larger gender gaps in participation in computer science, engineering, and physics than in biology, chemistry, and mathematics: (a) masculine cultures that signal a lower sense of belonging to women than men, (b) a lack of sufficient early experience with computer science, engineering, and physics, and (c) gender gaps in self-efficacy. Efforts to increase women's participation in computer science, engineering, and physics may benefit from changing masculine cultures and providing students with early experiences that signal equally to both girls and boys that they belong and can succeed in these fields.</description><subject>Belonging</subject><subject>Biology</subject><subject>Chemistry</subject><subject>Computer science</subject><subject>Culture</subject><subject>Discrimination</subject><subject>Engineering</subject><subject>Engineering - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gender</subject><subject>Gender differences</subject><subject>Gender differentiation</subject><subject>Gender inequality</subject><subject>Human</subject><subject>Human Sex Differences</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Masculinity</subject><subject>Mathematics</subject><subject>Mathematics - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Occupational Interests</subject><subject>Participation</subject><subject>Physics</subject><subject>Science - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Science and technology</subject><subject>Self-efficacy</subject><subject>STEM</subject><subject>STEM education</subject><subject>Students</subject><subject>Technology</subject><subject>Technology - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>United States</subject><subject>Women</subject><issn>0033-2909</issn><issn>1939-1455</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNqN0U1LwzAYB_AgipsvFz-AFLyIUM1L0yReZI5tChs7OPEY0vQp2-jambSHfXszNh14EHNIIPz4kyd_hK4IvieYiYesLfF2cXqEukQxFZOE82PUxZixmCqsOujM-2UggqfsFHWoEIxiIrvo8WO-iXoOord6FbbZYBINF1DmPprU4XYEVQ4uejalqSzk0WxuqmjazMH5pwt0UpjSw-X-PEfvw8Gs_xKPp6PXfm8cmyQRTUxTIQW3KqfcYE7A8iSjBaHAQQqaFwVRUOC0YIpnVGSgCJXYckiygguVZuwc3e5y167-bME3erXwFsrwJKhbr4lM05Rzxdg_KONMYipVoDe_6LJuXRUGCYonlJHwXX8rmkosJRNB3e2UdbX3Dgq9douVcRtNsN5WpA8VBXy9j2yzFeQ_9LuTQ5pZG732G2tcs7AleNs6B1WzDdMkYZpowr4AX-OVug</recordid><startdate>201701</startdate><enddate>201701</enddate><creator>Cheryan, Sapna</creator><creator>Ziegler, Sianna A</creator><creator>Montoya, Amanda K</creator><creator>Jiang, Lily</creator><general>American Psychological Association</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7RZ</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201701</creationdate><title>Why Are Some STEM Fields More Gender Balanced Than Others?</title><author>Cheryan, Sapna ; Ziegler, Sianna A ; Montoya, Amanda K ; Jiang, Lily</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a447t-267875c9d25a051ec54b2f12e5e872dff19ef06f395b27be91280c5e4bf5796b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Belonging</topic><topic>Biology</topic><topic>Chemistry</topic><topic>Computer science</topic><topic>Culture</topic><topic>Discrimination</topic><topic>Engineering</topic><topic>Engineering - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gender</topic><topic>Gender differences</topic><topic>Gender differentiation</topic><topic>Gender inequality</topic><topic>Human</topic><topic>Human Sex Differences</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Masculinity</topic><topic>Mathematics</topic><topic>Mathematics - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Occupational Interests</topic><topic>Participation</topic><topic>Physics</topic><topic>Science - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Science and technology</topic><topic>Self-efficacy</topic><topic>STEM</topic><topic>STEM education</topic><topic>Students</topic><topic>Technology</topic><topic>Technology - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>United States</topic><topic>Women</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cheryan, Sapna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ziegler, Sianna A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Montoya, Amanda K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jiang, Lily</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>APA PsycArticles®</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Psychological bulletin</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cheryan, Sapna</au><au>Ziegler, Sianna A</au><au>Montoya, Amanda K</au><au>Jiang, Lily</au><au>Albarracín, Dolores</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Why Are Some STEM Fields More Gender Balanced Than Others?</atitle><jtitle>Psychological bulletin</jtitle><addtitle>Psychol Bull</addtitle><date>2017-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>143</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>1</spage><epage>35</epage><pages>1-35</pages><issn>0033-2909</issn><eissn>1939-1455</eissn><coden>PSBUAI</coden><abstract>Women obtain more than half of U.S. undergraduate degrees in biology, chemistry, and mathematics, yet they earn less than 20% of computer science, engineering, and physics undergraduate degrees (National Science Foundation, 2014a). Gender differences in interest in computer science, engineering, and physics appear even before college. Why are women represented in some science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields more than others? We conduct a critical review of the most commonly cited factors explaining gender disparities in STEM participation and investigate whether these factors explain differential gender participation across STEM fields. Math performance and discrimination influence who enters STEM, but there is little evidence to date that these factors explain why women's underrepresentation is relatively worse in some STEM fields. We introduce a model with three overarching factors to explain the larger gender gaps in participation in computer science, engineering, and physics than in biology, chemistry, and mathematics: (a) masculine cultures that signal a lower sense of belonging to women than men, (b) a lack of sufficient early experience with computer science, engineering, and physics, and (c) gender gaps in self-efficacy. Efforts to increase women's participation in computer science, engineering, and physics may benefit from changing masculine cultures and providing students with early experiences that signal equally to both girls and boys that they belong and can succeed in these fields.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Psychological Association</pub><pmid>27732018</pmid><doi>10.1037/bul0000052</doi><tpages>35</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0033-2909
ispartof Psychological bulletin, 2017-01, Vol.143 (1), p.1-35
issn 0033-2909
1939-1455
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1866655933
source APA PsycARTICLES; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); MEDLINE
subjects Belonging
Biology
Chemistry
Computer science
Culture
Discrimination
Engineering
Engineering - statistics & numerical data
Female
Gender
Gender differences
Gender differentiation
Gender inequality
Human
Human Sex Differences
Humans
Male
Masculinity
Mathematics
Mathematics - statistics & numerical data
Occupational Interests
Participation
Physics
Science - statistics & numerical data
Science and technology
Self-efficacy
STEM
STEM education
Students
Technology
Technology - statistics & numerical data
United States
Women
title Why Are Some STEM Fields More Gender Balanced Than Others?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-11T06%3A54%3A24IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Why%20Are%20Some%20STEM%20Fields%20More%20Gender%20Balanced%20Than%20Others?&rft.jtitle=Psychological%20bulletin&rft.au=Cheryan,%20Sapna&rft.date=2017-01&rft.volume=143&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=35&rft.pages=1-35&rft.issn=0033-2909&rft.eissn=1939-1455&rft.coden=PSBUAI&rft_id=info:doi/10.1037/bul0000052&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1835380289%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1826808837&rft_id=info:pmid/27732018&rfr_iscdi=true