Advertisement

Sex Roles

pp 1–13 | Cite as

Career Stereotypes and Identities: Implicit Beliefs and Major Choice for College Women and Men in STEM and Female-Dominated Fields

  • Sarah T. DunlapEmail author
  • Joan M. Barth
Original Article

Abstract

The present study examines the gendered nature of implicitly held beliefs related to STEM careers. It tests predictions from balanced identity theory on the relations between implicit STEM gender stereotypes and implicit STEM identity, as well as predictions from the associative-propositional model related to exposure to counter-stereotypical exemplars in a sample of U.S. college-aged heterosexual romantic couples that varied in whether the woman majored in STEM or in female-dominated majors (FDM). Gender-STEM stereotypes and Self-STEM identification, as measured by Implicit Associations Tasks, were examined in 117 college women majoring in STEM or in FDM and in their romantic partners, some of whom were also majoring in STEM. Women in STEM majors evidenced stronger STEM identities while also demonstrating reduced Gender/STEM stereotypes in comparison to women in FDM and men in STEM. For women, implicit STEM stereotypes predicted implicit STEM identity which in turn predicted majoring in STEM, consistent with predictions from balanced identity theory. There was no support for the hypothesis that men’s exposure to counter-stereotypical women through their romantic relationships influenced their own implicit stereotypes, inconsistent with the associative-propositional model. Women in STEM fields and their romantic partners also evidenced more similar levels of STEM gender stereotypes when compared to the other couples. Dissemination of these results may encourage other STEM-talented women in similar pursuits.

Keywords

Sex roles Couples Implicit Stereotyped attitudes Identity Academic specialization (major) Gender roles Romantic relationships STEM majors 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The present research was supported by Grant #HRD 1136266 from the National Science Foundation awarded to Joan Barth and the Alabama STEM Education Research Team (ASERT) which includes Rosanna E. Guadagno, Debra McCallum, Carmen L Taylor, and Beth Todd. Mary Verstatae is an additional Co-PI and coordinated data collection at the University of Akron that was part of the larger study. R. Guadagno is now at the University of Texas-Dallas and C. Burkhalter is now at the University of Alabama-Huntsville. We wish to thank Shannon Murphy, Jessy Minney, and Lauren Roberts for assistance with data collection for the Couples Survey.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Joan M. Barth has received research grants from the National Science Foundation. Joan M. Barth declares that she has no conflict of interest. Sarah T. Dunlap declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11199_2019_1013_MOESM1_ESM.docx (19 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 18 kb)

References

  1. Barth, J. M., Dunlap, S., & Chappetta, K. (2016). The influence of romantic partners on women in STEM majors. Sex Roles, 75, 110–125.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0596-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ceci, S. J., Williams, W. M., & Burnett, S. M. (2009). Women’s underrepresentation in science: Sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 218–261.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014412.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Corbett, C., & Hill, C. (2015). Solving the equation: The variables for women’s success in engineering and computing. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women. https://www.aauw.org/research/solving-the-equation/. Accessed 20 June 2018.
  4. Cundiff, J. L., Vescio, T. K., Loken, E., & Lo, L. (2013). Do gender-science stereotypes predict science identification and science career aspirations among undergraduate science majors? Social Psychology of Education, 16, 541–554.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-013-9232-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Diekman, A. B., & Steinberg, M. (2013). Navigating social roles in pursuit of important goals: A communal goal congruity account of STEM pursuits. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 487–501.  https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Diekman, A. B., Steinberg, M., Brown, E. R., Belanger, A. L., & Clark, E. K. (2017). A goal congruity model of role entry, engagement, and exit: Understanding communal goal processes in STEM gender gaps. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21, 142–175.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868316642141.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Dunlap, S. T., Barth, J. M., & Chappetta, K. (2018). Gender roles in the romantic relationships of women in STEM and female-dominated majors: A study of heterosexual couples. Gender Issues. Advance online publication.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-018-9223-3.
  8. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social role interpretation. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Gawronski, B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2006). Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 692–731.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.692.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Gilmartin, S. K. (2005). The centrality and costs of heterosexual romantic love among first- year college women. Journal of Higher Education, 76(6), 609–633.  https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2005.0040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Greenwald, A. G., Banaji, M. R., Rudman, L. A., Farnham, S. D., Nosek, B. A., & Mellott, D. S. (2002). A unified theory of implicit attitudes, stereotypes, self-esteem, and self-concept. Psychological Review, 109, 3–25.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.1.3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Benaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197–216.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.197.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Herr, N. (2018). Mediation with dichotomous outcomes. Retrieved from http://www.nrhpsych.com/mediation/logmed.html. Accessed 3 July 2018.
  14. Hill, C., Corbett, C., & St. Rose, A. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Retrieved from https://www.aauw.org/research/why-so-few/. Accessed 20 Feb 2018.
  15. Holland, D. C., & Eisenhart, M. A. (1990). Educated in romance: Women, achievement, and college culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Kapoor, U., Pfost, K. S., House, A. E., & Pierson, E. (2010). Relation of success and nontraditional career choice to selection for dating and friendship. Psychological Reports, 107, 177–184.  https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.107.1.177-184.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. MacKinnon, D. P., & Dwyer, J. H. (1993). Estimating mediated effects in prevention studies. Evaluation Review, 17, 144–158.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X9301700202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Murray, S. L., Derrick, J., Leder, S., & Holmes, J. G. (2008). Balancing connectedness and self-protection goals in close relationships: A levels of processing perspective on risk regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 429–459.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.3.429.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Murray, S. L., Aloni, M., Holmes, J. G., Derrick, J. L., Stinson, D. A., & Leder, S. (2009a). Fostering partner dependence as trust insurance: The implicit contingencies of the exchange script in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 324–348.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012856.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., Aloni, M., Pinkus, R., Derrick, J. L., & Leder, S. (2009b). Commitment insurance: Compensating for the autonomy costs of interdependence in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 256–278.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014562.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Murray, S. L., Leder, S., McGregor, J. C. D., Holmes, J. G., Pinkus, R. T., & Harris, B. (2009c). Becoming irreplaceable: How comparisons to the partner’s alternatives differentially affect low and high self-esteem people. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1180–1191.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.07.001.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Murray, S. L., Lamarche, V. M., Gomillion, S., Seery, M. D., & Kondrak, C. (2017). In defense of commitment: The curative power of violated expectations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113, 697–729.  https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000102.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Barriers and opportunities for 2-year and 4-year STEM degrees: Systemic change to support diverse student pathways. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.  https://doi.org/10.17226/21739 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. National Research Council (2010). Gender differences at critical transitions in the careers of science, engineering, and mathematics faculty. National Academies Press.  https://doi.org/10.17226/12062
  26. Nosek, B. A., & Smyth, F. L. (2011). Implicit social cognitions predict sex differences in math engagement and achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 1125–1156.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831211410683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002a). Harvesting implicit group attitudes and beliefs from a demonstration web site. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 101–115.  https://doi.org/10.1037//1089-2699.6.1.101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002b). Math= male, me= female, therefore math≠ me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 44–59.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.83.1.44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Nosek, B. A., Smyth, F. L., Sriram, N., Lindner, N. M., Devos, T., Ayala, A., & Greenwald, A. G. (2009). National differences in gender-science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of American, 106, 10593–10597.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0809921106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Park, L. E., Cook, K. E., & Greenwald, A. G. (2001). Implicit indicators of women’s persistence in math, science, and engineering. Psi Chi Journal of Undergraduate Research, 6, 145–152 https://www.psichi.org/page/journal_past#.W-RW_DFReUl. Accessed 4 May 2018.
  31. 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, 1259–1273.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211408436.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Payne, K., & Lundberg, K. (2014). The affect misattribution procedure: Ten years of evidence on reliability, validity, and mechanisms. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(12), 672–686.  https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Smeding, A. (2012). Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): An investigation of their implicit gender stereotypes and stereotypes’ connectedness to math performance. Sex Roles, 67, 617–629.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0209-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Smyth, F. L., & Nosek, B. A. (2015). On the gender-science stereotypes held by scientists: Explicit accord with gender-ratios, implicit accord with scientific identity. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(415).  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00415.
  35. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021385.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Su, R., Rounds, J., & Armstrong, P. I. (2009). Men and things, women and people: A meta-analysis of sex differences in interests. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 859–884.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017364.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Xue, Y., & Larson, R. C. (2015, May). STEM crisis or STEM surplus? Yes and yes. Monthly Labor Review, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved from.  https://doi.org/10.21916/mlr.2015.14.
  38. Yang, Y., Barth, J. M., & ASERT. (2015). Gender differences in stem undergraduates’ vocational interests: People-thing orientation and goal affordances. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 91, 65–75.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.09.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Social Science ResearchThe University of AlabamaTuscaloosaUSA

Personalised recommendations