1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Psychology
  4. Volume 74, 2023
  5. Article

Annual Review of Psychology

Volume 74, 2023

Gender Inclusion and Fit in STEM

Abstract

Despite progress made toward increasing women's interest and involvement in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM), women continue to be underrepresented and experience less equity and inclusion in some STEM fields. In this article, I review the psychological literature relevant to understanding and mitigating women's lower fit and inclusion in STEM. Person-level explanations concerning women's abilities, interests, and self-efficacy are insufficient for explaining these persistent gaps. Rather, women's relatively lower interest in male-dominated STEM careers such as computer science and engineering is likely to be constrained by gender stereotypes. These gender stereotypes erode women's ability to experience self-concept fit, goal fit, and/or social fit. Such effects occur independently of intentional interpersonal biases and discrimination, and yet they create systemic barriers to women's attraction to, integration in, and advancement in STEM. Dismantling these systemic barriers requires a multifaceted approach to changing organizational and educational cultures at the institutional, interpersonal, and individual level.

Keyword(s): diversity and inclusion, gender, person-environment fit, science and technology, stereotypes
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-032720-043052
2023-01-18
2024-04-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/psych/74/1/annurev-psych-032720-043052.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-032720-043052&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Aguinis H, Ramani RS, Alabduljader N. 2018. What you see is what you get? Enhancing methodological transparency in management research. Acad. Manag. Ann. 12:183–110
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Allen LT. 2016. Dear tech companies: Focus on diversity, not foosball. Wired Sept. 19. https://www.wired.com/2016/09/dear-tech-companies-focus-diversity-not-foosball/
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Baumeister RF, Leary MR. 1995. The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychol. Bull. 117:3497–529
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Belanger AL, Diekman AB, Steinberg M. 2017. Leveraging communal experiences in the curriculum: increasing interest in pursuing engineering by changing stereotypic expectations. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 47:305–19
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Belanger AL, Joshi MP, Fuesting MA, Weisgram ES, Claypool HM, Diekman AB. 2020. Putting belonging in context: Communal affordances signal belonging in STEM. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 46:81186–204
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bello M, Galindo-Rueda F. 2020. Charting the digital transformation of science: findings from the 2018 OECD International Survey of Scientific Authors (ISSA2) OECD Sci. Technol. Ind. Work. Pap. OECD Paris: https://doi.org/10.1787/1b06c47c-en
    [Crossref]
  7. Berdahl JL, Moore C. 2006. Workplace harassment: double jeopardy for minority women. J. Appl. Psychol. 91:2426–36
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bezrukova K, Spell CS, Perry JL, Jehn KA. 2016. A meta-analytical integration of over 40 years of research on diversity training evaluation. Psychol. Bull. 142:111227–74
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bian L, Leslie S-J, Cimpian A. 2017. Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children's interests. Science 355:6323389–91
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Bian L, Leslie S-J, Cimpian A. 2018. Evidence of bias against girls and women in contexts that emphasize intellectual ability. Am. Psychol. 73:91139–53
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Blau FD, Kahn LM. 2017. The gender wage gap: extent, trends, and explanations. J. Econ. Lit. 55:3789–865
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Block K, Hall WM, Schmader T, Inness M, Croft E. 2018. Should I stay or should I go? Women's implicit stereotypic associations predict their commitment and fit in STEM. Soc. Psychol. 49:4243–51
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Block K, Olsson MIT, van Grootel S, Schuster C, Meeussen L et al. 2022. Why is the gender gap in the care-economy larger in highly developed countries? Work. Pap. Univ. Amsterdam Amsterdam, Neth:.
  14. Breda T, Jouini E, Napp C, Thebault G 2020. Gender stereotypes can explain the gender-equality paradox. PNAS 117:4931063–69
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Brescoll VL. 2016. Leading with their hearts? How gender stereotypes of emotion lead to biased evaluations of female leaders. Leadersh. Q. 27:3415–28
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Brown ER, Steinberg M, Lu Y, Diekman AB. 2018. Is the lone scientist an American dream? Perceived communal opportunities in STEM offer a pathway to closing US–Asia gaps in interest and positivity. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 9:111–23
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Carter AJ, Croft A, Lukas D, Sandstrom GM. 2018. Women's visibility in academic seminars: Women ask fewer questions than men. PLOS ONE 13:9e0202743
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Ceci SJ, Ginther DK, Kahn S, Williams WM. 2014. Women in academic science. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 15:375–141
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Ceci SJ, Williams WM. 2015. Women have substantial advantage in STEM faculty hiring, except when competing against more-accomplished men. Front. Psychol. 6:1532
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Chang EH, Milkman KL, Gromet DM, Rebele RW, Massey C et al. 2019. The mixed effects of online diversity training. PNAS 116:167778–83
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Charlesworth TE, Banaji MR. 2019. Patterns of implicit and explicit attitudes: I. Long-term change and stability from 2007 to 2016. Psychol. Sci. 30:2174–92
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Charlesworth TE, Banaji MR. 2021. Patterns of implicit and explicit attitudes: II. Long-term change and stability, regardless of group membership. Am. Psychol. 76:6851–69
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Charlesworth TE, Banaji MR. 2022. Patterns of implicit and explicit stereotypes: III. Long-term change in gender-science and gender-career stereotypes. Soc. Psychol. Person. Sci. 13:114–26
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Cheryan S, Markus HR 2020. Masculine defaults: identifying and mitigating hidden cultural biases. Psychol. Rev. 127:61022–52
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Cheryan S, Plaut VC, Davies PG, Steele CM. 2009. Ambient belonging: how stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 97:61045–60
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Chiaburu DS, Harrison DA. 2008. Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 93:51082–103
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Clark EK, Fuesting MA, Diekman AB. 2016. Enhancing interest in science: exemplars as cues to communal affordances of science. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 46:11641–54
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Corbett C, Hill C. 2015. Solving the Equation: The Variables for Women's Success in Engineering and Computing Washington, DC: Am. Assoc. Univ. Women
  29. Criado Perez C. 2019. Invisible Women: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men New York: Abrams
  30. Croft A, Schmader T, Block K. 2015. An underexamined inequality. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 19:4343–70
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Cvencek D, Meltzoff AN, Greenwald AG. 2011. Math-gender stereotypes in elementary school children. Child Dev. 82:3766–79
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Cvencek D, Paz-Albo J, Master A, Herranz Llácer CV, Hervás-Escobar A, Meltzoff AN 2020. Math is for me: a field intervention to strengthen math self-concepts in Spanish-speaking 3rd grade children. Front. Psychol. 11:593995
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Cvencek D, Ružica B, Dora G, Meltzoff AN 2021. Development of math attitudes and math self-concepts: gender differences, implicit-explicit dissociations, and relations to math achievement. Child Dev. 92:5e940–56
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Cyr EN, Bergsieker HB, Dennehy TC, Schmader T. 2021. Mapping social exclusion in STEM to men's implicit bias and women's career costs. PNAS 118:40276–91
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Dasgupta N, Asgari S. 2004. Seeing is believing: exposure to counterstereotypic women leaders and its effect on the malleability of automatic gender stereotyping. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 40:5642–58
     [Google Scholar]
  36. De Souza L, Schmader T. 2022a. The misjudgment of men: Does pluralistic ignorance inhibit allyship?. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 122:2265–85
     [Google Scholar]
  37. De Souza L, Schmader T. 2022b. What is(n't) allyship? Taxonomizing intended allyship actions Work. Pap. Univ. B. C. Vancouver, Can:.
  38. DeAro J. 2016. Systematic change to promote the participation of women in STEM PowerPoint slides presented at the Gender Summit 8 Mexico City: April 29. https://gender-summit.com/images/GS8/GS8_PPT/4.A-1.Jessie_DeAro_ NSF.pdf
  39. Deemer ED, Lin C, Soto C. 2016. Stereotype threat and women's science motivation: examining the disidentification effect. J. Career Assess. 24:4637–50
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Dennehy TC, Dasgupta N. 2017. Female peer mentors early in college increase women's positive academic experiences and retention in engineering. PNAS 114:235964–69
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Devine PG. 1989. Stereotypes and prejudice: their automatic and controlled components. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 56:15–18
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Devine PG, Ash TL. 2022. Diversity training goals, limitations, and promise: a review of the multidisciplinary literature. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 73:403–29
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Devine PG, Forscher PS, Cox WTL, Kaatz A, Sheridan J, Carnes M. 2017. A gender bias habit-breaking intervention led to increased hiring of female faculty in STEMM departments. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 73:211–15
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Diekman AB, Brown ER, Johnston AM, Clark EK. 2010. Seeking congruity between goals and roles. Psychol. Sci. 21:81051–57
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Diekman AB, Clark EK, Johnston AM, Brown ER, Steinberg M. 2011. Malleability in communal goals and beliefs influences attraction to stem careers: evidence for a goal congruity perspective. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 101:5902–18
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Diekman AB, Schmader T. 2021. Gender as embedded social cognition. PsyArXiv, April 28. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/wvx2s
    [Crossref]
  47. Diekman AB, Steinberg M, Brown ER, Belanger AL, Clark EK. 2017. A goal congruity model of role entry, engagement, and exit: understanding communal goal processes in STEM gender gaps. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 21:2142–75
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Dobbin F, Kalev A 2013. The origins and effects of corporate diversity programs. The Oxford Handbook of Diversity and Work Q Roberson 253–81 New York: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Dobbin F, Kalev A. 2016. Why diversity programs fail. Harv. Bus. Rev. 94:7 https://hbr.org/2016/07/why-diversity-programs-fail
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Doyle RA, Voyer D. 2016. Stereotype manipulation effects on math and spatial test performance: a meta-analysis. Learn. Individ. Diff. 47:103–16
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Dugger WE. 2010. Evolution of STEM in the United States Paper presented at the 6th Biennial International Conference on Technology Education Research Brisbane, Aust:.
  52. Dunlap ST, Barth JM. 2019. Career stereotypes and identities: implicit beliefs and major choice for college women and men in STEM and female-dominated fields. Sex Roles 81:9–10548–60
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Eagly AH. 1987. Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social-Role Interpretation Hove, UK: Psychol. Press. , 1st ed..
  54. Eagly AH. 2021. Hidden in plain sight: the inconsistent gender gaps in STEM and leadership. Psychol. Inq. 32:289–95
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Eagly AH, Carli LL. 2007. Through the Labyrinth: The Truth About How Women Become Leaders Boston, MA: Harvard Bus. Rev. Press
  56. Eagly AH, Karau SJ. 2002. Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychol. Rev. 109:3573–98
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Eagly AH, Nater C, Miller DI, Kaufmann M, Sczesny S. 2020. Gender stereotypes have changed: a cross-temporal meta-analysis of U.S. public opinion polls from 1946 to 2018. Am. Psychol. 75:3301–15
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Eccles J 1983. Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. Achievement and Achievement Motives: Psychological and Sociological Approaches JT Spence 75–146 San Francisco: Freeman
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Ellemers N. 2018. Gender stereotypes. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 69:275–98
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Else-Quest NM, Hyde JS, Linn MC. 2010. Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 136:1103–27
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Evans A. 2021. Why is blue-collar work still male-dominated?. Brookings Sept. 7. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/future-development/2021/09/07/why-is-blue-collar-work-still-male-dominated/
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Falk A, Hermle J. 2018. Relationship of gender differences in preferences to economic development and gender equality. Science 362:6412eaas9899
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Fehr C. 2011. What is in it for me? The benefits of diversity in scientific communities. Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science H Grasswick 133–55 Dordrecht, Ger: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Flore PC, Wicherts JM. 2015. Does stereotype threat influence performance of girls in stereotyped domains? A meta-analysis. J. Sch. Psychol. 53:125–44
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Flory JA, Leibbrandt A, List JA. 2015. Do competitive workplaces deter female workers? A large-scale natural field experiment on job entry decisions. Rev. Econ. Stud. 82:1122–55
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Fouad N, Fitzpatrick M, Liu JP. 2011. Persistence of women in engineering careers: a qualitative study of current and former female engineers. J. Women Minor. Sci. Eng. 17:169–96
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Fuesting MA, Diekman AB. 2017. Not by success alone: Role models provide pathways to communal opportunities in STEM. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 43:2163–76
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Gálvez RH, Tiffenberg V, Altszyler E. 2019. Half a century of stereotyping associations between gender and intellectual ability in films. Sex Roles 81:9–10643–54
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Garde D, Saltzman J. 2020. The story of mRNA: how a once-dismissed idea became a leading technology in the Covid vaccine race. STAT Nov. 10. https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/10/the-story-of-mrna-how-a-once-dismissed-idea-became-a-leading-technology-in-the-covid-vaccine-race/
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Gneezy U, Leonard K, List J 2009. Gender differences in competition: evidence from a matrilineal and a patriarchal society. Econometrica 77:51637–64
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Gonzalez AM, Odic D, Schmader T, Block K, Baron AS. 2021. The effect of gender stereotypes on young girls’ intuitive number sense. PLOS ONE 16:10e0258886
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Greenwald AG, Banaji MR, Rudman LA, Farnham SD, Nosek BA, Mellott DS. 2002. A unified theory of implicit attitudes, stereotypes, self-esteem, and self-concept. Psychol. Rev. 109:13–25
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Grover SS, Ito TA, Park B. 2017. The effects of gender composition on women's experience in math work groups. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 112:6877–900
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Gruber J, Mendle J, Lindquist KA, Schmader T, Clark LA et al. 2021. The future of women in psychological science. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 16:3483–516
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Gunderson EA, Ramirez G, Levine SC, Beilock SL. 2012. The role of parents and teachers in the development of gender-related math attitudes. Sex Roles 66:3–4153–66
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Hall WM, Schmader T, Aday A, Croft E. 2018. Decoding the dynamics of social identity threat in the workplace: a within-person analysis of women's and men's interactions in STEM. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 10:4542–52
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Hall WM, Schmader T, Croft E. 2015. Engineering exchanges: Daily social identity threat predicts burnout among female engineers. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 6:5528–34
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Hall WM, Schmader T, Inness M, Croft E. 2022. Climate change: an increase in norms for inclusion predicts greater fit and commitment for women in Stem. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 25:71781–96
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Hamrick K. 2021. Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering Rep. Natl. Sci. Found. Alexandria, VA: https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21321/report
  80. Harrison DA, Kravitz DA, Mayer DM, Leslie LM, Lev-Arey D. 2006. Understanding attitudes toward affirmative action programs in employment: summary and meta-analysis of 35 years of research. J. Appl. Psychol. 91:51013–36
     [Google Scholar]
  81. He JC, Kang SK, Lacetera N. 2021. Opt-out choice framing attenuates gender differences in the decision to compete in the laboratory and in the field. PNAS 118:42e2108337118
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Heilman ME, Battle WS, Keller CE, Lee RA. 1998. Type of affirmative action policy: a determinant of reactions to sex-based preferential selection?. J. Appl. Psychol. 83:190–205
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Henningsen L, Horvath LK, Jonas K 2021. Affirmative action policies in academic job advertisements: Do they facilitate or hinder gender discrimination in hiring processes for professorships?. Sex Roles 86:1–234–48
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Higgins ET. 2000. Making a good decision: value from fit. Am. Psychol. 55:111217–30
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Hill C, Corbett C, St. Rose A. 2010. Why So Few? Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Washington, DC: Am. Assoc. Univ. Women
  86. Hyde JS, Fennema E, Ryan M, Frost LA, Hopp C. 1990. Gender comparisons of mathematics attitudes and affect: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Women Q. 14:3299–324
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Iredale W, Van Vugt M, Dunbar R. 2008. Showing off in humans: male generosity as a mating signal. Evol. Psychol. 6:3147470490800600
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Jaxon J, Lei RF, Shachnai R, Chestnut EK, Cimpian A. 2019. The acquisition of gender stereotypes about intellectual ability: intersections with race. J. Soc. Issues 75:41192–215
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Jost JT, Kay AC. 2005. Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 88:3498–509
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Judd A. 2020. Female engineers file human rights complaint against BC Ferries over lack of change-room space. Global News, Dec. 21. https://globalnews.ca/news/7536255/bc-ferries-women-engineers-human-rights-complaint/
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Kaiser CR, Major B, Jurcevic I, Dover TL, Brady LM, Shapiro JR. 2013. Presumed fair: ironic effects of organizational diversity structures. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 104:3504–19
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Kesebir S, Lee SY, Elliot AJ, Pillutla MM. 2019. Lay beliefs about competition: scale development and gender differences. Motiv. Emot. 43:5719–39
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Klawe M. 2017. 3 ways to get more women into tech. Chronicle of Higher Education Nov. 5. https://www.chronicle.com/article/3-ways-to-get-more-women-into-tech/
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Koenig AM, Eagly AH. 2014. Evidence for the social role theory of stereotype content: Observations of groups’ roles shape stereotypes. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 107:3371–92
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Kuchynka SL, Bosson JK, Vandello JA, Puryear C. 2018. Zero-sum thinking and the masculinity contest: perceived intergroup competition and workplace gender bias. J. Soc. Issues 74:3529–50
     [Google Scholar]
  96. LaCosse J, Murphy MC, Garcia JA, Zirkel S. 2021. The role of STEM professors’ mindset beliefs on students’ anticipated psychological experiences and course interest. J. Educ. Psychol. 113:5949–71
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Lawner EK, Quinn DM, Camacho G, Johnson BT, Pan-Weisz B. 2019. Ingroup role models and underrepresented students’ performance and interest in STEM: a meta-analysis of lab and field studies. Soc. Psychol. Educ. 22:51169–95
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Leslie S-J, Cimpian A, Meyer M, Freeland E. 2015. Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science 347:6219262–65
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Levanon G, Cheng B, Paterra M. 2014. The risk of future labor shortages in different occupations and industries in the United States. Bus. Econ. 49:4227–43
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Levanon A, Grusky DB. 2016. The persistence of extreme gender segregation in the twenty-first century. Am. J. Sociol. 122:2573–619
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Lewis NA, Sekaquaptewa D, Meadows LA. 2019. Modeling gender counter-stereotypic group behavior: A brief video intervention reduces participation gender gaps on STEM teams. Soc. Psychol. Educ. 22:3557–77
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Li X, Han M, Cohen GL, Markus HR 2021. Passion matters but not equally everywhere: predicting achievement from interest, enjoyment, and efficacy in 59 societies. PNAS 118:11e2016964118
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Liu S, Liu P, Wang M, Zhang B. 2021. Effectiveness of stereotype threat interventions: a meta-analytic review. J. Appl. Psychol. 106:6921–49
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Logel C, Walton GM, Spencer SJ, Iserman EC, von Hippel W, Bell AE. 2009. Interacting with sexist men triggers social identity threat among female engineers. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 96:61089–103
     [Google Scholar]
  105. Madon S, Jussim L, Guyll M, Nofziger H, Salib ER et al. 2018. The accumulation of stereotype-based self-fulfilling prophecies. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 115:5825–44
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Markus HR, Kitayama S. 2010. Cultures and selves. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 5:4420–30
     [Google Scholar]
  107. Marsh HW, Parker PD, Guo J, Basarkod G, Niepel C, Van Zanden B. 2021. Illusory gender-equality paradox, math self-concept, and frame-of-reference effects: new integrative explanations for multiple paradoxes. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 121:1168–83
     [Google Scholar]
  108. Master A, Meltzoff AN, Cheryan S. 2021. Gender stereotypes about interests start early and cause gender disparities in computer science and engineering. PNAS 118:48e2100030118
     [Google Scholar]
  109. McCord MA, Joseph DL, Dhanani LY, Beus JM. 2018. A meta-analysis of sex and race differences in perceived workplace mistreatment. J. Appl. Psychol. 103:2137–63
     [Google Scholar]
  110. McPherson E, Park B. 2021. Who chooses a pSTEM academic major? Using social psychology to predict selection and persistence over the freshman year. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 51:4474–92
     [Google Scholar]
  111. McPherson E, Park B, Ito TA. 2018. The role of prototype matching in science pursuits: Perceptions of scientists that are inaccurate and diverge from self-perceptions predict reduced interest in a science career. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 44:6881–98
     [Google Scholar]
  112. McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM. 2001. Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 27:415–44
     [Google Scholar]
  113. Miller DI, Eagly AH, Linn MC. 2015. Women's representation in science predicts national gender-science stereotypes: evidence from 66 nations. J. Educ. Psychol. 107:3631–44
     [Google Scholar]
  114. Miller DI, Nolla KM, Eagly AH, Uttal DH. 2018. The development of children's gender-science stereotypes: a meta-analysis of 5 decades of U.S. draw-a-scientist studies. Child Dev. 89:61943–55
     [Google Scholar]
  115. Moss-Racusin CA, Dovidio JF, Brescoll VL, Graham MJ, Handelsman J. 2012. Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students. PNAS 109:4116474–79
     [Google Scholar]
  116. Muenks K, Canning EA, LaCosse J, Green DJ, Zirkel S et al. 2020. Does my professor think my ability can change? Students’ perceptions of their stem professors’ mindset beliefs predict their psychological vulnerability, engagement, and performance in class. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 149:112119–44
     [Google Scholar]
  117. Muenks K, Peterson EG, Green AE, Kolvoord RA, Uttal DH. 2019. Parents’ beliefs about high school students’ spatial abilities: gender differences and associations with parent encouragement to pursue a stem career and students’ stem career intentions. Sex Roles 82:9–10570–83
     [Google Scholar]
  118. Muenks K, Wigfield A, Eccles JS. 2018. I can do this! The development and calibration of children's expectations for success and competence beliefs. Dev. Rev. 48:24–39
     [Google Scholar]
  119. Muradoglu M, Horne Z, Hammond MD, Leslie S-J, Cimpian A. 2022. Women—particularly underrepresented minority women—and early-career academics feel like impostors in fields that value brilliance. J. Educ. Psychol 114:51086–100
     [Google Scholar]
  120. Murphy MC, Mejia AF, Mejia J, Yan X, Cheryan S et al. 2020. Open science, communal culture, and women's participation in the movement to improve science. PNAS 117:3924154–64
     [Google Scholar]
  121. Murphy MC, Steele CM, Gross JJ. 2007. Signaling threat: how situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychol. Sci. 18:10879–85
     [Google Scholar]
  122. Murrar S, Campbell MR, Brauer M. 2020. Exposure to peers’ pro-diversity attitudes increases inclusion and reduces the achievement gap. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4:9889–97
     [Google Scholar]
  123. Nosek BA, Banaji MR, Greenwald AG. 2002. Math = male, me = female, therefore math ≠ me. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 83:144–59
     [Google Scholar]
  124. Nosek BA, Smyth FL. 2011. Implicit social cognitions predict sex differences in math engagement and achievement. Am. Educ. Res. J. 48:51125–56
     [Google Scholar]
  125. Nosek BA, Smyth FL, Sriram N, Lindner NM, Devos T et al. 2009. National differences in gender-science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. PNAS 106:2610593–97
     [Google Scholar]
  126. Nye CD, Su R, Rounds J, Drasgow F. 2012. Vocational interests and performance. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 7:4384–403
     [Google Scholar]
  127. Nye CD, Su R, Rounds J, Drasgow F. 2017. Interest congruence and performance: revisiting recent meta-analytic findings. J. Vocat. Behav. 98:138–51
     [Google Scholar]
  128. Park LE, Kondrak CL, Ward DE, Streamer L. 2018. Positive feedback from male authority figures boosts women's math outcomes. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 44:3359–83
     [Google Scholar]
  129. Parsons JE, Adler TF, Kaczala CM. 1982. Socialization of achievement attitudes and beliefs: parental influences. Child Dev. 53:2310–21
     [Google Scholar]
  130. Payne BK, Vuletich HA, Lundberg KB. 2017. The bias of crowds: how implicit bias bridges personal and systemic prejudice. Psychol. Inq. 28:4233–48
     [Google Scholar]
  131. Rezai M, Kolne K, Bui S, Lindsay S 2020. Measures of workplace inclusion: a systematic review using the Cosmin methodology. J. Occup. Rehabil. 30:3420–54
     [Google Scholar]
  132. Rounds J, Su R. 2014. The nature and power of interests. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 23:298–103
     [Google Scholar]
  133. Schiebinger L 2021. Gendered innovations: integrating sex, gender, and intersectional analysis into science, health & medicine, engineering, and environment. Tapuya Lat. Am. Sci. Technol. Soc. 4:1 https://doi.org/10.1080/25729861.2020.1867420
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  134. Schmader T, Dennehy TC, Baron AS. 2022. Why antibias interventions (need not) fail. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 17:51381–403
     [Google Scholar]
  135. Schmader T, Johns M, Forbes C. 2008. An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance. Psychol. Rev. 115:2336–56
     [Google Scholar]
  136. Schmader T, Sedikides C. 2018. State authenticity as fit to environment: the implications of social identity for fit, authenticity, and self-segregation. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 22:3228–59
     [Google Scholar]
  137. Schmader T, Whitehead J, Wysocki VH. 2007. A linguistic comparison of letters of recommendation for male and female chemistry and biochemistry job applicants. Sex Roles 57:7–8509–14
     [Google Scholar]
  138. Shutts K. 2015. Young children's preferences: gender, race, and social status. Child Dev. Perspect. 9:4262–66
     [Google Scholar]
  139. Smith M. 2021. These college majors have the best return on investment, according to a new report. CNBC Aug. 19. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/19/these-college-majors-have-the-best-return-on-investment.html
    [Google Scholar]
  140. Sojo VE, Wood RE, Genat AE. 2016. Harmful workplace experiences and women's occupational well-being. Psychol. Women Q. 40:110–40
     [Google Scholar]
  141. Spencer SJ, Logel C, Davies PG. 2016. Stereotype threat. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 67:415–37
     [Google Scholar]
  142. Spencer SJ, Steele CM, Quinn DM. 1999. Stereotype threat and women's math performance. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 35:14–28
     [Google Scholar]
  143. Steele CM, Aronson J. 1995. Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 69:5797–811
     [Google Scholar]
  144. Storage D, Charlesworth TES, Banaji MR, Cimpian A. 2020. Adults and children implicitly associate brilliance with men more than women. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 90:104020
     [Google Scholar]
  145. Storage D, Horne Z, Cimpian A, Leslie S-J. 2016. The frequency of “brilliant” and “genius” in teaching evaluations predicts the representation of women and African Americans across fields. PLOS ONE 11:3e0150194
     [Google Scholar]
  146. Stout JG, Dasgupta N, Hunsinger M, McManus MA. 2011. STEMing the tide: Using ingroup experts to inoculate women's self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 100:2255–70
     [Google Scholar]
  147. Su R, Rounds J. 2015. All STEM fields are not created equal: People and things interests explain gender disparities across STEM fields. Front. Psychol. 6:189
     [Google Scholar]
  148. Su R, Rounds J, Armstrong PI. 2009. Men and things, women and people: a meta-analysis of sex differences in interests. Psychol. Bull. 135:6859–84
     [Google Scholar]
  149. Swann WB Jr. 1990. To be adored or to be known: the interplay of self-enhancement and self-verification. Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior ET Higgins, RM Sorrentino 408–48 New York: Guildford
     [Google Scholar]
  150. Tenbrunsel AE, Rees MKR, Diekmann KA 2019. Sexual harassment in academia: ethical climates and bounded ethicality. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 70:245–70
     [Google Scholar]
  151. Voyer D, Voyer SD. 2014. Gender differences in scholastic achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 140:41174–1204 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036620
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  152. Walton GM, Carr PB 2011. Social belonging and the motivation and intellectual achievement of negatively stereotyped students. Stereotype Threat Theory, Process, and Application M Inzlicht, T Schmader 90–106 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  153. Witteman HO, Hendricks M, Straus S, Tannenbaum C. 2019. Are gender gaps due to evaluations of the applicant or the science? A natural experiment at a national funding agency. Lancet 393:10171531–40
     [Google Scholar]
  154. Williams WM, Ceci SJ. 2015. National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track. PNAS 112:175360–65
     [Google Scholar]
  155. Wilton LS, Bell AN, Vahradyan M, Kaiser CR. 2020. Show don't tell: Diversity dishonesty harms racial/ethnic minorities at work. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 46:81171–85
     [Google Scholar]
  156. Woodcock A, Hernandez PR, Schultz PW. 2016. Diversifying science: Intervention programs moderate the effect of stereotype threat on motivation and career choice. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 7:2184–92
     [Google Scholar]
  157. Yao J, Lim S, Guo CY, Ou AY, Ng JW. 2022. Experienced incivility in the workplace: a meta-analytical review of its construct validity and nomological network. J. Appl. Psychol. 107:2193–220
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-032720-043052
Loading
Gender Inclusion and Fit in STEM
Annual Review of Psychology 74, 219 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-032720-043052
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-032720-043052
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-032720-043052
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error