skip to main content

Title: Teachers’ race and gender biases and the moderating effects of their beliefs and dispositions
Abstract Background

Women and people of color continue to be underrepresented in many STEM fields and careers. Many studies have linked societal biases against the mathematical abilities of women and people of color to this underrepresentation, as well as to earlier measures of mathematical confidence and performance. Recent studies have shown that teachers may unintentionally have biases that reflect those in broader society. Yet, many studies on teachers’ reports of students’ abilities use data in the field—not experimental data—and thus often cannot say if the findings reflect bias or actual differences. The few experimental studies conducted suggest bias against the abilities of girls and students of color, but the prior work has limitations, which we seek to address (e.g., local samples, no exploration of moderators, no preregistration).


In this preregistered experiment of 458 teachers across the U.S., we randomly assigned gender- and race-specific names to solutions to math problems, then asked teachers to rate the correctness of the solution, as well as the student’s math ability and effort. Teachers also completed scales reflecting their own beliefs and dispositions, which we then assessed how those beliefs/dispositions moderated their biases. We used multilevel modeling to account for the nested data structure.


Consistent with our preregistered hypotheses, when the solution was not fully correct, findings suggest teachers thought boys had higher ability, even though the same teachers did not report differences in the correctness of the solution or perceived effort. Moreover, teachers who reported that gender disparities no longer exist in society were particularly likely to underestimate girls’ abilities. Although findings revealed no evidence of racial bias on average, teachers’ math anxiety moderated their ability judgments of students from different races, albeit with only marginal significance; teachers with high math anxiety tended to assume that White students had higher math ability than students of color.


The present research identifies teachers’ beliefs and dispositions that moderate their gender and racial biases. This experimental evidence sheds new light on why even low-performing boys consistently report higher math confidence and pursue STEM—namely, their teachers believe they have higher mathematical ability.

more » « less
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ;
Publisher / Repository:
Springer Science + Business Media
Date Published:
Journal Name:
International Journal of STEM Education
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Societal stereotypes depict girls as less interested than boys in computer science and engineering. We demonstrate the existence of these stereotypes among children and adolescents from first to 12th grade and their potential negative consequences for girls’ subsequent participation in these fields. Studies 1 and 2 ( n = 2,277; one preregistered) reveal that children as young as age six (first grade) and adolescents across multiple racial/ethnic and gender intersections (Black, Latinx, Asian, and White girls and boys) endorse stereotypes that girls are less interested than boys in computer science and engineering. The more that individual girls endorse gender-interest stereotypes favoring boys in computer science and engineering, the lower their own interest and sense of belonging in these fields. These gender-interest stereotypes are endorsed even more strongly than gender stereotypes about computer science and engineering abilities. Studies 3 and 4 ( n = 172; both preregistered) experimentally demonstrate that 8- to 9-y-old girls are significantly less interested in an activity marked with a gender stereotype (“girls are less interested in this activity than boys”) compared to an activity with no such stereotype (“girls and boys are equally interested in this activity”). Taken together, both ecologically valid real-world studies (Studies 1 and 2) and controlled preregistered laboratory experiments (Studies 3 and 4) reveal that stereotypes that girls are less interested than boys in computer science and engineering emerge early and may contribute to gender disparities. 
    more » « less
  2. Abstract Background

    Despite the diverse student population in the USA, the labor force in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) does not reflect this reality. While restrictive messages about who belongs in STEM likely discourage students, particularly female and minoritized students, from entering these fields, extant research on this topic is typically focused on the negative impact of stereotypes regarding math ability, or the existence of stereotypes about the physical appearance of scientists. Instead, this study builds on the limited body of research that captures a more comprehensive picture of students’ views of scientists, including not only the type of work that they do but also the things that interest them. Specifically, utilizing a sample of approximately 1000 Black and Latinx adolescents, the study employs an intersectional lens to examine whether the prevalence of counter-stereotypical views of scientists, and the association such views have on subsequent intentions to pursue STEM college majors, varies among students from different gender and racial/ethnic groups (e.g., Black female students, Latinx male students).


    While about half of Black and Latinx students reported holding counter-stereotypical beliefs about scientists, this is significantly more common among female students of color, and among Black female students in particular. Results from logistic regression models indicate that, net of control variables, holding counter-stereotypical beliefs about scientists predicts both young men’s and women’s intentions to major in computer science and engineering, but not intentions to major in either physical science or mathematics. Additionally, among Black and Latinx male students, counter-stereotypical perceptions of scientists are related to a higher likelihood of intending to major in biological sciences.


    The results support the use of an intersectional approach to consider how counter-stereotypical beliefs about scientists differ across gender and racial/ethnic groups. Importantly, the results also suggest that among Black and Latinx youth, for both female and male students, holding counter-stereotypical beliefs promotes intentions to enter particular STEM fields in which they are severely underrepresented. Implications of these findings and directions for future research, specifically focusing on minoritized students, which are often left out in this body of literature, are discussed.

    more » « less
  3. Research Findings: Two hundred and sixty-seven Chilean children from grades 1–3, their fathers and their mothers completed measures of implicit and explicit math-related beliefs (math–gender stereotypes, math selfconcepts) and feelings (math anxiety), as well as tests of mathematical achievement. Children, fathers, and mothers exhibited stereotypes that link math with males. More specifically, mothers identified more with language than with math, while fathers and children identified more with math than with language. Path analyses models revealed that children’s explicit math self-concepts significantly predicted their actual math achievement. Children’s explicit self-concept was, in turn, explained marginally by the mathematical anxiety of their mothers. Practice or Policy: These results contribute to our understanding of the relation between parental and children’s beliefs and children’s math achievement during early elementary school years. In countries such as Chile, with a significant gender gap in math achievement, these findings may highlight relevant aspects to consider when designing interventions aimed at educational equity and providing equal mathematical learning opportunities to boys and girls. 
    more » « less
  4. In this replication study, we examined gender differences in students’ math competence-related beliefs from 9th to 12th grade and tested gender differences within four racial/ethnic groups. In order to test the potential historical changes in these patterns and to counteract the replication crisis in psychology, this study employed six U.S. datasets collected from the 1980s to 2010s. Using a total sample of 24,290 students (49.5% male students; 11% African-, 9% Asian-; 30% Latinx- and 50% European-Americans), we found gender differences in students’ math competence-related beliefs favoring boys at all grade levels. By comparing effect sizes across datasets, we found no evidence that these gender differences varied by dataset or by historical time. The results across race/ethnicity with a subsample of 23,070 students indicated meaningful gender differences in students’ math competence-related beliefs favoring boys at all grade levels among Asian-, European-, and Latinx-Americans, but not among African-Americans where differences favored girls in 12th grade. Overall, our findings provide no evidence of historical changes concerning gender differences in students’ math competence-related beliefs across datasets. Our findings illustrate the importance of replicating empirical findings across datasets and using an intersectional lens to investigate math motivation. 
    more » « less
  5. Abstract: 100 words Jurors are increasingly exposed to scientific information in the courtroom. To determine whether providing jurors with gist information would assist in their ability to make well-informed decisions, the present experiment utilized a Fuzzy Trace Theory-inspired intervention and tested it against traditional legal safeguards (i.e., judge instructions) by varying the scientific quality of the evidence. The results indicate that jurors who viewed high quality evidence rated the scientific evidence significantly higher than those who viewed low quality evidence, but were unable to moderate the credibility of the expert witness and apply damages appropriately resulting in poor calibration. Summary: <1000 words Jurors and juries are increasingly exposed to scientific information in the courtroom and it remains unclear when they will base their decisions on a reasonable understanding of the relevant scientific information. Without such knowledge, the ability of jurors and juries to make well-informed decisions may be at risk, increasing chances of unjust outcomes (e.g., false convictions in criminal cases). Therefore, there is a critical need to understand conditions that affect jurors’ and juries’ sensitivity to the qualities of scientific information and to identify safeguards that can assist with scientific calibration in the courtroom. The current project addresses these issues with an ecologically valid experimental paradigm, making it possible to assess causal effects of evidence quality and safeguards as well as the role of a host of individual difference variables that may affect perceptions of testimony by scientific experts as well as liability in a civil case. Our main goal was to develop a simple, theoretically grounded tool to enable triers of fact (individual jurors) with a range of scientific reasoning abilities to appropriately weigh scientific evidence in court. We did so by testing a Fuzzy Trace Theory-inspired intervention in court, and testing it against traditional legal safeguards. Appropriate use of scientific evidence reflects good calibration – which we define as being influenced more by strong scientific information than by weak scientific information. Inappropriate use reflects poor calibration – defined as relative insensitivity to the strength of scientific information. Fuzzy Trace Theory (Reyna & Brainerd, 1995) predicts that techniques for improving calibration can come from presentation of easy-to-interpret, bottom-line “gist” of the information. Our central hypothesis was that laypeople’s appropriate use of scientific information would be moderated both by external situational conditions (e.g., quality of the scientific information itself, a decision aid designed to convey clearly the “gist” of the information) and individual differences among people (e.g., scientific reasoning skills, cognitive reflection tendencies, numeracy, need for cognition, attitudes toward and trust in science). Identifying factors that promote jurors’ appropriate understanding of and reliance on scientific information will contribute to general theories of reasoning based on scientific evidence, while also providing an evidence-based framework for improving the courts’ use of scientific information. All hypotheses were preregistered on the Open Science Framework. Method Participants completed six questionnaires (counterbalanced): Need for Cognition Scale (NCS; 18 items), Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT; 7 items), Abbreviated Numeracy Scale (ABS; 6 items), Scientific Reasoning Scale (SRS; 11 items), Trust in Science (TIS; 29 items), and Attitudes towards Science (ATS; 7 items). Participants then viewed a video depicting a civil trial in which the defendant sought damages from the plaintiff for injuries caused by a fall. The defendant (bar patron) alleged that the plaintiff (bartender) pushed him, causing him to fall and hit his head on the hard floor. Participants were informed at the outset that the defendant was liable; therefore, their task was to determine if the plaintiff should be compensated. Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 6 experimental conditions: 2 (quality of scientific evidence: high vs. low) x 3 (safeguard to improve calibration: gist information, no-gist information [control], jury instructions). An expert witness (neuroscientist) hired by the court testified regarding the scientific strength of fMRI data (high [90 to 10 signal-to-noise ratio] vs. low [50 to 50 signal-to-noise ratio]) and gist or no-gist information both verbally (i.e., fairly high/about average) and visually (i.e., a graph). After viewing the video, participants were asked if they would like to award damages. If they indicated yes, they were asked to enter a dollar amount. Participants then completed the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule-Modified Short Form (PANAS-MSF; 16 items), expert Witness Credibility Scale (WCS; 20 items), Witness Credibility and Influence on damages for each witness, manipulation check questions, Understanding Scientific Testimony (UST; 10 items), and 3 additional measures were collected, but are beyond the scope of the current investigation. Finally, participants completed demographic questions, including questions about their scientific background and experience. The study was completed via Qualtrics, with participation from students (online vs. in-lab), MTurkers, and non-student community members. After removing those who failed attention check questions, 469 participants remained (243 men, 224 women, 2 did not specify gender) from a variety of racial and ethnic backgrounds (70.2% White, non-Hispanic). Results and Discussion There were three primary outcomes: quality of the scientific evidence, expert credibility (WCS), and damages. During initial analyses, each dependent variable was submitted to a separate 3 Gist Safeguard (safeguard, no safeguard, judge instructions) x 2 Scientific Quality (high, low) Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Consistent with hypotheses, there was a significant main effect of scientific quality on strength of evidence, F(1, 463)=5.099, p=.024; participants who viewed the high quality evidence rated the scientific evidence significantly higher (M= 7.44) than those who viewed the low quality evidence (M=7.06). There were no significant main effects or interactions for witness credibility, indicating that the expert that provided scientific testimony was seen as equally credible regardless of scientific quality or gist safeguard. Finally, for damages, consistent with hypotheses, there was a marginally significant interaction between Gist Safeguard and Scientific Quality, F(2, 273)=2.916, p=.056. However, post hoc t-tests revealed significantly higher damages were awarded for low (M=11.50) versus high (M=10.51) scientific quality evidence F(1, 273)=3.955, p=.048 in the no gist with judge instructions safeguard condition, which was contrary to hypotheses. The data suggest that the judge instructions alone are reversing the pattern, though nonsignificant, those who received the no gist without judge instructions safeguard awarded higher damages in the high (M=11.34) versus low (M=10.84) scientific quality evidence conditions F(1, 273)=1.059, p=.30. Together, these provide promising initial results indicating that participants were able to effectively differentiate between high and low scientific quality of evidence, though inappropriately utilized the scientific evidence through their inability to discern expert credibility and apply damages, resulting in poor calibration. These results will provide the basis for more sophisticated analyses including higher order interactions with individual differences (e.g., need for cognition) as well as tests of mediation using path analyses. [References omitted but available by request] Learning Objective: Participants will be able to determine whether providing jurors with gist information would assist in their ability to award damages in a civil trial. 
    more » « less