An official website of the United States government
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
This content will become publicly available on May 6, 2026
Divergence in children’s gender stereotypes and motivation across STEM fields
STEM disciplines are traditionally stereotyped as being for men and boys. However, in two preregistered studies of Grades 1 to 12 students in the United States (N = 2,765), we find a significant divergence in students’ gender stereotypes about different STEM fields. Gender stereotypes about computer science and engineering more strongly favored boys than did gender stereotypes about math and science. These patterns hold across genders, intersections of gender and race/ethnicity, and two geographical regions. This divergence between different STEM fields was evident, although smaller, for children in elementary school compared to adolescents (students in middle school and high school). The divergence in stereotypes predicted students’ divergence in motivation for entering these fields. Gender stereotypes on average slightly favored girls in math and were egalitarian or slightly favored girls in science, while boys remained strongly favored for computer science and engineering, with implications for educational equity and targeted interventions.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2122488
- PAR ID:
- 10593383
- Publisher / Repository:
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Volume:
- 122
- Issue:
- 18
- ISSN:
- 0027-8424
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
This meta-analysis studied the development of ability stereotypes that could limit girls’ and women’s participation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, as well as contribute to boys’ underachievement in reading and writing. We integrated findings from 98 studies measuring children’s gender stereotypes about STEM and verbal abilities. The data comprised 145,204 children (ages 4–17) from 33 nations across more than 40 years (1977–2020). Preregistered analyses showed why prior researchers have reached diverging conclusions about the onset, change, and extent of these stereotypes in childhood and adolescence. Contrary to some prior conclusions, math stereotypes favoring male ability were minimal on average (0.11 SDs from gender neutrality). Stereotypes were instead far stronger for computer science, engineering, and physics (0.51 SDs), which favored male ability by age 6. Girls increasingly endorsed pro-male STEM stereotypes with age. Pro-female verbal ability stereotypes were also substantial (0.46 SDs), emerging by age 8 and becoming more female-biased with age. Additionally, STEM stereotypes were weaker for Black than White U.S. participants, as predicted. Unexpectedly, however, boys’ STEM stereotypes declined before age 13 but increased thereafter, revealing an asymmetric development across STEM versus verbal domains. We integrated developmental intergroup theory and social role theory to explain this asymmetry, considering both cognitive and sociocultural processes. The early emergence of verbal stereotypes and certain STEM stereotypes (e.g., engineering) means that they have ample time to affect later downstream outcomes such as domainspecific confidence and interests.more » « less
-
Abstract Gender stereotypes are harmful for girls’ enrollment and performance in science and mathematics. So far, less is known about children’s and adolescents’ stereotypes regarding technology and engineering. In the current study, participants’ (N = 1,206, girlsn = 623; 5–17-years-old,M = 8.63,SD = 2.81) gender stereotypes for each of the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) domains were assessed along with the relation between these stereotypes and a peer selection task in a STEM context. Participants reported beliefs that boys are usually more skilled than are girls in the domains of engineering and technology; however, participants did not report gender differences in ability/performance in science and mathematics. Responses to the stereotype measures in favor of one’s in-group were greater for younger participants than older participants for both boys and girls. Perceptions that boys are usually better than girls at science were related to a greater likelihood of selecting a boy for help with a science question. These findings document the importance of domain specificity, even within STEM, in attempts to measure and challenge gender stereotypes in childhood and adolescence.more » « less
-
Though adults tend to endorse the stereotype that boys are better than girls in math, children tend to favor their own gender or be gender egalitarian. When do individuals start endorsing the traditional stereotype that boys are better? Using two longitudinal U.S. datasets that span 1993 to 2011, we examined three questions: (1) What are the developmental changes in adolescents’ gender stereotypes about math abilities from early to late adolescence? (2) Do the developmental changes vary based on gender and race/ethnicity? (3) Are adolescents’ stereotypes related to their math motivational beliefs? Finally, (4) do these patterns replicate across two datasets that vary in historical time? Adolescents in grades 8/9 and 11 were asked whether girls or boys are better at math (n’s = 1186 and 23,340, 49–53% girls, 30–54% White, 13–60% Black, 1–22% Latinx, and 2% to 4% Asian). Early adolescents were more likely to be gender egalitarian or favor their own gender. By late adolescence, adolescents’ stereotypes typically shifted towards the traditional stereotype that boys are better. In terms of race/ethnicity, White and Asian adolescents significantly favored boys, whereas Black and Latinx adolescents were more likely to endorse gender egalitarian beliefs. Adolescents’ stereotypes were significantly related to their expectancy beliefs, negatively for girls and positively for boys.more » « less
-
Abstract We draw from ecological systems and social psychological theories to elucidate macrosystem‐ and microsystem‐level variables that promote and maintain gender inequities in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). Because gender‐STEM stereotypes undermine girls’ (and women's), but boosts boys’ (and men's), STEM interest and success, we review how they operate in STEM learning environments to differentially socialize girls and boys and undermine gender integroup relations. We propose seven practice recommendations to improve STEM K‐12 education: (1) design relational classrooms, (2) teach the history of gender inequality and bias, (3) foster collaborative and cooperative classrooms, (4) promote active learning and growth mindset strategies, (5) reframing STEM as inclusive, (6) create near‐peer mentorship programs, and (7) re‐imagine evaluation metrics. To support these practice recommendations, three policy recommendations are posited: (1) increase teacher autonomy, training, and representation, (2) re‐evaluate standardized testing, and (3) reallocate and increase government funding for public schools.more » « less
