Gender disparities in participation in many STEM fields, particularly computer science, engineering, and physics, remain prevalent in Western societies. Stewart-Williams and Halsey contend that an important contributor to these disparities is gender differences in career-related preferences that are driven partly by biology. We argue that Stewart-Williams and Halsey understate the influence of cultural factors in shaping these preferences. We provide evidence for an important and overlooked cultural factor that contributes to gender disparities in computer science, engineering, and physics: masculine defaults. Masculine defaults exist when cultures value and reward traits and characteristics associated with the male gender role and see them as standard (Cheryan & Markus, 2020). We provide examples of how changing computer science, engineering, and physics cultures can decrease gender disparities in participation. Finally, we discuss policy implications, specifically the importance of (1) recognizing that preferences for STEM are malleable and (2) addressing exclusionary cultures of STEM fields. Recognizing and changing exclusionary STEM cultures are important for creating a society that is more just and equitable.
BarronB. (2004).
Learning ecologies for technological fluency: Gender and experience differences. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
31(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.2190/1N20-VV12-4RB5-33VA
2.
Bian, L., Leslie, S. J., & Cimpian, A. (2017). Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children's interests. Science, 355, 389–391. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah6524
3.
Brody, L. R. (2000). The socialization of gender differences in emotional expression: Display rules, infant temperament, and differentiation. Gender and Emotion: Social Psychological Perspectives, 2(11), 122–137.
4.
BrooksA. W.HuangL.KearneyS. W.MurrayF. E. (2014).
Investors prefer entrepreneurial ventures pitched by attractive men. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
111(12), 4427–4431. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1321202111
5.
CatanzaroD.MooreH.MarshallT. R. (2010).
The impact of organizational culture on attraction and recruitment of job applicants. Journal of Business and Psychology,
25, 649–662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9179-0
CheryanS.MarkusH. R. (2020).
Masculine defaults: Identifying and mitigating hidden cultural biases. Psychological Review,
127(6), 1022–1052. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000209
8.
CheryanS.PlautV. C.DaviesP. G.SteeleC. M. (2009).
Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
97(6), 1045–1060. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016239
9.
CheryanS.ZieglerS. A.MontoyaA. K.JiangL. (2017).
Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others?Psychological Bulletin,
143(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000052
10.
ChingB. H.-H.XuJ. T. (2018).
The effects of gender neuroessentialism on transprejudice: An experimental study. Sex Roles,
78(3), 228–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0786-3
11.
CorrellS. J.KellyE. L.O’ConnorL. T.WilliamsJ. C. (2014).
Redesigning, redefining work. Work and Occupations,
41(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888413515250
12.
Dar-NimrodI.HeineS. J. (2006).
Exposure to scientific theories affects women’s math performance. Science,
314(5798), 435. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1131100
GaucherD.FriesenJ.KayA. C. (2011).
Evidence that gendered wording in job advertisements exists and sustains gender inequality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
101(1), 109–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022530
15.
GoffP. A.ThomasM. A.JacksonM. C. (2008).
“Ain’t I a woman?”: Towards an intersectional approach to person perception and group-based harms. Sex Roles,
59(5–6), 392–403.
16.
HallE. V.GalinskyA. D.PhillipsK. W. (2015).
Gender profiling: A gendered race perspective on person–position fit. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
41(6), 853–868. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215580779
17.
HartleyB. L.SuttonR. M. (2013).
A stereotype threat account of boys’ academic underachievement. Child Development,
84(5), 1716–1733. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12079
Hyde, J. S., Bigler, R. S., Joel, D., Tate, C. C., & van Anders, S. M. (2019). The future of sex and gender in psychology: Five challenges to the gender binary. American Psychologist, 74, 171. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000307
20.
JoshiP. D.WakslakC. J.AppelG.HuangL. (2020).
Gender differences in communicative abstraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
118(3), 417–435. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000177
KingM. M.BergstromC. T.CorrellS. J.JacquetJ.WestJ. D. (2017).
Men set their own cites high: Gender and self-citation across fields and over time. Socius,
3, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023117738903
23.
KlaweM. (2013).
Increasing female participation in computing: The Harvey Mudd College story. Computer,
46(3), 56–58. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2013.4
24.
KolevJ.Fuentes-MedelY.MurrayF. (2019). Is blinded review enough? How gendered outcomes arise even under anonymous evaluation (NBER Working Paper No. 25759). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w25759
25.
LeslieS. J.CimpianA.MeyerM.FreelandE. (2015).
Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science,
347(6219), 262–265. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1261375
26.
MasterA.CheryanS.MeltzoffA. N. (2016).
Computing whether she belongs: Stereotypes undermine girls’ interest and sense of belonging in computer science. Journal of Educational Psychology,
108(3), 424–437.
27.
MellströmU. (2009).
The intersection of gender, race and cultural boundaries, or why is computer science in Malaysia dominated by women?Social Studies of Science,
39(6), 885–907. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312709334636
28.
MillerD. I.EaglyA. H.LinnM. C. (2015).
Women’s representation in science predicts national gender-science stereotypes: Evidence from 66 nations. Journal of Educational Psychology,
107(3), 631–644. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000005
29.
MisaT. J. (2010). Gender codes: Why women are leaving computing (1st ed.).
Wiley-IEEE Computer Society.
30.
Moss-RacusinC. A.DovidioJ. F.BrescollV. L.GrahamM. J.HandelsmanJ. (2012).
Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
109(41), 16474–16479. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211286109
31.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2007). Beyond bias and barriers: Fulfilling the potential of women in academic science and engineering.
The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11741
32.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2020). The inclusion of women in STEM in Kuwait and the United States: Proceedings of a workshop.
The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25820
33.
National Science Foundation. (2015). Table 11. Science and Engineering Degrees: 1966–2012 (Detailed Statistical Tables NSF 15-326). National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2015/nsf15326/pdf/nsf15326.pdf
34.
NordC.RoeyS.PerkinsR.LyonsM.LemanskiN.BrownJ.SchuknechtJ. (2011). The Nation’s Report Card[TM]: America’s High School Graduates. Results of the 2009 NAEP High School Transcript Study. NCES 2011-462. National Center for Education Statistics. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED518324
35.
NosekB. A.SmythF. L.SriramN.LindnerN. M.DevosT.AyalaA.Bar-AnanY.BerghR.CaiH.GonsalkoraleK. (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 America,
106(26), 10593–10597. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0809921106
36.
Purdie-VaughnsV. J.EibachR. P. (2008).
Intersectional invisibility: The distinctive advantages and disadvantages of multiple subordinate-group identities. Sex Roles,
59(5–6), 377–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9424-4
37.
ReidE. M.O’NeillO. A.Blair‐LoyM. (2018).
Masculinity in male-dominated occupations: How teams, time, and tasks shape masculinity contests. Journal of Social Issues,
74(3), 579–606. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12285
38.
RudmanL. A. (1998).
Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
74(3), 629–645. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.629
39.
Sesko, A. K. & Biernat, M. (2010). Prototypes of race and gender: The invisibility of Black a. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 356–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.10.016
40.
Stewart-WilliamsS.HalseyL. G. (2021).
Men, women, and science: Why the differences and what should be done?European Journal of Personality, 35, 3–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890207020962326
41.
ToosiN. R.MorS.Semnani-AzadZ.PhillipsK. W.AmanatullahE. T. (2019).
Who can lean in? The intersecting role of race and gender in negotiations. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
43(1), 7–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684318800492
42.
WilliamsM. J.TiedensL. Z. (2016).
The subtle suspension of backlash: A meta-analysis of penalties for women’s implicit and explicit dominance behavior. Psychological Bulletin,
142(2), 165–197. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000039
