High school students’ sexist beliefs about academic abilities and women’s roles: the influence of school specialization ( Creencias sexistas de los estudiantes de enseñanza secundaria sobre las aptitudes académicas y el rol de las mujeres: la influencia de la especialización escolar )
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online May, 2022
High school students’ sexist beliefs about academic abilities and women’s roles: the influence of school specialization ( Creencias sexistas de los estudiantes de enseñanza secundaria sobre las aptitudes académicas y el rol de las mujeres: la influencia de la especialización escolar )
The present study analyses the influence of gender and type of baccalaureate pathway on students’ beliefs about the respective abilities of girls and boys in gender-congruent subjects, controlling for ambivalent sexism. Eight hundred and sixty-six students (M = 17.5, SD = 0.83) enrolled in the second course of high school participated. Students on the science pathway were more likely to believe that boys perform better in maths, physical science and technology, and that girls perform better in literature, biology and languages. Boys and girls in gender-congruent pathways were more likely to consider boys to have greater abilities in maths, physical science and technology, whereas girls in languages, biology and literature. Moreover, students’ attitudes towards boys’ ability to perform better in maths, physical science and technology depended to a great extent on ambivalent sexist attitudes, whereas students’ sexist attitudes regarding girls’ greater abilities in literature, biology and languages depended on benevolent sexist attitudes alone.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bradley-GeistJ. C.RiveraI.GeringerS. D. (2015). The collateral damage of ambivalent sexism: Observing sexism impacts bystander self-esteem and career aspirations. Sex Roles, 73(1–2), 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0512-y
2.
CassidyB. S.KrendlA. C. (2019). A crisis of competence: Benevolent sexism affects evaluations of women’s competence. Sex Roles, 81(7–8), 505–520. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-1011-3
3.
DasguptaN.AsgariS. (2004). Seeing is believing: Exposure to counter stereotypic women leaders and its effect on the malleability of automatic gender stereotyping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(5), 642–648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.02.003
4.
EcclesJ. S. (2009). Who am I and what am I going to do with my life? Personal and collective identities as motivators of action. Educational Psychologist, 44(2), 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520902832368
5.
EcclesJ. S. (2007). Where are all the women? Gender differences in participation in physical science and engineering. In CeciS. J.WilliamsW. M. (Eds.), Why aren’t more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 199–210). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11546-016
6.
EcclesJ. S.WigfieldA. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
ExpósitoF.MoyaM.GlickP. (1998). Sexismo ambivalente: Medición y correlatos. Revista de Psicología Social, 13(2), 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1174/021347498760350641
9.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.49
10.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.109
11.
GlickP.FiskeS. T.MladinicA.SaizJ. L.AbramsD.MasserB.AdetounB.OsagieJ. E.AkandeA.AlaoA.AnnetjeB.WillemsenT. M.ChipetaK.DardenneB.DijksterhuisA.WigboldusD.EckesT.Six-MaternaI.ExpósitoF.LópezW. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 763–775. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.763
12.
GlickP.WilkersonM.CuffeM. (2015). Masculine identity, ambivalent sexism, and attitudes toward gender subtypes: Favoring masculine men and feminine women. Social Psychology, 46(4), 210–217. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000228
13.
GuimondS.RousselL. (2001). Bragging about one’s school grades: Gender stereotyping and students. Perception of their abilities in science, mathematics, and language. Social Psychology of Education, 4(3/4), 275–293. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011332704215
14.
Hopkins-DoyleA.SuttonR. M.DouglasK. M.CalogeroR. M. (2019). Flattering to deceive: Why people misunderstand benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(2), 167–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000135
15.
JonesK.StewartK.KingE.Botsford MorganW.GilraneV.HyltonK. (2014). Negative consequence of benevolent sexism on efficacy and performance. Gender in Management, 29(3), 171–189. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-07-2013-0086
16.
KilianskiS. E.RudmanL. A. (1998). Wanting it both ways: Do women approve of benevolent sexism?Sex Roles, 39(5/6), 333–352. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018814924402
17.
KuchynkaS. L.SalomonK.BossonJ. K.El-HoutM.KiebelE.CoopermanC.ToomeyR. (2018). Hostile and benevolent sexism and college women’s STEM outcomes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 42(1), 72–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684317741889
18.
LameirasM.RodríguezY.CaladoM.FoltzM. L.GonzálezM. (2006). Sexism, vocational goals, and motivation as predictors of men’s and women’s career choice. Sex Roles, 55(3–4), 267–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9079-y
19.
LeslieS. J.CimpianA.MeyerM.FreemanE. (2015). Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science, 6219(6219), 262–265. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1261375
20.
López-SáezM.PuertasS.SáinzM. (2011). Why don’t girls choose technological studies? Adolescents’ stereotypes and attitudes towards studies related to Medicine or Engineering. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 14(1), 71–84. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_SJOP.2011.v14.n1.6
NosekB. A.BanajiM.GreenwaldA. (2002). Math = male, me = female, therefore math ≠ me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 44–59. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44
23.
PlanteI.ThéoretM.Eizner FavreauO. (2009). Student gender stereotypes: Contrasting the perceived maleness and femaleness of mathematics and language. Educational Psychology, 29(4), 385–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410902971500
24.
RamosM. R.BarretoM.EllemersN.MoyaM.FerreiraL.CalanchiniJ. (2016). Exposure to sexism can decrease implicit gender stereotype bias. European Journal of Social Psychology, 46(4), 455–466. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2165
25.
RudmanL. A.GlickP. (2010). Content and origins of gender stereotypes. In RudmanL. A.GlickP. (Eds.), The social psychology of gender. How power and intimacy shape gender relations (pp. 81–104). The Guilford Press.
26.
SáinzM.EcclesJ. S. (2012). Self-concept of computer and math ability: Gender implications across time and within ICT studies. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(2), 486–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.08.005
27.
SáinzM.MartínezJ. L.MenesesJ. (2020). Gendered patterns of coping responses with academic sexism in a group of Spanish secondary students. International Journal of Social Psychology, 35(2), 246–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/02134748.2020.1721049
SáinzM.UpadyayaK. (2016). Accuracy and bias in Spanish secondary school students’ self-concept of ability: The influence of gender and parental educational level. International Journal of Educational Research, 77, 26–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.02.009
30.
SibleyC. G.WilsonM. S. (2004). Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexist attitudes toward positive and negative female subtypes. Sex Roles, 51(11–12), 687–696. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-004-0718-x
31.
SkaalvikS.SkaalvikE. S. (2004). Gender differences in math and verbal self-concept, performance expectations, and motivation. Sex Roles, 50(3/4), 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SERS.0000015555.40976.e6
32.
StoetG.GearyD. (2018). The gender-equality paradox in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Psychological Science, 29(4), 581–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617741719
ZellE.StrickhouserJ. E.LaneT. N.TeeterS. R. (2016). Mars, Venus, or Earth? Sexism and the exaggeration of psychological gender differences. Sex Roles, 75(7–8), 7–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0622-1
