The present research examined the impact of everyday romantic goal strivings on women’s attitudes toward science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). It was hypothesized that women may distance themselves from STEM when the goal to be romantically desirable is activated because pursuing intelligence goals in masculine domains (i.e., STEM) conflicts with pursuing romantic goals associated with traditional romantic scripts and gender norms. Consistent with hypotheses, women, but not men, who viewed images (Study 1) or overheard conversations (Studies 2a-2b) related to romantic goals reported less positive attitudes toward STEM and less preference for majoring in math/science compared to other disciplines. On days when women pursued romantic goals, the more romantic activities they engaged in and the more desirable they felt, but the fewer math activities they engaged in. Furthermore, women’s previous day romantic goal strivings predicted feeling more desirable but being less invested in math on the following day (Study 3).
AartsH.DijksterhuisA. (2000). Habits as knowledge structures: Automaticity in goal-directed behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 53-63.
2.
AartsH.GollwitzerP. M.HassinR. R. (2004). Goal contagion: Perceiving is for pursuing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 23-37.
3.
AjzenI. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
4.
BarghJ. A.GollwitzerP. M.Lee-ChaiA.BarndollarK.TrötschelR. (2001). The automated will: Nonconscious activation and pursuit of behavioral goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1014-1027.
5.
BusseyK.BanduraA. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological Review, 106, 676-713.
6.
CarverC. S.ScheierM. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
7.
CeciS. J.WilliamsW. M.BarnettS. M. (2009). Women’s underrepresentation in science: Sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 218-261.
8.
Collins-StandleyT.GanS.-L.YuH.-J.ZillmanD. (1996). Choice of romantic, violent, and scary fairy-tale books by preschool girls and boys. Child Study Journal, 26, 279-302.
9.
DaviesP. G.SpencerS. J.QuinnD. M.GerhardsteinR. (2002). Consuming images: How television commercials that elicit stereotype threat can restrain women academically and professionally. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1615-1628.
10.
DiekmanA. B.BrownE. R.JohnstonA. M.ClarkE. K. (2010). Seeking congruity between roles and goals: A new look at why women opt out of STEM careers. Psychological Science, 21, 1051-1057.
11.
DiekmanA. B.EaglyA. H. (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of the past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1171-1188.
12.
EaglyA. H.WoodW. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408-423.
13.
EcclesJ. S. (1994). Understanding women’s educational and occupational choices. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 585-609.
14.
FishbachA.ZhangY.TropeY. (2007). Implicit counteractive evaluation. Unpublished manuscript, University of Chicago.
15.
FitzsimonsG. M.ChartrandT. L.FitzsimonsG. J. (2008). Automatic effects of brand exposure on motivated behavior: How Apple makes you “think different.”Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 21-35.
16.
HeilmanM. E.WallenA. S.FuchsD.TamkinsM. M. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 416-427.
17.
KayA. C.WheelerC. S.BarghJ. A.RossL. D. (2004). Material priming: The influence of mundane physical objects on situational construal and competitive behavioral choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95, 83-96.
KruglanskiA. W.ShahJ. Y.FishbachA.FriedmanR.ChunW. Y.Sleeth-KepplerD. (2002). A theory of goal systems. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 331-378.
20.
LogelC.WaltonG. M.SpencerS. J.IsermanE. C.von HippelW.BellA. E. (2009). Interacting with sexist men triggers social identity threat among female engineers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1089-1103.
21.
National Science Board. (2010). Science and engineering indicators—2010. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
22.
NosekB. A.BanajiM. R.GreenwaldA. G. (2002). Math = male, me = female, therefore math ≠ me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 44-59.
23.
ParkL. E.CookK. E.GreenwaldA. G. (2002). Implicit indicators of women’s persistence in math, science, and engineering. Psi Chi Journal of Undergraduate Research, 6(4), 145-152.
24.
ParkL. E.DiRaddoA.CalogeroR. (2009). Sociocultural influence and appearance-based rejection sensitivity among college students. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33, 108-119.
25.
PrenticeD. A.CarranzaE. (2002). What women and men should be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to be, and don’t have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 269-281.
26.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27.
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, 629-645.
28.
RudmanL. A.FairchildK. (2004). Reactions to counterstereotypic behavior: The role of backlash in cultural stereotype maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 157-176.
29.
RudmanL. A.GlickP. (2008). The social psychology of gender: How power and intimacy shape gender relations. New York, NY: Guilford.
30.
RudmanL. A.HeppenJ. B. (2003). Implicit romantic fantasies and women’s interest in personal power: A glass slipper effect?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1357-1370.
31.
SanchezD. T.KwangT. (2007). When the relationship becomes her: Revisiting body concerns from a relationship contingency perspective. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 404-414.
32.
SchlenkerB.LearyM. R. (1982). Social anxiety and self-presentation: A conceptualization and model. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 641-649.
33.
SchmaderT.JohnsM.ForbesC. (2008). An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance. Psychological Review, 115, 336-356.
34.
ShahJ. Y.FriedmanR.KruglanskiA. W. (2002). Forgetting all else: On the antecedents and consequences of goal shielding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1261-1280.
35.
ShahJ. Y.KruglanskiA. W. (2002). Priming against your will: How accessible alternatives affect goal pursuit. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 368-383.
36.
SpencerS. J.SteeleC. M.QuinnD. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4-28.
37.
YoderJ. D.SchleicherT. L. (1996). Undergraduates regard deviation from occupational gender stereotypes as costly for women. Sex Roles, 34, 171-188.
38.
ZannaM. P.PackS. J. (1975). On the self-fulfilling nature of apparent sex differences in behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 583-591.
