Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2018-6
The Role of Prototype Matching in Science Pursuits: Perceptions of Scientists That Are Inaccurate and Diverge From Self-Perceptions Predict Reduced Interest in a Science Career
Self-to-prototype matching is a strategy of mental comparisons between the self-concept and the typical or “representative” member of a group to make some judgment. Such a process might contribute to interest in pursuing a science career and, relatedly, women’s underrepresentation in physical science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (pSTEM) fields. Across four studies, we measured self–scientist discrepancies on communal, agentic, and scientific dimensions, and assessed participants’ interest in a science career. The most consistent predictor of science interest was the discrepancy between self and scientist on the scientific dimension (e.g., intelligent, meticulous). Study 4 established that students with larger self–scientist discrepancies also had less accurate perceptions of students pursuing science, and that inaccuracy was related to lower science interest. Thus, students with lower science interest do not just perceive scientists differently from themselves but also erroneously. Discrepancy and inaccuracy together explained a significant portion of the gender gap in pSTEM interest.
AsgariS.DasguptaN.StoutJ. G. (2012). When do counterstereotypic ingroup members inspire versus deflate? The effect of successful professional women on young women’s leadership self-concept. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 370-383.
2.
BakanD. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and communion in Western man. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
3.
BanchefskyS. M.ParkB. (2015). The role of perceiver gender ideology and target femininity in implicit and explicit gender-science stereotypes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Colorado Boulder.
4.
BianL.LeslieS. J.CimpianA. (2017). Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children’s interests. Science, 355, 389-391.
5.
BiernatM.ManisM. (1994). Shifting standards and stereotype-based judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 5-20.
6.
BlickenstaffJ. C. (2005). Women and science careers: Leaky pipeline or gender filter?Gender and Education, 17, 369-386.
7.
CarliL. L.AlawaL.LeeY.ZhaoB.KimE. (2016). Stereotypes about gender and science: Women ≠ scientists. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40, 244-260.
8.
CeciS. J.WilliamsW. M. (2011). Understanding current causes of women’s underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 3157-3162.
9.
ChambersD. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The draw-a-scientist test. Science Education, 67, 255-265.
10.
ChassinL.PressonC. C.ShermanS. J.CortyE.OlshavskyR. W. (1981). Self-Images and cigarette smoking in adolescence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 670-676.
11.
CheryanS.MasterA.MeltzoffA. N. (2015). Cultural stereotypes as gatekeepers: Increasing girls’ interest in computer science and engineering by diversifying stereotypes. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 49.
12.
CheryanS.PlautV. C. (2010). Explaining underrepresentation: A theory of precluded interest. Sex Roles, 63, 475-488.
13.
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, 1045-1060.
14.
CheryanS.SiyJ. O.VichayapaiM.DruryB. J.KimS. (2011). Do female and male role models who embody STEM stereotypes hinder women’s anticipated success in STEM?Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 656-664.
15.
DasguptaN. (2011). Ingroup experts and peers as social vaccines who inoculate the self-concept: The stereotype inoculation model. Psychological Inquiry: An International Journal for the Advancement of Psychological Theory, 22, 231-246.
16.
DiekmanA. B.BrownE. R.JohnstonA. M.ClarkE. K. (2010). Seeking congruity between goals and roles: A new look at why women opt out of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. Psychological Science, 21, 1051-1057.
17.
DiekmanA. B.ClarkE. K.JohnstonA. M.BrownE. R.SteinbergM. (2011). Malleability in communal goals and beliefs influences attraction to stem careers: Evidence for a goal congruity perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 902-918.
18.
EaglyA. H.SteffenV. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 735-754.
19.
EdwardsJ. R. (1994). The study of congruence in organizational behavior research: Critique and a proposed alternative. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58, 51-100.
20.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J.GlickP.XuJ. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878-902.
21.
FralickB.KearnJ.ThompsonS.LyonsJ. (2009). How middle schoolers draw engineers and scientists. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 60-73.
22.
GreenawayK. H.CruwysT.HaslamS. A.JettenJ. (2016). Social identities promote well-being because they satisfy global psychological needs. European Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 294-307.
23.
HalpernD. F.BenbowC. P.GearyD. C.GurR. C.HydeJ. S.GernsbacherM. A. (2007). The science of sex differences in science and mathematics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 8, 1-51.
24.
HannoverB.KesselsU. (2004). Self-to-prototype matching as a strategy for making academic choices. Why high school students do not like math and science. Learning and Instruction, 14, 51-67.
JuddC. M.ParkB. (1993). Definition and assessment of accuracy in social stereotypes. Psychological Review, 100, 109-128.
27.
KesselsU.TaconisR. (2012). Alien or alike? How the perceived similarity between the typical science teacher and a student’s self-Image correlates with choosing science at school. Research in Science Education, 42, 1049-1071.
28.
LatrofaM.VaesJ.CadinuM.CarnaghiA. (2010). The cognitive representation of self-stereotyping. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 911-922.
29.
LauermannF.TsaiY. M.EcclesJ. S. (2017). Math-related career aspirations and choices within Eccles et al.’s expectancy-value theory of achievement-related behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 53, 1540-1559.
30.
LeeJ. D. (1998). Which kids can “become” scientists? Effects of gender, self-concepts, and perceptions of scientists. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61, 199-219.
31.
National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics. (2015). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2015 (Special Report NSF 15-311). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Available at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/
32.
NiedenthalP. M.CantorN.KihlstromJ. F. (1985). Prototype matching: A strategy for social decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 575-584.
33.
ParkB.JuddC. M. (1990). Measures and models of perceived group variability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 173-190.
34.
PickettC. L.BonnerB. L.ColemanJ. M. (2002). Motivated self-stereotyping: Heightened assimilation and differentiation needs result in increased levels of positive and negative self-stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 543-562.
35.
RahmJ.CharbonneauP. (1997). Probing stereotypes through students’ drawings of scientists. American Journal of Physics, 65, 774-778.
36.
RommesE.OverbeekG.ScholteR.EngelsR.De KempR. (2007). “I’m not interested in computers”: Gender-based occupational choices of adolescents. Information, Community & Society, 10, 299-319.
37.
SpelkeE. S. (2005). Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics and science? A critical review. The American Psychologist, 60, 950-958.
38.
StoutJ. G.DasguptaN.HunsingerM.McManusM. A. (2011). STEMing the tide: Using ingroup experts to inoculate women’s self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 255-270.
39.
TaconisR.KesselsU. (2009). How choosing science depends on students’ individual fit to “science culture.”International Journal of Science Education, 31, 1115-1132.
40.
van VeelenR.OttenS.HansenN. (2011). Linking self and ingroup: Self-anchoring as distinctive cognitive route to social identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 628-637.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
