Stereotypes reduce women’s identification with science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM), which can decrease their motivation to enter STEM domains. Stereotypes may be gender-based (e.g., STEM is for men) or trait-based (e.g., STEM is for geniuses). In this study, I explored two primary research questions: First, would stereotyping STEM as a domain for nerdy geniuses negatively relate to women’s STEM identity? Second, would STEM identity mediate the relation between stereotypes and STEM motivation? Nerd-genius stereotypes and gender stereotypes negatively contributed to women’s STEM identity. STEM identity positively contributed to women’s STEM motivation (including expectancy-value beliefs). Participants were a diverse sample of undergraduate women (N = 195, mean age was 19.8; 30% of participants were Latina, 30% European, 24% Asian). Stereotype measures were (1) implicit gender-STEM associations, (2) explicit gender associations about STEM, and (3) a new scale that measured nerd-genius stereotypes. The results highlight the unique contribution different stereotypes make toward women’s identification with STEM and, in turn, their motivation to pursue STEM pathways. Practice implications include addressing nerd-genius stereotypes in STEM interventions and reducing classroom artifacts that might be reminiscent of these stereotypes.
ArnettJ. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469–480. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469
2.
BanchefskyS.WestfallJ.ParkB.JuddC. M. (2016). But you don’t look like a scientist!: Women scientists with feminine appearance are deemed less likely to be scientists. Sex Roles, 75, 95–109. doi:10.1007/s11199-016-0586-1
3.
BianL.LeslieS. J.CimpianA. (2017). Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children’s interests. Science, 355, 389–391. doi:10.1126/science.aah6524
4.
BianL.LeslieS.MurphyM. C.CimpianA. (2018). Messages about brilliance undermine women’s interest in educational and professional opportunities. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2017.11.006
5.
CalogeroR. M.Tantleff-DunnS.ThompsonJ. K. (2011). Self-objectification in women: Causes, consequences, and counteractions. Washington, DC: APA.
6.
CarliL. L.AlawaL.LeeY.ZhaoB.KimE. (2016). Stereotypes about gender and science: Women ≠ scientists. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40, 244–260. doi:10.1177/0361684315622645
7.
CheryanS.DruryB. J.VichayapaiM. (2013). Enduring influence of stereotypical computer science role models on women’s academic aspirations. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, 72–79. doi:10.1177/0361684312459328
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, 1045–1060. doi:10.1037/a0016239
9.
CheryanS.PlautV. C.HandronC.HudsonL. (2013). The stereotypical computer scientist: Gendered media representations as a barrier to inclusion for women. Sex Roles, 69, 58–71. doi:10.1007/s11199-013-0296-x
10.
CundiffJ. L.VescioT. K.LokenE.LoL. (2013). Do gender–science stereotypes predict science identification and science career aspirations among undergraduate science majors?Social Psychology of Education, 16, 541–554. doi:10.1007/s11218-013-9232-8
11.
CvencekD.KapurM.MeltzoffA. N. (2015). Math achievement, stereotypes, and math self-concepts among elementary-school students in Singapore. Learning and Instruction, 39, 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.04.002
12.
CvencekD.MeltzoffA. N.GreenwaldA. G. (2011). Math–gender stereotypes in elementary school children. Child Development, 82, 766–779. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01529.x
13.
DasguptaN.StoutJ. G. (2014). Girls and women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: STEMing the tide and broadening participation in STEM careers. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1, 21–29. doi:10.1177/2372732214549471
14.
DweckC. S. (2007). Is math a gift? Beliefs that put females at risk. In CeciS. J.WilliamsW. M. (Eds.), Why aren’t more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 47–55, Chap. 3). Washington, DC: APA. doi:10.1037/11546-004
15.
EcclesJ. S.WangM. T. (2016). What motivates females and males to pursue careers in mathematics and science?International Journal of Behavioral Development, 40, 100–106. doi:10.1177/0165025415616201
16.
EcclesJ.WigfieldA. (1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescents’ achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 215–225. doi:10.1177/0146167295213003
17.
EcclesJ. S.WigfieldA. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109–132. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
18.
EganS. K.PerryD. G. (2001). Gender identity: A multidimensional analysis with implications for psychosocial adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 37, 451–463. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.37.4.451
19.
EhrlingerJ.PlantE. A.HartwigM. K.VossenJ. J.ColumbC. J.BrewerL. E. (2018). Do gender differences in perceived prototypical computer scientists and engineers contribute to gender gaps in computer science and engineering?Sex Roles, 78, 40–51. doi:10.1007/s11199-017-0763-x
20.
Else-QuestN.HydeJ. S.LinnM. C. (2010). Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 103–127. doi:10.1037/a0018053
21.
Else-QuestN.MineoC. C.HigginsA. (2013). Math and science attitudes and achievement at the intersection of gender and ethnicity. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, 293–309. doi:10.1177/0361684313480694
22.
Ferreira-ValenteM.Pais-RibeiroJ.JensenM. P. (2011). Validity of four pain intensity rating scales. Pain, 152, 2399–2404. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2011.07.005
23.
FredricksonB. L.RobertsT. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x
24.
GilbertP. N.O’BrienL. T.GarciaD. M.MarxD. M. (2015). Not the sum of its parts: Decomposing implicit academic stereotypes to understand sense of fit in math and English. Sex Roles, 72, 25–39. doi:10.1007/s11199-014-0428-y
25.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
26.
GoodC.RattanA.DweckC. S. (2012). Why do women opt out? Sense of belonging and women’s representation in mathematics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 700–717. doi:10.1037/a0026659
27.
GreenwaldA. G.NosekB. A.BanajiM. R. (2003). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197–216. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.197
28.
GuoJ.MarshH. W.MorinA. J. S.ParkerP. D.KaurG. (2015). Directionality of the associations of high school expectancy-value, aspirations, and attainment: A longitudinal study. American Educational Research Journal, 52, 371–402. doi:10.3102/0002831214565786
29.
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. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2003.10.002
30.
HayesA. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
31.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
32.
InzlichtM.SchmaderT. (2012). Introduction. In InzlichtM.SchmaderT. (Eds.), Stereotype threat: Theory, process, and application (pp. 3–14). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
33.
JonesB. D.RuffC.ParettiM. C. (2013). The impact of engineering identification and stereotypes on undergraduate women’s achievement and persistence in engineering. Social Psychology of Education, 16, 471–493. doi:10.1007/s11218-013-9222-x
34.
KieferA. K.SekaquaptewaD. (2007). Implicit stereotypes, gender identification, and math-related outcomes: A prospective study of female college students. Psychological Science, 18, 13–18. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01841.x
35.
KlineR. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
36.
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, 72–87. doi:10.1177/0361684317741889
LeaperC.BrownC. S. (2008). Perceived experiences with sexism among adolescent girls. Child Development, 79, 685–704. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01151.x
39.
LeaperC.FarkasT.BrownC. S. (2012). Adolescent girls’ experiences and gender-related beliefs in relation to their motivation in math/science and English. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 268–282. doi:10.1037/t04905-000
40.
LeslieS. J.CimpianA.MeyerM.FreelandE. (2015). Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science, 374, 262–265. doi:10.1126/science.1261375
41.
LiuM.ConradF. G. (2016). An experiment testing six formats of 101-point rating scales. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 364–371. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.036
42.
LiuM.WangY. (2015). Data collection mode effect on feeling thermometer questions: A comparison of face-to-face and web surveys. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 212–218. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.057
43.
LondonB.RosenthalL.LevyS.LobelM. (2011). The influences of perceived identity compatibility and social support on women in nontraditional fields during the college transition. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 33, 304–321. doi:10.1080/01973533.2011.614166
44.
McDonaldR. P.HoM.-H. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7, 64–82. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.64
45.
National Science Foundation. (2015). Solving the equation: The variables for women’s success in engineering and computing. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/
46.
National Science Foundation. (2017). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/
47.
NosekB. A.BanajiM. R.GreenwaldA. G. (2002). Math = male, me = female, therefore math ≠ me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 44–59. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44
48.
NosekB. A.SmythF. L. (2007). A multitrait-multimethod validation of the implicit association test: Implicit and explicit attitudes are related but distinct constructs. Experimental Psychology, 54, 14–29. doi:10.1027/1618-3169.54.1.14
49.
NosekB. A.SmythF. L. (2011). Implicit social cognitions predict sex differences in math engagement and achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 1125–1156. doi:10.3102/0002831211410683
50.
NosekB. A.SmythF. L.SriramN.LindnerN. M.DevosT.AyalaA.…GreenwaldA. G. (2009). National differences in gender–science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 10593–10597. doi:10.1073/pnas.0809921106
51.
O’BrienL. T.BlodornA.AdamsG.GarciaD. M.HammerE. (2015). Ethnic variation in gender-STEM stereotypes and STEM participation: An intersectional approach. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 21, 169–180. doi:10.1037/a0037944
52.
ParkL. E.YoungA. F.EastwickP. W.TroisiJ. D.StreamerL. (2016). Desirable but not smart: Preference for smarter romantic partners impairs women’s STEM outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 46, 158–179. doi:10.1111/jasp.12354
53.
ParkL. E.YoungA. F.TroisiJ. D.PinkusR. T. (2011). Effects of everyday romantic goal pursuit on women’s attitudes toward math and science. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1259–1273. doi:10.1177/0146167211408436
54.
PassolunghiM. C.FerreiraT. I. R.TomasettoC. (2014). Math–gender stereotypes and math-related beliefs in childhood and early adolescence. Learning and Individual Differences, 34, 70–76. doi:10.1037/t03782-000
55.
PichoK.RodriguezA.FinnieL. (2013). Exploring the moderating role of context on the mathematics performance of females under stereotype threat: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Social Psychology, 153, 299–333. doi:10.1080/00224545.2012.737380
56.
RamseyL. R.BetzD. E.SekaquaptewaD. (2013). The effects of an academic environment intervention on science identification among women in STEM. Social Psychology of Education, 16, 377–397. doi:10.1007/s11218-013-9218-6
57.
RobnettR. D. (2016). Gender bias in STEM fields: Variation in prevalence and links to STEM self-concept. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40, 65–79. doi:10.1177/0361684315596162
58.
RobnettR. D.ChemersM. M.ZurbriggenE. L. (2015). Longitudinal associations among undergraduates’ research experience, self-efficacy, and identity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52, 847–867. doi:10.1002/tea.21221
59.
RosenthalL.LondonB.LevyS. R.LobelM. (2011). The roles of perceived identity compatibility and social support for women in a single-sex STEM program at a co-educational university. Sex Roles, 65, 725–736. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9945-0
60.
RosserS. V. (2012). Breaking into the lab: Engineering progress in women in science. New York: New York University Press.
61.
SchoonI.EcclesJ. S. (2014). Gender differences in aspirations and attainment: A life course perspective. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
62.
ShinJ. E. L.LevyS. R.LondonB. (2016). Effects of role model exposure on STEM and non-STEM student engagement. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 46, 410–427. doi:10.1111/jasp.12371
63.
SmithJ. L.BrownE. R.ThomanD. B.DeemerE. D. (2015). Losing its expected communal value: How stereotype threat undermines women’s identity as research scientists. Social Psychology of Education, 18, 443–466. doi:10.1007/s11218-015-9296-8
64.
SmythF. L.NosekB. A. (2015). On the gender–science stereotypes held by scientists: Explicit accord with gender-ratios, implicit accord with scientific identity. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–19. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00415
65.
StakeJ. E.MaresK. R. (2001). Science enrichment programs for gifted high school girls and boys: Predictors of program impact on science confidence and motivation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 1065–1088. doi:10.1002/tea.10001
66.
SteeleC. M. (2010). Whistling Vivaldi: How stereotypes affect us and what we can do. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
67.
SteeleC. M.SpencerS. J.AronsonJ. (2002). Contending with group image: The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 34 (pp. 379–440). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(02)80009-0
68.
SteffensM. C.JelenecP. (2011). Separating implicit gender stereotypes regarding math and language: Implicit ability stereotypes are self-serving for boys and men, but not for girls and women. Sex Roles, 64, 324–335. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9924-x
69.
SteffensM. C.JelenecP.NoackP. (2010). On the leaky math pipeline: Comparing implicit math-gender stereotypes and math withdrawal in female and male children and adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 947–963. doi:10.1037/a0019920
70.
SteinkeJ. (2013). Portrayals of female scientists in the mass media. In ValdiviaA.MazzarellaS. R. (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of media studies (pp. 1–18). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
71.
StorageD.HorneZ.CimpianA.LeslieS. (2016). The frequency of “brilliant” and “genius” in teaching evaluations predicts the representation of women and African Americans across fields. PLoS ONE, 11, 17. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0150194
72.
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. doi:10.1037/a0021385
73.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
74.
TobinD. D.MenonM.MenonM.SpattaB. C.HodgesE. V. E.PerryD. G. (2010). The intrapsychics of gender: A model of self-socialization. Psychological Review, 117, 601–622. doi:10.1037/a0018936
75.
Wang-JonesT.AlhassoonO. M.HattrupK.FerdmanB. M.LowmanR. L. (2017). Development of gender identity implicit association tests to assess attitudes toward transmen and transwomen. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 4, 169–183. doi:10.1037/sgd0000218
76.
WattH. M. G. (2006). The role of motivation in gendered educational and occupational trajectories related to maths. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12, 305–322. doi:10.1080/13803610600765562
77.
WeisgramE. S.DiekmanA. B. (2017). Making STEM “family friendly”: The impact of perceiving science careers as family-compatible. Social Sciences, 6, 61. doi:10.3390/socsci6020061
78.
YoungD. M.RudmanL. A.BuettnerH. M.McLeanM. C. (2013). The influence of female role models on women’s implicit science cognitions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, 283–292. doi:10.1177/0361684313482109
79.
ZakariaF. (2011). The post-American world: Release 2.0. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
