Not biology or culture alone: Response to El-Hout et al. (2021)

Abstract

We respond to El-Hout et al.’s commentary on our paper ‘Men, Women and STEM: Why the Differences and What Should Be Done?’. El-Hout et al. challenge several aspects of the position we present in the paper and outline their recent work on the concept of ‘masculine defaults’: a plausible contributor to the gender gaps found in some STEM fields. For the most part, El-Hout et al. present our views fairly and accurately. In a number of places, however, they misdescribe them, especially when it comes to policy options. In this response, we clarify and expand on our earlier arguments and explore various interesting issues raised by El-Hout et al.’s commentary.

Keywords

discrimination equality gender sex differences STEM

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ceci

S. J.

Kahn

Williams

W. M.

(2021). Stewart-Williams and Halsey argue persuasively that gender bias is just one of many causes of women’s underrepresentation in science. European Journal of Personality, 35, 40–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890207020962326

Ceci

S. J.

Williams

W. M.

(2015). Describing applicants in gendered language might influence academic science hiring. American Scientist. https://www.americanscientist.org/blog/the-long-view/describing-applicants-in-gendered-language-might-influence-academic-science

Cheryan

Markus

H. R.

(2020). Masculine defaults: Identifying and mitigating hidden cultural biases. Psychological Review, 127, 1022–1052. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000209

Ching

B. H.-H.

J. T.

(2018). The effects of gender neuroessentialism on transprejudice: An experimental study. Sex Roles, 78, 228–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0786-3

Dar-Nimrod

Heine

S. J.

(2006). Exposure to scientific theories affects women's math performance. Science, 314, 435. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1131100

El-Hout

Garr-Schultz

Cheryan

(2021). Beyond biology: The importance of cultural factors in explaining gender disparities in STEM preferences. European Journal of Personality, 35, 45–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890207020962326

Funk

Parker

(2018). Women and men in STEM often at odds over workplace equity. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/01/09/women-and-men-in-stem-often-at-odds-over-workplace-equity/

Halpern

D. F.

(2012). Sex differences in cognitive abilities (4th ed.). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203816530

Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA). (2018). HE student enrolments by subject of study 2014/15 to 2017/18. HESA.ac.uk. https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/students/table-9

10.

Honeycutt

Jussim

(2019). A model of political bias in social science research. Psychological Inquiry, 31, 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2020.1722600

11.

Kolev

Fuentes-Medel

Murray

(2019). Is blinded review enough? How gendered outcomes arise even under anonymous evaluation (NBER Working Paper No. 25759). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w25759

12.

Lippa

R. A.

(2010). Sex differences in personality traits and gender-related occupational preferences across 53 nations: Testing evolutionary and social-environmental theories. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 619–636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-008-9380-7

13.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2007). Beyond bias and barriers: Fulfilling the potential of women in academic science and engineering. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11741

14.

Pinker

(2016). The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature (Rev. ed.). Penguin.

15.

Stewart-Williams

(2010). Darwin, God and the meaning of life: How evolutionary theory undermines everything you thought you knew. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511778827

16.

Stewart-Williams

(2018). The ape that understood the universe: How the mind and culture evolve. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108348140

17.

Stewart-Williams

Halsey

L. G.

(2021). Men, women and STEM: Why the differences and what should be done? European Journal of Personality, 35, 3–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890207020962326

18.

Stoet

Geary

D. C.

(2018). The gender-equality paradox in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics education. Psychological Science, 29, 581–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617741719

19.

Rounds

Armstrong

P. I.

(2009). Men and things, women and people: A meta-analysis of sex differences in interests. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 859–884. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017364

20.

Uttal

D. H.

Meadow

N. G.

Tipton

Hand

L. L.

Alden

A. R.

Warren

Newcombe

N. S.

(2013). The malleability of spatial skills: A meta-analysis of training studies. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 352–402. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028446