The persistent gender gap in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) career choice represents a perplexing problem for researchers and policy makers alike. We contribute to the body of research on the gender gap in STEM careers by testing a “surplus model” of vocational interests as a predictor of STEM career choice. The model suggests that, controlling for ability, female adolescents with strong STEM-related interest should be less likely to pursue STEM careers when they also have strong interests in other areas, due to wider career options. We tested the surplus model in a large national longitudinal data set and translated the results into differences in annual wages. Our findings illuminate the predictive validity of a surplus model of interests on STEM career choice across gender, provide insight into the gender gap in STEM, and suggest opportunities for future research.
AikenL. S.WestS. G.RenoR. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.
2.
AltmanD. G.RoystonP. (2006). The cost of dichotomising continuous variables. BMJ, 332(7549), 1080.
3.
AtitK.MillerD. I.NewcombeN. S.UttalD. H. (2018). Teachers’ spatial skills across disciplines and education levels: Exploring nationally representative data. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 6(1), 130–137.
4.
BenbowC. P.MinorL. L. (1986). Mathematically talented males and females and achievement in the high school sciences. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 425–436.
5.
BernsteinB. O.LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2019). Psychological constellations assessed at age 13 predict distinct forms of eminence 35 years later. Psychological Science, 30, 444–454.
6.
BetzN. E.FitzgeraldL. F. (1987). The career psychology of women. Academic Press.
7.
BrowneJ. (2006). Sex segregation and inequality in the modern labour market. Policy Press.
CardadorM. T. (2017). Promoted up but also out? The unintended consequences of increasing women’s representation in managerial roles in engineering. Organization Science, 28, 597–617.
11.
CardadorM. T.HillP. L. (2018). Career paths in engineering firms: Gendered patterns and implications. Journal of Career Assessment, 26(1), 95–110.
12.
CarlsonL. E.SullivanJ. F. (2004). Exploiting design to inspire interest in engineering across the K-16 engineering curriculum. International Journal of Engineering Education, 20, 372–378.
13.
CeciS. J.WilliamsW. M. (2010). The mathematics of sex: How biology and society conspire to limit talented women and girls. Oxford University Press.
14.
ChenJ. M.MoonsW. G. (2015). They won’t listen to me: Anticipated power and women’s disinterest in male-dominated domains. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 18, 116–128.
15.
ChenX. (2013). STEM attrition: College students’ paths into and out of STEM fields (NCES 2014-001). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
CollierC. M.SpokaneA. R.BazlerJ. A. (1998). Appraising science career interests in adolescent girls and boys. Journal of Career Assessment, 6(1), 37–48.
18.
DamianR. I.SpenglerM.RobertsB. W. (2017). Whose job will be taken over by a computer? The role of personality in predicting job computerizability over the lifespan. European Journal of Personality, 31(3), 291–310.
19.
DamianR. I.SuR.ShanahanM.TrautweinU.RobertsB. W. (2015). Can personality traits and intelligence compensate for background disadvantage? Predicting status attainment in adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 473–489.
20.
DawisR. V.LofquistL. H. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment: An individual-differences model and its applications. University of Minnesota Press.
21.
DawsonJ. F.RichterA. W. (2006). Probing three-way interactions in moderated multiple regression: Development and application of a slope difference test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 917–926.
22.
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(8), 1051–1057.
23.
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).
24.
FalkN. A.RottinghausP. J.CasanovaT. N.BorgenF. H.BetzN. E. (2017). Expanding women’s participation in STEM: Insights from parallel measures of self-efficacy and interests. Journal of Career Assessment, 25(4), 571–584.
25.
FouadN. A.SantanaM. C. (2017). SCCT and underrepresented populations in STEM fields: Moving the needle. Journal of Career Assessment, 25, 24–39.
26.
FouadN.FitzpatrickM.LiuJ. P. (2011). Persistence of women in engineering careers: A Qualitative study of current and former female engineers. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 17, 69–96.
27.
GalobardesB.ShawM.LawlorD. A.LynchJ. W.SmithG. D. (2006). Indicators of socioeconomic position. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 60, 7–12.
28.
GanleyC. M.GeorgeC. E.CimpianJ. R.MakowskiM. B. (2018). Gender equity in college majors: Looking beyond the STEM/Non-STEM dichotomy for answers regarding female participation. American Educational Research Journal, 55(3), 453–487.
29.
GatiI.WinerD. (1987). The relationship between vocational interests and the location of an ideal occupation in the individual’s perceived occupational structure, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 30(3), 295–308.
30.
GibbonsJ. L.HambyB. A.DennisW. D. (1997). Researching gender-role ideologies internationally and cross-culturally. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(1), 151–170.
31.
GlassJ. L.SasslerS.LevitteY.MichelmoreK. M. (2013). What’s so special about STEM? A comparison of women’s retention in STEM and professional occupations. Social Forces, 92, 723–756.
32.
GohmC. L.HumphreysL. G.YaoG. (1998). Underachievement among spatially gifted students. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 515–531.
33.
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(4), 700–717.
34.
GurtmanM. B.PincusA. L. (2003). The circumplex model: Methods and research applications. Handbook of psychology (pp. 407–428). John Wiley & Sons.
35.
HardinE. E.LonghurstM. O. (2016). Understanding the gender gap: Social cognitive changes during an introductory stem course. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63(2), 233–239.
36.
HillC.CorbettC.St RoseA. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. American Association of University Women.
37.
HollandJ. L. (1959). A theory of vocational choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 6(1), 34–45. (Reprinted from Vocational guidance and career development. H. J. Peters & J. C. Hansen Eds., 1966, The Macmillan Company)
38.
HollandJ. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments. Psychological Assessment Resources.
39.
HollandJ. L.GottfredsonG. D. (1992). Studies of the hexagonal model: An evaluation (or, the perils of stalking the perfect hexagon). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 40, 158–170.
HumphreysL. G.LubinskiD.YaoG. (1993). Utility of predicting group membership and the role of spatial visualization in becoming an engineer, physical scientist, or artist. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 250–261.
42.
IssermanM.KazinM. (2000). America divided: The civil war of the 1960s. Oxford University Press on Demand.
43.
JacobsJ. E. (2005). Twenty‐five years of research on gender and ethnic differences in math and science career choices: what have we learned?. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2005(110), 85–94.
44.
KruskalJ. B.WishM. (1978). Multidimensional scaling (quantitative applications in the social sciences). Beverly Hills.
45.
LangJ. W.KellH. J. (2020). General mental ability and specific abilities: Their relative importance for extrinsic career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(9), 1047–1061.
46.
LeH.RobbinsS.B.WestrickP. (2014). Predicting student enrollment and persistence in college STEM fields using an expanded PE fit framework: A Large-scale multilevel study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 915.
47.
LippaR. (1998). Gender-related individual differences and the structure of vocational interests: The importance of the people–things dimension. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 996–1009.
48.
LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2006). Study of mathematically precocious youth after 35 years: Uncovering antecedents for the development of math-science expertise. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(4), 316–345.
49.
McCabeK. O.LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2020). Who shines most among the brightest? A 25-year longitudinal study of elite STEM graduates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(2), 390–416.
50.
McCartyM. K.MonteithM. J.KaiserC. R. (2014). Communally constrained decisions in workplace contexts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 175–187.
51.
MeeceJ. L.ParsonsJ. E.KaczalaC. M.GoffS. B. (1982). Sex differences in math achievement: Toward a model of academic choice. Psychological Bulletin, 91(2), 324–348.
52.
MiritiM. N. (2020). The elephant in the room: Race and STEM diversity. BioScience, 70(3), 237–242.
NagyG.TrautweinU.LüdtkeO. (2010). The structure of vocational interests in Germany: Different methodologies, different conclusions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(2), 153–169.
55.
NaylorF. D.KrumboltzJ. D. (1994). The Independence of aptitudes, interests, and career beliefs. The Career Development Quarterly, 43(2), 152–160.
56.
PetersonN. G.MumfordM. D.BormanW. C.JeanneretP. R.FleishmanE. A.LevinK. Y.CampionM. A.MayfieldM. S.MorgesonF. P.PearlmanK.GowingM. K.LancasterA. R.SilverM. B.DyeD. M. (2001). Understanding work using the Occupational Information Network (O* NET): Implications for practice and research. Personnel Psychology, 54(2), 451–492.
57.
PredigerD. J. (1982). Dimensions underlying Holland’s hexagon: Missing link between interests and occupations?Journal of Vocational Behavior, 21, 259–287.
58.
RobertsonK. F.SmeetsS.LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2010). Beyond the threshold hypothesis: Even among the gifted and top math/science graduate students, cognitive abilities, vocational interests, and lifestyle preferences matter for career choice, performance, and persistence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(6), 346–351.
59.
RobinsonJ. G.McIlweeJ. S. (1991). Men, women, and the culture of engineering. The Sociological Quarterly, 32(3), 403–421.
60.
RoundsJ.ArmstrongP. I.LiaoH. Y.LewisP.RivkinD. (2008). Second generation occupational interests profiles for the O*NET system: Summary. Report prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor.http://www.onetcenter.org/dl_files/SecondOIP_Summary.pdf
61.
RoystonP.AltmanD. G.SauerbreiW. (2006). Dichotomizing continuous predictors in multiple regression: A bad idea. Statistics in Medicine, 25(1), 127–141.
62.
SáinzM.EcclesJ. (2012). Self-concept of computer and math ability: Gender implications across time and within ICT studies. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(2), 486–499.
63.
SchmidtF. L (2011). A Theory of sex differences in technical aptitude and some supporting evidence. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 560–573.
64.
SeymourE.HewittN. M. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Westview.
65.
SkaalvikS.SkaalvikE. M. (2004). Gender differences in math and verbal self-concept, performance expectations, and motivation. Sex roles, 50(3-4), 241–252.
66.
SpenglerM.DamianR. I.RobertsB. W. (2018). How you behave in school predicts life success above and beyond family background, broad traits, and cognitive ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(4), 620–636.
67.
SteeleC. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613–629.
68.
StollG.RiegerS.LüdtkeO.NagengastB.TrautweinU.RobertsB. W. (2017). Vocational interests assessed at the end of high school predict life outcomes assessed 10 years later over and above IQ and Big Five personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 167–184.
69.
Stolle-McAllisterK. (2011). The case for summer bridge: Building social and cultural capital for talented black STEM students. Science Educator, 20(2), 12–22.
70.
StoneC.ScottL.BattleD.MaherP. (2014). Locating longitudinal respondents after a 50-Year hiatus. Journal of Official Statistics, 30(2), 311–334.
71.
SuR.RoundsJ. (2015). All STEM fields are not created equal: People and things interests explain gender disparities across STEM fields. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–20.
72.
SuR.RoundsJ.ArmstrongP. I. (2009). Men and things, women and people: A meta-analysis of sex differences in interests. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 859–884.
73.
SuR. (2012). The power of vocational interests and interest congruence in predicting career success [Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign].
74.
TraceyT. J. (1997). The structure of interests and self-efficiency expectations: An expanded examination of the spherical model of interests. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44(1), 32–43.
75.
TraceyT. J.WardC. C. (1998). The structure of children's interests and competence perceptions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45(3), 290–303.
76.
ThorndikeE. L. (1911). Individuality. Houghton, Mifflin.
77.
VallaJ. M.CeciS. J. (2014). Breadth-based models of women’s underrepresentation in STEM fields: An integrative commentary on Schmidt (2011) and Nye et al. (2012). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 219–224.
78.
WangM. T.EcclesJ. S.KennyS. (2013). Not lack of ability but more choice: Individual and gender differences in choice of careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Psychological Science, 24, 770–775.
79.
WeinschenkA. C.DawesC. T. (2020). The type of student you were in high school predicts voter turnout in adulthood. Social Science Quarterly, 101(1), 269–284.
80.
WiegandJ. P. (2018). Not all misfit is equal: A re-examination of vocational interest fit and job satisfaction [Dissertation]. University of Illinois.
81.
WilliamsC. L. (1992). The glass escalator: Hidden advantages for men in the “female” professions. Social problems, 39(3), 253–267.
82.
WiseL. L.McLaughlinD. H.SteelL. (1979). The Project TALENT data handbook, revised. American Institutes for Research.
83.
WoodcockA.GrazianoW.G.BranchS.E.HabashiM.M.NgambekiI.EvangelouD. (2013). Person and thing orientations: Psychological correlates and predictive utility. Social Psychology and Personality Science, 4, 116–123.
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.
