Two studies investigate how science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) professors’ fixed mindsets—the belief that intelligence is fixed and unchangeable—may induce stereotype threat and undermine women’s performance. In an experiment (N = 217), we manipulated professors’ mindset beliefs (fixed vs. growth) within a course syllabus. While both men and women perceived the fixed mindset professor to endorse more gender stereotypes and anticipated feeling less belonging in the course, women reported these effects more than men. However, only for women did this threat undermine performance. In a 2-year longitudinal field study (884 students enrolled in 46 STEM courses), students who perceived their professor to endorse a fixed (vs. growth) mindset thought the professor would endorse more gender stereotypes and experienced less belonging in those courses. However, only women’s grades in those courses suffered as a result. Together, these studies demonstrate that professors’ fixed mindset beliefs may trigger stereotype threat among women in STEM courses.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48.
2.
CanningE. A.MuenksK.GreenD. J.MurphyM. C. (2019). STEM faculty who believe ability is fixed have larger racial achievement gaps and inspire less student motivation in their classes. Science Advances, 5(2), eaau4734.
3.
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(6), 1045–1060.
4.
CovingtonM. V. (2000). Goal theory, motivation, and school achievement: An integrative review. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 171–200. http://doi.org/101146/annurev.psych.51.1.171
5.
DweckC. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Psychology Press.
6.
DweckC. S.LeggettE. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256–273.
7.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA. G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191.
8.
FurnhamA.ReevesE.BudhaniS. (2002). Parents think their sons are brighter than their daughters. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 163, 24–39.
9.
HayesA. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
10.
HillC.CorbettC.St RoseA. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. American Association of University Women.
11.
HoldenJ. P.LanderE. (2012). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics[Report to the president, p. vi]. Executive Office of the President, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
12.
InzlichtM.Ben-ZeevT. (2003). Do high-achieving female students underperform in private? The implications of threatening environments on intellectual processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 796–805.
13.
KoesterB. P.GromG.McKayT. A. (2016). Patterns of gendered performance difference in introductory STEM courses. Cornell University Library. https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.07565
14.
KotrlikJ. W.WilliamsH. A. (2003). The incorporation of effect size in information technology, learning, and performance research. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 21(1), 1–7.
15.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26.
16.
LaCosseJ.MurphyM. C.GarciaJ. A.ZirkelS. (2020). The role of STEM professors’ mindset beliefs on students’ anticipated psychological experiences and course interest. Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000620
17.
LeslieS. J.CimpianA.MeyerM.FreelandE. (2015). Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science, 347(6219), 262–265.
18.
LogelC.PeachJ. M.SpencerS. J. (2011). Threatening gender and race: Different manifestations of stereotype threat. In InzlichtM.SchmaderT. (Eds.), Stereotype threat: Theory, process, and application. Oxford University Press.
19.
LorahJ. (2018). Effect size measures for multilevel models: Definition, interpretation, and TIMSS example. Large-Scale Assessments in Education, 6(1), 8.
20.
MatzR. L.KoesterB. P.FioriniS.GromG.ShepardL.StangorC. G.WeinerB.McKayT. A. (2017). Patterns of gendered performance differences in large introductory courses at five research universities. AERA Open, 3(4), 2332858417743754.
21.
MuenksK.CanningE. A.LaCosseJ.GreenD. J.ZirkelS.GarciaJ. A.MurphyM. C. (2020). Does my professor think my ability can change? Students’ perceptions of their STEM professors’ mindset beliefs predict their psychological vulnerability, engagement, and performance in class. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(11), 2119–2144. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000763
22.
MurphyM. C.SteeleC. M.GrossJ. J. (2007). Signaling threat: How situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychological Science, 18(10), 879–885.
23.
MurphyM. C.TaylorV. J. (2012). The role of situational cues in signaling and maintaining stereotype threat. In InzlichtM.SchmaderT. (Eds.), Stereotype threat: Theory, process, and applications (pp. 17–33). Oxford University Press.
24.
MurphyM. C.ZirkelS. (2015). Race and belonging in school: How anticipated and experienced belonging affect choice, persistence, and performance. Teachers College Record, 117(12), 1–40.
25.
National Science Board. (2018). Science and engineering indicators 2018(NSB-2018-1). National Science Foundation.
26.
NosekB. A.BanajiM. R.GreenwaldA. G. (2002). Harvesting implicit group attitudes and beliefs from a demonstration web site. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6(1), 101–115.
27.
RattanA.GoodC.DweckC. S. (2012). “It’s ok—Not everyone can be good at math”: Instructors with an entity theory comfort (and demotivate) students. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(3), 731–737.
28.
RattanA.SavaniK.KomarrajuM.MorrisonM. M.BoggsC.AmbadyN. (2018). Meta-lay theories of scientific potential drive underrepresented students’ sense of belonging to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(1), 54–75.
29.
R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
30.
RosseelY. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling and more. Version 0.5–12 (BETA). Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36.
31.
RyanA. M.PintrichP. R. (1997). “Should I ask for help?” The role of motivation and attitudes in adolescents’ help seeking in math class. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 329–341. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.2.329
32.
SchmaderT. (2002). Gender identification moderates stereotype threat effects on women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(2), 194–201.
33.
SchmaderT.JohnsM.ForbesC. (2008). An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance. Psychological Review, 115, 336–356.
34.
SekaquaptewaD.ThompsonM. (2003). Solo status, stereotypes, and performance expectancies: Their effects on women’s public performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 68–74.
35.
SmithJ. L.LewisK. L.HawthorneL.HodgesS. D. (2013). When trying hard isn’t natural: Women’s belonging with and motivation for male-dominated STEM fields as a function of effort expenditure concerns. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(2), 131–143.
36.
SpencerS. J.LogelC.DaviesP. G. (2016). Stereotype threat. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 415–437.
37.
SpencerS. J.SteeleC. M.QuinnD. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 4–28.
38.
SteeleC. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52(6), 613–629.
39.
StorageD.CharlesworthT. E. S.BanajiM. R.CimpianA. (2020). Adults and children implicitly associate brilliance with men more than women. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.104020
40.
WaltonG. M.CohenG. L.CwirD.SpencerS. J. (2012). Mere belonging: The power of social connections. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(3), 513–532.
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.
