Literature DB >> 25076979

Breadth-Based Models of Women's Underrepresentation in STEM Fields: An Integrative Commentary on Schmidt (2011) and Nye et al. (2012).

Jeffrey M Valla1, Stephen J Ceci2.   

Abstract

Relative strength of math and verbal abilities and interests drive science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) career choices more than absolute math ability alone. Having one dominant aptitude (e.g., for mathematics) increases the likelihood of a strong self-concept in that domain and decreases the likelihood of equivocation about career choices in comparison with individuals with equivalent mathematical aptitude who have comparable strength in non-math areas. Males are more likely than females to have an asymmetrical cognitive profile of higher aptitude in math relative to verbal domains. Together, these two points suggest that the academic and career pursuits of high math ability males may be attributable to their narrower options among STEM fields, whereas females' more symmetrical cognitive profile means their math and verbal interests compete in the formation of their ability self-concept and, hence, in their broader career choices. Such equivocation about STEM careers is in fact already evident in girls with high math aptitude as early as junior high school. Thus, we argue that asymmetry in interests and aptitudes is an underappreciated factor in sex differences in career choice. To the extent this is true, focusing on strengthening young women's STEM-related abilities and ability self-concepts to increase female STEM representation may be an unproductive approach; to increase representation, it may be more effective to focus on harvesting the potential of those girls and women whose breadth of interest and high ability spans social/verbal and spatial/numerical domains. The use of interventions that play to this greater breadth by socially contextualizing STEM is one potential solution.
© The Author(s) 2014.

Entities:  

Keywords:  STEM underrepresentation; cognitive sex differences

Year:  2014        PMID: 25076979      PMCID: PMC4112534          DOI: 10.1177/1745691614522067

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci        ISSN: 1745-6916


  14 in total

1.  Can Sex Differences in Science Be Tied to the Long Reach of Prenatal Hormones? Brain Organization Theory, Digit Ratio (2D/4D), and Sex Differences in Preferences and Cognition.

Authors:  Jeffrey Valla; Stephen J Ceci
Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci       Date:  2011-03

2.  Careers in science. More women in science.

Authors:  Jo Handelsman; Nancy Cantor; Molly Carnes; Denice Denton; Eve Fine; Barbara Grosz; Virginia Hinshaw; Cora Marrett; Sue Rosser; Donna Shalala; Jennifer Sheridan
Journal:  Science       Date:  2005-08-19       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  Vocational Interests and Performance: A Quantitative Summary of Over 60 Years of Research.

Authors:  Christopher D Nye; Rong Su; James Rounds; Fritz Drasgow
Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci       Date:  2012-07

4.  Survival analysis of faculty retention in science and engineering by gender.

Authors:  Deborah Kaminski; Cheryl Geisler
Journal:  Science       Date:  2012-02-17       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  More than maths and mindreading: sex differences in empathizing/systemizing covariance.

Authors:  Jeffrey M Valla; Barbara L Ganzel; Keith J Yoder; Grace M Chen; Laura T Lyman; Anthony P Sidari; Alex E Keller; Jeffrey W Maendel; Jordan E Perlman; Stephanie K L Wong; Matthew K Belmonte
Journal:  Autism Res       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 5.216

6.  A Theory of Sex Differences in Technical Aptitude and Some Supporting Evidence.

Authors:  Frank L Schmidt
Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci       Date:  2011-11

Review 7.  Prenatal and postnatal hormone effects on the human brain and cognition.

Authors:  Bonnie Auyeung; Michael V Lombardo; Simon Baron-Cohen
Journal:  Pflugers Arch       Date:  2013-04-16       Impact factor: 3.657

8.  Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth After 35 Years: Uncovering Antecedents for the Development of Math-Science Expertise.

Authors:  David Lubinski; Camilla Persson Benbow
Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci       Date:  2006-12

9.  When Scientists Choose Motherhood: A single factor goes a long way in explaining the dearth of women in math-intensive fields. How can we address it?

Authors:  Wendy M Williams; Stephen J Ceci
Journal:  Am Sci       Date:  2012-03-01       Impact factor: 0.548

Review 10.  Women's underrepresentation in science: sociocultural and biological considerations.

Authors:  Stephen J Ceci; Wendy M Williams; Susan M Barnett
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 17.737

View more
  7 in total

1.  Who Chooses STEM Careers? Using A Relative Cognitive Strength and Interest Model to Predict Careers in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics.

Authors:  Ming-Te Wang; Feifei Ye; Jessica Lauren Degol
Journal:  J Youth Adolesc       Date:  2016-12-14

2.  Gender Gap in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM): Current Knowledge, Implications for Practice, Policy, and Future Directions.

Authors:  Ming-Te Wang; Jessica L Degol
Journal:  Educ Psychol Rev       Date:  2016-01-13

3.  Gendered Pathways Toward STEM Careers: The Incremental Roles of Work Value Profiles Above Academic Task Values.

Authors:  Jiesi Guo; Jacquelynne Sue Eccles; Florencia M Sortheix; Katariina Salmela-Aro
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2018-07-02

4.  Fascinating or dull? Female students' attitudes towards STEM subjects and careers.

Authors:  Ciara Lane; Sila Kaya-Capocci; Regina Kelly; Tracey O'Connell; Merrilyn Goos
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2022-09-29

5.  All STEM fields are not created equal: People and things interests explain gender disparities across STEM fields.

Authors:  Rong Su; James Rounds
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-02-25

6.  Gender differences in individual variation in academic grades fail to fit expected patterns for STEM.

Authors:  R E O'Dea; M Lagisz; M D Jennions; S Nakagawa
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2018-09-25       Impact factor: 14.919

7.  Highlighting Prosocial Affordances of Science in Textbooks to Promote Science Interest.

Authors:  Jeanette Zambrano; Garam Ann Lee; Christina C Leal; Dustin B Thoman
Journal:  CBE Life Sci Educ       Date:  2020-09       Impact factor: 3.325

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.