Cultural stereotypes as gatekeepers: increasing girls’ interest in computer science and engineering by diversifying stereotypes

By Sapna Cheryan, Allison Master, Andrew N. Meltzoff. Frontiers in Psychology, 2015

696 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Despite having made significant inroads into many traditionally male-dominated fields (e.g., biology, chemistry), women continue to be underrepresented in computer science and engineering. We propose that students’ stereotypes about the culture of these fields—including the kind of people, the work involved, and the values of the field—steer girls away from choosing to enter them. Computer science and engineering are stereotyped in modern American culture as male-oriented fields that involve social isolation, an intense focus on machinery, and inborn brilliance. These stereotypes are compatible with qualities that are typically more valued in men than women in American culture. As a result, when computer science and engineering stereotypes are salient, girls report less interest in these fields than their male peers. However, altering these stereotypes—by broadening the representation of the people who do this work, the work itself, and the environments in which it occurs—significantly increases girls’ sense of belonging and interest in the field. Academic stereotypes thus serve as gatekeepers, driving girls away from certain fields and constraining their learning opportunities and career aspirations.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Gender Studies, Safety Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d1acea2d2928dac63e9594890c1208699440ded0

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Gender Studies

In Safety Research

Citations in the corpus

What is a True Gamer? The Male Gamer Stereotype and the Marginalization of Women in Video Game Culture (2017, background): “Thus, more women engaging in video game play and identifying as gamers might help to alleviate the gender imbalance in some STEM fields (Cheryan et al., 2015; Daviault, 2010).”
Computing Whether She Belongs: Stereotypes Undermine Girls’ Interest and Sense of Belonging in Computer Science (2016, background): “…culture of computer science may be only one of many barriers that need to be lifted before more girls show positive interest in computer science (see Cheryan et al., 2015), especially in light of their stronger interests in other fields (Riegle-Crumb et al., 2012; Wang, Eccles, & Kenny, 2013).”
Why Are Some STEM Fields More Gender Balanced Than Others? (2017, positive): “When these stereotypes are salient, women’s sense of belonging in the field decreases (Cheryan, Master, & Meltzoff, 2015; Cheryan et al., 2009; Master et al., 2016).”
Math achievement, stereotypes, and math self-concepts among elementary-school students in Singapore (2015, background): “Third, if explicit perceptions of an academic discipline are at odds with one's identity ( " not-me " ), this discourages students from choosing and identifying with the field (Cheryan et al., 2015; Frome, Alfeld, Eccles, & Barber, 2006).”
Factors Affecting Mathematics Performance of Junior High School Students (2019, background): “This stereotype has been influential in the educational interests and career choices of children (Cheryan et al., 2015).”
Men, women and STEM: Why the differences and what should be done? (2020, background): “Careers in STEM are commonly perceived as male-dominated (Miller et al., 2018), and as involving social isolation and a strong focus on inanimate materials and mechanisms (Cheryan et al., 2015).”
Pipeline Dreams: Occupational Plans and Gender Differences in STEM Major Persistence and Completion (2020, background): “Some of this may be accomplished by exposing more girls and young women to occupations in STEM, female role models in STEM, or the social or environmental relevance of STEM occupations (Blanchard Kyte and Reigle-Crumb 2017; Cheryan, Master, and Meltzoff 2015; Gelbgiser and Albert 2018).”