Why Are Some STEM Fields More Gender Balanced Than Others?

By Sapna Cheryan, Sianna A. Ziegler, A. Montoya, Lily Jiang. Psychological bulletin, 2017

1,145 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Gender Studies, Safety Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e78ac9b88cbdecf663d363d787b4895422919401

How researchers see this paper

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

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

1. Christine R. Starr
2. A. Coy
3. Steve Stewart-Williams
4. Edgar Fuller
5. Rachel Henderson
6. John Stewart
7. Karen Rambo-Hernandez
8. Crystal L. Hoyt

In Gender Studies

1. J. Pollack
2. Steve Stewart-Williams
3. Edgar Fuller
4. Rachel Henderson
5. John Stewart
6. Karen Rambo-Hernandez
7. Crystal L. Hoyt
8. C. Leaper

In Safety Research

1. Christine R. Starr
2. Steve Stewart-Williams
3. Crystal L. Hoyt
4. C. Leaper
5. L. Halsey

Citations in the corpus

• Using the Social Cognitive Theory Framework to Chart Gender Differences in the Developmental Trajectory of STEM Self-Efficacy in Science and Engineering Students (2020, background): “explain the underrepresentation of women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) (Cheryan et al. 2017).”
• A Growth Mindset Intervention: Enhancing Students’ Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy and Career Development (2020, background): “Although there are many interrelated reasons why women are underrepresented in entrepreneurship, lack of early exposure is another often cited one (e.g., Cheryan et al., 2017).”
• Helping and Hindering Undergraduate Women’s STEM Motivation: Experiences With STEM Encouragement, STEM-Related Gender Bias, and Sexual Harassment (2018, background): “…Gender Bias and Sexual Harassment Recent work has called attention to the various ways that instructors, peers, and families can influence girls’ and women’s motivation or sense of belongingness in STEM fields (see Cheryan et al., 2017; Dasgupta & Stout, 2014; Leaper, 2015; Lewis et al., 2017).”
• Men, women and STEM: Why the differences and what should be done? (2020, background): “…and Degol (2017), for instance, suggest that, although biological factors cannot be ‘definitively dismissed,’ sociocultural factors are a more likely explanation (p. 123), and Cheryan et al. (2017) do not even mention biological factors in their analysis of the causes of the gender gaps in STEM.”
• Messages about brilliance undermine women's interest in educational and professional opportunities (2018, neutral): “…women in their level of interest in variousff                      fields emerge early and contribute to some of the largest and most                    persistent gender gaps in academia and industry (e.g., Cheryan et al.,                    2017; Dasgupta & Stout, 2014; Wig eld & Eccles,…”