The under-representation of women and ethnic minorities in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education and professions has resulted in a loss of human capital for the US scientific workforce and spurred the development of myriad STEM educational intervention programs. Increased allocation of resources to such programs begs for a critical, prescriptive, evidence-based review that will enable researchers to develop optimal interventions and administrators to maximize investments. We begin by providing a theoretical backdrop for K-12 STEM programs by reviewing current data on under-representation and developmental research describing individual-level social factors undergirding these data. Next, we review prototypical designs of these programs, highlighting specific programs in the literature as examples of program structures and components currently in use. We then evaluate these interventions in terms of overall effectiveness, as a function of how well they address age-, ethnicity-, or gender-specific factors, suggesting improvements in program design based on these critiques. Finally, program evaluation methods are briefly reviewed and discussed in terms of how their empirical soundness can either enable or limit our ability to delineate effective program components. “Now more than ever, the nation’s changing demographics demand that we include all of our citizens in science and engineering education and careers. For the U.S. to benefit from the diverse talents of all its citizens, we must grow the pipeline of qualified, underrepresented minority engineers and scientists to fill positions in industry and academia.”—Irving P. McPhail..

Empathizing-Systemizing theory posits a continuum of cognitive traits extending from autism into normal cognitive variation. Covariance data on empathizing and systemizing traits have alternately suggested inversely dependent, independent, and sex-dependent (one sex dependent, the other independent) structures. A total of 144 normal undergraduates (65 men, 79 women) completed the Reading the Mind in the Eyes, Embedded Figures, and Benton face recognition tests, the Autism Spectrum Quotient, and measures of digit length ratio and field of study; some also completed tests of motion coherence threshold (64) and go/no-go motor inhibition (128). Empathizing and systemizing traits were independent in women, but largely dependent in men. In men, level of systemizing skill required by field of study was directly related to social interactive and mindreading deficits; men's social impairments correlated with prolonged go/no-go response times, and men tended to apply systemizing strategies to solve problems of empathizing or global processing: rapid perceptual disembedding predicted heightened sensitivity to facial emotion. In women, level of systemizing in field was related to male-typical digit ratios and autistic superiorities in detail orientation, but not to autistic social and communicative impairments; and perceptual disembedding was related to social interactive skills but independent of facial emotion and visual motion perception.

Brain organization theory posits a cascade of physiological and behavioral changes initiated and shaped by prenatal hormones. Recently, this theory has been associated with outcomes including gendered toy preference, 2D/4D digit ratio, personality characteristics, sexual orientation, and cognitive profile (spatial, verbal, and mathematical abilities). We examine the evidence for this claim, focusing on 2D/4D and its putative role as a biomarker for organizational features that influence cognitive abilities/interests predisposing males toward mathematically and spatially intensive careers. Although massive support exists for early brain organization theory overall, there are myriad inconsistencies, alternative explanations, and outright contradictions that must be addressed while still taking the entire theory into account. Like a fractal within the larger theory, the 2D/4D hypothesis mirrors this overall support on a smaller scale while likewise suffering from inconsistencies (positive, negative, and sex-dependent correlations), alternative explanations (2D/ 4D related to spatial preferences rather than abilities per se), and contradictions (feminine 2D/4D in men associated with higher spatial ability). Using the debate over brain organization theory as the theoretical stage, we focus on 2D/4D evidence as an increasingly important player on this stage, a demonstrative case in point of the evidential complexities of the broader debate, and an increasingly important topic in its own right. Keywords sex/gender; cognitionWomen's growth in the scientific workforce has been meteoric over the past 40 years (Ceci & Williams, 2010a, 2010b. For example, in 1970, fewer than 5% of scientific and medical doctorates were awarded to women, but by 2006 approximately 50% of MDs and 48-51% of PhDs in biology were being awarded to women, as were 76% of doctorates in veterinary medicine, and 67% of PhDs in psychology.However, there is one glaring exception to women's progress in scientific careers. In fields that are highly quantitative, women's success has been far less pronounced. In 2006, less than a third of the PhDs in highly quantitative fields were awarded to women: 29.6% in mathematics, 21.3% in computer science, 29% in physical sciences, and 20.2% in engineering (Burrelli, 2008, Table 1). In the top 100 US universities, only 8.8% (in mechanical engineering) to 15.8% (in astronomy) of all professorial ranks combined in many quantitative fields are occupied by women (Nelson & Brammer, 2010, Table 11). © The Authors(s) 2011Corresponding Author: Jeffrey Valla, Department of Human Development, Cornell University, G79, MVR Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853, jmv34@cornell.edu. NIH Public Access Author ManuscriptPerspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 December 5. NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptAmong full professors, women usually number less than 10% in the following fields: chemistry, 9.7%; mathematics, 7.1%; computer science, 10.3%; physics, 6.1%; chemical engineerin...

A growing body of evidence suggests that rapid, yet accurate, dispositional inferences can be made after minimal exposure to the physical appearance of others. In this study, we explore the accuracy of inferences regarding criminality made after brief exposure to static images of convicted criminals' and non-criminals' faces. We begin with a background of research and theory on the curiously recurrent, and historically controversial, topic of appearance-based inferences of criminality, and a brief justification of our reopening of the debate about the accuracy of appearance-based criminality judgments. We then report two experiments in which participants, given a set of headshots of criminals and non-criminals, were able to reliably distinguish between these two groups, after controlling for the gender, race, age, attractiveness, and emotional displays, as well as any potential clues of picture origin. Empirical and theoretical implications, limitations, and further questions are discussed in light of these findings.

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.