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

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.

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

“…Meanwhile, recent evidence is converging toward the notion that gender differences in STEM are not reflected by differences in absolute cognitive ability but rather by differences in the breadth of cognitive ability (Valla and Ceci 2014). That is to say, relative cognitive strengths provide a stronger explanation for gender differences in STEM career choices than cognitive ability levels alone.…”

“…Having multiple cognitive strengths, on the other hand, is likely to lead to more ambiguous expectancies and self-concepts and, therefore, less specific career goals (Valla and Ceci 2014). When individuals have stronger math skills relative to verbal skills, they may be more likely to use these ability differences as a guide toward pursuing a math-intensive career in order to maximize their potential for success.…”

The eight essential elements of inclusive STEM high schools

“…Some have characterized this shortage as the result of a "leaky pipeline" (Alper 1993;Leboy 2008;Valla & Ceci 2014) through which students, especially women and other underrepresented groups, leave STEM fields. The metaphor suggests that somewhere in the course of their preK-16 education, these groups either lose interest in STEM-related learning, lose confidence in their abilities to perform in these fields (Wells, Sanchez, & Attridge 2007;Unfried, Faber, & Wiebe 2014), or feel that the "STEM culture" is not welcoming to them (Good, Rattan, & Dweck 2012;Smith, Lewis, Hawthorne, & Hodges 2013), resulting in large numbers of students opting out of (or not opting into) STEM majors and careers (e.g., Blickenstaff 2006;Wickware 1997).…”

Elevating Positivity toward STEM Pathways through Communal Experience: The Key Role of Beliefs that STEM Affords Other‐Oriented Goals

“…Educational policy can benefit from research documenting the social and motivational factors contributing to decisions to enter or exit STEM (Ceci, Williams, & Barnett, 2009;Valla & Ceci, 2014). One such motivational perspective-the goal congruity perspective-posits that STEM fields are not perceived to afford valued goals such as working with or helping others, relative to fields such as law and medicine (Diekman & Steinberg, 2013;Diekman, Steinberg, Brown, Belanger, & Clark, 2017).…”