Cited by 957Career Development and DiversityEducation, Achievement, and GiftednessGender Diversity and Inequality

Women's underrepresentation in science: sociocultural and biological considerations

Ceci, Stephen J., Williams, Wendy M., Barnett, Susan M.·2009·Psychological Bulletin

Abstract

The underrepresentation of women at the top of math-intensive fields is controversial, with competing claims of biological and sociocultural causation. The authors develop a framework to delineate possible causal pathways and evaluate evidence for each. Biological evidence is contradictory and inconclusive. Although cross-cultural and cross-cohort differences suggest a powerful effect of sociocultural context, evidence for specific factors is inconsistent and contradictory. Factors unique to underrepresentation in math-intensive fields include the following: (a) Math-proficient women disproportionately prefer careers in non-math-intensive fields and are more likely to leave math-intensive careers as they advance; (b) more men than women score in the extreme math-proficient range on gatekeeper tests, such as the SAT Mathematics and the Graduate Record Examinations Quantitative Reasoning sections; (c) women with high math competence are disproportionately more likely to have high verbal competence, allowing greater choice of professions; and (d) in some math-intensive fields, women with children are penalized in promotion rates. The evidence indicates that women's preferences, potentially representing both free and constrained choices, constitute the most powerful explanatory factor; a secondary factor is performance on gatekeeper tests, most likely resulting from sociocultural rather than biological causes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0014412

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The gender gap in mathematics performance often does not appear until early adolescence and only in some exams.

    “The gender gap in mathematics performance often does not appear until early adolescence and only in some exams (Ceci et al., 2009).”

    From Gender and Education (2015) · cites this paper as Ceci et al., 2009

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ceci, S. J., Williams, W. M., & Barnett, S. M.
Affiliations
Cornell University (US)
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Published
2009
Volume
135
Issue
2
Pages
218-261
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
OpenAlex
W2112657826
Cited by
957
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 60 · 2022: 56 · 2021: 51 · 2020: 119 · 2019: 64 · 2018: 78 · 2017: 61 · 2016: 58 · 2015: 73 · 2014: 38 · 2013: 64 · 2012: 46
FWCI
119.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Career Development and Diversity
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Diversity and Inequality
Keywords
women in science, underrepresentation of women, career choice, career attrition, verbal ability, motherhood penalty, promotion rates, sociocultural factors, biological factors, causal pathways
MeSH terms
Workforce, Adult, Aptitude, Brain, Career Choice, Child, Child Rearing, Engineering, Female, Humans, Life Style, Mathematics, Prejudice, Science, Sex Characteristics, Social Values, Technology, Women

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review