Cited by 1,259Career Development and DiversityGender and Technology in EducationScience Education and Perceptions

Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others?

Open access
Cheryan, Sapna, Ziegler, Sianna A., Montoya, Amanda K., Jiang, Lily·2017·Psychological Bulletin

Abstract

Women obtain more than half of U.S. undergraduate degrees in biology, chemistry, and mathematics, yet they earn less than 20% of computer science, engineering, and physics undergraduate degrees (National Science Foundation, 2014a). Gender differences in interest in computer science, engineering, and physics appear even before college. Why are women represented in some science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields more than others? We conduct a critical review of the most commonly cited factors explaining gender disparities in STEM participation and investigate whether these factors explain differential gender participation across STEM fields. Math performance and discrimination influence who enters STEM, but there is little evidence to date that these factors explain why women's underrepresentation is relatively worse in some STEM fields. We introduce a model with three overarching factors to explain the larger gender gaps in participation in computer science, engineering, and physics than in biology, chemistry, and mathematics: (a) masculine cultures that signal a lower sense of belonging to women than men, (b) a lack of sufficient early experience with computer science, engineering, and physics, and (c) gender gaps in self-efficacy. Efforts to increase women's participation in computer science, engineering, and physics may benefit from changing masculine cultures and providing students with early experiences that signal equally to both girls and boys that they belong and can succeed in these fields. (PsycINFO Database Record

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/bul0000052

Cites

325 of 325 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cheryan, S., Ziegler, S. A., Montoya, A. K., & Jiang, L.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • The Ohio State University (US)
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Published
2017-01
Volume
143
Issue
1
Pages
1-35
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
OpenAlex
W2530828552
Cited by
1,259
References
325
Citations by year
2026: 150 · 2025: 209 · 2024: 160 · 2023: 147 · 2022: 142 · 2021: 128 · 2020: 124 · 2019: 97 · 2018: 66 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
159.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Sloan Foundation (G-B2014-13)
  • National Science Foundation (DRL-1420351)
  • Sponsor name not included (DEG-1343012)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Career Development and Diversity
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Technology in Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Science Education and Perceptions
Keywords
gender gap in STEM, underrepresentation of women, masculine culture, sense of belonging, early life experience, self-efficacy, mathematics achievement, discrimination, mathematics
MeSH terms
Engineering, Female, Humans, Male, Mathematics, Science, 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