Cited by 482Science Education and PedagogyScience Education and PerceptionsMuseums and Cultural Heritage

Parents explain more often to boys than to girls during shared scientific thinking

Crowley, Kevin, Callanan, Maureen A., Tenenbaum, Harriet R., Allen, Elizabeth·2001·Psychological Science

Abstract

Young children's everyday scientific thinking often occurs in the context of parent-child interactions. In a study of naturally occurring family conversation, parents were three times more likely to explain science to boys than to girls while using interactive science exhibits in a museum. This difference in explanation occurred despite the fact that parents were equally likely to talk to their male and female children about how to use the exhibits and about the evidence generated by the exhibits. The findings suggest that parents engaged in informal science activities with their children may be unintentionally contributing to a gender gap in children's scientific literacy well before children encounter formal science instruction in grade school.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1467-9280.00347

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Mothers provide more explanations of scientific content in a museum setting when talking to boys than to girls.

    “With regard to academics, mothers have been shown to provide more explanations of scienti fi c content in a museum setting when talking to boys than to girls (Crowley et al., 2001), perhaps because parents view their sons as more competent in math as opposed to their daughters who they view as better in language arts (Eccles et al., 1990).”

    From Gender and Education (2015) · cites this paper as Crowley et al., 2001

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Crowley, K., Callanan, M. A., Tenenbaum, H. R., & Allen, E.
Affiliations
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • University of California, Santa Cruz (US)
Venue
Psychological Science
Published
2001-05
Volume
12
Issue
3
Pages
258-261
ISSN
  • 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9280
OpenAlex
W2170566314
Cited by
482
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 116 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 18
FWCI
33.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Open Research (University of Surrey) (submittedVersion)
  • Surrey Research Insight Open Access (The University of Surrey) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (HD26228)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Science Education and Perceptions
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Museology › Museums and Cultural Heritage
Keywords
gender differences, parent-child interaction, informal science learning, museum exhibits, children's scientific thinking, science in everyday life
MeSH terms
Child, Child, Preschool, Communication, Female, Humans, Infant, Male, Parent-Child Relations, Persuasive Communication, Science, Sex Factors, Chi-Square Distribution

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