Cited by 224Career Development and DiversityEducation, Achievement, and GiftednessHigher Education Research Studies

Fitting in to Move Forward: Belonging, Gender, and Persistence in the Physical Sciences, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (pSTEM)

Lewis, Karyn L., Stout, Jane G., Finkelstein, Noah D., Pollock, Steven J., Miyake, Akira, Cohen, Geoff L., Ito, Tiffany A.·2017·Psychology of Women Quarterly

Abstract

Social science researchers have increasingly focused on understanding the precursors to gender disparities favoring men in the physical sciences, technology, engineering, and mathematics (pSTEM). In the current work, we hypothesized that the core social need to belong explains persistence in pSTEM for women more so than for men. We conducted three field studies with data from close to 3,000 participants bridging a wide span of higher education levels and differing pSTEM fields. In each study, we found gender disparities on sense of belonging in pSTEM favoring men. Moreover, sense of belonging explained persistence intentions for both women and men in one study and explained persistence intentions and actual persistence in pSTEM coursework for women, more so than for men, in the other two studies, even after controlling for two conventional predictors of academic achievement (self-efficacy and exam performance). These results highlight the role of belonging in gender differences in pSTEM persistence and indicate STEM educators should strive to create inclusive learning environments for all students. Additional online materials for this article are available on PWQ’ s website at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/0361684317720186 . Online slides for instructors who want to use this article for teaching are available on PWQ's website at http://journals.sagepub.com/page/pwq/suppl/index

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0361684317720186

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lewis, K. L., Stout, J. G., Finkelstein, N. D., Pollock, S. J., Miyake, A., Cohen, G. L., & Ito, T. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
  • Computing Research Association (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Lewis, Karyn L.
Venue
Psychology of Women Quarterly
Published
2017-08-16
Volume
41
Issue
4
Pages
420-436
ISSN
  • 0361-6843 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-6402
OpenAlex
W2749469352
Cited by
224
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 1
FWCI
22.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Psychology of Women Quarterly (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (DRL0833364)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Career Development and Diversity
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
  • Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Research Studies
Keywords
sense of belonging, gender disparities, women in STEM, STEM persistence, academic persistence, self-efficacy, exam performance, inclusive learning environment, gender differences in academic achievement

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