Men, women and STEM: Why the differences and what should be done?
Open accessAbstract
It is a well-known and widely lamented fact that men outnumber women in a number of fields in STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths). The most commonly discussed explanations for the gender gaps are discrimination and socialization, and the most common policy prescriptions target those ostensible causes. However, a great deal of evidence in the behavioural sciences suggests that discrimination and socialization are only part of the story. The purpose of this paper is to highlight other aspects of the story: aspects that are commonly overlooked or downplayed. More precisely, the paper has two main aims. The first is to examine the evidence that factors other than workplace discrimination contribute to the gender gaps in STEM. These include relatively large average sex differences in career and lifestyle preferences, and relatively small average differences in cognitive aptitudes – some favouring males, others favouring females – which are associated with progressively larger differences the further above the average one looks. The second aim is to examine the evidence suggesting that these sex differences are not purely a product of social factors but also have a substantial biological (i.e. inherited) component. A more complete picture of the causes of the unequal sex ratios in STEM may productively inform policy discussions.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Fewer women pursue advanced STEM courses and careers despite comparable or superior performance to their male counterparts.
“Gender discrepancies persist in STEM fields, with fewer women pursuing advanced STEM courses and careers despite comparable or superior performance to their male counterparts (Hill et al., 2010;Blackburn, 2017;Stewart-Williams & Halsey, 2021).”
From Fostering students’ motivation and self-efficacy in science, technology, engineering, and design through design thinking and making in project-based learning: a gender-perspective study in primary education (2025) · cites this paper as Stewart-Williams & Halsey, 2021
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 324 · Cited by 117
- Authors
- Stewart-Williams, S., & Halsey, L. G.
- Affiliations
- School of Psychology, University of Nottingham Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia
- University of Roehampton (GB)
- ORCID
- Halsey, Lewis G
- Venue
- European Journal of Personality
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2021-01
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 3-39
- ISSN
- 0890-2070 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-0984
- OpenAlex
- W3059246257
- Cited by
- 117
- References
- 324
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 24.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- European Journal of Personality (publishedVersion)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (publishedVersion)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Career Development and Diversity
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Diversity and Inequality
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Diversity and Career in Medicine
- Keywords
- gender gap in STEM, sex differences, employment discrimination, socialization, career interest, lifestyle preferences, cognitive ability, biological sex differences, heritability, gender inequality in science
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