The DOI matches its Crossref record; 61 of the 61 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
All STEM fields are not created equal: People and things interests explain gender disparities across STEM fields
Open accessAbstract
The degree of women's underrepresentation varies by STEM fields. Women are now overrepresented in social sciences, yet only constitute a fraction of the engineering workforce. In the current study, we investigated the gender differences in interests as an explanation for the differential distribution of women across sub-disciplines of STEM as well as the overall underrepresentation of women in STEM fields. Specifically, we meta-analytically reviewed norm data on basic interests from 52 samples in 33 interest inventories published between 1964 and 2007, with a total of 209,810 male and 223,268 female respondents. We found gender differences in interests to vary largely by STEM field, with the largest gender differences in interests favoring men observed in engineering disciplines (d = 0.83-1.21), and in contrast, gender differences in interests favoring women in social sciences and medical services (d = -0.33 and -0.40, respectively). Importantly, the gender composition (percentages of women) in STEM fields reflects these gender differences in interests. The patterns of gender differences in interests and the actual gender composition in STEM fields were explained by the people-orientation and things-orientation of work environments, and were not associated with the level of quantitative ability required. These findings suggest potential interventions targeting interests in STEM education to facilitate individuals' ability and career development and strategies to reform work environments to better attract and retain women in STEM occupations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(2000) · Cited by 9,198
Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Vocational Personalities and Work Environments
Holland, J. L. (1973) · Cited by 4,990
(1941) · Research in International Economics by Federal Agencies · doi:10.7312/schw92626-009 · Cited by 4,682
SCHNEIDER, B. (1987) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00609.x · Cited by 4,473
Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students
Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1211286109 · Cited by 3,150
Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2013: (558442013-001)
(2013) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e558442013-001 · Cited by 2,471
Gender differences in mathematics performance: A meta-analysis.
Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., & Lamon, S. J. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.139 · Cited by 1,732
ECCLES, J. (2009) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520902832368 · Cited by 1,444
A theory of vocational choice.
Holland, J. L. (1959) · Journal of Counseling Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0040767 · Cited by 1,419
Eccles, J. S. (1994) · Psychology of Women Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1994.tb01049.x · Cited by 1,291
Cited by
The Gender-Equality Paradox in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education
Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2018) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797617741719 · Cited by 1,054
Developing a STEM identity among young women: A social identity perspective
Kim, A. Y., Sinatra, G. M., & Seyranian, V. (2018) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654318779957 · Cited by 390
The Status of Women in STEM in Higher Education: A Review of the Literature 2007–2017
Blackburn, H. (2017) · Science & Technology Libraries · doi:10.1080/0194262x.2017.1371658 · Cited by 353
How accurate are interest inventories? A quantitative review of career choice hit rates.
Hanna, A., & Rounds, J. (2020) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000269 · Cited by 85
Self-citationEagly, A. H., & Revelle, W. (2022) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/17456916211046006 · Cited by 60
Metadata
- Authors
- Su, R., & Rounds, J.
- Venue
- Frontiers in Psychology
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2015-02-25
- Volume
- 6
- Pages
- 189-189
- ISSN
- 1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2091153842
- Cited by
- 388
- References
- 61
- FWCI
- 48.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: All STEM fields are not created equal: People and things interests explain gender disparities across STEM fields. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00189
- The paper
- Su, R., & Rounds, J. (2015). All STEM fields are not created equal: People and things interests explain gender disparities across STEM fields. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00189
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.