Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children’s interests
Emergent attitudes toward brilliance
The distribution of women and men across academic disciplines seems to be affected by perceptions of intellectual brilliance. Bian et al. studied young children to assess when those differential perceptions emerge. At age 5, children seemed not to differentiate between boys and girls in expectations of “really, really smart”—childhood's version of adult brilliance. But by age 6, girls were prepared to lump more boys into the “really, really smart” category and to steer themselves away from games intended for the “really, really smart.”
Science, this issue p. 389
Abstract
Common stereotypes associate high-level intellectual ability (brilliance, genius, etc.) with men more than women. These stereotypes discourage women’s pursuit of many prestigious careers; that is, women are underrepresented in fields whose members cherish brilliance (such as physics and philosophy). Here we show that these stereotypes are endorsed by, and influence the interests of, children as young as 6. Specifically, 6-year-old girls are less likely than boys to believe that members of their gender are “really, really smart.” Also at age 6, girls begin to avoid activities said to be for children who are “really, really smart.” These findings suggest that gendered notions of brilliance are acquired early and have an immediate effect on children’s interests.
The career aspirations of young men and women are shaped by societal stereotypes about gender (1, 2). For example, the stereotype that men are better than women at mathematics (3) impairs women’s performance in this domain (4, 5) and undermines their interest in mathematics-intensive fields (6, 7). However, popular beliefs about ability associate not only specific cognitive processes (e.g., mathematical reasoning) with a particular gender but also the overall amount of cognitive ability. It is commonly assumed that high-level cognitive ability (brilliance, genius, giftedness, etc.) is present more often in men than in women (8–11). This “brilliance = males” stereotype has been invoked to explain the gender gaps in many prestigious occupations (12–15). However, little is known about the acquisition of this stereotype. The earlier children acquire the notion that brilliance is a male quality, the stronger its influence may be on their aspirations. The four studies reported here (N = 400 children) show that, by the age of 6, girls are less likely than boys to believe that members of their gender are “really, really smart”—a child-friendly way of referring to brilliance. Also at age 6, the girls in these studies begin to shy away from novel activities said to be for children who are “really, really smart.” These studies speak to the early acquisition of cultural ideas about brilliance and gender, as well as to the immediate effect that these stereotyped notions have on children’s interests.
The stereotypes associating men but not women with brilliance and genius (8–11) may take a toll on women’s careers; fields whose members place a great deal of value on sheer brilliance (e.g., mathematics, physics, philosophy) have lower proportions of women earning bachelor’s and doctoral degrees (12–17). However, investigations of the “brilliance = males” stereotype that focus exclusively on participants of college age or older overlook a critical fact: Cultural messages about the presumed cognitive abilities of males and females are likely to be influential throughout development (18, 19). If children absorb and act on these ideas (3, 20, 21), then many capable girls are likely to have already veered away from certain fields by the time they reach college. Thus, it is important to investigate the acquisition of the “brilliance = males” stereotype in early childhood, as children enter school and begin to make choices that shape their future career paths.
Study one examined the developmental trajectory of this stereotype in 96 children aged 5, 6, and 7 (32 children per age group; half boys, half girls). Children came mostly from middle-class backgrounds, and 75% were white. (The supplementary materials contain additional demographic information. However, across studies, children’s race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status did not significantly moderate the results of interest.) We assessed children’s endorsement of the “brilliance = males” stereotype with three tasks, presented in counterbalanced order (see the supplementary materials). In task (i), children were told a brief story about a person who was “really, really smart.” No hints as to the protagonist’s gender were provided. Children were then asked to guess which of four unfamiliar adults (two men, two women) was the protagonist of the story. In task (ii), children saw several pairs of same- or different-gender adults and guessed which adult in each pair was “really, really smart.” In task (iii), children completed three novel puzzles in which they had to guess which objects (e.g., a hammer) or attributes (e.g., smart) best corresponded to pictures of unfamiliar men and women.
Across tasks and studies, the pictures depicted males and females matched for attractiveness and professional dress (potential cues to intelligence). In each task, we recorded the proportion of relevant trials on which children linked intellectual ability with people of their own gender; these proportions were then averaged into an own-gender brilliance score. As a comparison, we also elicited children’s ideas about whether men versus women are “really, really nice.” These two traits are differentially linked to gender in common stereotypes (2). As the relevant cultural notions are being assimilated, children’s responses should likewise differentiate between these traits.
The results suggest that children’s ideas about brilliance exhibit rapid changes over the period from ages 5 to 7. At 5, boys and girls associated brilliance with their own gender to a similar extent (Wald χ2 = 0.02, P = 0.89) (Fig. 1A and table S2). The high scores are consistent with the overwhelming in-group positivity previously observed in boys and (especially) girls across early and middle childhood (22, 23). Despite this strong tendency to view one’s gender in a positive light, girls aged 6 and 7 were significantly less likely than boys to associate brilliance with their own gender (Wald χ2 = 8.10, P = 0.004) (Fig. 1A). Thus, the “brilliance = males” stereotype may be familiar to, and endorsed by, children as young as 6. The stereotype associating females with being nice seems to follow a similar developmental trajectory (Fig. 1B).
Fig. 1 Results of studies one and two.
Boys’ (blue) and girls’ (red) stereotype scores in study one (A and B) and study two (C and D), by age group (5- versus 6- versus 7-year-olds). Error bars represent ± 1 SE.
In study two, we replicated our initial findings with a larger sample (144 children; 48 per age group). Children in this sample rated both adult and child targets. (Study one included only adult targets.) As before, there was no statistically significant difference in own-gender brilliance scores for 5-year-old boys and girls (Wald χ2 = 0.01, P = 0.94), but a significant difference emerged starting at age 6 (Wald χ2 = 9.63, P = 0.002) (Fig. 1C and table S2). This pattern did not differ significantly by whether children rated adult versus child targets (Wald χ2 = 1.42, P = 0.23).
What might explain the drop in girls’ evaluation of their gender’s intellectual abilities? Although many factors are likely involved, in study two we tested whether this drop is associated with differences between younger (5-year-old) and older (6- and 7-year-old) girls in their perceptions of their school achievement—information that is, in principle, relevant to judging intelligence. These perceptions were measured with four questions similar to those we used to measure stereotypes (e.g., children had to guess which of four children, two boys and two girls, “gets the best grades in school”). In contrast with the drop in brilliance scores, there was no significant difference between younger and older girls in the likelihood of selecting other girls as having top grades (t = 0.22, P = 0.83) (fig. S1). Older girls were actually more likely to select girls as having top grades than older boys were to select boys (t = 4.41, P < 0.001), consistent with the reality that girls get better grades in school than boys at this age (24). Nevertheless, there was no significant correlation between girls’ perceptions of school achievement and their perceptions of brilliance (r = 0.11, P = 0.34; for boys: r = 0.38, P = 0.001). Thus, girls’ ideas about who is brilliant are not rooted in their perceptions of who performs well in school. [However, other aspects of children’s experiences in school, such as teachers’ attitudes and biases (25, 26), may still be implicated in the development of this stereotype.]
In study three, we investigated whether children’s gendered beliefs about brilliance shape their interests. Sixty-four children aged 6 and 7 (half boys, half girls) were introduced to two novel games, one said to be for “children who are really, really smart” and the other for “children who try really, really hard” (counterbalanced; see the supplementary materials). Children were then asked four questions to measure their interest in these games (e.g., “Do you like this game, or do you not like it?”). Girls were less interested than boys in the game for smart children (Wald χ2 = 4.02, P = 0.045) but not in the game for hard-working children (Wald χ2 = 0.53, P = 0.47) (Fig. 2A and table S3).
Fig. 2 Results of studies three and four.
Boys’ (blue) and girls’ (red) interest (average of standardized responses to four questions) in novel games in study three (A) and study four (B). The main independent variable for each study (task in study three, age in study four) is shown in bold. Error bars represent ± 1 SE.
To test whether the gender differences in interest are related to children’s beliefs about brilliance, we measured these beliefs with two items adapted from study one. Indeed, as with the 6- and 7-year-olds from the first two studies, girls’ own-gender brilliance perceptions were lower than boys’ (t = 2.40, P = 0.020). Moreover, these stereotyped beliefs mediated the relationship between children’s gender and their interest in the game for brilliant (versus persistent) children: indirect effect = –0.11, 95% confidence interval = [–0.33, –0.004] (fig. S2). Thus, young children’s emerging notions about who is likely to be brilliant are one of the factors that guide their decisions about which activities to pursue.
In study four, we compared 5- and 6-year-old boys’ and girls’ interest in novel games said to be “for children who are really, really smart” (96 children; 48 per age group; half boys, half girls). We predicted that 5-year-old boys’ and girls’ interest in these games would not differ because their ideas about brilliance are not yet differentiated (Fig. 1, A and C). In contrast, 6-year-old girls’ interest was predicted to be lower than boys’, in line with the results of study three. We found no significant gender differences in interest among 5-year-olds (Wald χ2 = 0.55, P = 0.46) and a trend in the predicted direction among 6-year-olds (Wald χ2 = 3.66, P = 0.056) (Fig. 2B and table S3). Combining the samples of 6- and 7-year-olds from studies three and four with a random-effects meta-analysis (27), we estimated the magnitude of the difference in boys’ versus girls’ interest toward the game for brilliant children to be d = 0.51, 95% confidence interval = [0.13, 0.88], P = 0.008.
We considered two possible alternative explanations for the results of studies one to four. First, because boys are sometimes held back from entering the formal schooling system (28), their understanding of intellectual ability may be delayed relative to girls’ (29), which may inflate boys’ confidence about their brilliance (30). However, the boys and girls in our sample did not enter school at different ages (e.g., the average chronological age for first-grade boys and girls was 6.87 and 6.72 years, respectively; t = 1.28, P = 0.20). Moreover, own-gender brilliance scores did not differ for boys who had already entered first grade versus those who had not (Mbefore = 0.70 versus Mafter = 0.67; t = 0.33, P = 0.74), but these scores differed for girls (Mbefore = 0.71 versus Mafter = 0.56; t = 2.16, P = 0.037). Second, because women are subject to stronger modesty norms than men (31), perhaps 6- and 7-year-old girls’ lower interest in the games for brilliant children (studies three and four) was due to an increase in concerns about modesty. Contrary to this alternative, children in the age range we tested are notoriously boastful about their abilities (30). Moreover, the difference in boys’ versus girls’ interest in the brilliance games was specifically mediated by their perceptions about brilliance, pinpointing these stereotyped perceptions (rather than modesty) as the underlying mechanism. Notably, our measure of the “brilliance = males” stereotype is not susceptible to the modesty explanation: Modesty norms dictate that a woman should not boast about her own smarts (32, 33), whereas we asked children to judge whether other people were smart.
It will be important to test whether these findings extend beyond a middle-class, majority-white U.S. cultural context and to comprehensively investigate the sources of the “brilliance = males” stereotype in children’s environments. Nevertheless, the present results suggest a sobering conclusion: Many children assimilate the idea that brilliance is a male quality at a young age. This stereotype begins to shape children’s interests as soon as it is acquired and is thus likely to narrow the range of careers they will one day contemplate.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the families who participated and to the members of the Cognitive Development Lab at the University of Illinois for research assistance and helpful discussion. We also thank J. R. Cimpian for insightful feedback on previous drafts. This research was supported by a Graduate College Dissertation Completion Fellowship from the University of Illinois (L.B.) and NSF grant BCS-1530669 (A.C. and S.-J.L.). The supplementary materials contain additional data. The data for these studies are also available on Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/yund6/?view_only=9a8505d4e87b456a89f255b43e21234e.
Supplementary Material
Summary
Materials and Methods
Supplementary Text
Figs. S1 and S2
Tables S1 to S5
Resources
File (bian.sm.pdf)
References and Notes
1
W. Wood, A. H. Eagly, Biosocial construction of sex differences and similarities in behavior. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 46, 55–123 (2012).
2
S. T. Fiske, A. J. C. Cuddy, P. Glick, J. Xu, A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 82, 878–902 (2002).
3
D. Cvencek, A. N. Meltzoff, A. G. Greenwald, Math-gender stereotypes in elementary school children. Child Dev. 82, 766–779 (2011).
4
S. J. Spencer, C. M. Steele, D. M. Quinn, Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 35, 4–28 (1999).
5
S. Galdi, M. Cadinu, C. Tomasetto, The roots of stereotype threat: When automatic associations disrupt girls’ math performance. Child Dev. 85, 250–263 (2014).
6
P. G. Davies, S. J. Spencer, D. M. Quinn, R. Gerhardstein, Consuming images: How television commercials that elicit stereotype threat can restrain women academically and professionally. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 28, 1615–1628 (2002).
7
M. C. Murphy, C. M. Steele, J. J. Gross, Signaling threat: How situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychol. Sci. 18, 879–885 (2007).
8
S. Upson, L. F. Friedman, Where are all the female geniuses? Sci. Am. Mind 23, 63–65 (2012).
9
A. Furnham, E. Reeves, S. Budhani, Parents think their sons are brighter than their daughters: Sex differences in parental self-estimations and estimations of their children’s multiple intelligences. J. Genet. Psychol. 163, 24–39 (2002).
10
B. Kirkcaldy, P. Noack, A. Furnham, G. Siefen, Parental estimates of their own and their children’s intelligence. Eur. Psychol. 12, 173–180 (2007).
11
A. Lecklider, Inventing the Egghead: The Battle Over Brainpower in American Culture (Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 2013).
12
S.-J. Leslie, A. Cimpian, M. Meyer, E. Freeland, Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science 347, 262–265 (2015).
13
A. Cimpian, S.-J. Leslie, Response to Comment on “Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines”. Science 349, 391 (2015).
14
D. Storage, Z. Horne, A. Cimpian, S.-J. Leslie, The frequency of “brilliant” and “genius” in teaching evaluations predicts the representation of women and African Americans across fields. PLOS ONE 11, e0150194 (2016).
15
M. Meyer, A. Cimpian, S.-J. Leslie, Women are underrepresented in fields where success is believed to require brilliance. Front. Psychol. 6, 235 (2015).
16
K. T. U. Emerson, M. C. Murphy, A company I can trust? Organizational lay theories moderate stereotype threat for women. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 41, 295–307 (2015).
17
D. K. Ginther, S. Kahn, Comment on “Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines”. Science 349, 391 (2015).
18
K. Crowley, M. A. Callanan, H. R. Tenenbaum, E. Allen, Parents explain more often to boys than to girls during shared scientific thinking. Psychol. Sci. 12, 258–261 (2001).
19
H. R. Tenenbaum, C. Leaper, Parent-child conversations about science: The socialization of gender inequities? Dev. Psychol. 39, 34–47 (2003).
20
N. Ambady, M. Shih, A. Kim, T. L. Pittinsky, Stereotype susceptibility in children: Effects of identity activation on quantitative performance. Psychol. Sci. 12, 385–390 (2001).
21
L. S. Liben, R. S. Bigler, H. R. Krogh, Pink and blue collar jobs: Children’s judgments of job status and job aspirations in relation to sex of worker. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 79, 346–363 (2001).
22
Y. Dunham, A. S. Baron, M. R. Banaji, The development of implicit gender attitudes. Dev. Sci. 19, 781–789 (2015).
23
D. Cvencek, A. G. Greenwald, A. N. Meltzoff, Implicit measures for preschool children confirm self-esteem’s role in maintaining a balanced identity. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 62, 50–57 (2016).
24
D. Voyer, S. D. Voyer, Gender differences in scholastic achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 140, 1174–1204 (2014).
25
S. L. Beilock, E. A. Gunderson, G. Ramirez, S. C. Levine, Female teachers’ math anxiety affects girls’ math achievement. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107, 1860–1863 (2010).
26
J. P. Robinson-Cimpian, S. T. Lubienski, C. M. Ganley, Y. Copur-Gencturk, Teachers’ perceptions of students’ mathematics proficiency may exacerbate early gender gaps in achievement. Dev. Psychol. 50, 1262–1281 (2014).
27
G. Cumming, The new statistics: Why and how. Psychol. Sci. 25, 7–29 (2014).
28
F. L. Huang, Investigating the prevalence of academic redshirting using population-level data. AERA Open 1, 1–11 (2015).
29
J. Eccles, C. Midgley, T. F. Adler, “Grade-related changes in the school environment: Effects on achievement motivation,” in The Development of Achievement Motivation, J. G. Nicholls, Ed. (JAI Press, 1984), pp. 282–331.
30
R. Butler, “Competence assessment, competence, and motivation between early and middle childhood,” in Handbook of Competence and Motivation, A. J. Elliott, C. S. Dweck, Eds. (Guilford Press, 2005), pp. 202–221.
31
L. A. Rudman, Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74, 629–645 (1998).
32
J. L. Smith, M. Huntoon, Women’s bragging rights: Overcoming modesty norms to facilitate women’s self-promotion. Psychol. Women Q. 38, 447–459 (2013).
33
J. Mazei, J. Hüffmeier, P. A. Freund, A. F. Stuhlmacher, L. Bilke, G. Hertel, A meta-analysis on gender differences in negotiation outcomes and their moderators. Psychol. Bull. 141, 85–104 (2015).
34
A. F. Hayes, M. Scharkow, The relative trustworthiness of inferential tests of the indirect effect in statistical mediation analysis: Does method really matter? Psychol. Sci. 24, 1918–1927 (2013).
35
A. F. Hayes, Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach (Guilford Publications, 2013).
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Science
Volume 355 • Issue 6323 • 27 January 2017
Pages: 389 - 391
History
Received: 30 July 2016
Accepted: 9 December 2016
Copyright
Copyright © 2017, American Association for the Advancement of Science.
RE: Evolved Gender-Differences between Boys and Girls
Evolved Gender-Differences between Boys and Girls
In their report "Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children's interests" (27. January, p. 389), L. Bian et al. conclude that, by the age of 6, the gendered notion of "brilliance = male" is an acquired trait, both by boys and girls. Moreover, the authors argue that, later in life, this "gender stereotype" will negatively influence women's careers, notably in fields such as mathematics, physics or philosophy.
However, Brian et al. implicitly assume that young children respond to their questions in a gender-neutral way (boys = girls), which may not be the case. In a comprehensive study on growth rates in unborn babies it was shown that fetal body mass (g) of boys at birth is ca. 4 % higher than that of girls. This conclusion is based on measurements in different human populations characterized by specific cultures; Germany, India and Egypt had the smallest fetuses (1). This significant gender-difference may be, at least in part, due to the fact that fetal testosterone levels, determined from weeks 13 to 20 of gestation, are higher in male vs. female unborns (2). Hence, the Y-chromosome-regulated masculinization of the brain occurs early during pregnancy, so that more than 99 % of newborn babies have a genetically determined gender identity (XY = boys vs. XX = girls; the sex chromosomes are expressed throughout the developing body) (3). Moreover, in populations of 6-year old boys vs. girls, large differences in body composition have been recorded. In boys, the percentage of body fat was 18.8 %, whereas that of girls was found to be 22.8 % (+ 21 % higher). Accordingly, lean body mass, and hence musculature, is considerably stronger in boys than in girls at this early age (4).
These and other biological differences are evolved features of boys vs. girls, related to their gender-specific roles during sexual reproduction later in life (2, 4). Hence, the data of Bian et al. should be re-interpreted in the light of human evolution.
U. Kutschera
Institute of Biology, University of Kassel, Heinrich-Plett-Str. 40, D-34132 Kassel, Germany
E-Mail: [email protected]
References:
1. J. D. Vrieze, Science 355, 366 (2017).
2. J. S. Peper, P. C. M. P. Koolschijn, J. Neurosci. 32, 6745 (2012).
3. D. W. Bellott et al., Nature 508, 494 (2015).
4. S. Kirchengast, J. Life Sci. 2, 1 (2010).
RE: Gender stereotypes - L. Bian et al. 2017
Evolved Gender-Differences between Boys and Girls
In their report "Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children's interests" (27. January, p. 389), L. Bian et al. conclude that, by the age of 6, the gendered notion of "brilliance = male" is an acquired trait, both by boys and girls. Moreover, the authors argue that, later in life, this "gender stereotype" will negatively influence women's careers, notably in fields such as mathematics, physics or philosophy.
However, Brian et al. implicitly assume that young children respond to their questions in a gender-neutral way (boys = girls), which may not be the case. In a comprehensive study on growth rates in unborn babies it was shown that fetal body mass (g) of boys at birth is ca. 4 % higher than that of girls. This conclusion is based on measurements in different human populations characterized by specific cultures; Germany, India and Egypt had the smallest fetuses (1). This significant gender-difference may be, at least in part, due to the fact that fetal testosterone levels, determined from weeks 13 to 20 of gestation, are higher in male vs. female unborns (2). Hence, the Y-chromosome-regulated masculinization of the brain occurs early during pregnancy, so that more than 99 % of newborn babies have a genetically determined gender identity (XY = boys vs. XX = girls; the sex chromosomes are expressed throughout the developing body) (3). Moreover, in populations of 6-year old boys vs. girls, large differences in body composition have been recorded. In boys, the percentage of body fat was 18.8 %, whereas that of girls was found to be 22.8 % (+ 21 % higher). Accordingly, lean body mass, and hence musculature, is considerably stronger in boys than in girls at this early age (4).
These and other biological differences are evolved features of boys vs. girls, related to their gender-specific roles during sexual reproduction later in life (2, 4). Hence, the data of Bian et al. should be re-interpreted in the light of human evolution.
U. Kutschera
Institute of Biology, University of Kassel, Heinrich-Plett-Str. 40, D-34132 Kassel, Germany
E-Mail: [email protected]
References:
1. J. D. Vrieze, Science 355, 366 (2017).
2. J. S. Peper, P. C. M. P. Koolschijn, J. Neurosci. 32, 6745 (2012).
3. D. W. Bellott et al., Nature 508, 494 (2015).
4. S. Kirchengast, J. Life Sci. 2, 1 (2010).
RE: work of Lin, Leslie and Cimpian
The Importance of Convincing All Young Children They Have Enormous Potential
The recently published work of Lin, Leslie and Cimpian is both eye-opening and distressing. Their work demonstrates that by age 6 girls are convinced brilliance is a male quality. They also indicate this belief will shape girls' interests and may narrow their career choices.
This may be the case. The National Science Foundation Data from 2014 compares the number of full-time graduate students by gender in multiple disciplines. Enrollment of women was 28% in Computer Science, 31% in Pure/Applied Mathematics, 20% in Physics, 15% in Mechanical Engineering, 36% in Economics but 61% in Sociology. The U.S. Department of Commerce report based on statistics of 2009, Women in STEM: A Gender Gap to Innovation, concludes that women are greatly underrepresented in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math.
Even though women hold close to 50% of jobs in our economy, their participation in STEM jobs is less than 25%. Women working in STEM jobs earned 33% more than their counterparts in non-STEM jobs in 2009. Thus, the fact that women shy away from jobs in STEM partly results in gender pay inequality, although it is true there is still a small gender gap in earnings of women in STEM versus men in STEM.
The U.S. Department of Commerce report postulates that the discrepancy in gender participation in STEM fields results from lack of female role models, stereotyping and lack of flexibility in work environment.
In recent years, efforts have been made by some engineering schools and colleges that predominantly offer STEM majors to encourage women to enroll and pursue STEM disciplines.
The message conveyed by, Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children's interests, is that early on girls believe they may not be as smart as boys, and this may inevitably curtail their scholarly endeavors. Our society must be determined to counteract this perception.
Teachers of children from pre-kindergarten up must encourage girls and boys to participate in all activities from block building to playing with trains as well as dress-up. Teachers in training may have unconscious beliefs about the abilities of girls and boys and must try to address that issue before completing their courses and certification.
Toy manufacturers and advertising companies should be pressured by activists to avoid stereotypes and portraying boys in traditional male costumes and roles as well as girls wearing pink, princess dresses, etc.
Presentations in schools by successful female role models from STEM occupations, pictures of female scientists and mathematicians in magazines, TV shows portraying women pursuing engineering, physics and computer science degrees may be initial strategies. Social media with personal stories written by accomplished women who overcame adversity and significant challenges might also be effective to motivate girls and young women to pursue traditionally male careers.
Given the conclusions of Lin, Leslie and Cimpian, we must pursue further research to determine how best to convince young children that they have enormous potential, regardless of their gender.
RE: Gender sterotypes
It is unfortunate that the authors of this report chose to cast findings in an inappropriate light that reflects and perpetuates existing gender biases in our society.
Far from supporting the authors' conclusions, the report shows that, after the age of five, girls become aware that being "smart" is not tied to gender, while boys persist in their delusion of intellectual superiority. The report also downplays the interesting finding that girls are much more confident in their ability to succeed.
A better way to interpret the results is that boys think they are smarter, but girls are more willing to work hard, are confident in their ability to succeed, and are generally nicer than boys.
The authors have fallen victim to their own biases in how they interpreted results, and in so doing are misleading the readers and perpetuating harmful gender biases. The media is picking this up with doomsday titles like "Girls see themselves less talented than boys by age of six" - and this is terrible.
Please read my Forbes article in which I give more detailed explanation of the flaws in this report: http://bit.ly/2jM58c6
RE: Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children's interests
Congratulations on this interesting project. I am still going through some of the data, but why were 6 and 7 year olds grouped together (as opposed to 5 and 6 year olds)? For study 1 data, it appears that children picked their own gender in the majority of the presented cases a majority of the time (69-82% of subjects in each group)-- except for the age 6 girls (only 38%). If there is divergence starting at age 6, why would results for the 7 years old boys and girls be more similar? (11 out of 16 subjects in each gender picked their own gender in a majority of the presented cases). Would also appreciate your comments on the "clinical" magnitude of the statistical differences. Thanks again.