essay on effects of gender stereotypes

• Type 2 Diabetes
• Heart Disease
• Digestive Health
• Multiple Sclerosis
• COVID-19 Vaccines
• Occupational Therapy
• Healthy Aging
• Health Insurance
• Public Health
• Patient Rights
• Caregivers & Loved Ones
• End of Life Concerns
• Health News
• Thyroid Test Analyzer
• Doctor Discussion Guides
• Hemoglobin A1c Test Analyzer
• Lipid Test Analyzer
• Complete Blood Count (CBC) Analyzer
• What to Buy
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Medical Expert Board

What Are Gender Stereotypes?

• How They Develop
• How to Combat

Gender stereotypes are preconceived, usually generalized views about how members of a certain gender do or should behave, or which traits they do or should have. They are meant to reinforce gender norms, typically in a binary way ( masculine vs. feminine ).

Gender stereotypes have far-reaching effects on all genders.

Read on to learn about how gender stereotypes develop, the effects of gender stereotypes, and how harmful gender stereotypes can be changed.

Davin G Photography / Getty Images

Meaning of Gender Stereotypes

Gender stereotypes are ideas about how members of a certain gender do or should be or behave. They reflect ingrained biases based on the social norms of that society. Typically, they are considered as binary (male/female and feminine/masculine).

By nature, gender stereotypes are oversimplified and generalized. They are not accurate and often persist even when there is demonstrable evidence that contradict them. They also tend to ignore the fluidity of gender and nonbinary gender identities.

Classification of Gender Stereotypes

Gender stereotypes have two components, which are:

• Descriptive : Beliefs about how people of a certain gender do act, and their attributes
• Prescriptive : Beliefs about how people of a specific gender should act and attributes they should have

Gender stereotypes can be positive or negative. This doesn’t mean good or bad—even stereotypes that seem “flattering” can have harmful consequences.

• Positive gender stereotypes : Describe behaviors or attributes that align with accepted stereotypical ideas for that gender, and that people of that gender are encouraged to display (for example, girls should play with dolls and boys should play with trucks)
• Negative gender stereotypes : Describe behaviors or attributes that are stereotypically undesirable for that gender and that people from that gender are discouraged from displaying (such as women shouldn’t be assertive, or men shouldn’t cry)

The attribute is undesirable for all genders but more accepted in a particular gender than others. For example, arrogance and aggression are unpleasant in all genders but are tolerated more in men and boys than in women, girls, or nonbinary people .

Gender stereotypes tend to be divided into these two generalized themes:

• Communion : This stereotype orients people to others. It includes traits such as compassionate, nurturing, warm, and expressive, which are stereotypically associated with girls/women/femininity.
• Agency : This stereotype orients people to the self and is motivated by goal attainment. It includes traits such as competitiveness, ambition, and assertiveness, which are stereotypically associated with boys/men/masculinity.

Basic types of gender stereotypes include:

• Personality traits : Such as expecting women to be nurturing and men to be ambitious
• Domestic behaviors : Such as expecting women to be responsible for cooking, cleaning, and childcare, while expecting men to do home repairs, pay bills, and fix the car
• Occupations : Associates some occupations such as childcare providers and nurses with women and pilots and engineers with men
• Physical appearance : Associates separate characteristics for women and men, such as women should shave their legs or men shouldn’t wear dresses

Gender stereotypes don’t exist in a vacuum. They can intersect with stereotypes and prejudices surrounding a person’s other identities and be disproportionately harmful to different people. For example, a Black woman experiences sexism and racism , and also experiences unique prejudice from the intersectionality of sexism and racism that a White woman or Black man would not.

Words to Know

• Gender : Gender is a complex system involving roles, identities, expressions, and qualities that have been given meaning by a society. Gender is a social construct separate from sex assigned at birth.
• Gender norms : Gender norms are what a society expects from certain genders.
• Gender roles : These are behaviors, actions, social roles, and responsibilities a society views as appropriate or inappropriate for certain genders.
• Gender stereotyping : This ascribes the stereotypes of a gender group to an individual from that group.
• Self-stereotyping vs. group stereotyping : This is how a person views themselves compared to how they view the gender group they belong to (for example, a woman may hold the belief that women are better caregivers than men, but not see herself as adept in a caregiving role).

How Gender Stereotypes Develop

We all have unconscious biases (assumptions our subconscious makes about people based on groups that person belongs to and our ingrained associations with those groups). Often, we aren’t even aware we have them or how they influence our behavior.

Gender stereotyping comes from unconscious biases we have about gender groups.

We aren’t preprogrammed at birth with these biases and stereotypes. Instead, they are learned through repeated and ongoing messages we receive.

Gender roles, norms, and expectations are learned by watching others in our society, including our families, our teachers and classmates, and the media. These roles and the stereotypes attached to them are reinforced through interactions starting from birth. Consciously or not, adults and often other children will reward behavior or attributes that are in line with expectations for a child’s gender, and discourage behavior and attributes that are not.

Some ways gender stereotypes are learned and reinforced in childhood include:

• How adults dress children
• Toys and play activities offered to children
• Children observing genders in different roles (for example, a child may see that all of the teachers at their daycare are female)
• Praise and criticism children receive for behaviors
• Encouragement to gravitate toward certain subjects in school (such as math for boys and language arts for girls)
• Anything that models and rewards accepted gender norms

Children begin to internalize these stereotypes quite early. Research has shown that as early as elementary school, children reflect similar prescriptive gender stereotypes as adults, especially about physical appearance and behavior.

While all genders face expectations to align with the stereotypes of their gender groups, boys and men tend to face harsher criticism for behavior and attributes that are counterstereotypical than do girls and women. For example, a boy who plays with a doll and wears a princess dress is more likely to be met with a negative reaction than a girl who wears overalls and plays with trucks.

The Hegemonic Myth

The hegemonic myth is the false perception that men are the dominant gender (strong and independent) while women are weaker and need to be protected.

Gender stereotypes propagate this myth.

Effects of Gender Stereotypes

Gender stereotypes negatively impact all genders in a number of ways.

Nonbinary Genders

For people who are transgender / gender nonconforming (TGNC), gender stereotypes can lead to:

• Feelings of confusion and discomfort
• A low view of self-worth and self-respect
• Transphobia (negative feelings, actions, and attitudes toward transgender people or the idea of being transgender, which can be internalized)
• Negative impacts on mental health
• Struggles at school

Unconscious bias plays a part in reinforcing gender stereotypes in the classroom. For example:

• Educators may be more likely to praise girls for being well-behaved, while praising boys for their ideas and comprehension.
• Boys are more likely to be viewed as being highly intelligent, which influences choices. One study found girls as young as 6 avoiding activities that were labeled as being for children who are “really, really smart.”
• Intentional or unintentional steering of children toward certain subjects influences education and future employment.

In the Workforce

While women are in the workforce in large numbers, gender stereotypes are still at play, such as:

• Certain occupations are stereotypically gendered (such as nursing and teaching for women and construction and engineering for men).
• Occupations with more female workers are often lower paid and have fewer opportunities for promotion than ones oriented towards men.
• More women are entering male-dominated occupations, but gender segregation often persists within these spaces with the creation of female-dominated subsets (for example, pediatrics and gynecology in medicine, or human resources and public relations in management).
• Because men face harsher criticism for displaying stereotypically feminine characteristics than women do for displaying stereotypically male characteristics, they may be discouraged from entering female-dominated professions such as early childhood education.

Despite both men and women being in the workforce, women continue to be expected to (and do) perform a disproportionate amount of housework and taking care of children than do men.

Gender-Based Violence

Gender stereotypes can contribute to gender-based violence.

• Men who hold more traditional gender role beliefs are more likely to commit violent acts.
• Men who feel stressed about their ability to meet male gender norms are more likely to commit inter-partner violence .
• Trans people are more likely than their cisgender counterparts to experience discrimination and harassment, and they are twice as likely to engage in suicidal thoughts and actions than cisgender members of the Queer community.

Stereotypes and different ways of socializing genders can affect health in the following ways:

• Adolescent boys are more likely than adolescent girls to engage in violent or risky behavior.
• Mental health issues are more common in girls than boys.
• The perceived “ideal” of feminine slenderness and masculine muscularity can lead to health issues surrounding body image .
• Gender stereotypes can discourage people from seeking medical help or lead to missed diagnosis (such as eating disorders in males ).

Globally, over 575 million girls live in countries where inequitable gender norms contribute to a violation of their rights in areas such as:

• Employment opportunities
• Independence
• Safety from gender-based violence

How to Combat Gender Stereotypes

Some ways to combat gender stereotypes include:

• Examine and confront your own gender biases and how they influence your behavior, including the decisions you make for your children.
• Foster more involvement from men in childcare, both professionally and personally.
• Promote and support counterstereotypical hirings (such as science and technology job fairs aimed at women and campaigns to gain interest in becoming elementary educators for men).
• Confront and address bias in the classroom, including education for teachers on how to minimize gender stereotypes.
• Learn about each child individually, including their preferences.
• Allow children to use their chosen name and pronouns .
• Avoid using gender as a way to group children.
• Be mindful of language (for example, when addressing a group, use “children” instead of “boys and girls” and “families” instead of “moms and dads,”).
• Include books, toys, and other media in the classroom and at home that represent diversity in gender and gender roles.
• View toys as gender neutral, and avoid ones that promote stereotypes (for example, a toy that has a pink version aimed at girls).
• Ensure all children play with toys and games that develop a full set of social and cognitive skills.
• Promote gender neutrality in sports.
• Be mindful of advertising and the messaging marketing sends to children.
• Talk to children about gender, including countering binary thinking and gender stereotypes you come across.
• Take a look at the media your child engages with. Provide media that show all genders in a diversity of roles, different family structures, etc. Discuss any gender stereotyping you see.
• Tell children that it is OK to be themselves, whether that aligns with traditional gender norms or not (for example, it’s OK if a woman wants to be a stay-at-home parent, but it’s not OK to expect her to).
• Give children equal household chores regardless of gender.
• Teach all children how to productively handle their frustration and anger.
• Encourage children to step out of their comfort zone to meet new people and try activities they aren’t automatically drawn to.
• Put gender-neutral bathrooms in schools, workplaces, and businesses.
• Avoid assumptions about a person’s gender, including children.
• Take children to meet people who occupy counterstereotypical roles, such as a female firefighter.
• Speak up and challenge someone who is making sexist jokes or comments.

Movies That Challenge Gender Stereotypes

Not sure where to start? Common Sense Media has compiled a list of movies that defy gender stereotypes .

Gender stereotypes are generalized, preconceived, and usually binary ideas about behaviors and traits specific genders should or should not display. They are based on gender norms and gender roles, and stem from unconscious bias.

Gender stereotypes begin to develop very early in life through socialization. They are formed and strengthened through observations, experiences, and interactions with others.

Gender stereotypes can be harmful to all genders and should be challenged. The best way to start combating gender stereotypes is to examine and confront your own biases and how they affect your behavior.

A Word From Verywell

We all have gender biases, whether we realize it or not. That doesn’t mean we should let gender stereotypes go unchecked. If you see harmful gender stereotyping, point it out.

YWCA Metro Vancouver. Dating safe: how gender stereotypes can impact our relationships .

LGBTQ+ Primary Hub. Gender stereotyping .

Stanford University: Gendered Innovations. Stereotypes .

Koenig AM. Comparing prescriptive and descriptive gender stereotypes about children, adults, and the elderly . Front Psychol . 2018;9:1086. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01086

United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Gender stereotypes .

Hentschel T, Heilman ME, Peus CV. The multiple dimensions of gender stereotypes: a current look at men’s and women’s characterizations of others and themselves . Front Psychol . 2019;10:11. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00011

Eagly AH, Nater C, Miller DI, Kaufmann M, Sczesny S. Gender stereotypes have changed: a cross-temporal meta-analysis of U.S. public opinion polls from 1946 to 2018 . Am Psychol . 2020;75(3):301-315. doi:10.1037/amp0000494

Planned Parenthood. What are gender roles and stereotypes?

Institute of Physics. Gender stereotypes and their effect on young people .

France Stratégie. Report – Gender stereotypes and how to fight them: new ideas from France .

Bian L, Leslie SJ, Cimpian A. Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children’s interests . Science . 2017;355(6323):389-391. doi:10.1126/science.aah6524

Save the Children. Gender roles can create lifelong cycle of inequality .

Girl Scouts. 6 everyday ways to bust gender stereotypes .

UNICEF. How to remove gender stereotypes from playtime .

Save the Children. Tips for talking with children about gender stereoptypes .

By Heather Jones Jones is a freelance writer with a strong focus on health, parenting, disability, and feminism.

Gender stereotypes change outcomes: a systematic literature review

Journal of Humanities and Applied Social Sciences

ISSN : 2632-279X

Article publication date: 15 December 2021

Issue publication date: 19 October 2023

Even though researchers have discussed gender stereotype change, only a few studies have specifically projected outcomes or consequences. Hence, the main purpose of this study is to examine the impact of gender stereotype change concerning the different outcomes.

Design/methodology/approach

In achieving the purpose, the authors searched and reviewed current empirical knowledge on the outcomes of gender stereotype change in the Scopus and EBSCOhost databases from 1970 to 2020. The entire process was conducted through a systematic literature review methodology. The article selection criteria were executed using the PRISMA article selection flowchart steps, and 15 articles were included for the review.

The findings reveal that the outcomes from gender stereotype change research can be categorized mainly under the themes of “family and children,” “marriage” and “equality and women's employment.”

Research limitations/implications

The co-occurrence network visualization map reveals gaps in the existing literature. There may be more possible outcomes relating to the current realities, and more cross-cultural research is needed.

Practical implications

These outcomes provide some implications for policymakers.

Originality/value

Even though researchers have discussed gender stereotype change on its various outcomes or consequences, research is less. Hence, this study provides a synthesis of consequences and addresses the gaps in the area.

• Gender stereotypes change
• Systematic literature review

Priyashantha, K.G. , De Alwis, A.C. and Welmilla, I. (2023), "Gender stereotypes change outcomes: a systematic literature review", Journal of Humanities and Applied Social Sciences , Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 450-466. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHASS-07-2021-0131

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2021, K.G. Priyashantha, A. Chamaru De Alwis and Indumathi Welmilla

Published in Journal of Humanities and Applied Social Sciences . Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

Introduction

A society's beliefs about the appropriate roles for men and women are gender role attitudes, gender ideology ( Davis and Greenstein, 2009 ) or gender stereotypes ( Attanapola, 2004 ; Berridge et al. , 2009 ; Bosak et al. , 2018 ; Charlesworth and Banaji, 2021 ; De Silva and Priyashantha, 2014 ; Eagly et al. , 2020 ; Lopez-Zafra and Garcia-Retamero, 2021 ). Such beliefs are formed from the peoples' observations of the behavior of men and women in different social roles ( Priyashantha et al. , 2021b ). Particularly, when women or men demonstrate certain behavior more typical to different social roles more often than the opposite sex, such behaviors are believed to be the common traits relevant to men or women ( Eagly et al. , 2020 ; Eagly and Karau, 2002 ). Hence, men are believed to be assertive, independent, rational and decisive, while women are believed to be showing concern for others, warmth, helpfulness and nurturance ( Hoyt et al. , 2009 ). These attributes concerning men and women are referred to as agentic (masculine) and communal (feminine), respectively ( Abele, 2003 ). This agency and communion are then perceived as the fundamental motivators in men's and women's behaviors ( Bakan, 1966 ). However, researchers argue that these perceptions have changed in the contemporary world of work, which has been promoted by females' income-generating activities ( Eagly et al. , 2020 ). Social and economic developments took place, and United Nations initiatives (e.g. human rights, gender equality, nondiscrimination against women, women in development programs) ( Benería et al. , 2015 ) have backed this females' income generation in the mid-20th century in most countries ( Attanapola, 2004 ; Boehnke, 2011 ; Zosuls et al. , 2011 ). These female income generation activities have, in turn, resulted in changes in social role distribution where both men and women are now in multiple roles as parents, employees, employers, volunteers, friends, spouses, siblings, etc. ( Najeema, 2010 ; Perrigino et al. , 2021 ). Thus, peoples' various roles include women's work in men's roles and vice versa ( Blau and Kahn, 2006 ; Mergaert, 2012 ) while playing their traditional roles ( Eagly et al. , 2020 ). This trend has evolved the traditional gender role stereotypes into changing gender stereotypes during the last 50 years ( Blau and Kahn, 2006 ; Mergaert, 2012 ; Priyashantha et al. , 2021b ).

Even though it has been almost 50 years for research into changing gender stereotypes, there are scholarly arguments for the prevalence of traditional gender stereotypes ( Haines et al. , 2016 ; Rudman et al. , 2012 ; Rudman and Glick, 2001 ). Some theoretical bases and the prevalence of some cultures that value gender stereotyping further support these scholarly arguments. Meanwhile, there is an opinion that gender stereotyping violates human rights ( Tabassum and Nayak, 2021 ). Such an opinion is justified by the fact that gender stereotyping limits the capacity of women and men to develop their attributes or professional skills and make decisions about their lives and plans ( Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2014 ). Therefore, researchers have been highly interested in finding whether gender stereotypes have changed or not in societies ( Bosak et al. , 2018 ; Eagly et al. , 2020 ; Haines et al. , 2016 ; Lopez-Zafra and Garcia-Retamero, 2012 , 2021 ; Twenge, 1997a , b ; Ugwu, 2021 ). Instead, it is reported that there are more gender gaps in employment participation in some countries. If the gender stereotypes have changed, theoretically, there should be no such gender gap. Researching this question, the researchers have also been interested in how gender stereotypes change cross-culturally ( Boehnke, 2011 ; Constantin and Voicu, 2015 ; Diekman et al. , 2005 ; Diekman and Eagly, 2000 ; Lopez-Zafra and Garcia-Retamero, 2011 ). Accordingly, they have found that gender stereotypes have changed in Europe ( Berkery et al. , 2013 ; Boehnke, 2011 ; Garcia-Retamero et al. , 2011 ; Lopez-Zafra and Garcia-Retamero, 2012 ) and America ( Alfieri et al. , 1996 ; Beere et al. , 1984 ; Bem, 1974 ; Broverman et al. , 1970 ; Deaux and Lewis, 1984 ; Gill et al. , 1987 ; Lueptow et al. , 1995 ; Parelius, 1975 ; Spence and Hahn, 2016 ; Twenge, 1997a ; Twenge et al. , 2012 ; Zosuls et al. , 2011 ). In addition to that, researchers have found that the gender stereotype change has taken place in East Asia ( Boehnke, 2011 ), Africa ( Bosak et al. , 2018 ) and the Arab World ( Sikdar and Mitra, 2012 ) as well. Some global level studies also confirm that gender stereotype change has occurred in most countries with minor exceptions ( Brown, 1991 ; Charlesworth and Banaji, 2021 ; Constantin and Voicu, 2015 ; Williams and Best, 1990 ). We know that if something happened, this could have various outcomes related to the incident. Accordingly, as the gender stereotype change has also taken place, there could be multiple outcomes associated with it. However, to the best of our knowledge, there is minimal research on this subject matter ( Priyashantha et al. , 2021c ).

Therefore, with the expectation of finding the outcomes of gender stereotype change, we positioned the central question of the current study as, what is the impact of gender stereotype change? Thus, the present study systematically and quantitatively analyzes selected literature in the last 50 years to identify the outcomes of gender stereotypes and gaps in the prevailing knowledge.

Methodology

This article is positioned as Systematic Literature Review (SLR). The SLRs require a prior protocol to be developed to document the inclusion and exclusion of studies and analysis methods ( Pahlevan-Sharif et al. , 2019 ). We did a comprehensive literature search for this study, and a protocol was designed before the article search. There is a standard way of reporting the SLR known as Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA- Liberati et al. , 2009 ), which is highly recommended in Medicine. However, as there is no such framework in social sciences, authors who intend to conduct the SLR tend to use the narrative and arbitrary guidelines ( Pahlevan-Sharif et al. , 2019 ; Petticrew and Roberts, 2006 ). Instead, in this study, for the article selection process to be objective and systematic, we followed the PRISMA article selection flow chart steps to select the articles.

The PRISMA article selection flow diagram has four steps: identification, screening, eligibility and included, and we followed them in the article selection. The identifications stage includes database, search terms and search criteria. The databases were Scopus and Ebscohost for searching the articles. The search terms were “gender stereotype change” and “outcomes.” The search criteria or algorithm was developed by combining the terms with AND operative, and each search term was given similar words combined with OR operative. Accordingly, we retrieved 56 articles from Scopus and 68 Articles from EBSCOhost databases. Subsequently, the retrieved list containing the title, abstract, keywords, authors' names and affiliations, journal name, cited numbers and year, etc., was exported to a Microsoft Excel sheet. The duplicates were then searched and removed.

The screening stage includes eliminating the articles when their titles and abstracts do not meet the inclusion criteria ( Meline, 2006 ). The inclusion criteria for the current study were the “empirical studies” published in “academic journals” in “English” on “gender stereotype change” during the “1970–2020” period. Thus, the reason for selecting 1970 as the entry point was that gender stereotype change started in 1970, and it was extended to 2020 to include more studies for the review. Each author of the current research independently went through each title and abstract and eliminated the studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria. Notably, if there was any disagreement about elimination was resolved through discussion and consensus. Hence, we excluded 73 articles that were based on “review,” “qualitative,” “books,” “book chapters,” “magazines,” “conference papers,” “non-English” and “non-relevance to the current study's scope.” Then, the remaining 50 articles' full-text versions were retrieved for assessing their eligibility, which is the next step of the PRISMA flow diagram.

Since the articles have already been screened out up to this stage, evaluating their methodological reporting for eligibility checking is much better ( Meline, 2006 ). It is justifiable as we had taken an inclusion criterion as “empirical studies.” Thus, the evaluation areas may be the population, methodology, methods, design, context, etc., and can find the reasons for excluding the articles as “ambiguous methods” and “required original information from the author,” etc. ( Meline, 2006 ). Accordingly, we independently evaluated each article on such grounds. We identified some studies based on qualitative reviews, perspectives, ambiguous methods and some sought original information about the methodology from the authors. They all were excluded through our discussion and consensus. In total, we identified 35 papers as irrelevant at this stage, and finally, we selected 15 articles for the review. They are shown in Table 1 , and the process we followed for article selection is shown in Figure 1 .

The Microsoft Excel sheet was then modified, and the data in it were fed into the VOSviewer Software to run the keyword co-occurrence and term co-occurrence network visualization maps. That was to identify the core themes in the selected studies scientifically. Notably, the keyword co-occurrence is to identify the main areas touched from the keywords of the studies as the keywords of a research article denote its primary content on a particular field of investigation. Moreover, the term co-occurrence analysis is to identify more about studies than the keywords co-occurrence as it searches key terms reflected in the titles and abstracts of each article.

Results and analysis

This section is mainly organized to present the results of the SLR and analyze them. It primarily consists of two sections: descriptive analysis and literature classification.

Descriptive analysis

The year-wise article distribution is shown in Figure 2 . Even the 50 years considered for the review, the empirical studies reported on outcomes of gender stereotype change since 1998. Figure 2 shows that at least one empirical study has been conducted for each year during the 1998–2020 period. Moreover, there is a high frequency of studies in 2005, 2017 and 2018 years. Table 2 shows the methodological reporting of the studies. It reveals that studies have been conducted based on large samples drawn on panel surveys. The information ensures the validity of the selected studies for the review, as we had an inclusion criterion for selecting papers as “empirical studies.” Concerning the context under which studies were conducted ( Figure 3 ), the USA takes the led by having seven empirical studies published (1970–2020). Canada is in the second position having two studies during the period. Australia, China, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and United Kingdom have conducted one study each.

Literature classification

The classification of results is critical in finding out actual work done on the objective set for the research ( Jabeen et al. , 2020 ; Priyashantha et al. , 2021a ). Since the main research objective of the current study was to identify the outcomes of the gender stereotype change, this section mainly classifies the results relating to that. As the keyword co-occurrence network analysis is suitable for identifying the critical areas on a particular investigation, we used it for our study to answer the study's central question. Figure 4 shows the output of it.

The size of the node denotes the number of occurrences in a keyword co-occurrences visualization map. Hence, the higher the number of occurrences, the larger the node's size. Thus, our analysis of the keyword co-occurrences found that “gender,” “employment” and “longitudinal research” denoted in larger nodes in the map ( Figure 4 ). It reveals that they are the keywords that have frequently occurred in studies. We know that “gender” is highly associated with gender stereotypes. It may be a justifiable reason why it happens so often in studies. “Employment” opportunities are also justifiable since it has been proven that employment opportunities have been a significant cause for gender stereotypes changes ( Eagly et al. , 2020 ). Moreover, as almost all the studies in the sample have adopted the “longitudinal research” design, the keyword “longitudinal research” has also fallen to the frequently occurring category. It demonstrates the methods used by the selected articles and their suitability to the current study.

Additionally, Figure 4 shows four main clusters denoted in different colors containing different keywords in each cluster. More specifically, Table 3 shows the number of terms in each cluster, indicating that changing gender stereotype outcomes varied by different areas of investigations. Grouping the keywords into one cluster is regarded as the keywords' likelihood to reflect similar topics. Hence, clusters one and two (as stated in Table 3 ) have the highest number of keywords and suggest that the topics highlighted in those are the centralized fields in gender stereotype change and outcome research. Thus, the central areas highlighted are “attitudes,” “cohabitation,” “fertility,” “life course,” “living arrangements,” “marriage,” “couples,” “employment,” “family economics,” “gender roles,” “longitudinal research” and “marital quality.”

Moreover, the term co-occurrence network visualization map created by the VOSviewer software ( Figure 5 ) is treated as more detailed than the keyword co-occurrence analysis. It provides an analysis that goes beyond the keywords as it further investigates the areas focused on in the title and abstracts of the studies. Hence, creating this type of map further identified the areas frequently investigated on gender stereotypes change outcomes. Accordingly, Figure 5 categorized the terms into three clusters in Blue, Red and Green. In the Blue cluster, there are two terms as “family” and “child.” A common theme can be formed for them as family and child-related outcomes. As we did a detailed search for the outcomes in each article, we could summarize them in Table 4 . Hence, we could extract different family and children-related outcomes from Table 4 . They are; “Family Role Overload and Stress” ( Duxbury et al. , 2018 ), “Subsequent School Enrollment” ( Cunningham et al. , 2005 ), “Fewer Children” ( Barber and Axinn, 1998 ), “Delay in Marital Parenthood” ( Cunningham et al. , 2005 ) and “Children's Convergence of Egalitarian Attitudes” ( Dawson et al. , 2016 ).

Concerning the family and children-related outcomes, Duxbury et al. (2018) have found that the “family role overload” of both husbands and wives was consequent in changing gender stereotype contexts. The sense of family role overload then becomes a strong predictor of couples' “perceived stress” ( Duxbury et al. , 2018 ). The perceived stress can undermine the health and well-being of people. The literature confirms that “psychological strains” and “disorders” ( Hébert et al. , 2017 ), “adverse impacts on the immune system” ( Barry et al. , 2020 ; Cohen et al. , 1999 ), “low quality of life,” “insomnia,” “burnout” ( Ribeiro et al. , 2018 ) and “family distress” ( Aryee et al. , 1999 ) resultant from the stress. When the stress becomes to distress level, there is a high possibility of causing chronic diseases and mortality ( Barry et al. , 2020 ). Therefore, these findings provide more implications for the policymakers to emphasize reducing those negative outcomes.

Apart from this, young adults' biases toward changing gender role attitudes can cause “subsequent school enrolments” ( Ciabattari, 2001 ; Cunningham et al. , 2005 ). It is severe, particularly among women, as they need to acquire knowledge to upgrade their employment status ( Cunningham et al. , 2005 ) and be independent ( Goldscheider and Goldscheider, 1993 ). However, later school enrollment may hinder performing family roles of adults as intensive time is devoted to education ( Marini, 1978 ). Moreover, women with changing attitudes toward gender roles are “less likely to have children” ( Barber and Axinn, 1998 ) and “delay in marital parenthood” ( Cunningham et al. , 2005 ). As a result, the future society could go into a severe crisis regarding population growth ( Barber and Axinn, 1998 ). It could be challenging to find people for growth prospects in economies. Therefore, the policymakers need to consider this seriously and try to overcome that. In the meantime, scholars need to focus on further research on this outcome to confirm this viewpoint further.

The last outcome of the family and children-related category is the “children's convergence of egalitarian attitudes” ( Dawson et al. , 2016 ). It indicates that gender stereotype changes could evolve over the generations and possibly consequent the different outcomes of gender stereotype change. It implies that more research on this area is required to find more associated outcomes.

The cluster in Red ( Figure 5 ) has categorized the terms as; “Role Attitude,” “Attitudes,” “Cohabitation,” “Marriage” and “Consequences.” Out of them, the “role attitudes,” “attitudes” and “consequences” are the general search terms related to the concept of gender stereotype change outcomes, and hence, we ignored them for review. However, the remaining two terms, “marriage” and “cohabitation,” were considered for the review. Since these terms are related to marriage, we themed them as “marriage-related.” Hence, marriage-related outcomes we found were “Increased Cohabitation, Low Marriage Rate” ( Barber and Axinn, 1998 ), “Delay in Marriage” ( Cunningham et al. , 2005 ), “Low Satisfaction,” “Low Relationship Quality,” “Low Stability in Marital Relationships” ( Blom and Hewitt, 2020 ) and “Attitude Convergence in Marriage” ( Kalmijn, 2005 ).

The “increased cohabitation,” “low marriage rate” ( Barber and Axinn, 1998 ) and “delay in marriage” ( Cunningham et al. , 2005 ) can subsequently impact the population growth negatively ( Barber and Axinn, 1998 ). If such outcomes exist over time, it could be a barrier to the progression of societies. However, another finding reveals that gender stereotype change increases childbirth to single parents in recent decades ( Cunningham et al. , 2005 ). Therefore, it is difficult to directly conclude that such outcomes negatively affect population growth or societal progression. More research is needed to find the associated outcomes of these consequences so that reasonable judgments can be made whether such outcomes generate more negative or positive effects on the population, society or any other.

Moreover, in marital relationships, Australian-related research has found that “low satisfaction,” “low relationship quality” and “low stability” ( Blom and Hewitt, 2020 ) were consequent from the gender stereotype changes. All of which resemble negative outcomes by their surface nature. However, another finding reveals that “attitude convergence in marriage” ( Kalmijn, 2005 ) occurred due to gender stereotype changes. It is contrary to the previous finding, which is a positive outcome by its surface nature.

Most importantly, for these types of outcomes, positivity or negativity is dependent on cultural values. The negative outcomes as “low satisfaction,” “low relationship quality” and “low stability” may be very accurate for the cultures which value male breadwinner family structures ( Blom and Hewitt, 2020 ). However, more opposing consequences, like “attitude convergence in marriage” ( Kalmijn, 2005 ), can be found in cultures with more egalitarian values like Nordic countries ( Vitali and Arpino, 2016 ). Hence, in total, the positivity or negativity of outcomes is a matter of societal and cultural values. Therefore, generalizing interpretations about the positivity or negativity of each outcome is suitable with more cross-cultural research. Similarly, further research is needed regarding the associated outcomes of each of these outcomes.

Finally, the Green cluster has the terms as; “Outcomes,” “Gender Differences,” “Gender Egalitarianism,” “Work” and “Women.” As in other clusters, we had a common search term, “outcome,” in this cluster, and we ignored it. Except that, the terms “gender difference” and “gender egalitarianism” seem to represent a common theme of “equality.” The remaining terms “work” and “women” are merged, and a theme can be given as “women's employment.” Thus, this cluster is then characterized by the theme of “equality and women employments.” Specifically, under this cluster, we found the outcomes of “Reduction of Gender Role Stereotyping” ( Dawson et al. , 2016 ), “Egalitarian Essentialism” ( Cotter et al. , 2011 ), “Non-Difference in Men or Women for Work-Life” ( Lyness and Judiesch, 2014 ) and “Gender Differences in Personality Cross-Culturally” ( Schmitt et al. , 2017 ), and they can be related to the equality. Similarly, the “Women's Full-Time Employment,” “Women's Independent Living” ( Cunningham et al. , 2005 ), “More Working Hours” and “More Income for Women” ( Corrigall and Konrad, 2007 ) and “Increased Entrepreneurial Intention of Women” ( Perez-Quintana et al. , 2017 ) were found, and they can be categorized under the theme of women's employment. Moreover, the outcomes of the “Reduction of the Women's Disadvantage in Entering Male-Dominated Occupations” ( He and Zhou, 2018 ) and “Economic Rationality of Females” ( Onozaka and Hafzi, 2019 ) are also categorized to the theme of “women's employment.”

Thus, the “equality” related outcomes in the “equality and women's employment,” the “reduction of traditional gender role stereotyping” ( Dawson et al. , 2016 ), “egalitarian essentialism” ( Cotter et al. , 2011 ) and “non-difference in men or women for work-life” ( Lyness and Judiesch, 2014 ) may change in different cultural contexts. As we have various cultural contexts that value either traditional gender norms or gender stereotype change, more cross-cultural research is needed to interpret such outcomes. Moreover, one cross-cultural study found that a “gender difference in personality” is consequenced even though people's gender stereotype attitudes have already changed ( Schmitt et al. , 2017 ). Therefore, this finding confirms the overall behavioral diversity of people, including diversity in gender role behaviors, although the equality of gender roles is emphasized.

Concerning women's employment-related outcomes, such as increases in “women's full-time employment opportunities” ( Cunningham et al. , 2005 ), “reduction of women's disadvantage in entering male-dominated occupations” ( He and Zhou, 2018 ), “more working hours and more income for women” ( Corrigall and Konrad, 2007 ) and “their increased entrepreneurial intention” ( Perez-Quintana et al. , 2017 ), women's “economic rationality” ( Onozaka and Hafzi, 2019 ) reveals the women's improved economic status. Moreover, the findings like increased “women's independent living” ( Cunningham et al. , 2005 ) represent their independent decision-making. The positive side of these is that they reduce the gender gap in employment participation and the ultimate contribution to economic growth. However, since we have different cultures worldwide, more cross-cultural research is needed to generalize this. As discussed under “family and children” related outcomes, the negative side of women's employment-related outcomes is the missing family responsibilities or adverse health effects and low reproductivity. Therefore, this provides an implication for policymakers to avoid those harmful effects. In the meantime, as the socialization forces are diverse over time ( Brown and Stone, 2016 ), researchers can further test whether these types of outcomes exist over time.

In the network visualization map in Figure 5 , the circles' size denotes the number of occurrences. It suggests that the higher the number of occurrences, the larger the circle's size. Accordingly, the term “women” is then considered to be the frequently used term. It implies that the women-related outcomes should have been investigated repeatedly. However, even the term “women” has been found to be co-occurred many times in this study, our detailed analysis of each article found that the different women-related outcomes have been investigated only once. Instead, the other outcomes related to terms represented by the nodes in Figure 5 have not been co-occurred or tested frequently in the studies. Hence, overall, more research is needed to be a well-established knowledge on each outcome of stereotype change found in this study.

Gender stereotype change has been given scholarly attention since the 1970s. Traditional gender stereotypes have evolved into gender stereotype change or egalitarian gender stereotypes with females' participation in employment ( Brandth et al. , 2017 ; Mergaert et al. , 2013 ). This gender stereotype change has created various outcomes in various areas. This SLR studied the outcomes of gender stereotype change in the literature during the 1970–2020 period. The literature search was conducted using the Scopus and EBSCOhost databases. Empirical studies were mainly focused on selecting the articles. Initially, we extracted 124 articles for screening. After assessing their eligibility, we finally selected 15 articles for the review. They were subjected to the keyword and term co-occurrence analysis for finding the themes of gender stereotypes change outcomes.

The findings reveal that outcomes of gender stereotypes change are under the main themes of “family and children,” “marriage” and “equality and women's employment.” There are very few studies found relating to the “family and children” related outcomes. They are “Family Role Overload and Stress” ( Duxbury et al. , 2018 ), “Fewer Children” ( Barber and Axinn, 1998 ), “Later School Enrollment” ( Cunningham et al. , 2005 ) and “Children's Convergence of Egalitarian Attitudes” ( Dawson et al. , 2016 ). Of these results, it was found that all other results, except for the convergence of children's egalitarian attitudes ( Dawson et al. , 2016 ), had some adverse effects, such as neglect of family responsibilities and negative effects on health and female fertility. They provide implications to policymakers to ovoid those harmful effects. Moreover, more research is needed to test whether these outcomes exist over time since the socialization forces are diverse ( Brown and Stone, 2016 ).

Compared to the “family and children” related outcomes, more outcomes have found “marriage” associated outcomes. They are “Increase Cohabitation,” “Low Marriage Rate” ( Barber and Axinn, 1998 ), “Delay in Marriage” ( Cunningham et al. , 2005 ), “Attitude Convergence in Marriage” ( Kalmijn, 2005 ), “Low Satisfaction,” “Lower Relationship Quality” and “Low Stability in Marital Relationships” ( Blom and Hewitt, 2020 ). “The Increase in Cohabitation,” “Low Marriage Rate” ( Barber and Axinn, 1998 ) and “Delay in Marriage” ( Cunningham et al. , 2005 ) can further negatively impact the population growth ( Barber and Axinn, 1998 ). However, more research is needed regarding these outcomes and their associated outcomes to generalize whether they generate more positive or negative consequences. Moreover, concerning all the marriage-related outcomes, their positivity or negativity cannot be determined from their surface interpretation. More research is needed to be done on the associated outcomes of each of these outcomes. Moreover, as the marriage-related outcomes are subjected to cultural perspectives on gender roles, we cannot determine the positivity or negativity of such outcomes without doing more cross-cultural studies. Therefore, more cross-cultural research is needed.

Compared to the family and children and marriage-related outcomes, more outcomes were found relating to equality and women's employment-related category. For the analysis purposes, we further categorized them into two sub-themes as equality and women's employment-related. The “equality”-related outcomes found were; “Reduction of Traditional Gender Role Stereotyping” ( Dawson et al. , 2016 ), “Egalitarian Essentialism” ( Cotter et al. , 2011 ), “Non-Difference in Men or Women for Work-Life” ( Lyness and Judiesch, 2014 ), “Gender Difference in Personality” ( Schmitt et al. , 2017 ). We believe that these outcomes may change in different cultural contexts. Hence, more cross-cultural research is needed to make generalizations. Similarly, the women's employment-related outcomes found were: increases in “Women's Full-Time Employment Opportunities” ( Cunningham et al. , 2005 ), “Reduction of Women's Disadvantage in Entering Male-Dominated Occupations” ( He and Zhou, 2018 ), “More Working Hours and More Income for Women” ( Corrigall and Konrad, 2007 ), “Women's Increased Entrepreneurial Intention” ( Perez-Quintana et al. , 2017 ), “Women's Independent Living” ( Cunningham et al. , 2005 ) and their “Economic Rationality” ( Onozaka and Hafzi, 2019 ). These outcomes reveal the improved economic status and independent living of females. These can help reduce the employment gender gap that ultimately contributes to economic growth. For this also, more cross-cultural research is needed to make more generalizations. It is proven in this study that family responsibilities are missed and have adverse effects on health and reproductivity when females are involved in employment opportunities. Therefore, the outcomes provide an implication for the policymakers to ovoid those harmful effects. Moreover, more research is needed to test whether these outcomes exist over time since the socialization forces are diverse ( Brown and Stone, 2016 ).

Practicality and research implications

There are implications for future researchers from the findings of the current research. Although the 50 years considered for reviewing the literature on gender stereotype outcomes, we were able to find very few outcomes from only 15 studies conducted on an empirical basis. Therefore, more research is needed on this area. More specifically, gender stereotyping is coupled with cultural values on gender norms. Mainly, we have cultures on gender role stereotyping and gender role egalitarianism. Therefore, future researches need to focus more research on a cross-cultural basis. Moreover, since the socialization forces are diverse, complex and continuously evolving, more research is essential to have a well-established knowledge of gender stereotype change outcomes.

Additionally, the outcome of “Family Role Overload and Stress” ( Duxbury et al. , 2018 ) has a high possibility to create more health risks to the employees whose gender role attitude changed. Moreover, “Fewer Children” ( Barber and Axinn, 1998 ), “Later School Enrollment” ( Cunningham et al. , 2005 ), “Increase in Cohabitation,” “Low Marriage Rate” ( Barber and Axinn, 1998 ) and “Delay in Marriage” ( Cunningham et al. , 2005 ), and all the outcomes of women employment-related category can negatively impact on population growth. Therefore, they provide implications to policymakers to ovoid those harmful effects.

PRISMA article selection flow diagram

Year-wise research article distribution

Country-wise article publication

Keywords co-occurrence network visualization map

Term co-occurrence network visualization map

Included articles for the review

Source(s): Authors created (2021)

Abele , A.E. ( 2003 ), “ The dynamics of masculine-agentic and feminine-communal traits: findings from a prospective study ”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , Vol. 85 No. 4 , p. 768 .

Alfieri , T. , Ruble , D.N. and Higgins , E.T. ( 1996 ), “ Gender stereotypes during adolescence: developmental changes and the transition to junior high school ”, Developmental Psychology , Vol. 32 No. 6 , pp. 1129 - 1137 , doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.32.6.1129 .

Aryee , S. , Luk , V. , Leung , A. and Lo , S. ( 1999 ), “ Role stressors, interrole conflict, and well-being: the moderating influence of spousal support and coping behaviors among employed parents in Hong Kong ”, Journal of Vocational Behavior , Vol. 54 No. 2 , pp. 259 - 278 , doi: 10.1006/jvbe.1998.1667 .

Attanapola , C. ( 2004 ), “ Changing gender roles and health impacts among female workers in export-processing industries in Sri Lanka ”, Social Science and Medicine , Vol. 58 , pp. 2301 - 2312 , 1982 , doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2003.08.022 .

Bakan , D. ( 1966 ), The Duality of Human Existence , Addison-Wesley , Reading, PA .

Barber , J.S. and Axinn , W.G. ( 1998 ), “ Gender role attitudes and marriage among young women ”, The Sociological Quarterly , Vol. 39 No. 1 , pp. 11 - 31 , doi: 10.1111/j.1533-8525.1998.tb02347.x .

Barry , V. , Stout , M.E. , Lynch , M.E. , Mattis , S. , Tran , D.Q. , Antun , A. , Ribeiro , M.J. , Stein , S.F. and Kempton , C.L. ( 2020 ), “ The effect of psychological distress on health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies ”, Journal of Health Psychology , Vol. 25 No. 2 , pp. 227 - 239 , doi: 10.1177/1359105319842931 .

Beere , C.A. , King , D.W. , Beere , D.B. and King , L.A. ( 1984 ), “ The Sex-Role Egalitarianism Scale: a measure of attitudes toward equality between the sexes ”, Sex Roles , Vol. 10 Nos 7-8 , pp. 563 - 576 .

Bem , S.L. ( 1974 ), “ The measurement of psychological androgyny ”, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , Vol. 42 No. 2 , pp. 155 - 162 , doi: 10.1037/h0036215 .

Benería , L. , Berik , G. and Floro , M.S. ( 2015 ), Gender, Development, and Globalization: Economics as if All People Mattered , 2nd ed. , Routledge, New York , doi: 10.4324/9780203107935 .

Berkery , E. , Morley , M. and Tiernan , S. ( 2013 ), “ Beyond gender role stereotypes and requisite managerial characteristics: from communal to androgynous, the changing views of women ”, Gender in Management: An International Journal , Vol. 28 No. 5 , pp. 278 - 298 , doi: 10.1108/GM-12-2012-0098 .

Berridge , D. , Penn , R. and Ganjali , M. ( 2009 ), “ Changing attitudes to gender roles: a longitudinal analysis of ordinal response data from the British household panel study ”, International Sociology , Vol. 24 No. 3 , pp. 346 - 367 , doi: 10.1177/0268580909102912 .

Blau , F.D. and Kahn , L.M. ( 2006 ), “ The US gender pay gap in the 1990s: slowing convergence ”, ILR Review , Vol. 60 No. 1 , pp. 45 - 66 .

Blom , N. and Hewitt , B. ( 2020 ), “ Becoming a female‐breadwinner household in Australia: changes in relationship satisfaction ”, Journal of Marriage and Family , Vol. 82 No. 4 , pp. 1340 - 1357 , doi: 10.1111/jomf.12653 .

Boehnke , M. ( 2011 ), “ Gender role attitudes around the globe: egalitarian vs traditional views ”, Asian Journal of Social Science , Vol. 39 No. 1 , pp. 57 - 74 , doi: 10.1163/156853111X554438 .

Bosak , J. , Eagly , A. , Diekman , A. and Sczesny , S. ( 2018 ), “ Women and men of the past, present, and future: evidence of dynamic gender stereotypes in Ghana ”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , Vol. 49 No. 1 , pp. 115 - 129 , doi: 10.1177/0022022117738750 .

Brandth , B. , Halrynjo , S. and Kvande , E. ( 2017 ), “ Integrating work and family; Changing institutions and competing logics ”, in Brandth , B. , Halrynjo , S. and Kvande , E. (Eds), Work–Family Dynamics: Competing Logics of Regulation, Economy and Morals , 1st ed. , Routledge , doi: 10.4324/9781315716794 .

Broverman , I.K. , Broverman , D.M. , Clarkson , F.E. , Rosenkrantz , P.S. and Vogel , S.R. ( 1970 ), “ Sex-role stereotypes and clinical judgments of mental health ”, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , Vol. 34 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 7 , doi: 10.1037/h0028797 .

Brown , D.E. ( 1991 ), Human Universals , Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA .

Brown , C.S. and Stone , E.A. ( 2016 ), “ Gender stereotypes and discrimination ”, Advances in Child Development and Behavior , Elsevier , Vol. 50 , pp. 105 - 133 , doi: 10.1016/bs.acdb.2015.11.001 .

Charlesworth , T.E.S. and Banaji , M.R. ( 2021 ), “ Patterns of implicit and explicit stereotypes III: long-term Change in gender stereotypes ”, Social Psychological and Personality Science , 194855062098842 , doi: 10.1177/1948550620988425 .

Ciabattari , T. ( 2001 ), “ Changes in men's conservative gender ideologies: cohort and period influences ”, Gender and Society , Vol. 15 No. 4 , pp. 574 - 591 , doi: 10.1177/089124301015004005 .

Cohen , F. , Kearney , K.A. , Zegans , L.S. , Kemeny , M.E. , Neuhaus , J.M. and Stites , D.P. ( 1999 ), “ Differential immune system changes with acute and persistent stress for optimists vs pessimists ”, Brain, Behavior, and Immunity , Vol. 13 No. 2 , pp. 155 - 174 , doi: 10.1006/brbi.1998.0531 .

Constantin , A. and Voicu , M. ( 2015 ), “ Attitudes towards gender roles in cross-cultural surveys: content validity and cross-cultural measurement invariance ”, Social Indicators Research , Vol. 123 No. 3 , pp. 733 - 751 , doi: 10.1007/s11205-014-0758-8 .

Corrigall , E.A. and Konrad , A.M. ( 2007 ), “ Gender role attitudes and careers: a longitudinal study ”, Sex Roles , Vol. 56 Nos 11-12 , pp. 847 - 855 , doi: 10.1007/s11199-007-9242-0 .

Cotter , D. , Hermsen , J.M. and Vanneman , R. ( 2011 ), “ The end of the gender revolution? Gender role attitudes from 1977 to 2008 ”, American Journal of Sociology , Vol. 117 No. 1 , pp. 259 - 289 , doi: 10.1086/658853 .

Cunningham , M. , Beutel , A.M. , Barber , J.S. and Thornton , A. ( 2005 ), “ Reciprocal relationships between attitudes about gender and social contexts during young adulthood ”, Social Science Research , Vol. 34 No. 4 , pp. 862 - 892 , doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2005.03.001 .

Davis , S.N. and Greenstein , T.N. ( 2009 ), “ Gender ideology: components, predictors, and consequences ”, Annual Review of Sociology , Vol. 35 , pp. 87 - 105 .

Dawson , A. , Pike , A. and Bird , L. ( 2016 ), “ Associations between parental gendered attitudes and behaviours and children's gender development across middle childhood ”, European Journal of Developmental Psychology , Vol. 13 No. 4 , pp. 452 - 471 , doi: 10.1080/17405629.2015.1109507 .

De Silva , M.T.T. and Priyashantha , K.G. ( 2014 ), “ Changing gender stereotypes: the impact of conflicts in dual career families on turnover intention (with special reference to female professionals in Sri Lanka) ”, International Journal of Arts and Commerce , Vol. 3 No. 5 , available at: https://ijac.org.uk/images/frontImages/gallery/Vol._3_No._5/1.pdf .

Deaux , K. and Lewis , L.L. ( 1984 ), “ Structure of gender stereotypes: interrelationships among components and gender label ”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , Vol. 46 No. 5 , p. 991 .

Diekman , A.B. and Eagly , A.H. ( 2000 ), “ Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: women and men of the past, present, and future ”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , Vol. 26 No. 10 , pp. 1171 - 1188 , doi: 10.1177/0146167200262001 .

Diekman , A.B. , Eagly , A.H. , Mladinic , A. and Ferreira , M.C. ( 2005 ), “ Dynamic stereotypes about women and men in Latin America and the United States ”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , Vol. 36 No. 2 , pp. 209 - 226 , doi: 10.1177/0022022104272902 .

Duxbury , L. , Stevenson , M. and Higgins , C. ( 2018 ), “ Too much to do, too little time: role overload and stress in a multi-role environment ”, International Journal of Stress Management , Vol. 25 No. 3 , pp. 250 - 266 , doi: 10.1037/str0000062 .

Eagly , A.H. and Karau , S.J. ( 2002 ), “ Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders ”, Psychological Review , Vol. 109 No. 3 , pp. 573 - 598 , doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573 .

Eagly , A.H. , Nater , C. , Miller , D.I. , Kaufmann , M. and Sczesny , S. ( 2020 ), “ Gender stereotypes have changed: a cross-temporal meta-analysis of US public opinion polls from 1946 to 2018 ”, American Psychologist , Vol. 75 No. 3 , pp. 301 - 315 , doi: 10.1037/amp0000494 .

Fong , K. , Mullin , J.B. and Mar , R.A. ( 2015 ), “ How exposure to literary genres relates to attitudes toward gender roles and sexual behavior ”, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts , Vol. 9 No. 3 , pp. 274 - 285 , doi: 10.1037/a0038864 .

Garcia-Retamero , R. , Müller , S.M. and López-Zafra , E. ( 2011 ), “ The malleability of gender stereotypes: influence of population size on perceptions of men and women in the past, present, and future ”, Journal of Social Psychology , Vol. 151 No. 5 , pp. 635 - 656 , doi: 10.1080/00224545.2010.522616 .

Gill , S. , Stockard , J. , Johnson , M. and Williams , S. ( 1987 ), “ Measuring gender differences: the expressive dimension and critique of androgyny scales ”, Sex Roles , Vol. 17 Nos 7-8 , pp. 375 - 400 , doi: 10.1007/BF00288142 .

Goldscheider , F.K. and Goldscheider , C. ( 1993 ), Leaving Home before Marriage: Ethnicity, Familism, and Generational Relationships , University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin .

Haines , E.L. , Deaux , K. and Lofaro , N. ( 2016 ), “ The times they are a-changing … or are they not? A comparison of gender stereotypes, 1983-2014 ”, Psychology of Women Quarterly , Vol. 40 No. 3 , pp. 353 - 363 , doi: 10.1177/0361684316634081 .

He , G. and Zhou , M. ( 2018 ), “ Gender difference in early occupational attainment: the roles of study field, gender norms, and gender attitudes ”, Chinese Sociological Review , Vol. 50 No. 3 , pp. 339 - 366 , doi: 10.1080/21620555.2018.1430509 .

Hébert , S. , Mazurek , B. and Szczepek , A.J. ( 2017 ), “ Stress-related psychological disorders and tinnitus ”, in Szczepek , A. and Mazurek , B. (Eds), Tinnitus and Stress , Springer International Publishing , pp. 37 - 51 , doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-58397-6_3 .

Hoyt , C.L. , Simon , S. and Reid , L. ( 2009 ), “ Choosing the best (wo) man for the job: the effects of mortality salience, sex, and gender stereotypes on leader evaluations ”, The Leadership Quarterly , Vol. 20 No. 2 , pp. 233 - 246 .

Jabeen , S. , Malik , S. , Khan , S. , Khan , N. , Qureshi , M.I. and Saad , M.S.M. ( 2020 ), “ A comparative systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis on sustainability of renewable energy sources ”, International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy , Vol. 11 No. 1 , pp. 270 - 280 , doi: 10.32479/ijeep.10759 .

Kalmijn , M. ( 2005 ), “ Attitude alignment in marriage and cohabitation: the case of sex-role attitudes ”, Personal Relationships , Vol. 12 No. 4 , pp. 521 - 535 , doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2005.00129.x .

Liberati , A. , Altman , D.G. , Tetzlaff , J. , Mulrow , C. , Gøtzsche , P.C. , Ioannidis , J.P.A. , Clarke , M. , Devereaux , P.J. , Kleijnen , J. and Moher , D. ( 2009 ), “ The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration ”, PLoS Medicine , Vol. 6 No. 7 , e1000100 , doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 .

Lopez-Zafra , E. and Garcia-Retamero , R. ( 2011 ), “ The impact of nontraditionalism on the malleability of gender stereotypes in Spain and Germany ”, International Journal of Psychology , Vol. 46 No. 4 , pp. 249 - 258 , doi: 10.1080/00207594.2010.551123 .

Lopez-Zafra , E. and Garcia-Retamero , R. ( 2012 ), “ Do gender stereotypes change? The dynamic of gender stereotypes in Spain ”, Journal of Gender Studies , Vol. 21 No. 2 , pp. 169 - 183 , doi: 10.1080/09589236.2012.661580 .

Lopez-Zafra , E. and Garcia-Retamero , R. ( 2021 ), “ Are gender stereotypes changing over time? A cross-temporal analysis of perceptions about gender stereotypes in Spain ( ¿Están cambiando los estereotipos de género con el tiempo? Un análisis transtemporal de las percepciones sobre los estereotipos de género en España ) ”, International Journal of Social Psychology , Vol. 36 No. 2 , pp. 330 - 354 , doi: 10.1080/02134748.2021.1882227 .

Lueptow , L.B. , Garovich , L. and Lueptow , M.B. ( 1995 ), “ The persistence of gender stereotypes in the face of changing sex roles: evidence contrary to the sociocultural model ”, Ethology and Sociobiology , Vol. 16 No. 6 , pp. 509 - 530 , doi: 10.1016/0162-3095(95)00072-0 .

Lyness , K.S. and Judiesch , M.K. ( 2014 ), “ Gender egalitarianism and work-life balance for managers: multisource perspectives in 36 countries: gender egalitarianism and work-life balance ”, Applied Psychology , Vol. 63 No. 1 , pp. 96 - 129 , doi: 10.1111/apps.12011 .

Marini , M.M. ( 1978 ), “ The transition to adulthood: sex differences in educational attainment and age at marriage ”, American Sociological Review , Vol. 43 No. 4 , p. 483 , doi: 10.2307/2094774 .

Meline , T. ( 2006 ), “ Selecting studies for systemic review: inclusion and exclusion criteria ”, Contemporary Issues in Communication Science and Disorders , Vol. 33 , Spring , pp. 21 - 27 , doi: 10.1044/cicsd_33_S_21 .

Mergaert , L.A.K. ( 2012 ), The Reality of Gender Mainstreaming Implementation. The Case of the EU Research Policy , Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen , Nijmegen .

Mergaert , L. , Heyden , K.V.der , Rimkutė , D. and Duarte , C.A. ( 2013 ), A Study of Collected Narratives on Gender Perceptions in the 27 EU Member States , Europian Institute for Gender Equity , p. 200 , available at: https://eige.europa.eu/publications/study-collected-narratives-gender-perceptions-27-eu-member-states .

Najeema , M., A. ( 2010 ), “ Parental and occupational stress ”, available at: http://archives.dailynews.lk/2001/pix/PrintPage.asp?REF=/2010/01/08/bus26.asp .

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Right ( 2014 ), Gender Stereotypes and Stereotyping and Women's Rights , Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights , available at: https://www.ohchr.org/documents/issues/women/wrgs/onepagers/gender_stereotyping.pdf .

Onozaka , Y. and Hafzi , K. ( 2019 ), “ Household production in an egalitarian society ”, Social Forces , Vol. 97 No. 3 , pp. 1127 - 1154 , doi: 10.1093/sf/soy066 .

Pahlevan-Sharif , S. , Mura , P. and Wijesinghe , S.N.R. ( 2019 ), “ A systematic review of systematic reviews in tourism ”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management , Vol. 39 , pp. 158 - 165 , doi: 10.1016/j.jhtm.2019.04.001 .

Parelius , A.P. ( 1975 ), “ Emerging sex-role attitudes, expectations, and strains among college women ”, Journal of Marriage and the Family , Vol. 37 No. 1 , p. 146 , doi: 10.2307/351038 .

Perez-Quintana , A. , Hormiga , E. , Martori , J.C. and Madariaga , R. ( 2017 ), “ The influence of sex and gender-role orientation in the decision to become an entrepreneur ”, International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship , Vol. 9 No. 1 , pp. 8 - 30 , doi: 10.1108/IJGE-12-2015-0047 .

Perrigino , M.B. , Kossek , E.E. , Thompson , R.J. and Bodner , T. ( 2021 ), “ How do changes in family role status impact employees? An empirical investigation ”, Journal of Humanities and Applied Social Sciences , Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print , doi: 10.1108/JHASS-04-2021-0075 .

Petticrew , M. and Roberts , H. ( 2006 ), Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide , Blackwell, Malden, MA; Oxford .

Priyashantha , K.G. , De Alwis , A.C. and Welmilla , I. ( 2021a ), “ The facets of gender stereotypes change: a systematic literature review ”, International Conference on Business and Information , Faculty of Commerce and Management Studies, University of Kelaniya, available at: http://repository.kln.ac.lk/handle/123456789/24018 .

Priyashantha , K.G. , De Alwis , A.C. and Welmilla , I. ( 2021b ), “ Three perspectives on changing gender stereotypes ”, FIIB Business Review , 231971452110496 , doi: 10.1177/23197145211049604 .

Priyashantha , K.G. , De Alwis , A.C. and Welmilla , I. ( 2021c ), “ Outcomes of egalitarian gender role attitudes: a systematic literature review ”, 281, available at: http://repository.kln.ac.lk/handle/123456789/23557 .

Ribeiro , Í.J.S. , Pereira , R. , Freire , I.V. , de Oliveira , B.G. , Casotti , C.A. and Boery , E.N. ( 2018 ), “ Stress and quality of life among university students: a systematic literature review ”, Health Professions Education , Vol. 4 No. 2 , pp. 70 - 77 , doi: 10.1016/j.hpe.2017.03.002 .

Rudman , L.A. and Glick , P. ( 2001 ), “ Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women ”, Journal of Social Issues , Vol. 57 No. 4 , pp. 743 - 762 , doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00239 .

Rudman , L.A. , Moss-Racusin , C.A. , Phelan , J.E. and Nauts , S. ( 2012 ), “ Status incongruity and backlash effects: defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders ”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , Vol. 48 No. 1 , pp. 165 - 179 , doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.008 .

Schmitt , D.P. , Long , A.E. , McPhearson , A. , O'Brien , K. , Remmert , B. and Shah , S.H. ( 2017 ), “ Personality and gender differences in global perspective: gender and personality ”, International Journal of Psychology , Vol. 52 , pp. 45 - 56 , doi: 10.1002/ijop.12265 .

Sikdar , A. and Mitra , S. ( 2012 ), “ Gender‐role stereotypes: perception and practice of leadership in the Middle East ”, Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues , Vol. 5 No. 3 , pp. 146 - 162 , doi: 10.1108/17537981211265534 .

Spence , J.T. and Hahn , E.D. ( 2016 ), “ The attitudes toward women scale and attitude change in college students ”, Psychology of Women Quarterly , Vol. 21 No. 1 , doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00098.x .

Tabassum , N. and Nayak , B.S. ( 2021 ), “ Gender stereotypes and their impact on women's career progressions from a managerial perspective ”, IIM Kozhikode Society and Management Review , Vol. 10 No. 2 , 227797522097551 , doi: 10.1177/2277975220975513 .

Twenge , J.M. ( 1997a ), “ Changes in masculine and feminine traits over time: a meta-analysis ”, Sex Roles: A Journal of Research , Vol. 36 Nos 5-6 , pp. 305 - 325 , doi: 10.1007/BF02766650 .

Twenge , J.M. ( 1997b ), “ Attitudes toward women, 1970-1995: a meta-analysis ”, Psychology of Women Quarterly , Vol. 21 No. 1 , pp. 35 - 51 , doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00099.x .

Twenge , J.M. , Campbell , W.K. and Gentile , B. ( 2012 ), “ Male and female pronoun use in US books reflects women's status, 1900-2008 ”, Sex Roles , Vol. 67 Nos 9-10 , pp. 488 - 493 , doi: 10.1007/s11199-012-0194-7 .

Ugwu , U.T. ( 2021 ), “ Gender and rural economic relations: ethnography of the nrobo of south eastern Nigeria ”, Journal of Humanities and Applied Social Sciences , Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print , doi: 10.1108/JHASS-07-2020-0104 .

Vitali , A. and Arpino , B. ( 2016 ), “ Who brings home the bacon? The influence of context on partners' contributions to the household income ”, Demographic Research , Vol. 35 , pp. 1213 - 1244 , doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2016.35.41 .

Williams , J.E. and Best , D.L. ( 1990 ), Sex and Psyche: Gender and Self Viewed Cross-Culturally , Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA .

Wood , R. and Ramirez , M.D. ( 2018 ), “ Exploring the microfoundations of the gender equality peace hypothesis ”, International Studies Review , Vol. 20 No. 3 , pp. 345 - 367 , doi: 10.1093/isr/vix016 .

Zosuls , K.M. , Miller , C.F. , Ruble , D.N. , Martin , C.L. and Fabes , R.A. ( 2011 ), “ Gender development research in sex roles: historical trends and future directions ”, Sex Roles , Vol. 64 Nos 11-12 , pp. 826 - 842 , doi: 10.1007/s11199-010-9902-3 .

Acknowledgements

Funding : No funding was available for this research

Authors Contributions : All authors contributed to the study conception, design, material preparation, data collection and analysis. All versions of drafts of the manuscript were written by Author 1, and other authors commented and revised. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Availability: Data collected during the current study are not publicly available. However, they can be available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest : On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Corresponding author

Related articles, we’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

The Multiple Dimensions of Gender Stereotypes: A Current Look at Men’s and Women’s Characterizations of Others and Themselves

Tanja hentschel.

1 TUM School of Management, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany

2 Amsterdam Business School, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Madeline E. Heilman

3 Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, NY, United States

Claudia V. Peus

We used a multi-dimensional framework to assess current stereotypes of men and women. Specifically, we sought to determine (1) how men and women are characterized by male and female raters, (2) how men and women characterize themselves, and (3) the degree of convergence between self-characterizations and charcterizations of one’s gender group. In an experimental study, 628 U.S. male and female raters described men, women, or themselves on scales representing multiple dimensions of the two defining features of gender stereotypes, agency and communality: assertiveness, independence, instrumental competence, leadership competence (agency dimensions), and concern for others, sociability and emotional sensitivity (communality dimensions). Results indicated that stereotypes about communality persist and were equally prevalent for male and female raters, but agency characterizations were more complex. Male raters generally descibed women as being less agentic than men and as less agentic than female raters described them. However, female raters differentiated among agency dimensions and described women as less assertive than men but as equally independent and leadership competent. Both male and female raters rated men and women equally high on instrumental competence. Gender stereotypes were also evident in self-characterizations, with female raters rating themselves as less agentic than male raters and male raters rating themselves as less communal than female raters, although there were exceptions (no differences in instrumental competence, independence, and sociability self-ratings for men and women). Comparisons of self-ratings and ratings of men and women in general indicated that women tended to characterize themselves in more stereotypic terms – as less assertive and less competent in leadership – than they characterized others in their gender group. Men, in contrast, characterized themselves in less stereotypic terms – as more communal. Overall, our results show that a focus on facets of agency and communality can provide deeper insights about stereotype content than a focus on overall agency and communality.

Introduction

There is no question that a great deal of progress has been made toward gender equality, and this progress is particularly evident in the workplace. There also is no question that the goal of full gender equality has not yet been achieved – not in pay ( AAUW, 2016 ) or position level ( Catalyst, 2016 ). In a recent interview study with female managers the majority of barriers for women’s advancement that were identified were consequences of gender stereotypes ( Peus et al., 2015 ). There is a long history of research in psychology that corroborates this finding (for reviews see Eagly and Sczesny, 2009 ; Heilman, 2012 ). These investigations support the idea that gender stereotypes can be impediments to women’s career advancement, promoting both gender bias in employment decisions and women’s self-limiting behavior ( Heilman, 1983 ).

This study is designed to investigate the current state of gender stereotypes about men and women using a multi-dimensional framework. Much of the original research on the content of gender stereotypes was conducted several decades ago (e.g., Rosenkrantz et al., 1968 ), and more recent research findings are inconsistent, some suggesting that there has been a change in traditional gender stereotypes (e.g., Duehr and Bono, 2006 ) and others suggesting there has not (e.g., Haines et al., 2016 ). Measures of stereotyping in these studies tend to differ, all operationalizing the constructs of agency and communality, the two defining features of gender stereotypes ( Abele et al., 2008 ), but in different ways. We propose that the conflict in findings may derive in part from the focus on different facets of these constructs in different studies. Thus, we seek to obtain a more complete picture of the specific content of today’s gender stereotypes by treating agency and communality, as multi-dimensioned constructs.

Gender stereotypes often are internalized by men and women, and we therefore focus both on how men and women are seen by others and how they see themselves with respect to stereotyped attributes. We also plan to compare and contrast charcterizations of men or women as a group with charcterizations of self, something not typically possible because these two types of characterizations are rarely measured in the same study. In sum, we have multiple objectives: We aim to develop a multi-dimensional framework for assessing current conceptions of men’s and women’s characteristics and then use it to consider how men and women are seen by male and female others, how men and women see themselves, and how these perceptions of self and others in their gender group coincide or differ. In doing so, we hope to demonstrate the benefits of viewing agency and communality as multidimensional constructs in the study of gender stereotypes.

Gender Stereotypes

Gender stereotypes are generalizations about what men and women are like, and there typically is a great deal of consensus about them. According to social role theory, gender stereotypes derive from the discrepant distribution of men and women into social roles both in the home and at work ( Eagly, 1987 , 1997 ; Koenig and Eagly, 2014 ). There has long been a gendered division of labor, and it has existed both in foraging societies and in more socioeconomically complex societies ( Wood and Eagly, 2012 ). In the domestic sphere women have performed the majority of routine domestic work and played the major caretaker role. In the workplace, women have tended to be employed in people-oriented, service occupations rather than things-oriented, competitive occupations, which have traditionally been occupied by men (e.g., Lippa et al., 2014 ). This contrasting distribution of men and women into social roles, and the inferences it prompts about what women and men are like, give rise to gender stereotypical conceptions ( Koenig and Eagly, 2014 ).

Accordingly, men are characterized as more agentic than women, taking charge and being in control, and women are characterized as more communal than men, being attuned to others and building relationships (e.g., Broverman et al., 1972 ; Eagly and Steffen, 1984 ). These two concepts were first introduced by Bakan (1966) as fundamental motivators of human behavior. During the last decades, agency (also referred to as “masculinity,” “instrumentality” or “competence”) and communality (also referred to as “communion,” “femininity,” “expressiveness,” or “warmth”) have consistently been the focus of research (e.g., Spence and Buckner, 2000 ; Fiske et al., 2007 ; Cuddy et al., 2008 ; Abele and Wojciszke, 2014 ). These dual tenets of social perception have been considered fundamental to gender stereotypes.

Stereotypes can serve an adaptive function allowing people to categorize and simplify what they observe and to make predictions about others (e.g., Devine and Sharp, 2009 ; Fiske and Taylor, 2013 ). However, stereotypes also can induce faulty assessments of people – i.e., assessments based on generalization from beliefs about a group that do not correspond to a person’s unique qualities. These faulty assessments can negatively or positively affect expectations about performance, and bias consequent decisions that impact opportunities and work outcomes for both men and women (e.g., Heilman, 2012 ; Heilman et al., 2015 ; Hentschel et al., 2018 ). Stereotypes about gender are especially influential because gender is an aspect of a person that is readily noticed and remembered ( Fiske et al., 1991 ). In other words, gender is a commonly occurring cue for stereotypic thinking ( Blair and Banaji, 1996 ).

Gender stereotypes are used not only to characterize others but also to characterize oneself ( Bem, 1974 ). The process of self-stereotyping can influence people’s identities in stereotype-congruent directions. Stereotyped characteristics can thereby be internalized and become part of a person’s gender identity – a critical aspect of the self-concept ( Ruble and Martin, 1998 ; Wood and Eagly, 2015 ). Young boys and girls learn about gender stereotypes from their immediate environment and the media, and they learn how to behave in gender-appropriate ways ( Deaux and LaFrance, 1998 ). These socialization experiences no doubt continue to exert influence later in life and, indeed, research has shown that men’s and women’s self-characterizations differ in ways that are stereotype-consistent ( Bem, 1974 ; Spence and Buckner, 2000 ).

Measurement of Gender Stereotypes

Gender stereotypes, and their defining features of agency and communality, have been measured in a variety of ways ( Kite et al., 2008 ). Researchers have investigated people’s stereotypical assumptions about how men and women differ in terms of, for example, ascribed traits (e.g., Williams and Best, 1990 ), role behaviors (e.g., Haines et al., 2016 ), occupations (e.g., Deaux and Lewis, 1984 ), or emotions (e.g., Plant et al., 2000 ). Researchers also have distinguished personality, physical, and cognitive components of gender stereotypes ( Diekman and Eagly, 2000 ). In addition, they have investigated how men’ and women’s self-characterizations differ in stereotype-consistent ways ( Spence and Buckner, 2000 ).

Today, the most common measures of gender stereotypes involve traits and attributes. Explicit measures of stereotyping entail responses to questionnaires asking for descriptions of men or women using Likert or bi-polar adjective scales (e.g., Kite et al., 2008 ; Haines et al., 2016 ), or asking for beliefs about the percentage of men and women possessing certain traits and attributes (e.g., McCauley and Stitt, 1978 ). Gender stereotypes have also been studied using implicit measures, using reaction time to measure associations between a gender group and a stereotyped trait or attribute (e.g., Greenwald and Banaji, 1995 ). Although implicit measures are used widely in some areas of research, our focus in the research reported here builds on the longstanding tradition of measuring gender stereotypes directly through the use of explicit measures.

Contemporary Gender Stereotypes

Researchers often argue that stereotypes are tenacious; they tend to have a self-perpetuating quality that is sustained by cognitive distortion ( Hilton and von Hippel, 1996 ; Heilman, 2012 ). However, stereotype maintenance is not only a product of the inflexibility of people’s beliefs but also a consequence of the societal roles women and men enact ( Eagly and Steffen, 1984 ; Koenig and Eagly, 2014 ). Therefore, the persistence of traditional gender stereotypes is fueled by skewed gender distribution into social roles. If there have been recent advances toward gender equality in workforce participation and the rigid representation of women and men in long-established gender roles has eased, then might the content of gender stereotypes have evolved to reflect this change?

The answer to this question is not straightforward; the degree to which there has been a true shift in social roles is unclear. On the one hand, there are more women in the workforce than ever before. In 1967, 36% of U.S. households with married couples were made up of a male provider working outside the home and a female caregiver working inside the home, but now only 19% of U.S. households concur with this division ( Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017 ). Moreover, women increasingly pursue traditionally male careers, and there are more women in roles of power and authority. For example, today women hold almost 40% of management positions in the United States ( Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017 ). In addition, more men are taking on a family’s main caretaker role ( Ladge et al., 2015 ). Though families with only the mother working are still rare (5% in 2016 compared to 2% in 1970), the average number of hours fathers spent on child care per week increased from 2.5 to 8 h in the last 40 years ( Pew Research Center, 2018 ). In addition, the majority of fathers perceive parenting as extremely important to their identity ( Pew Research Center, 2018 ).

On the other hand, role segregation, while somewhat abated, has by no means been eliminated. Despite their increased numbers in the labor force, women still are concentrated in occupations that are perceived to require communal, but not agentic attributes. For example, the three most common occupations for women in the U.S. involve care for others (elementary and middle school teacher, registered nurse, and secretary and administrative assistant; U.S. Department of Labor, 2015 ), while men more than women tend to work in occupations requiring agentic attributes (e.g., senior management positions, construction, or engineering; Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016b ). Sociological research shows that women are underrepresented in occupations that are highly competitive, inflexible, and require high levels of physical skill, while they are overrepresented in occupations that place emphasis on social contributions and require interpersonal skills ( Cortes and Pan, 2017 ). Moreover, though men’s home and family responsibilities have increased, women continue to perform a disproportionate amount of domestic work ( Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016a ), have greater childcare responsibilities ( Craig and Mullan, 2010 ; Kan et al., 2011 ), and continue to be expected to do so ( Park et al., 2008 ).

Thus, there is reason both to expect traditional gender stereotypes to dominate current conceptions of women and men, and to expect them to not. Relevant research findings are conflicting. For example, a large investigation found that over time managers have come to perceive women as more agentic ( Duehr and Bono, 2006 ). However, other investigations have found gender stereotypes to have changed little over time ( Heilman et al., 1989 ) or even to have intensified ( Lueptow et al., 2001 ). A recent study replicating work done more than 30 years ago found minimal change, with men and women still described very differently from one another and in line with traditional stereotyped conceptions ( Haines et al., 2016 ).

There also have been conflicting findings concerning self-charcterizations, especially in women’s self-views of their agency. Findings by Abele (2003) suggest that self-perceived agency increases with career success. Indeed, there has been indication that women’s self-perceived deficit in agency has abated over time ( Twenge, 1997 ) or that it has abated in some respects but not others ( Spence and Buckner, 2000 ). However, a recent meta-analysis has found that whereas women’s self-perceptions of communality have decreased over time, their self-perceptions of agency have remained stable since the 1990s ( Donnelly and Twenge, 2017 ). Yet another study found almost no change in men’s and women’s self-characterizations of their agency and communality since the 1970s ( Powell and Butterfield, 2015 ).

There are many possible explanations for these conflicting results. A compelling one concerns the conceptualization of the agency and communality constructs and the resulting difference in the traits and behaviors used to measure them. In much of the gender stereotypes literature, agency and communality have been loosely used to denote a set of varied attributes, and different studies have operationalized agency and communality in different ways. We propose that agency and communality are not unitary constructs but rather are comprised of multiple dimensions, each distinguishable from one another. We also propose that considering these dimensions separately will enhance the clarity of our understanding of current differences in the characterization of women and men, and provide a more definitive picture of gender stereotypes today.

Dimensions of Communality and Agency

There has been great variety in how the agency construct has been operationalized, and the specific terms used to measure agency often differ from study to study (e.g., McAdams et al., 1996 ; Rudman and Glick, 2001 ; Abele et al., 2008 ; Schaumberg and Flynn, 2017 ). Furthermore, distinctions between elements of agency have been identified: In a number of studies competence has been shown to be distinct from agency as a separate factor ( Carrier et al., 2014 ; Koenig and Eagly, 2014 ; Abele et al., 2016 ; Rosette et al., 2016 ), and in others, the agency construct has been subdivided into self-reliance and dominance ( Schaumberg and Flynn, 2017 ). There also has been great variety in how the communality construct has been operationalized ( Hoffman and Hurst, 1990 ; Fiske et al., 2007 ; Abele et al., 2008 ; Brosi et al., 2016 ; Hentschel et al., 2018 ). Although there have been few efforts to pinpoint specific components of communality, recent work focused on self-judgments in cross-cultural contexts has subdivided it into facets of warmth and morality ( Abele et al., 2016 ).

The multiplicity of items used to represent agency and communality in research studies involving stereotyping is highly suggestive that agentic and communal content can be decomposed into different facets. In this research we seek to distinguish dimensions underlying both the agency and the communality constructs. Our aim is to lend further credence to the idea that the fundamental constructs of agency and communality are multifaceted, and to supply researchers with dimensions of each that may be useful for study of stereotype evaluation and change.

While we are proposing that agency and communality can be broken down into components, we are not claiming that the use of these overarching constructs in earlier research has been an error. In the vast majority of studies in which communality or agency has been measured the scale reliabilities have been high and the items highly correlated. However, internal consistency does not necessarily indicate that the individual items included are unidimensional ( Schmitt, 1996 ; Sijtsma, 2008 ), or that the entirety of the construct is being captured in a particular measure. Moreover, there are multiple meanings included in these constructs as they have been discussed and operationalized in gender research. Therefore, we propose that breaking them down into separate dimensions will provide finer distinctions about contemporary characterizations of men and women.

Perceiver Sex

Findings often demonstrate that male and female raters are equally likely to characterize women and men in stereotypic terms ( Heilman, 2001 , 2012 ). This suggests that stereotypes outweigh the effects of evaluators’ gender identities and, because men and women live in the same world, they see the world similarly. However, the steady shift of women’s societal roles and its different implications for men and women may affect the degree to which men and women adhere to traditional gender stereotypes.

On the face of it, one would expect women to hold traditional gender stereotypes less than men. The increase of women in the workforce generally, and particularly in domains typically reserved for men, is likely to be very salient to women. Such changes have distinct implications for them – implications that can impact their expectations, aspirations, and actual experiences. As a result, women may be more attentive than men to shifts in workplace and domestic roles, and more accepting of these roles as the new status quo. They consequently may be more amenable to incorporating updated gender roles into their understanding of the world, diminishing stereotypic beliefs.

Unlike women, who may be likely to embrace recent societal changes, men may be prone to reject or dismiss them. The same societal changes that present new opportunities for women can present threats to men, who may see themselves as losing their rightful place in the social order (see also Sidanius and Pratto, 1999 ; Knowles and Lowery, 2012 ). Thus, men may be less willing to accept modern-day changes in social roles or to see these changes as definitive. There may be little impetus for them to relinquish stereotypic beliefs and much impetus for them to retain these beliefs. If this is the case, then men would be expected to adhere more vigorously to traditional gender stereotypes than women.

Self-Stereotyping Versus Stereotyping of One’s Gender Group

Although gender stereotypes impact charcterizations of both self and others, there may be a difference in the degree to which stereotypes dominate in self- and other-characterizations. That is, women may see themselves differently than they see women in general and men may see themselves differently than they see men in general; although they hold stereotypes about their gender groups, they may not apply them to themselves. Indeed, attribution theory ( Jones and Nisbett, 1987 ), which suggests that people are more prone to attribute behavior to stable personality traits when viewing someone else than when viewing oneself, gives reason to argue that stereotypes are more likely to be used when characterizing others in one’s gender group than when characterizing oneself. A similar case can be made for construal level theory ( Trope and Liberman, 2010 ), which suggests that psychological distance promotes abstraction rather than attention to individuating information. Moreover, the impact of societal changes that affect adherence to gender stereotypes is apt to have greater immediacy and personal impact for self, and therefore be more reflected in self-characterizations than in characterizations of others.

Some studies have compared the use of stereotypes in characterizing self and others. In an early study ( Rosenkrantz et al., 1968 ), each participating student was asked to rate men, women, and self on a number of characteristics. The researchers found that self-characterizations of men and women showed less evidence of stereotypes than characterizations of others. Similar results were found in studies on accuracy of stereotyping ( Martin, 1987 ; Allen, 1995 ). Using instrumenal (i.e., agentic) and expressive (i.e., communal) attributes from the BSRI and PAQ scales, Spence and Buckner (2000) found very little relation between stereotypes about others and self-characterizations.

There is reason to think that some dimensions of gender stereotypes are more likely than others to be differentially subscribed to when characterizing self than when characterizing others. For example, there is a tendency to boost self-esteem and adopt descriptors that are self-enhancing when describing oneself ( Swann, 1990 ), and this may have conseqences whether these descriptors are consistent or inconsistent with gender stereotypes. If this is so, gender may be an important factor; there are likely particular aspects of gender stereotypes that are more (or less) acceptable to women and men, affecting the degree to which they are reflected in men’s and women’s self-descriptions as compared to their description of their gender group. However, there also is reason to believe that individuals will embrace positive stereotypes and reject negative stereotypes as descriptive not only of themselves but also of their close in-groups ( Biernat et al., 1996 ), suggesting that there will be little difference between characterizations of oneself and one’s gender group. Therefore, to obtain a full picture of the current state of gender stereotypes and their impact on perceptions, we believe it important to compare self-characterizations and characterizations of one’s gender group on specific dimensions of gender stereotypes.

Overview of the Research

In this study, we develop a multidimensional framework for measuring different elements of agency and communality to provide an assessment of contemporary gender stereotypes and their impact on charcterizations about others and self. Using the multidimensional framework, we sought to determine (1) if men and women differ in their gender stereotypes; (2) if men and women differ in their self-characterizations; and (3) if men’s and women’s self-characterizations differ from their characterizations of their gender groups. In each instance we compare the results using the traditional unidimensional framework for measuring agency and communality with the results using the newly formulated multidimensional framework.

Materials and Methods

Participants.

Six hundred and twenty-nine participants (61% female, all U.S. residents) were recruited online via Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), providing a more representative sample of the U.S. population than student samples. MTurk samples tend to be slightly more diverse than and similarly reliable as other types of internet samples used in psychological research ( Paolacci et al., 2010 ; Buhrmester et al., 2011 ), but nonetheless are convenience samples rather than true representative samples based on demographic data (see e.g., Pew Research Center, 2017 ). In our sample, ages ranged from 19 to 83, with a mean age of 34.5 years ( SD = 13.1). In addition, education ranged from those who had not attended college (17%), had some college education (33%), had graduated from college (37%), to those who had graduate degrees (13%). 77.6% self-identified as White, 8.4% Asian, 7.0% African American, 4.8% Hispanic, and 2.2% other. 1 The survey link was visible only to U.S. residents who had a greater than 95% acceptance rate of previous MTurk work, an indication that their earlier work had been handled responsibly. In addition, we included a question asking participants to indicate whether they filled out the questionnaire honestly (we assured them that their answer on this question would not have any consequences for their payment). One person indicated that he had not filled out the survey honestly and was excluded from the analyses.

We conducted an experiment with two independent variables: rater gender (male or female) and target group (men in general, women in general, or self). The target group manipulation was randomly assigned to male and female raters. Subsets of this overall design were used to address our specific research questions.

Participants were told that we were interested in people perception, and they were asked either to rate men in general ( N = 215) women in general ( N = 208) or themselves ( N = 205) on an attribute inventory representing various dimensions of agency and communality 2 . The attributes were presented in differing orders to participants, randomized by the survey tool we used. Ratings were made using a 7-point scale with responses ranging from 1 (“not at all”) to 7 (“very much”).

Scale Construction

Using an inductive procedure, scale development proceeded in four steps. In the first step, we identified a set of 74 attributes, representative of how agency and communality have been measured by researchers in the past (consisting of adjectives, traits, and descriptors; see Appendix Tables A , ​ ,B B for the full list). The attributes were chosen from earlier investigations of gender stereotypes, including those of Broverman et al. (1972) , Schein (1973) , Spence and Helmreich (1978) , Heilman et al. (1995) , Fiske et al. (1999) , Diekman and Eagly (2000) , and Oswald and Lindstedt (2006) . They were selected to represent a broad array of agentic and communal attributes with a minimal amount of redundancy.

In the second step, three judges (the first two authors and another independent researcher) sorted the descriptive attributes into categories based on their conceptual similarity. The total set of attributes measured was included in the sorting task, and there was no limit placed on the number of categories to be created and no requirements for the number of attributes to be included within each created category. Specifically, the instructions were to use as many categories as needed to sort the attributes into conceptually distinct groupings. The sorting results were then discussed by the judges and two additional researchers. During the discussion, agreement was reached about the number of categories necessary to best capture the distinct dimensions of the sorted attributes. Attributes for which no consensus was reached about category placement were omitted. Then decisions were made about how each of the categories should be labeled. Seven categories were identified, four of which represented dimensions of agency – instrumental competence, leadership competence, assertiveness, independence – and three of which represented dimensions of communality – concern for others, sociability, emotional sensitivity.

In the third step, we had a different set of three independent judges (all graduate students in a psychology program) do a sorting of the retained attributes into the labeled categories. This was done to make sure that their sorting conformed to the identified categories; items that were misclassified by any of the judges were eliminated from the item set.

Finally, in a fourth step, we used confirmatory factor analysis procedures to further hone our categories. Following standard procedures on increasing model fit (e.g., Byrne, 2010 ), we eliminated all items that showed a low fit to the created categories. We later conducted a conclusive confirmatory factor analysis, for which the results are reported in the next section.

As a result of these steps, we created seven scales, each composed of the attributes remaining in one of the seven designated categories. The scales ranged from 3 to 4 items, the coefficient alphas all surpassed 0.75, and all corrected item-scale correlations surpassed 0.40 ( Field, 2006 ). Table 1 presents the attributes comprising each of the scales as well as the Cronbach alphas and corrected-item-scale correlations.

Dimension scales, scale items, and reliability information.

The four scales composed of agentic attributes and denoting dimensions of agency were: instrumental competence, leadership competence, assertiveness, and independence. Thus, the sorting process not only distinguished between competence and other elements of agency (as has been suggested by others like Carrier et al., 2014 ), but further decomposed the non-competence elements of agency into dimensions of assertiveness and independence. Assertiveness concerns acting on the world and taking charge. Independence connotes self-reliance and acting on one’s own, free of the influence of others. Furthermore, competence was subdivided into two separate dimensions – one focused on performance execution (instrumental competence), and the other focused on capability to perform as a leader (leadership competence). Both leadership competence and assertiveness imply high social power whereas instrumental competence and independence are not typically associated with power relations.

The three scales composed of communal attributes and denoting dimensions of communality were: concern for others, sociability, and emotional sensitivity. Concern for others and sociability both entail a focus on others, but the former involves a one-way relationship of giving and nurturance while the latter involves a transactional relationship focused on relationship building. Emotional sensitivity implies an orientation that focuses on feelings as an antecedent or consequence of interactions with others.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis using the R package lavaan ( Rosseel, 2012 ) to test the factor structure of the four final agency scales and the three final communality scales. Results revealed that for agency, the theoretically assumed four-factor model (i.e., instrumental competence, leadership competence, assertiveness, and independence as first-order factors) provided adequate fit (χ 2 = 370.224, df = 84, p < 0.001, χ 2 /df = 4.41, CFI = 0.947, RMSEA = 0.076, SRMR = 0.045) and also was more suitable than a one-factor model in which all agency items loaded on a single factor (χ 2 = 813.318, df = 90, p < 0.001, χ 2 /df = 9.04, CFI = 0.866, RMSEA = 0.116, SRMR = 0.068). A comparison of the two models showed that the four-factor agency model differed significantly from the one-factor model and was thus preferable (Δχ 2 = 443.09, df = 6, p < 0.001). Similarly, for communality the theoretically posited three-factor model (i.e., concern for others, sociability, and emotional sensitivity as first-order factors) provided acceptable fit (χ 2 = 326.000, df = 41, p < 0.001, χ 2 /df = 7.95, CFI = 0.931, RMSEA = 0.108, SRMR = 0.048) 3 and was more suitable than the one-factor model in which all communality items loaded on a single factor (χ 2 = 359.803, df = 44, p < 0.001, χ 2 /df = 7.95, CFI = 0.924, RMSEA = 0.110, SRMR = 0.048). A comparison of the two models showed that the three-factor communality model differed significantly from the one-factor model and was therefore preferable (Δχ 2 = 33.80, df = 3, p < 0.001). Overall, these results indicated that even though there were high correlations among the agency scales and also among the communality scales (as we would expect given our idea that in each case the multiple scales are part of the same construct; see Table 2 ), the four scales for agency and the three scales for communality represent different dimensions of these constructs.

Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of agentic and communal dimension scales.

Overall Measures

To provide a point of comparison for our multi-dimensional framework, we also determined scales for overall agency and overall communality. In other words, the 15 agency items were combined into one overall agency scale (α = 0.93) and the 11 communality items were combined into one overall communality scale (α = 0.93).

Preliminary Analyses: Rater Age and Education Level

Because of potential consequences of raters’ age and education level on the use of gender stereotypes (younger and more educated people might be less likely to adhere to them), we conducted initial analyses to identify their independent and interactive effects. We did not have the opportunity to do the same for race because our subsamples of Asian, African American, and Hispanic participants were not large enough. To determine whether there were differences in the pattern of responses depending upon the age of the rater, we chose the age of 40 as a midlife indicator, divided our sample into two age groups (39 years and younger, 40 years and older), and included age as an additional independent variable in our analyses. Results indicated no main effects or interactions involving age in the ANOVAs conducted. We also divided our sample into two education level groups (those who had graduated from college or had advanced degrees and those who had not graduated from college), and included educational level as an additional independent variable in our analyses. We found no main effects or interactions involving educational level in the ANOVAs. As a consequence we combined data from both younger and older participants and from those who were and were not college educated in the analyses reported below.

Main Analyses

To address our research questions, we conducted a series of ANOVAs on subsets of our participant sample. For each question, we first conducted ANOVAs on the overall agency scale and the overall communality scale. Then, to determine whether the results differed for different agency and communality dimensions, we conducted mixed-model ANOVAs that included either agency dimension (instrumental competence, leadership competence, assertiveness, independence) or communality dimension as a within-subjects factor (concern for others, sociability, and emotional sensitivity). Fisher’s least significant difference (LSD) method was used to test the question-relevant planned comparisons.

Do Men and Women Differ in Their Gender Stereotypes?

We used a 2 × 2 ANOVA, with rater gender (male, female) and target group (men in genereal, women in general) to assess differences in men’s and women’s gender stereotypes. We first analyzed the overall agency and communality ratings, and then conducted a 2 × 2 × 4 mixed-model ANOVA including the agency dimensions, and a 2 × 2 × 3 mixed-model ANOVA including the communality dimensions. The mixed-model ANOVA results are presented in Table 3 . We followed up with LSD comparisons (see Table 4 ).

Results of 2 × 2 × 4 Agency ANOVA and 2 × 2 × 3 Communality ANOVA for stereotype ratings.

Means, standard deviations, and LSD results of stereotype ratings.

The 2 × 2 ANOVA results for the overall agency ratings indicated a main effect for both rater gender, F (1,418) = 15.10, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.04, and target group, F (1,418) = 5.52, p = 0.019, η p 2 = 0.01. The results of the 2 × 2 × 4 mixed-model ANOVA, including the four agency dimensions as a within-subject factor, repeated the main effects for rater gender and target group and also indicated a main effect for agency dimension and an interaction between agency dimension and target group (see Table 3 ), suggesting that there were differences in ratings depending on the agency dimension.

Differences in ratings of men in general and women in general

LSD comparisons (see Table 4 ) of the overall agency ratings indicated that male raters rated women in general as lower in overall agency than men in general. They further indicated that female raters rated women in general and men in general as equally agentic. LSD comparisons of the individual agency scales indicated that this result held true for most of the agency dimensions. With the exception of the instrumental competence dimension (on which there were no differences in ratings of women and men in general whether the rater was male or female), male raters rated women in general lower than men in general on the agency dimensions (leaderhip competence, assertiveness, and independence). In contrast to the ratings of male raters but in line with the overall agency result, female raters rated women in general no differently than they rated men in general in leadership competence and independence. Yet, in contrast to the results of the overall agency ratings, female raters differentiated between women and men in ratings of assertiveness. That is, much like male raters, female raters rated women in general as less assertive than men in general. Figure 1 displays the results for the agency dimensions.

Ratings of agency dimensions (instrumental competence, leadership competence, assertiveness, independence) of men in general and women in general by male and female raters.

Rater gender differences in target group characterizations

Additional LSD comparisons (again see Table 4 ) lent further insight into the source of the gender discrepancy in the comparative ratings of women and men in general. Comparisons of the overall agency ratings indicated that ratings of men in general did not differ as a result of rater gender, but women in general were rated lower by male as compared to female raters. LSD comparisons of the agency dimensions were in line with the overall agency result in ratings of women in general – they were rated lower by male raters as compared to female raters on all four agency dimensions. However, comparisons of the agency dimensions in ratings of men in general were not uniform and deviated from the overall agency results. Although men in general were rated no differently by male and female raters on the instrumental competence, assertiveness, or independence dimensions, female as compared to male raters rated men in general higher in leadership competence (again see Figure 1 ).

Communality

A 2 (rater gender: male, female) × 2 (target group: men in general, women in general) ANOVA of the overall communality ratings indicated only a main effect for target group, F (1,418) = 88.68, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.18. The 2 × 2 × 3 mixed-model ANOVA (see Table 3 ), including the three communality dimensions as a within-subject factor, indicated main effects for target group, rater gender, and communality dimension as well as significant interactions between target group and rater gender, between communality dimension and target group, between communality dimension and rater type, and a three-way interaction.

LSD comparisons (see Table 4 ) for overall communality indicated that men in general were rated lower in communality than women in general by both male and female raters. In line with this overall finding, results of the LSD comparisons indicated that both female and male raters rated men in general as lower than women in general on all three communality dimensions: concern for others, sociability, and emotional sensitivity. Thus, using the overall measure yielded the same information as did the multidimensional measure.

Additional LSD comparisons (again see Table 4 ) of the communality ratings indicated that both male and female raters rated men in general similarly in communality, but female raters rated women in general higher in communality than male raters did. LSD comparisons of male and female raters rating men in general using the three communality dimensions were aligned with the overall communality result: male and female raters did not differ in ratings of concern for others, sociability, or emotional sensitivity. However, when rating women in general, results of the LSD comparisons of male and female raters were aligned with the overall measure result for only two of the communality dimensions: Female raters rated women in general higher in concern for others and emotional sensitivity than male raters did. On the dimension of sociability, male and female raters did not differ in their ratings of women in general.

Do Men and Women Differ in Their Self-Characterizations?

We used a one-way ANOVA to assess differences in men’s and women’s self-characterizations. We first analyzed the overall agency and communality ratings, and then conducted a mixed-model 2 × 4 ANOVA including the agency dimensions, and a 2 × 3 mixed-model ANOVA including the communality dimensions as a within-subject variable (see Table 5 ). We again followed up with LSD comparisons (see Table 6 ).

2 × 4 Agency ANOVA and 2 × 3 Communality ANOVA for self-ratings.

Means (and standard deviations) and LSD results of self-ratings.

ANOVA results of the self-ratings of male and female raters on the overall measure of agency indicated no significant effect for rater gender, F (1,204) = 1.67, p = 0.198, η p 2 = 0.01. However, results of the 2 × 4 mixed model ANOVA, with agency dimensions as the within-subject factor, indicated a main effect for agency dimension and an interaction between agency dimension and rater gender, suggesting that self-ratings differed depending on the agency dimension in question (see Table 5 ). LSD comparisons (see Table 6 ) of overall agency showed that, as was indicated by the non-significant gender main effects, women rated themselves as equally agentic as men. Yet, the results for the analyses including the four agency dimensions indicated that only findings for instrumental competence and independence were consisent with the pattern of results for the overall agency ratings (there were no differences in the self-ratings of female and male raters). There were, however, significant differences in ratings of leadership competence and in ratings of assertiveness. For both of these dimensions of agency, women rated themselves lower than men did (see Figure 2 ).

Ratings of agency dimensions (instrumental competence, leadership competence, assertiveness, independence) by male and female self-raters.

Results of the ANOVA of the self-ratings of male and female raters indicated a rater gender main effect, F (1,204) = 5.42, p = 0.021, η p 2 = 0.03. Results of a 2 × 3 mixed-model ANOVA (again see Table 5 ) with communality dimension as the within-subjects factor, indicated significant main effects for rater gender and communality dimensions. LSD comparisons (again see Table 6 ), in line with the main effect for rater gender, indicated that men rated themselves lower on overall communality than women. LSD comparisons on the dimension scales indicated that, consistent with the overall communality results, men rated themselves as less concerned for others and less emotionally sensitive than women. However, in contrast to the results for overall communality, there was no difference in how men and women characterized themselves in terms of sociability (see Figure 3 ).

Ratings of communality dimensions (concern for others, emotional sensitivity, sociability) by male and female self-raters.

Do Men’s and Women’s Self-Characterizations Differ From Their Characterizations of Their Gender Groups?

We used a 2 × 2 ANOVA, with rater gender (male, female) and target group (self, men in general when rater was male or women in general when rater was female) to assess differences in men’s and women’s self characterizations and same-sex others‘ characterizations of their gender groups. We first analyzed the overall agency and communality ratings, and then again conducted a 2 × 2 × 4 mixed-model ANOVA including our agency dimensions, and a 2 × 2 × 3 mixed-model ANOVA including our communality dimensions (see Table 7 ) and once more followed up with LSD comparisons (see Table 8 ).

2 × 2 × 4 Agency ANOVA and 2 × 2 × 3 Communality ANOVA for self-ratings versus target group ratings.

LSD comparisons of self-ratings versus target group ratings.

The 2 × 2 ANOVA results for the overall agency measure indicated no significant main effect for rater gender, F (1,397) = 2.19, p = 0.139, η p 2 = 0.00, or target group, F (1,397) = 0.013, p = 0.909, η p 2 = 0.00, but a marginally signicant interaction between them, F (1,397) = 2.77, p = 0.097, η p 2 = 0.01. The 2 × 2 × 4 mixed-model ANOVA including the agency dimensions as a within-subjects factor also indicated no significant main effects for rater gender or for target group and again a marginally significant interaction between them. It also indicated a significant main effect for agency dimension and significant interactions of dimension with both rater gender and target group, as well as a three-way interaction between rater gender, target group, and agency dimension (see Table 7 ).

Men’s self-ratings versus ratings of men in general

LSD comparisons (see Table 8 , means and standard deviations are displayed in Tables 4 , ​ ,6) 6 ) of overall agency indicated that male raters rated themselves as more agentic than male raters rated men in general. Results for the agency dimensions were more varied: For the independence and instrumental competence dimensions results were in line with the overall agency result, but male raters rated themselves no differently in leadership competence or assertiveness than male raters rated men in general (see Figure 4 ).

Ratings of agency dimensions (instrumental competence, leadership competence, assertiveness, independence) by male raters rating self and men in general.

Women’s self-ratings versus ratings of women in general

LSD comparisons (see Table 8 , means and standard deviations are displayed in Tables 4 , ​ ,6) 6 ) of the overall agency ratings indicated that female raters rated themselves no differently than female raters rated women in general. However, comparisons of the four agency dimensions depicted a different pattern. Although ratings of independence were in line with the overall agency result, female raters rated themselves higher in instrumental competence than female raters rated women in general. Most striking, however, were the differences in ratings on the leadership competence and assertiveness dimensions. In contrast to the findings for overall agency, in each of these cases female raters‘ ratings of themselves were significantly lower than female raters‘ ratings of women in general (see Figure 5 ). The differences in self-ratings of assertiveness and leadership competence marked the only instance in which there was a more negative characterization of self than of one’s gender group.

Ratings of agency dimensions (instrumental competence, leadership competence, assertiveness, independence) by female raters rating self and women in general.

The 2 × 2 ANOVA results for the overall communality measure indicated a main effect for rater gender, F (1,397) = 19.03, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.01, and target group, F (1,397) = 42.92, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.10 as well as a significant interaction, F (1,397) = 10.51, p = 0.001, η p 2 = 0.03. The 2 × 2 × 3 mixed-model ANOVA including the communality dimensions as a within-subjects factor indicated significant main effects for rater gender, for target group, and communality dimension as well as a significant interaction between rater gender and target group, between rater gender and communality dimension, and between target group and communality dimension (see Table 7 ).

LSD comparisons (see Table 8 , means and standard deviations are displayed in Tables 4 , ​ ,6) 6 ) of overall communality indicated that male raters rated themselves as more communal than male raters rated men in general. LSD comparisons of the three communality dimension scales were consistent with the finding for overall communality. Male raters rated themselves significantly higher than male raters rated men in general in concern for others, sociability and emotional sensitivity (see Figure 6 ).

Ratings of communality dimensions (concern for others, emotional sensitivity, sociability) by male raters rating self and men in general.

Women’s Self-Ratings Versus Ratings of Women in General

LSD comparisons (see Table 8 , means and standard deviations are displayed in Tables 4 , ​ ,6) 6 ) of the overall communality ratings indicated that there was no difference in how female raters rated themselves and how female raters rated women in general. LSD comparisons for sociability and emotional sensitivity were consistent with this finding. However, female raters rated themselves higher in concern for others than they rated women in general (see Figure 7 ).

Ratings of communality dimensions (concern for others, emotional sensitivity, sociability) by female raters rating self and women in general.

It was the objective of this research to investigate gender stereotyping of others and self. To do so, we aimed to take into account multiple dimensions of the agency and communality constructs. It was our contention that perceptions on some of these dimensions of agency and communality would differ from one another, and that there would be a benefit in viewing them separately. Our results support this idea. While there were overall findings for agency and communality, analyses of individual aspects of them were not always consistent with these findings. What often appeared to be a general effect when using the overall measures of agency and communality in fact proved to be more textured and differentiated when the multidimensional framework was used. These results support the idea that distinguishing between different agency and communality facets can offer a deeper, more nuanced understanding of gender stereotypes today. Indeed, some important information appears to get lost by only focusing on the overall constructs.

Answers to Our Research Questions

Current stereotypes.

Our results clearly indicate that gender stereotypes persist. They also indicate that stereotypes about agency were more prevalent for male than for female raters. Specifically, male raters described women in general as lower in most aspects of agency than men in general, and also rated women in general lower on each of the agency dimensions than female raters did. Nonetheless, female raters were not stereotype-free with respect to agency: they described women in general as less assertive than men in general and rated men in general as more leadership competent than male raters did. These findings were masked by the overall measure of agency, which indicated no differences in agency ratings.

Stereotypes about communality also were strongly indicated by our data, but their strength did not tend to differ greatly between male and female raters. All participants rated women higher than men on the three communality dimensions.

Self-Stereotyping

Our results showed that men’s and women’s self-characterizations differed in line with gender stereotypes. Despite the overall agency measure indicating no difference in self-ratings of agency, the analyses incorporating dimensions of agency painted a different picture. Whereas there was no difference in the self-characterizations of men and women in instrumental competence or independence, women rated themselves lower than men in leadership competence and assertiveness. There also were differences in communality self-ratings. Though men tended to rate themselves as generally less communal than women did (as less concerned for others and less emotionally sensitive), their ratings of sociability did not differ from women’s.

Self-Characterizations Versus Characterizations of One’s Gender Group

Self-characterizations were often found to differ from characterizations of one’s gender group. Male raters rated themselves as higher in independence and instrumental competence, but no different in assertiveness or leadership competence than they rated men in general. Female raters rated themselves higher in instrumental competence but lower in assertiveness and leadership competence than they rated women in general. These findings are at odds with the results of the overall agency ratings, which imply that male raters consistently rated themselves higher in agency, and that female raters consistently rated themselves no differently than they rated their gender group.

There also were differences between self-ratings and characterizations of one’s gender group on the communality dimensions. While female raters only rated themselves higher than they rated women in general in concern for others, male raters rated themselves as higher than they rated men in general on all three dimensions of communality.

Implications

What does our analysis of current stereotypes tell us? On the one hand, our results indicate that despite dramatic societal changes many aspects of traditional gender stereotypes endure. Both male and female respondents viewed men in general as being more assertive than women in general, and also viewed women in general as more concerned about others, sociable and emotionally sensitive than men in general. On the other hand, our results indicate important departures from traditional views. This can be seen in the findings that unlike male respondents, female respondents indicated no gender deficit in how independent or how competent in leadership they perceived other women to be.

Self-descriptions also tended to conform to traditional gender stereotypes, with men describing themselves as more assertive and more competent in leadership than women did, and women describing themselves as more concerned about others and more emotional than men did. However, there were aspects of agency and communality for which self-characterizations of men and women did not differ. Women’s self-ratings of independence and instrumental competence were as high as men’s self-ratings, and men’s self-ratings of sociability were as high as women’s self-ratings. Together with the findings about characterizations of men and women in general, these results attest not only to the possible changing face of stereotypes, but also highlight the importance of considering specific dimensions of both agency and communality in stereotype assessment.

It should be noted that our results suggest a greater differentiation between the multidimensional results for agency characterizations than for communality characterizations. That is, the multidmenstional results more often aligned with the results of the overall measure when the focus of measurement was communality than when it was agency. It is not clear at this point whether this is because of the particular items included in our scales or because communality is a more coherent construct. But, based on our results, it would appear that the use of a multidimensional framework is of particular value when the measurement of agency is the focus – something that should be noted by those involved in studying stereotype assessment and change.

Competence Perceptions

The lack of similarity in the pattern of results for the two competence dimensions (instrumental competence and leadership competence) is interesting. Although there were differences in ratings on the leadership competence dimension, ratings on the instrumental competence dimension did not differ when comparing ratings of men and women in general or when comparing male and female raters’ self-characterizations. It thus appears that there is an aspect of competence on which women are rated as highly as men – the wherewithal to get the work done. However, caution is urged in interpreting this finding. The attributes comprising the instrumental competence scale can be seen as indicative of conscientiousness and willingness to work hard, attributes often associated with women as well as men. Thus there is a question about whether instrumental competence is really a component of the agency construct, a question also prompted by its pattern of correlations with the other dependent measure scales (see also Carrier et al., 2014 ).

The leadership competence ratings paint a different picture. The consistent perception by men that leadership competence was more prevalent in men than in women suggests that, at least as far as men are concerned, women still are not seen as “having what it takes” to adequately handle traditionally male roles and positions. Whatever the interpretation, however, the different pattern of results found for these two scales indicates that we as researchers have to be very precise in designating what we are measuring and how we are measuring it. It also indicates that we have to keep close to the construct we actually have measured when drawing conclusions from our data.

Women and Contemporary Gender Stereotypes

Our results show that women do not entirely embrace the stereotypic view of women as less agentic than men. They did not make distinctions between men and women in general when rating their independence and instrumental competence, nor were their self-ratings on the independence and instrumental competence scales lower than the self-ratings made by men. These findings are noteworthy: one of the key aspects of agency is independence, and it appears that women do not see themselves or other women to be lacking it more than men. Women also did not make distinctions between men and women in general when rating their leadership competence, another key component of agency. These findings suggest that, for modern day women, some important aspects of the agency stereotype no longer apply.

However, our results suggest that women have not moved as far along as one would hope in separating themselves from gender stereotypic constraints. In particular, their self-perceptions of assertiveness and leadership competence – dimensions of agency associated with social power – do not seem to deviate from traditional gender conceptions. Our findings indicate that women not only characterized themselves as less assertive and less competent in leadership than men characterized themselves, but they also described themselves significantly more negatively on these two scales than they described women in general. This means that women rated themselves as more deficient in several central aspects of agency than they rated women as a group, adhering more strongly to traditional gender stereotypes when describing themselves than when describing others. These results seem inconsistent with attribution theory ( Jones and Nisbett, 1987 ) and construal level theory ( Trope and Liberman, 2010 ), and challenge the idea that because people differentiate more when viewing themselves as compared to others they are less apt to use stereotypes in self-description. They also raise questions about differences in aspects of agency that do and do not involve power relations. These findings are in need of further exploration.

Men and Contemporary Gender Stereotypes

Our results indicate that men continue to accept the stereotyped conception of men lacking communal qualities. They, along with women, rated men in general lower than women in general on all three communality dimensions. It therefore is particularly interesting that in their self-ratings on one dimension of communality – sociability – they did not differ from women. This finding suggests that men conceive of sociability differently when they characterize themselves than when they charcterize others. Other research suggests that whereas women are more social than men in close relationships, men are more social than women in group contexts ( Baumeister and Sommer, 1997 ; Gabriel and Gardner, 1999 ). Thus, men might have rated themselves as equally sociable as women rated themselves, but for a different reason: because they conceptualized sociability with regard to their groups (rather than close relationships). If so, then clarification is needed about why this potentially different conception of sociability takes hold for men only when they characterize themselves.

Furtherore, it is of note that when comparing themselves with men in general, men’s ratings of themselves were significantly higher on all communal dimensions. This finding suggests that although they strongly adhere to traditional stereotypes in their characterizations of men as a group, there is a tendency for men to be less stereotype-bound when they characterize themselves. It also suggests that they are more self-aggrandizing when rating themselves than when rating other men – ascribing to themselves more of the “wonderful” traits traditionally associated with women ( Eagly and Mladinic, 1989 ). This result contrasts with that found for women, for whom traditional gender stereotypes often appeared to exert more influence in self-characterizations than in characterizations of others, even when the result was self-deprecating rather than self-enhancing. Why there are differences in discrepancies in self-ratings versus other-ratings of women and men raises interesting questions for future research – questions about whether these differential effects are due to the gender of the rater or to the nature of the particular descriptors involved.

Limitations

Our results indicate that breaking down agency and communality into dimensions was often of benefit when assessing stereotyped perceptions. Though many of our scales were highly correlated, the confirmatory factor analyses provided support that they were distinct facets. Our choice to analyze the scales separately despite high correlations is in line with other researchers, who argue that doing so can enhance results interpretation ( Luthar, 1996 ; Tabachnik and Fidell, 2007 ). However, we do not claim that the dimensions we derived are the only way to differentiate among the elements of communality and agency, nor do we claim that our scales are the best way to measure them. Indeed, we chose a top–down procedure, using expert judges to derive our scales. This had the advantage that the judges knew about gender research and could effectively represent the literature on gender stereotypes. Nevertheless, if non-experts had done the initial sorting, they may have come to different conclusions about the number or content of items in the different scales or may have generated different scales altogether, ones that perhaps would have been more representative of everyday categories that are consensual in our culture.

Furthermore, our scale construction may have been constrained because our initial pool of items relied exclusively on existing items from past scales, which, although broadly selected, may have been limited by particular ways of thinking about stereotypes. Recent findings by Abele et al. (2016) , for example, included a morality facet in their breakdown of communality, and found it to be a robust facet of communality in ratings within and between a large number of countries in both Eastern and Western cultures. We, however, did not include many items that measured morality in our original list of attributes. Whereas we scoured the gender stereotyping literature focused on social perception to compile the most frequently used items for our initial item pool, Abele and colleagues went through a similar process, but with literature focused primarily on self-perception. Items focusing on the morality component of communality should no doubt be incorporated in future research. In addition, there might also be additional items relating to other facets of agency, such as a cognitive agency facet (e.g., being rational). Moreover, and more generally, a process by which the attributes comprising the scales are generated in a free-form manner and the categorization tasks are performed by a broad-ranging set of judges would serve as a check on our measures and provide guidance about how to modify and improve them.

There are other methodological limitations that are suggestive of follow-up research. We found no differences as a result of the rater’s age and education, attesting to the generality of the effects we uncovered, but there no doubt are other possible moderating factors to be explored, such as race and socio-economic level. Moreover, although we were able to tap into a wide-ranging population, it is important to replicate our study with a more representative U.S. sample to assess the full scope of our findings. In addition, our study was restricted to a sample of U.S. citizens, and it would be interesting to replicate this research with samples that are not exclusively from the U.S. Such cross-cultural replications would help not only to assess generalizability to other cultures, but also to assess the extent to which the nature and degree of change in social roles influences the way people currently conceive of men and women, and men and women conceive of themselves. Finally, it would be useful to conduct research using our measure to describe more differentiated targets to determine whether our results would be similar or different when intersectionality is taken into account and when particular subtypes of women and men are the focus.

Going Forward

Our findings stimulate several questions for future research. Not only would it be useful to further investigate the competence component of agency, clarifying what it does and does not entail, but also to consider another aspect of competence that has recently been identified as being strongly male gender-typed – intellectual brilliance ( Leslie et al., 2015 ). Exploring the effects of the apparently contradictory view women have of themselves in terms of agency (self-views of their independence and instrumental competence versus self-views of their assertiveness and leadership competence) on women’s attitudes and behavior in a variety of spheres also would be valuable. In addition, it would be advantageous to determine whether the greater communality men ascribe to themselves than to other men reflects actual beliefs or is merely self-enhancing, and if it has implications for men’s approach to traditionally female roles and positions.

Finally, it is important that in future research attempts are made to demonstrate the usefulness of distinguishing among the dimensions of agency and communality we have identified, and to do so for both self and other characterizations. While for some research questions an overall agency and overall communality measure will likely be sufficient, there no doubt are instances in which finer distinctions will be beneficial. It is possible, for example, that different dimensions of gender stereotypes are more strongly associated with selection decisions, performance evaluations, or reward distributions. Indeed, other researchers have already begun to demonstrate the value of considering distinct facets of agency in assessing gender differences in leader evaluations, but with a less differentiated set of dimensions including only self-reliance and dominance ( Schaumberg and Flynn, 2017 ). It also is possible that different dimensions of self-stereotypes are more strongly associated with career aspirations and choices, or support for gender-related organizational policies. Demonstrating that different dimensions of agency and communality predict different outcomes would add support to our multidimensional framework. In addition to increasing our understanding, such discoveries could provide valuable information about leverage points for intervention to ease the negative consequences of gender stereotyping and the bias they promote.

In this study we have demonstrated the value of subdividing the agency and communality construct in the study of gender stereotypes, and shown that making global statements about agency and communality runs the risk of distorting rather than clarifying our understanding.

Our goal with this paper was to further the conversation in the field about different aspects of both agency and communality and their potentially different effects on self and other characterizations. An underlying theme is that we may be losing information by generalizing to two super constructs and not attending to their components. Our findings demonstrate the complexity of the agency and communality constructs and the potential benefits of thinking about them with greater specificity. This can have consequences not only for understanding stereotypes and gender bias, but also for intervention and change efforts.

What are the implications of our findings for understanding the persistence of gender inequality? Although the results signal easing in some dimensions of traditional gender stereotypes, they make clear that in many ways they persist. Of particular importance is men’s unrelenting image of women as deficient in attributes considered to be essential for success in many traditionally male fields – an image that forms the basis of gender bias in many evaluative decisions. But women are not exempt from the influence of gender stereotypes; even though they view women as equal to men in several key agentic qualities, they see themselves as more deficient than men do in both leadership competence and assertiveness, and more deficient in these agency dimensions than women in general. These findings, which result from consideration of multiple aspects of the agency construct, augur ill for the tempering of women’s tendency to limit their opportunities. Evidently we still have a way to go before all the components of traditional gender stereotypes fully dissipate and recede, allowing men and women to be judged, and to judge themselves, on the basis of their merits, not their gender.

Ethics Statement

This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the Institutional Review Board, University Committee on Activities Involving Human Subjects, New York University. The protocol was approved by the University Committee on Activities Involving Human Subjects, New York University.

Author Contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

We thank Suzette Caleo, Francesca Manzi, Susanne Braun, and Jennifer Ray for their insights and feedback in the development of this study. We thank Armin Pircher Verdorfer for his support in calculting the CFA. Portions of this study were presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology.

List of agentic attributes measured.

List of communal attributes measured.

Funding. This project was supported in part by an ADVANCE Diversity Science Research Grant awarded to the second author funded by the National Science Foundation ADVANCE-PAID award (HRD-0820202). This project was further supported by the Research Grant “Selection and Evaluation of Leaders in Business and Academia” awarded to the third author and funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and the European Social Fund (ESF) (FKZ 01FP1070/71). This publication was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) and the Technical University of Munich (TUM) in the framework of the Open Access Publishing Program.

1 The median age of the U.S. population is 37.9 years ( United States Census Bureau, 2017c ); Levels of education of the U.S. population 25 years and older in 2017: 39.2% did not attend college, 16.3% had some college, 31.6% had graduated college, 12.9% have graduate degrees ( United States Census Bureau, 2017a ); Race/ethnicity percentages in the general U.S. population are as follows: 60.7% White, 18.1% Hispanic, 13.4% African American, 5.8% Asian, 2% other ( United States Census Bureau, 2017b ).

2 The attributes in the inventory included the communal and agentic attributes of interest as well as a group of attributes measuring other constructs that were included for exploratory purposes but not used in this study.

3 The relatively large RMSEA is likely due to violation of multivariate normality assumptions (joint multivariate kurtosis = 76.55 with a critical ratio of 55.30). The most important implication of non-normality is that chi-square values are inflated, whereas parameter estimates are still fairly accurate ( Kline, 2011 ).

• AAUW (2016). The simple truth about the gender pay gap (Spring 2016). Available at: http://www.aauw.org/research/the-simple-truth-about-the-gender-pay-gap/ [ Google Scholar ]
• Abele A. E. (2003). The dynamics of masculine-agentic and feminine-communal traits: findings from a prospective study. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 85 768–776. 10.1037/0022-3514.85.4.768 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Abele A. E., Wojciszke B. (2014). Communal and agentic content in social cognition: a dual perspective model. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 50 195–255. 10.1016/B978-0-12-800284-1.00004-7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Abele A. E., Cuddy A. J. C., Judd C. M., Yzerbyt V. Y. (2008). Fundamental dimensions of social judgment. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 38 1063–1065. 10.1002/ejsp.574 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Abele A. E., Hauke N., Peters K., Louvet E., Szymkow A., Duan Y. (2016). Facets of the fundamental content dimensions: agency with competence and assertiveness—communion with warmth and morality. Front. Psychol. 7 : 1810 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01810 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Allen B. P. (1995). Gender stereotypes are not accurate: a replication of Martin (1987) using diagnostic vs. self-report and behavioral criteria. Sex Roles 32 583–600. 10.1007/BF01544213 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bakan D. (1966). The Duality of Human Existence: An Essay on Psychology and Religion. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baumeister R. F., Sommer K. L. (1997). What do men want? Gender differences and two spheres of belongingness: comment on Cross and Madson (1997). Psychol. Bull. 122 38–44. 10.1037/0033-2909.122.1.38 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bem S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. J. Consulting Clin. Psychol. 42 155–162. 10.1037/h0036215 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Biernat M., Vescio T. K., Green M. L. (1996). Selective self-stereotyping. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 71 1194–1209. 10.1037/0022-3514.71.6.1194 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blair I. V., Banaji M. R. (1996). Automatic and controlled processes in stereotype priming. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 70 1142–1163. 10.1037/0022-3514.70.6.1142 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brosi P., Spörrle M., Welpe I. M., Heilman M. E. (2016). Expressing pride: effects on perceived agency, communality, and stereotype-based gender disparities. J. Appl. Psychol. 101 1319–1328. 10.1037/apl0000122 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Broverman I. K., Vogel S. R., Broverman D. M., Clarkson F. E., Rosenkrantz P. S. (1972). Sex-role stereotypes: a current appraisal. J. Soc. Issues 28 59–78. 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1972.tb00018.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buhrmester M., Kwang T., Gosling S. D. (2011). Amazon’s mechanical turk. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 6 3–5. 10.1177/1745691610393980 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bureau of Labor Statistics (2016a). American Time Use Survey. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/tus/charts/household.htm [ Google Scholar ]
• Bureau of Labor Statistics (2016b). Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey. Available at https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm [ Google Scholar ]
• Bureau of Labor Statistics (2017). Women in the Labor Force: a Databook. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/womens-databook/2017/home.htm [ Google Scholar ]
• Byrne B. M. (2010). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. New York, NY: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carrier A., Louvet E., Chauvin B., Rohmer O. (2014). The primacy of agency over competence in status perception. Soc. Psychol. 45 347–356. 10.1027/1864-9335/a000176 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Catalyst (2016). Statistical Overview of Women in the Workforce. Available at: http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/statistical-overview-women-workforce [ Google Scholar ]
• Cortes P., Pan J. (2017). “ Occupation and gender ,” in The Oxford Handbook of Women and the Economy , eds Averett S. L., Argys L. M., Hoffman S. D. (Oxford: Oxford University Press; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Craig L., Mullan K. (2010). Parenthood, gender and work-family time in the United States, Australia, Italy, France, and Denmark. J. Marriage Fam. 72 1344–1361. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00769.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cuddy A. J. C., Fiske S. T., Glick P. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: the stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 40 61–149. 10.1016/S0065-2601(07)00002-0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Deaux K., LaFrance M. (1998). “ Gender ,” in The Handbook of Social Psychology , eds Gilbert D. T., Fiske S. T., Lindzey G., Gilbert D. T., Fiske S. T., Lindzey G. (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; ), 788–827. [ Google Scholar ]
• Deaux K., Lewis L. L. (1984). Structure of gender stereotypes: interrelationships among components and gender label. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 46 991–1004. 10.1037/0022-3514.46.5.991 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Devine P. G., Sharp L. B. (2009). “ Automaticity and control in stereotyping and prejudice ,” in Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination , ed. Nelson T. D. (New York, NY: Psychology Press; ), 61–87. [ Google Scholar ]
• Diekman A. B., Eagly A. H. (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: women and men of the past, present, and future. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 26 1171–1188. 10.1177/0146167200262001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Donnelly K., Twenge J. M. (2017). Masculine and feminine traits on the bem sex-role inventory, 1993–2012: a cross-temporal meta-analysis. Sex Roles 76 556–565. 10.1007/s11199-016-0625-y [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Duehr E. E., Bono J. E. (2006). Men, women, and managers: are stereotypes finally changing? Pers. Psychol. 59 815–846. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00055.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eagly A. H. (1987). Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social-Role Interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrance Erlbaum Associates. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eagly A. H. (1997). Sex differences in social behavior: comparing social role theory and evolutionary psychology. Am. Psychol. 52 1380–1383. 10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1380.b [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eagly A. H., Mladinic A. (1989). Gender stereotypes and attitudes toward women and men. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 15 543–558. 10.1177/0146167289154008 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eagly A. H., Sczesny S. (2009). “ Stereotypes about women, men, and leaders: have times changed? ,” in The Glass Ceiling in the 21st century: Understanding Barriers to Gender Equality , eds Barreto M., Ryan M. K., Schmitt M. T. (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; ), 21–47. 10.1037/11863-002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eagly A. H., Steffen V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 46 735–754. 10.1037/0022-3514.46.4.735 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Field A. (2006). Reliability analysis. Available at: http://www.discoveringstatistics.com/repository/reliability.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Fiske A. P., Haslam N., Fiske S. T. (1991). Confusing one person with another: what errors reveal about the elementary forms of social relations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 60 656–674. 10.1037/0022-3514.60.5.656 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fiske S. T., Cuddy A. J. C., Glick P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence. Trends Cogn. Sci. 11 77–83. 10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fiske S. T., Taylor S. E. (2013). Social Cognition: From Brains to Culture. London: Sage; 10.4135/9781446286395 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fiske S. T., Xu J., Cuddy A. C., Glick P. (1999). (Dis)respecting versus (dis)liking: status and interdependence predict ambivalent stereotypes of competence and warmth. J. Soc. Issues 55 473–489. 10.1111/0022-4537.00128 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gabriel S., Gardner W. L. (1999). Are there “his” and “hers” types of interdependence? The implications of gender differences in collective versus relational interdependence for affect, behavior, and cognition. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 77 642–655. 10.1037/0022-3514.77.3.642 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greenwald A. G., Banaji M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychol. Rev. 102 4–27. 10.1037/0033-295X.102.1.4 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Haines E. L., Deaux K., Lofaro N. (2016). The times they are a-changing … or are they not? A comparison of gender stereotypes, 1983–2014. Psychol. Women Q. 40 353–363. 10.1177/0361684316634081 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heilman M. E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: the lack of fit model. Res. Organ. Behav. 5 269–298. [ Google Scholar ]
• Heilman M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: how gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. J. Soc. Issues 57 657–674. 10.1111/0022-4537.00234 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heilman M. E. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Res. Organ. Behav. 32 113–135. 10.1016/j.riob.2012.11.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heilman M. E., Block C. J., Martell R. F. (1995). Sex stereotypes: do they influence perceptions of managers? J. Soc. Behav. Pers. 10 237–252. [ Google Scholar ]
• Heilman M. E., Block C. J., Martell R. F., Simon M. C. (1989). Has anything changed? Current characterizations of men, women, and managers. J. Appl. Psychol. 74 935–942. 10.1037/0021-9010.74.6.935 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heilman M. E., Manzi F., Braun S. (2015). “ Presumed incompetent: perceived lack of fit and gender bias in recruitment and selection ,” in Handbook of Gendered Careers in Management: Getting in, Getting on, Getting out , Vol. 90-104 eds Broadbridge A. M., Fielden S. L. (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Hentschel T., Braun S., Peus C., Frey D. (2018). The communality-bonus effect for male transformational leaders – leadership style, gender, and promotability. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 27 112–125. 10.1080/1359432X.2017.1402759 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hilton J. L., von Hippel W. (1996). Stereotypes. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 47 237–271. 10.1146/annurev.psych.47.1.237 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoffman C., Hurst N. (1990). Gender stereotypes: perception or rationalization? J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 58 197–208. 10.1037/0022-3514.58.2.197 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jones E. E., Nisbett R. E. (1987). “ The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior ,” in Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior , eds Jones E. E., Kanouse D. E., Kelley H. H., Nisbett R. E., Valins S., Weiner B. (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.), 79–94. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kan M. Y., Sullivan O., Gershuny J. (2011). Gender convergence in domestic work: discerning the effects of interactional and institutional barriers from large-scale data. Sociology 45 234–251. 10.1177/0038038510394014 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kite M. E., Deaux K., Haines E. L. (2008). “ Gender stereotypes ,” in Psychology of Women: A Handbook of Issues and Theories Vol. 2 eds Denmark F., Paludi M. A. (Westport: Praeger; ), 205–236. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kline R. B. (2011). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling , 3rd Edn. New York, NY: Guilford Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Knowles E. D., Lowery B. S. (2012). Meritocracy, self-concerns, and whites’ denial of racial inequity. Self Identity 11 202–222. 10.1080/15298868.2010.542015 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Koenig A. M., Eagly A. H. (2014). Evidence for the social role theory of stereotype content: observations of groups’ roles shape stereotypes. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 107 371–392. 10.1037/a0037215 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ladge J. J., Humberd B. K., Baskerville Watkins M., Harrington B. (2015). Updating the organization man: an examination of involved fathering in the workplace. Acad. Manage. Perspect. 29 152–171. 10.5465/amp.2013.0078 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leslie S.-J., Cimpian A., Meyer M., Freeland E. (2015). Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science 347 262–265. 10.1126/science.1261375 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lippa R. A., Preston K., Penner J. (2014). Women’s representation in 60 occupations from 1972 to 2010: more women in high-status jobs, few women in things-oriented jobs. PLoS One 9 : e95960 . 10.1371/journal.pone.0095960 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lueptow L. B., Garovich-Szabo L., Lueptow M. B. (2001). Social change and the persistence of sex typing: 1974–1997. Soc. Forces 80 1–36. 10.1353/sof.2001.0077 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Luthar H. K. (1996). Gender differences in evaluation of performance and leadership ability: autocratic vs. democratic managers. Sex Roles 35 337–361. 10.1007/bf01664773 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin C. L. (1987). A ratio measure of sex stereotyping. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 52 489–499. 10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.489 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McAdams D. P., Hoffman B. J., Day R., Mansfield E. D. (1996). Themes of agency and communion In significant autobiographical scenes. J. Pers. 64 339–377. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00514.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCauley C., Stitt C. L. (1978). An individual and quantitative measure of stereotypes. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 36 929–940. 10.1037/0022-3514.36.9.929 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oswald D., Lindstedt K. (2006). The content and function of gender self-stereotypes: an exploratory investigation. Sex Roles 54 447–458. 10.1007/s11199-006-9026-y [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paolacci G., Chandler J., Ipeirotis P. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judg. Decis. Mak. 5 411–419. [ Google Scholar ]
• Park B., Smith J. A., Correll J. (2008). “Having it all” or “doing it all”? Perceived trait attributes and behavioral obligations as a function of workload, parenthood, and gender. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 38 1156–1164. 10.1002/ejsp.535 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peus C., Braun S., Knipfer K. (2015). On becoming a leader in Asia and America: empirical evidence from women managers. Leadersh. Q. 26 55–67. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.08.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pew Research Center (2017). American panel trends . Available at: http://www.pewresearch.org/methodology/u-s-survey-research/american-trends-panel/ [ Google Scholar ]
• Pew Research Center (2018). 7 facts about American dads. Available at: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/06/13/fathers-day-facts/ [ Google Scholar ]
• Plant E. A., Hyde J. S., Keltner D., Devine P. G. (2000). The gender stereotyping of emotions. Psychol. Women Q. 24 81–92. 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb01024.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Powell G. N., Butterfield D. A. (2015). Correspondence between self- and good-manager descriptions: examining stability and change over four decades. J. Manage. 41 1745–1773. 10.1177/0149206312463939 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenkrantz P., Vogel S., Bee H., Broverman I., Broverman D. M. (1968). Sex-role streotypes and self-concepts in college students. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 32 287–295. 10.1037/h0025909 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosette A. S., Koval C. Z., Ma A., Livingston R. (2016). Race matters for women leaders: intersectional effects on agentic deficiencies and penalties. Leadersh. Q. 27 429–445. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.01.008 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosseel Y. (2012). lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. J. Stat. Softw. 48 1–36. 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01521 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ruble D. N., Martin C. L. (1998). “ Gender development ,” in Handbook of Child Psychology Social, Emotional, and Personality Development , 5th Edn Vol. 3 eds Damon W., Eisenberg N. (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; ), 933–1016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rudman L. A., Glick P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. J. Soc. Issues 57 743–762. 10.1111/0022-4537.00239 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schaumberg R. L., Flynn F. (2017). Self-reliance: a gender perspective on its relationship to communality and leadership evaluations. Acad. Manage. J. 60 1859–1881. 10.5465/amj.2015.0018 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schein V. E. (1973). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. J. Appl. Psychol. 57 95–100. 10.1037/h0037128 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schmitt N. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychol. Assess. 8 350–353. 10.1037/1040-3590.8.4.350 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sidanius J., Pratto F. (1999). Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 10.1017/CBO9781139175043 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sijtsma K. (2008). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika 74 107–120. 10.1007/s11336-008-9101-0 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spence J. T., Buckner C. E. (2000). Instrumental and expressive traits, trait stereotypes, and sexist attitudes: what do they signify? Psychol. Women Q. 24 44–62. 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb01021.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spence J. T., Helmreich R. L. (1978). Masculinity & Femininity: Their Psychological Dimensions, Correlates, and Antecedents. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Swann W. B. (1990). “ To be adored or to be known? The interplay of self-enhancement and self-verification ,” in Handbook of Motivation and Cognition , eds Higgins E. T., Sorrentino R. M. (New York, NY: Guilford Press; ), 408–448. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tabachnik B. G., Fidell L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics , 5 Edn. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon. [ Google Scholar ]
• Trope Y., Liberman N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychol. Rev. 117 440–463. 10.1037/a0018963 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Twenge J. M. (1997). Changes in masculine and feminine traits over time: a meta-analysis. Sex Roles 36 305–325. 10.1007/bf02766650 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• U.S. Department of Labor (2015). Most Common Occupations for Women. Available at: http://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/most_common_occupations_for_women.htm [ Google Scholar ]
• United States Census Bureau (2017a). Educational Attainment in the United States: 2017. Available at: http://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/demo/education-attainment/cps-detailed-tables.html [ Google Scholar ]
• United States Census Bureau (2017b). QuickFacts: United States. Available at: http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045217 [ Google Scholar ]
• United States Census Bureau (2017c). The Nation’s Media Age Continues to Rise. Available at: http://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2017/comm/median-age.html [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams J. E., Best D. L. (1990). Measuring Sex Stereotypes: A Multination Study. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wood W., Eagly A. H. (2012). “ Biosocial construction of sex differences and similarities in behavior ,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Vol. 46 eds Olson J. M., Zanna M. P. (Academic Press; ),55–123. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wood W., Eagly A. H. (2015). Two traditions of research on gender identity. Sex Roles 73 461–473. 10.1007/s11199-015-0480-2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

The impact of gender stereotypes on the self-concept of female students in stem subjects with an under-representation of females.

• 1 Department for Education, Universität der Bundeswehr München, Neubiberg, Germany
• 2 Federal Centre for Professionalization in Education Research, University of Teacher Education Styria, Graz, Austria
• 3 Educational Psychology Unit, Department of Psychology, University of Graz, Graz, Austria

It's possible to assume that women who study STEM topics with a low proportion of females have successfully overcome barriers in school and the family, making them less prone to stereotypic views, and influences. The present study focuses on these kinds of factors and analyzes to which degree family factors, school-related factors, and individual stereotypes may influence a woman's academic self-concept. The following study presents a latent regression model which is based on a survey of 296 women from different German universities, all of whom are part of STEM programs of study that have <30% females. It was investigated to which degree individual stereotypes, support in school, and family support contribute to the self-concept in STEM. Gender stereotypes were negatively related to students' STEM-specific self-concept in the selected sample. This study also reveals negative family-related influences that lower a woman's self-concept. Positive predictors on the other hand included school aspects that are found in the students' favorite subjects at school. The results of the study provide important aspects for STEM education. Even though the students participating in the study presumably had good grades in STEM, stereotypes still corrupted their self-concept. One of the reasons for this might lie in stereotypes that attribute girls' achievements to diligence instead of talent. The results also point out that direct support, particularly by parents, can have a negative impact on female students' self-concept. Activities that are meant to support pupils directly may actually backfire and transport stereotypes instead. This stresses the need for indirect support during socialization, e.g., by providing opportunities for children to have positive experiences or by giving them the chance to meet role models that are enthusiastic about their STEM professions. These kinds of measures have the potential to spur students' interest in STEM subjects—something that in the present study proved to be especially beneficial for women's positive self-concept when studying STEM topics.

Introduction

In most European countries, the proportion of females pursuing a career in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) is still alarmingly low. This holds especially true for occupations in technology and engineering ( Blickenstaff, 2005 ; Ihsen, 2009 ; European Commission, 2015 ). The past decades have seen the proportion of females in these fields remain constant at approximately 25% in the EU, and even lower in Germany with approximately 18% [ CEWS (Center of Excellence Women Science)., 2014 ]. One of the reasons females avoid STEM subjects lies in the negative and stereotyped perception(s) of these subjects (see Engeser et al., 2008 ; Schuster and Martiny, 2017 ). Stereotypical assessments here include expectations e.g., about a particular gender, as well as the attributions of abilities in specific domains. Such assessments are embedded in a broader cultural context of the individual (see Good et al., 2008 ). According to Bronfenbrenner's (1977) ecological systems theory, a major source of stereotypes lies within an individual's macro system, i.e., the cultural and social context of a person's societal group. The macro system refers to the overall values and customs that characterize a given social group which provide a framework for the interactions between the individual and its social context, e.g., the teachers at school or the family. Depending on the macro system and its values, stereotypes about professions, or subjects may vary among nations or cultures (see Nosek et al., 2009 ; Else-Quest et al., 2010 ). Many females in the Western world still believe the stereotype that professions and subjects in STEM are “male” domains ( Nosek et al., 2009 ) and they often apply these kinds of stereotypes to the assessment of their own abilities in STEM (see e.g., Dresel et al., 2007 ).

Stereotypical classifications of professions and subjects have strong implications for females. They impair learning and prevent females from fulfilling their full potential. Stereotypes lower one's self-assessment and sense of competence, i.e., a person's self-concept ( Marsh and Scalas, 2011 ). They even have an impact on career choices (e.g., Engeser et al., 2008 ; Schuster and Martiny, 2017 ).

Against this background, the present study investigates how stereotypes may explain female university students' self-concept in STEM. In this context, it is important to have a closer look into the different STEM subjects. Even if the term is used internationally, there are particularly differences about the definition of the science part. The German equivalent to STEM focuses only on “natural” sciences like physics, chemistry, biology etc., (see Ihsen, 2009 ). The English-speaking community also includes life sciences like medicine (e.g., European Commission, 2015 ; Eccles and Wang, 2016 ), while some authors, primarily from the US context also include social sciences in this definition (e.g., Su and Rounds, 2015 ). It is important to acknowledge this fuzziness when interpreting results with respect to STEM, because all these definitions, comprise subjects with a very low proportion of females, e.g., engineering as well as with a superior proportion of females like e.g., life sciences (see e.g., European Commission, 2015 ; Su and Rounds, 2015 )—even if the proportions of females vary between the countries. This study focusses on a special group of female STEM students for reducing ambiguity: those who study a subject with an especially low proportion of females. We will label these STEM subjects having an under-representation of females as STEM-LPF (STEM subjects with a l ow p roportion of f emales). Studies with an especially low proportion of females have less than 30% ( Buchmann et al., 2002 ). This means that for every female, more than two males study this subject. This group of female STEM-LPF students was selected because it could be expected that they are less prone to stereotypes after they have chosen what can be seen as a less-than-typical career path.

Academic Self-Concept

An academic self-concept comprises a person's self-assessments in academic domains. It is formed through experience and interpretations of one's environment as it regards feelings of self-confidence, competence, and ability. It's influenced by evaluations of significant others, reinforcements, and attributions of one's own behavior ( Marsh and Scalas, 2011 ). Such self-assessments may belong to two frames of reference ( Rost et al., 2005 ): The external frame of reference is guided by a social comparison of one's own achievements with those of peers. The internal frame of reference is guided by a comparison within the individual, for example a comparison of abilities in various subjects. Students compare their achievement in one subject (e.g., mathematics) with their achievement in another (e.g., English).

The academic self-concept in a specific domain does not necessarily accurately reflect achievements. In a study by Ludwig (2010) , female middle school students were much more critical of their abilities in STEM than male students even if they had the same grades. Similar results were found in the PISA studies ( OECD, 2015 ). The academic self-concept of females who perform on the same level as their male counterparts in the PISA science scores was about one quarter standard deviation lower ( OECD, 2015 , p. 75). In most participating countries, females had a more critical academic self-concept in STEM than males. These kinds of differences can be downright vicious because research postulates reciprocal effects between the academic self-concept and achievements (see Marsh and Scalas, 2011 ). In their reciprocal effects model , pathways were found between students' achievements and their academic self-concept and vice versa. This means that, considering students on the same level of achievements, the students with the higher academic self-concept will advance in their achievements over the course of time while the others will lag. This effect may be explained by expectancy-value theory in how students with a higher academic self-concept in a domain have higher expectations regarding their chances for successful outcomes and as a result have a higher motivation to invest time and effort into learning activities in this domain (see Eccles et al., 1983 ; Eccles and Wang, 2016 ).

Attributions for causes of achievement also essentially contribute to the development of an individual's self-concept (see Möller and Köller, 1996 ). Successful achievements may be attributed to ability and thus enhance a positive self-concept, or they may be attributed to luck and have detrimental effects on the self-concept as a result (see Heider, 1958 ). Attributions are also related to learning motivation: Attributing academic failure to a lack of effort may increase effort for the next examination, while attributing failure to the lack of ability may cause resignation. Thus, the academic self-concept influences to which degree a student makes full use of her/his academic potential (see Jahnke-Klein, 2006 ). Studies show that female and male students differ in their attribution patterns in STEM fields ( Beermann et al., 1992 ; Jurik et al., 2013 ). In comparison to males, although females seldom attribute success in STEM fields to ability, they do in fact attribute failure mostly to the lack thereof ( Dickhäuser and Meyer, 2006 ). These kinds of dysfunctional attribution patterns interfere with the development of a positive self-concept and impair learning motivation (see also Ziegler, 2002 ; Dresel et al., 2007 ). All in all, a too-critical self-concept is an important reason why females believe they have inferior skills in STEM fields (see Wang et al., 2015 ; Eccles and Wang, 2016 ); why they are less motivated; and why they seldom consider a career in a STEM field at all ( OECD, 2015 ).

School and family are two distinct environments that support the development of a student's academic self-concept. Different characteristics of classroom teaching show substantial effects on students' academic self-concept and their interest in a subject ( Lazarides and Ittel, 2012 ). Comparisons in the classroom set an external frame of reference for the self-assessment and attribution of achievements (see Rost et al., 2005 ). Teachers' support in the attribution of achievements ( Heller and Ziegler, 1996 ) can help students overcome gender-specific attribution patterns ( Dresel et al., 2007 ). So teacher behavior can support students' interest and their development of a positive academic self-concept and encourage students to perhaps even experience STEM as their favorite field, all while keeping in mind that opposite effects are possible as well.

Within the family context, there is no in-class comparison. Here, parents' attributional beliefs serve as a frame of reference for a student's self-assessment ( Viljaranta et al., 2015 ). Parents' beliefs about their child's ability have strong impacts on his/her self-assessment of ability ( Tiedemann, 2000 ) and academic self-concept as a result. This makes parent support an important aspect in the context of STEM ( Adya and Kaiser, 2005 ). However, if parents consider their child as being less capable, they may provide intrusive support with detrimental effects on the child's self-assessment ( Pomerantz and Eaton, 2001 ). In other words: parents' influence on their children's academic self-concept can be ambiguous depending on their specific behavior, making it important that students experience support for their self-assessments at both school and at home ( Adya and Kaiser, 2005 ). Of note here is that the effects of this support are subject to the particular support behavior. In the context of the STEM subjects, gender stereotypes can be seen as one reason why support measures may achieve the opposite effect.

Stereotypes and their Impact in STEM

The development of the academic self-concept begins in infancy and unfolds its most significant impact(s) after primary school ( Senler and Sungur, 2009 ). Parents' and teachers' expectations and attributions of abilities and achievements essentially shape a child's self-concept ( Dresel et al., 2007 ; Ludwig, 2010 ). They do not necessarily rely on objective assessments; often, parents underlie stereotypical evaluations which do not correspond to their children's actual achievements. For example, parents tend to regard daughters as being less talented in mathematics and science and reinforce dysfunctional attribution patterns as a result ( Dresel et al., 2007 ).

Explicit Stereotypes as a Threat to Performance

Several studies on stereotypes have coined the term “stereotype threat” ( Martignon, 2010 , p. 221; Shapiro and Williams, 2012 ). In these studies, participants usually were confronted with a stereotype about a target group, e.g., females or members of a specific ethnic group. In the context of STEM, stereotypes would include males being more talented and successful in math and science. After confrontation with the stereotype, study participants worked on a task that is associated with the stereotype ( Martignon, 2010 , p. 221), and performance was compared to another group working on the same task that was not confronted with the stereotype. In nearly all studies on stereotype threat, females achieved worse results with mathematical tasks, and their interest decreased when they were confronted with the stereotype that women are less talented in mathematics ( Shapiro and Williams, 2012 ).

Owens and Massey (2011) describe two mechanisms that explain why stereotype threat occurs. The first mechanism works via internalized stereotypes; this means the person has internalized the stereotype and identifies him/herself with the target group. Consequently, he/she invests less effort in the task and the stereotype threat becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The internalization of the stereotype also has a negative effect on the academic self-concept ( Heckhausen, 1989 ) and is accompanied by a reduction in motivation and effort ( Möller and Köller, 1996 ). The second mechanism works via external stereotypes ( Owens and Massey, 2011 ). In this case, the person does not necessarily identify him/herself with the stereotype, nor does he/she need to believe the stereotype. Confrontation with the stereotype, however, affects the perception of task difficulty, increasing strain and tension. Rumination about the stereotype uses up resources that are otherwise needed for task completion, impairing performance as a result (see Macher et al., 2015 ). This research shows that even females who believe themselves to be competent and pursue a career in STEM still can be impaired by stereotype threat.

Influence of Stereotypes Communicated by Significant Others

Stereotypes are also communicated by significant others such as parents or teachers ( Gunderson et al., 2012 ). Tiedemann (2000) showed in his study on pupils in primary school that mothers as well as teachers based their feedback on children's competence in mathematics not only regarding previous grades but the respective child's gender as well. Mothers were even more prone toward gender stereotypes than teachers. Stereotypes were especially strong in feedback on achievements and had a significant impact on the children's self-concept ( Tiedemann, 2000 ). In a study by Kiefer and Shih (2006) , students were especially receptive to teacher feedback that was associated with gender stereotypes. According to Dickhäuser and Meyer (2006) , girls mainly rely on perceived teacher evaluations of their ability when making math ability assessments and thus are very susceptible to incorporating significant others' stereotyped evaluations into their own self-concept (see also Xu, 2016 ).

Parents' and teachers' gender stereotypes manifest themselves not only in communication, but in dysfunctional support for their children or students as well. When parents endorse specific gender stereotypes (e.g., boys are better in STEM, girls are better in languages), they are more likely to uninvitedly intrude on homework, undermining children's confidence in these areas, and weakening their self-concept ( Bhanot and Jovanovic, 2005 ). These kinds of long-term influences by parents and teachers may have a significant influence over the years not only on motivation and achievement but regarding career choices as well ( Bleeker and Jacobs, 2004 ).

Research Question

The academic self-concept is a key variable in explaining learning and motivation in specific academic domains. It is also of interest in explaining career choices and perseverance in a specific profession. However, it does not always rely on “objective” data such as actual achievements, but is instead subject to distorting influences such as internalized stereotypes as well as external stereotypical attributions by others.

The present article looks more closely into the academic self-concept of a special group of females: university students in a STEM-LPF subject with a notable underrepresentation of women (equal to or less than 30% females). It can be expected that these females would tend to be confident regarding their academic self-assessments in STEM fields, and less prone to stereotypical attributions concerning females' lack of abilities here. Therefore, the research question will investigate:

To what degree do STEM-LPF students' own stereotypes in comparison to school- and family- related factors contribute to their academic self-concept in STEM?

Regarding this research question, we would still expect a negative effect of stereotypes. However, due to a lack of research in the field, we cannot provide hypotheses about its strength within the context of the ambiguous effects of school and family factors.

The focus of this paper is primarily on a quantitative study with 296 female STEM-LPF students. For strengthening these results, we will also provide evidence from a qualitative study with STEM students that took part in an earlier stage of the project. Students of the qualitative study were also invited to participate in the quantitative one but as this was an anonymous survey there was no control of participation.

Quantitative Study

The sample employed in the quantitative study is part of a larger sample that was gathered in the EU research project SESTEM in six European countries. Five hundred and sixty seven female university students in STEM fields participated in Germany. Ertl et al. (2014) analyze the entire German sample (including students in STEM areas without female underrepresentation) with a focus on motivation and the academic self-concept.

Participants

The present study focuses on a sub-sample of 296 female STEM-LPF students: females who studied one of these STEM subjects that have a proportion of equal to or lower than 30% females. This sample includes 296 students in subjects including mechanical engineering ( n = 97), computer sciences ( n = 48), physics ( n = 39), metal engineering ( n = 36), civil engineering ( n = 34), electrical engineering ( n = 32), and other STEM subjects ( n = 10).

A specific questionnaire was developed for the study. Items were deducted from theory and adapted for the field of the study. During this process, all six partners of the SESTEM project consortium brought in aspects within their field of expertise. Seeking and including expert judgment on the content of a questionnaire, on item formats, item contents, and scoring systems enhance content validity of a measurement instrument. Then, the consortium negotiated about the inclusion of the different scales weighting between satisfying the needs of the different partners, adopting existing scales, and keeping the questionnaire as short as possible for maintaining students' motivation for answering the questions. This resulted in a final questionnaire in an English language version, which was translated into further five national languages including German. These six language versions were implemented as a LimeSurvey multi language questionnaire. The students reported in this paper answered the German language version. They were asked about:

1. Their majors or the subject combination they had chosen for their degree. Based on the data from the German Federal Statistical Office [ Destatis (Statistisches Bundesamt), 2013 ], majors were classified with respect to the proportion of females.

2. Their parents' professions . These were classified according to whether they were from the field of STEM (coded as STEM/not STEM).

3. Their academic self-concept in STEM on a five-point Likert scale (4 items, see Table 1 ). Higher values indicate a more positive self-concept.

4. Their internalization of gender stereotypes was measured by three scales: interests (7 items), abilities (5 items), and conformance (2 items). Each of these scales was based on a five-point Likert scale (see Table 1 ). Higher values indicate stronger stereotypes.

5. School factors . Here the following variables/scales were measured: First, a score was derived from students' STEM favorites (derived from students' three most favorite subjects at school. Subjects from the field of STEM that are known for association as a “male domain” were summed up to a score. This means that the score includes subjects such as mathematics, physics, or computer sciences, but not subjects like biology). Higher values indicate more favorite STEM subjects. Second, STEM support in school was operationalized by teachers' and school activities that facilitated the interest in STEM (e.g., “Were there activities in secondary school that encouraged your interest in STEM?” These answers were also summed up and mapped onto a range between 0 and 5) with higher values indicating more support. Third, a five-point Likert scale regarding students' perception of teachers' stereotyped behavior (4 items, see Table 1 ).

6. Family factors with respect to family support. This was surveyed by different areas in which students may have received support and the persons that supported the students (e.g., “Who supported you in mathematics: father/mother?”) Answers were distinguished with respect to the supporting person and the supported field and summarized into a score for support by parents generally, as well as for support in specific areas (mathematics/science). These scores were mapped regarding their theoretical maxima and minima on a range between 0 and 1. Altogether three variables were derived: Parents' support in math, parents' support in STEM, and parents' general support. Higher values indicate stronger support.

Table 1. Overview on the scales used for the study with the number of items, an exemplary item, and the internal consistency .

Table 1 gives an overview of the different Likert scales including the number of items, an exemplary item, and the internal consistency of the scale. The reported consistency measures relate to the whole sample of 567 students. Missing items of single scales were imputed; missing scales were treated as missing. Table 2 provides an overview of all scales including their value range, their means, and their standard deviations.

Table 2. Ranges, means, and standard deviations for the reported scales .

Qualitative Study

The quantitative study was complemented by a qualitative study. It comprised interviews based on a semi-structured interview protocol (for the complete set-up of the qualitative studies see Mok and Ertl, 2011 ). Interviewees were contacted by personal contact, email, and via STEM-related distribution lists. A sample of 11 female students of STEM subjects like mathematics, physics, engineering, and STEM-related teacher training from three different universities participated in the qualitative study; five students studied a LPF subject (civil engineering n = 2, physics n = 3).

In the following, we will first report results of the quantitative study. The results section will first provide insights into the descriptive outcomes. Then it will describe the results of the confirmatory factor analysis for the factors of stereotypes, school, and family. It will finally present a structural equation model that provides insights into the impacts of each of the factors onto the students' academic self-concept in STEM and illustrate these afterwards by the interviews with these five students of the qualitative study.

Descriptive Statistics

Of the 296 students, nearly the half of the students (139) had a father working in a STEM profession, while more than 10% (31) had a mother in STEM.

Most students showed a very positive self-concept ( M = 4.58; the means described in the following relate to a scale of 1–5, with 1 as the lowest and 5 as the highest value). We could find distinctive occurrences with respect to the internalization of stereotypes between the students. The students agreed mostly that girls and boys have different interests ( M = 3.14). They agreed less about stereotypes regarding a stereotype distribution of abilities ( M = 2.20), and least of all about the need for conformance ( M = 1.64; see Table 2 ).

With respect to school factors, 26 students had three favorite subjects from STEM at school, 129 students two, 121 just one, while 20 had favorite non-STEM subjects ( M = 1.54). They received a moderate amount of STEM support in school ( M = 2.55 of a maximum of 5), and also perceived a moderate amount of stereotyped teacher behavior ( M = 2.51 of a maximum of 5).

Considering family factors, the amount of parents' support in math ( M = 0.15 of a maximum of 1) and STEM ( M = 0.14) was low. General support by the parents was low to medium ( M = 0.36).

To analyse the distribution of the data, we used the values of the skewness and kurtosis. West et al. (1995) set the criteria for indicators used in structural equation models at a value >2 for skewness and >7 for kurtosis for deviation from normal distribution. All scales meet the requirement of normal distribution.

Latent Regression Analysis

Latent regression analysis was used to test relationships between the variables in a multivariate, multiple regression context. Structural relationships between multiple dependent variables and multiple independent variables can be analyzed simultaneously. Regression analyses are specified at the latent level and are corrected for measurement error at the level of the independent and dependent variables. Latent regression analysis has the advantage that the relationship between variables in the regression model can be estimated more accurately. At least two manifest variables (or indicators) are required for each latent variable (factors) in a latent regression model ( Geiser, 2013 ). The data were analyzed with Mplus 6 using a maximum likelihood estimator. The goodness of fit of the data to the hypothesized model was assessed using the following indices: χ 2 /df, comparative fit index (CFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR).

The model fit indices suggest a good fit of the latent regression analysis model (χ 2 /df = 1.422; CFI = 0.979; RMSEA = 0.038; SRMR = 0.049). Generally, values of χ 2 /df <2, CFI > 0.95, RMSEA < 0.05, and SRMR < 0.05 are considered as indicators of good model fit ( Papousek et al., 2012 ).

Table 3 displays the standardized solutions for the latent regression analysis with three the factors of stereotypes, school, and family. Each factor comprises different variables that describe stereotypes rooted in the culture or encountered in school or the family.

Table 3. Standardized coefficients for the latent regression analysis .

The model shows that the three indicators of stereotypes about interests (β = 0.274), stereotypes about ability (β = 0.590), and stereotypes about conformance (β = 0.379) are positively related to the factor stereotypes. Three indicators are related to the factor school: STEM favorites in school (β = 0.614), school support (β = −0.326), and stereotyped teacher behavior (β = −0.274). The three indicators support in mathematics (β = 0.784), support in STEM (β = 0.806), and support by parents (β = 0.787) are high positively related to the latent factor family.

The regression coefficients between the three factors stereotypes, school, and family and self-concept in STEM of students show the following result: Students with higher levels of experienced stereotypes (e.g., females have fewer skills or interest in STEM subjects, females in STEM have to be like men) report lower self-concepts in STEM domains (β = −0.405). The model shows a moderate relationship between the latent factor school and students' self-concept (β = 0.279). Students who reported a higher number of favorite STEM subjects in school have a higher self-concept whereas higher levels of school support and teachers' stereotypes indicate a lower and less positive self-concept in STEM. There was a weak relationship between the latent factor family and the self-concept of students (β = −0.149, p = 0.053). A higher level of support (math, STEM, parents) indicates a lower self-concept. The total variance of self-concept that can be explained by the factors is R 2 = 0.304. Figure 1 gives an overview of indicators and factors of the latent regression analysis model.

Figure 1. Latent regression analysis self-concept .

Correlations between the three latent factors were allowed in the model specification. We found low to moderate, but non-significant correlations between the three latent factors.

Evidence from the Qualitative Study

The analysis of the qualitative study aims to illustrate the latent variables of the quantitative one. Students' statements can give evidence for the latent factors of the quantitative study with respect to the impact of stereotypes and family. School factors were just mentioned in a few words, e.g., that students had taken advanced courses in mathematics (I57) or physics (I30, I57) or that they had enjoyed mathematics in school (I54). We will present the English translation of the statements; the German original version can be found in the project report ( Mok and Ertl, 2011 ).

Impact of Stereotypes

With respect to the impact of stereotypes, students mentioned that they were taking an untypical career path and that their social environment was surprised by this kind of career choice. A civil engineering student mentioned that surprise with respect to her friends: “ They were quite surprised,” I54, L.99. She further elaborated this untypical career with respect to the lack of acceptance of women in the construction area: “ The problems are bigger for women [in STEM] e.g., to be accepted in particular in the construction domain. There you need particularly technical knowledge and you have to know how to behave,” I54, L.124ff. This aspect was also emphasized by I1: “ As a woman you'll be seen different in a technical profession,” I1, L.16f. These untypical career choices also result in a perceived lack of role models and contact persons, e.g., female professors (“ There are few female professors,” I30, L.69). Thus, also the interview data highlights that students are aware that they are studying an untypical subject and name surprise of their friends about their study choice, obstacles for working in the untypical field, as well as missing role models.

Family impact . With respect to family impact, all students mentioned either that their father (I1, I54, I57) and/or mother (I1, I54) is in a STEM profession (“Both of my parents are teachers but my father has also studied physics and got a diploma […],” I57, L.47f.)—or that their parents supported their specific interest in STEM, e.g., by books (I35) or electronic construction toys (“ That my parents had already impacts on me because I also had got electronics experiments kits as a child,” I30, L.19f.). Most parents, particularly those in a STEM field, encouraged their daughters' pursuing a STEM career: “ The parents enhance the STEM-career because they are working in this field themselves” (I1, L.41). Some students further elaborated their parents' pleasure at their daughters' career wish “ My father was happy for me and my mother too.” (I57, L.59).

Parents also supported their children in case of difficulties, e.g., with homework (“[…] I had the opportunity to ask my father of course if I had e.g., pretty problems in mathematics or physics and he was able to help me,” I54, L.28ff.) or by providing stimulating tasks (“My father had written a computer program that provided us arithmetic problems when we attended primary school,” I57, L.36f.).

Yet, some students also described that their parents were doubtful about their ability for pursuing a STEM career (“My dad told me afterwards that he hadn't thought that this is the right thing for me […] because I have an already an understanding for logical relations but I have not an all-embracing one,” I54, L.105ff.) or that they questioned their decision (“my father appreciated my decision but my mother mentioned—although she was also working in the STEM field herself—that I should really think about my decision.” I35, L.56f.).

The results of the interviews stress the ambiguity of the family factor: Firstly, all parents had a STEM-affine background. They could provide content-specific support and foster their daughters' cognitive development in STEM. However, such support may also evoke an attribution of lower abilities in STEM. For example, one participant first mentioned that her father was very helpful when dealing with problems in STEM—but later she described how her father didn't trust her the ability for pursuing a STEM career. Thus, parents' support may be connected to implicit assumptions about their daughters' ability and these assumptions may influence their daughters' academic self-concept in STEM.

The results of the quantitative study were able to show that the model presented is appropriate for explaining students' self-concept. This is indicated by the good model fit indices, as well as by the amount of explained variance: The model explains 30.4% of the total variance of students' self-concept, which is nearly a third of the variance. Results of the qualitative study could furthermore give insights how to interpret the effects of the latent variables. In the following, we will discuss the relationships between stereotypes, school, and family factors, the self-concept, as well as the limitations of the study.

Relationships Between Stereotypes, School, and Family Factors, and the Self-Concept

All three facets of stereotypes (stereotypes about females' abilities, interests, and need for conformance) contributed negatively to the academic self-concept. Remarkably, stereotypes regarding females' abilities in STEM subjects were most strongly related to their self-concept. This is particularly important because the females of this study were already studying a so-called “male” STEM-LPF subject. The descriptive data showed that even these students share stereotypes, indicating that stereotypes even affect students who are already enrolled in a very gender-untypical course of study. Stereotypes about a need for conformance in the work environment and the different interests of females and males also contributed to the factor stereotypes. Also, result from the qualitative study indicate that there is a special need to behave in the domain. This result is of particular interest because it means that the STEM-LPF students acknowledge different interests of females and males, while they at the same time see the context of the “male” work environment and the need for showing conformance. They appear to use conformance to the work environment as a part of their identity construction (see Kessels and Hannover, 2004 , p. 400). This may also be an aspect of identity bifurcation (see Pronin et al., 2004 ) in how females in these subjects disavow some of their own characteristics that are, stereotypically, negatively associated with success in STEM careers.

In contrast, the three indicators of the latent factor school differ in their contribution. Students' favorite subjects in school, which could be seen as an indicator of their interest in STEM, or beneficial role modeling by teachers, were positively related to the self-concept. This stresses the importance of school factors for career choice. These may relate to interesting and gender-sensitive classes ( Faulstich-Wieland et al., 2008 ; Ertl and Helling, 2011 ), role modeling ( Kessels and Hannover, 2008 ), and providing appropriate attribution patterns ( Dresel et al., 2007 ). However, specific support at school and teachers' stereotypes had a negative relationship with the factors of school and self-concept. Teacher stereotypes, e.g., teachers encouraging boys to choose STEM subjects more strongly than girls, can be seen as a specific occurrence of the stereotype threat with the respective consequences (e.g., Good et al., 2008 ; Owens and Massey, 2011 ). It's fairly obvious that these kinds of actions provide a counterpart to students' interests in STEM. In contrast, teachers supporting their female students have the intention that they make further progress in STEM subjects. Nevertheless, these activities may in fact run counter to their interests in STEM, which may be the result of different reasons: The first aspect relates to the development of the self-concept in STEM. If students receive special support in STEM, they may interpret this action as a compensation for their lacking ability and therefore reduce their self-concept ( Pomerantz and Eaton, 2001 ). This is certainly the case when students receive intrusive support (see Bhanot and Jovanovic, 2005 ). From this line of argumentation, it is essential to investigate methods and implementations of support that are not detrimental to a students' self-concept. This result might also be explained by the “doing gender” approach: When giving specific support to females in STEM, their gender will be overemphasized, evoking a stronger identification with the stereotyped group of females in STEM (see Faulstich-Wieland et al., 2008 ). What this means is that supporting activities may in fact unfold their detrimental effects via two different mechanisms: one by giving supported students the message that their individual ability is not sufficient enough to succeed without support; and the other by overemphasizing their affiliation to a stereotyped target group.

Family factors were negatively related to the students' self-concepts, i.e., they impair a positive self-concept. This factor consisted of support by the parents and support in mathematics and STEM. Notably, all three aspects showed rather dysfunctional effects. With respect to family factors, the qualitative study could provide a several hints for interpretation. All students mentioned that their parents were very helpful and supportive. However, one student explicitly mentioned her father attributing her as not gifted enough for a STEM career while giving her support. This is in line with research about intrusive support patterns that are detrimental to a student's self-concept (see Bhanot and Jovanovic, 2005 ). Furthermore, one student reported her mother encouraging her to re-think her career decision for STEM which stresses the impact of significant others in career decisions (see also Xu, 2016 ).

The results generally suggest that the school environment provides more positive impacts than the family. This may relate to the different attribution patterns of teachers and parents ( Dresel et al., 2007 ). Teachers can provide much better attribution patterns in the context of the reference frame of a class's performance than parents who are primarily focused on their child with their beliefs as the key frame of reference. This stresses the need to focus on both school as well as on home environments as essential factors in facilitating students' self-concept (see also Eccles and Wang, 2016 ).

Limitations

A strength of this study lies in the more ecological approach as foreseen in the Bronfenbrenner (1977) model. This approach provided more insights into stereotypes as well as interactions at school and at home. It at the same time included a major challenge for research that relates to the issue of how the study variables were self-reported by the students, with some of the variables even being reported retrospectively. It would have been desirable to research these issues in a longitudinal design in an effort to achieve greater insight into causal relations and the development process of stereotypes, interests, achievements, and the individuals' self-concepts. However, such a design would raise the issue of the necessary sample size at the primary school level to gain the respective number of students at the university level. A further aspect relates to the implementation of the Bronfenbrenner (1977) model in the latent regression analysis. Here, it would have been desirable to provide more interactions between the different levels this model proposes, even though such an approach would also require a longitudinal study design. In contrast, our research can provide insights into different dimensions influencing a STEM-LPF student's self-concept.

Implications

The results of the study provide important aspects for science education. Even though the students participating in the study almost certainly had good grades in STEM, stereotypes still corrupted their self-concept. One of the reasons for this might lie in stereotypes that attribute achievements of girls to diligence instead of talent (see Kessels, 2015 ). STEM subjects, particularly these with a low proportion of females, are stereotyped as requiring an extremely high level of talent to succeed. Good grades, although they are seen as a prerequisite for a STEM-LPF course of study (see Ihsen, 2009 ), are not sufficient to support a self-concept necessary for females to choose STEM-LPF subjects. This means that even students with good grades need support in developing efficient attributes for success ( Ziegler, 2002 ; Dresel et al., 2007 ). This may be implemented e.g., via support for a student's decision about what to study (see Ertl et al., 2014 ). This kind of support provides the implicit attribution pattern that a female student is “gifted enough” to study a male-associated STEM subject (see Dresel et al., 2007 ) and could thereby be seen as a specific method for strengthening an individual's self-concept. It can also be seen from a systemic point of view as an example of appropriate role modeling when it opens perspectives for identification with a subject or with a professional within a subject (see Hannover and Kessels, 2004 ).

A further aspect relates to interests at school. These may positively influence students' self-concepts and career choices if they have the chance to recognize a STEM subject as their favorite. This stresses the need for gender-sensitive teaching and a careful attention to gender-specific group processes in the classroom (see Ertl, 2010 ). Didactic measures that incite interest are, for example, hands-on activities that are oriented toward the students (see Paechter et al., 2006 ), or research clubs that allow students to obtain actual experiences about STEM-LPF professions (see Prenzel et al., 2009 ). The results of the last PISA studies confirm these results and assumptions while pointing out the necessity to overcome gender gaps and support females' interest in STEM subjects ( OECD, 2016 ).

Direct support, particularly by parents, had a negative impact in the present study. This result suggests that activities that are meant to support students directly may achieve the opposite effect and transport stereotypes instead (see e.g., Tiedemann, 2000 ). This stresses the need for indirect support during socialization, e.g., by providing opportunities for children to have positive experiences ( Sonnert, 2009 ) or by giving them the chance to meet role models who are enthusiastic about their STEM professions (see e.g., Mok and Ertl, 2011 ). One particular aspect of this may lie in the provision of mentoring programs (see Stein, 2013 ) that allow students to accompany their mentors over a longer period of time.

Ethics Statement

The study was performed in accordance with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and the American Psychological Association's Ethics Code. Review and approval was not required for this study in accordance with the national and institutional requirements. Participants gave consent to participate in the study at the beginning of the qualitative interviews and by submitting the online questionnaire for the quantitative study.

Author Contributions

All authors listed, have made substantial, direct and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.

Parts of this paper were funded by the EU (LLP-Program, Project SESTEM 505437-llp-2009-GR-KA1-KA1SCR).

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

Particular acknowledgments to Ms. Sog Yee Mok for her support in implementing this study.

Adya, M., and Kaiser, K. M. (2005). Early determinants of women in the IT workforce: a model of girls' career choices. Inf. Technol. People 18, 230–259. doi: 10.1108/09593840510615860

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Beermann, L., Heller, K. A., and Menacher, P. (1992). Mathe: Nichts für Mädchen? Begabung und Geschlecht am Beispiel von Mathematik, Naturwissenschaft und Technik . Bern: Verlag Hans Huber.

Google Scholar

Bhanot, R., and Jovanovic, J. (2005). Do parents' academic gender stereotypes influence whether they intrude on their children's homework? Sex Roles 52, 597–607. doi: 10.1007/s11199-005-3728-4

Bleeker, M. M., and Jacobs, J. E. (2004). Achievement in Math and Science: do Mothers' beliefs matter 12 years later? J. Educ. Psychol. 96, 97–109. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.97

Blickenstaff, J. C. (2005). Women and science careers: leaky pipeline or gender filter? Gend. Educ. 17, 369–386. doi: 10.1080/09540250500145072

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Towards an experimental ecology of human development. Am. Psychol. 32, 513–531. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513

Buchmann, M., Kriesi, I., Pfeifer, A., and Sacchi, S. (2002). Halb Drinnen—Halb Draußen. Zur Arbeitsmarktintegration von Frauen in der Schweiz . Zürich: Rüegger Verlag.

CEWS (Center of excellence women and science). (2014). Studentinnenanteil in Mathematik/Naturwissenschaften und Ingenieurwissenschaften (ISCED 5-6) im Internationalen Vergleich (2011). Available online at: http://www.gesis.org/cews/fileadmin/cews/www/statistiken/08_d.gif

Destatis (Statistisches Bundesamt). (2013). Bildung und Kultur. Studierende an Hochschulen. Wintersemester 2012/2013 . Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt.

Dickhäuser, O., and Meyer, W.-U. (2006). Gender differences in young children's math ability attributions. Psychol. Sci. 48, 3–16.

Dresel, M., Schober, B., and Ziegler, A. (2007). Golem und “Pygmalion. Scheitert die Chancengleichheit von Mädchen im mathematisch-naturwissenschaftlich-technischen Bereich am geschlechtsstereotypen Denken der Eltern?,” in Erwartungen in Himmelblau und Rosarot. Effekte, Determinanten und Konsequenzen von Geschlechterdifferenzen in der Schule , eds P. H. Ludwig and H. Ludwig (Weinheim: Juventa), 61–81.

Eccles, J. S., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L., et al. (1983). “Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors,” in Achievement and Achievement Motives , ed J. T. Spence (San Francisco, CA: Freeman), 75–146.

Eccles, J. S., and Wang, M. T. (2016). What motivates females and males to pursue careers in mathematics and science? Int. J. Behav. Dev. 40, 100–106. doi: 10.1177/0165025415616201

Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., and Linn, M. C. (2010). Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 136, 103–127. doi: 10.1037/a0018053

Engeser, S., Limbert, N., and Kehr, H. (2008). Abschlussbericht zur Untersuchung Studienwahl Informatik . Available online at: http://www.psy.wi.tum.de/Docs/Studienwahl_Informatik-Abschlussbericht.pdf

Ertl, B. (ed.). (2010). Good Practice Guidelines - Part II: Facilitation Methods. München: Projekt PREDIL.

Ertl, B., and Helling, K. (2011). Promoting gender equality in digital literacy. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 45, 477–503. doi: 10.2190/EC.45.4.f

Ertl, B., Luttenberger, S., and Paechter, M. (2014). Stereotype als Einflussfaktoren auf die Motivation und die Einschätzung der eigenen Fähigkeiten bei Studentinnen in MINT-Fächern [Stereotypes as influence factors on motivation and self-concept of female students in STEM subjects.]. Gruppendyn. Organ. 45, 419–440. doi: 10.1007/s11612-014-0261-3

European Commission (2015). She Figures 2015 . Available online at: https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_gender_equality/she_figures_2015-final.pdf

Faulstich-Wieland, H., Willems, K., Feltz, N., Freese, U., and Läzer, K. L. (Eds.) (2008). Genus—Geschlechtergerechter Naturwissenschaftlicher Unterricht in der Sekundarstufe I . Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.

Geiser, C. (2013). Data Analysis with Mplus . New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Good, C., Aronson, J., and Harder, J. A. (2008). Problems in the pipeline: stereotype threat and women's achievement in high-level math courses. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 29, 17–28. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2007.10.004

Gunderson, E. A., Ramirez, G., Levine, S. C., and Beilock, S. L. (2012). The role of parents and teachers in the development of gender-related math attitudes. Sex Roles 66, 153–166. doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-9996-2

Hannover, B., and Kessels, U. (2004). Self-to-prototype matching as a strategy for making academic choices. Why High School students do not like math and science. Learn. Instr. 14, 51–67. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2003.10.002

Heckhausen, H. (1989). Motivation und Handeln, 2nd Edn . Berlin: Springer.

Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations . New York, NY: Wiley.

Heller, K. A., and Ziegler, A. (1996). Gender differences in mathematics and the sciences: can attributional retraining improve the performance of gifted females? Gifted Child Quart. 40, 200–210. doi: 10.1177/001698629604000405

Ihsen, S. (2009). “Spurensuche. Entscheidungskriterien für Natur- bzw. Ingenieurwissenschaften und mögliche Ursachen für frühe Studienabbrüche von Frauen und Männern an den TU9-Universitäten,” in Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, EU, Europäischer Sozialfonds für (Deutschland: TUM).

Jahnke-Klein, S. (2006). “Mathematik, Informatik, Naturwissenschaften und Technik—(immer noch) nichts für Mädchen?,” in Gender und Schule. Geschlechterverhältnisse in Theorie und schulischer Praxis , eds S. Jösting and M. Seemann (Oldenburg: Bis-Verlag), 97–120.

Jurik, V., Gröschner, A., and Seidel, T. (2013). How student characteristics affect girls' and boys' verbal engagement in physics instruction. Learn. Instr. 23, 33–42. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.09.002

Kessels, U. (2015). Bridging the gap by enhancing the fit: how stereotypes about STEM clash with stereotypes about girls. Int. J. Gend. Sci. Technol. 7, 280–296.

Kessels, U., and Hannover, B. (2004). “Entwicklung schulischer Interessen als Identitätsregulation,” in Bildungsqualität von Schule: Lehrerprofessionalisierung, Unterrichtsentwicklung und Schülerförderung als Strategien der Qualitätsverbesserung , eds J. Doll and M. Prenzel (Münster: Waxmann), 398–412.

Kessels, U., and Hannover, B. (2008). When being a girl matters less: accessibility of gender-related self-knowledge in single-sex and coeducational classes and its impact on students' physics-related self-concept of ability. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 78, 273–289. doi: 10.1348/000709907X215938

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kiefer, A., and Shih, M. (2006). Gender differences in persistence and attributions in stereotype relevant contexts. Sex Roles 54, 859–868. doi: 10.1007/s11199-006-9051-x

Lazarides, R., and Ittel, A. (2012). “Unterrichtsmerkmale, mathematisches Fähigkeitsselbstkonzept und individuelles Unterrichtsinteresse” in Differenzierung im Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht , eds R. Lazarides and A. Ittel. (Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt), 167–186.

Ludwig, P. H. (2010). “Schulische Erfolgserwartungen und Begabungsselbstbilder bei Mädchen – Strategien ihrer Veränderung,” in Handbuch Mädchen-Pädagogik , eds M. Matzner and I. Wyrobnik (Weinheim: Beltz), 145–158.

Macher, D., Papousek, I., Ruggeri, K., and Paechter, M. (2015). Statistics anxiety and performance: blessings in disguise. Front. Psychol. 6:1116. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01116

Marsh, H. W., and Scalas, L. F. (2011). “Self-concept in learning: reciprocal effects model between academic self-concept and academic achievement,” in Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning , ed S. Järvela (Amsterdam: Elsevier), 191–197.

Martignon, L. (2010). “Mädchen und Mathematik,” in Handbuch Mädchen-Pädagogik , eds M. Matzner and I. Wyrobnik (Weinheim: Beltz), 220–232.

Mok, S. Y., and Ertl, B. (2011). National Report Germany: Synthesis of Qualitative and Quantitative Studies. Available online at: https://www.unibw.de/hum/dfb/llm/personen/ertl/sestem/ergebnisse/empirical-report-on-qualitative-and-quantitative-results-germany

Möller, J., and Köller, O. (1996). “Attributionen und Schulleistung,” in Emotionen, Kognitionen und Schulleistung , eds J. Möller and O. Köller (Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union), 115–136.

Nosek, B. A., Smyth, F. L., Sriram, N., Lindner, N. M., Devos, T., Ayala, A., et al. (2009). National differences in gender-science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106, 10593–10597. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0809921106

OECD (2015). The ABC of Gender Equality in Education: Aptitude, Behaviour, Confidence . Paris: OECD Publishing.

OECD (2016). PISA 2015: PISA Results in Focus . Paris: OECD Publishing.

Owens, J., and Massey, D. S. (2011). Stereotype threat and college academic performance: a latent variables approach. Soc. Sci. Res. 40, 150–166. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.09.010

Paechter, M., Jones, M. G., Tretter, T., Bokinsky, A., Kubasko, D., Negishi, A., et al. (2006). “Hands-on in science education: multimedia instruction that is appealing to female and male students,” in multimedia Applications in Education , eds D. Grabe and L. Zimmermann (Graz: FH Joanneum), 78–85.

Paechter, M., Rebmann, K., Schloemer, T., Mokwinski, B., Hanekamp, Y., and Arendasy, M. (2013). Development of the Oldenburg Epistemic Beliefs Questionnaire (OLEQ), a German questionnaire based on the Epistemic Belief Inventory (EBI). Curr. Issues Educ. 16, 100–110.

Papousek, I., Ruggeri, K., Macher, D., Paechter, M., Heene, M., Weiss, E. M., et al. (2012). Psychometric evaluation and experimental validation of the Statistics Anxiety Rating Scale. J. Person. Assess. 94, 82–91. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2011.627959

Pomerantz, E. M., and Eaton, M. M. (2001). Maternal intrusive support in the academic context: transactional socialization processes. Dev. Psychol. 37, 174–186. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.37.2.174

Prenzel, M., Reiss, K., and Hasselhorn, M. (2009). “Förderung der Kompetenzen von Kindern und Jugendlichen,” in Förderung des Nachwuchses in Technik und Naturwissenschaft. Beiträge zu den zentralen Handlungsfeldern ed J. Milberg (Heidelberg: Springer), 15–60.

Pronin, E., Steele, C. M., and Ross, L. (2004). Identity bifurcation in respone to stereotype threat: women and mathematics. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 40, 152–168. doi: 10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00088-X

Rost, D. H., Sparfeldt, J. R., Dickhäuser, O., and Schilling, S. R. (2005). Dimensional comparisons in subject-specific academic self-concepts and achievements: a quasi-experimental approach. Learn. Instr. 15, 557–570. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.08.003

Schuster, C., and Martiny, S. E. (2017). Not feeling good in STEM: effects of stereotype activation and anticipated affect on women's career aspirations. Sex Roles 76, 40–55. doi: 10.1007/s11199-016-0665-3

Senler, B., and Sungur, S. (2009). Parental influences on students' self-concept, task value beliefs, and achievement in science. Span. J. Psychol. 12, 106–117. doi: 10.1017/S1138741600001529

Shapiro, J. R., and Williams, A. M. (2012). The role of stereotype threats in undermining girls' and women's performance and interest in STEM fields. Sex Roles 66, 175–183. doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-0051-0

Sonnert, G. (2009). Parents who influence their children to become scientists: effects of gender and parental education. Soc. Stud. Sci. 39, 927–941. doi: 10.1177/0306312709335843

Stein, M. (2013). “Von Paten und Lotsen. Coaching- und Mentorenprogramme in der Studien- und Berufsorientierung,” in Berufsorientierung. Ein Lehr- und Arbeitsbuch , ed T. Brüggemann and S. Rahn (Münster: Waxmann Studium), 271–280.

Su, R., and Rounds, J. (2015). All STEM fields are not created equal: people and things interests explain gender disparities across STEM fields. Front. Psychol. 6:189. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00189

Tiedemann, J. (2000). Parents' gender stereotypes and teachers' beliefs as predictors of children's concept of their mathematical ability in elementary school. J. Educ. Psychol. 92, 144–151. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.92.1.144

Viljaranta, J., Lazarides, R., Aunola, K., Räikkönen, E., and Nurmi, J.-E. (2015). The role of parental beliefs in the development of interest and importance value of mathematics and literacy from Grade 7 to Grade 9. Int. J. Gend. Sci. Technol. 7, 297–317.

Wang, M.-T., Degol, J., and Ye, F. (2015). Math achievement is important, but task values are critical, too: examining the intellectual and motivational factors leading to gender disparities in STEM careers. Front. Psychol. 6:36. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00036

West, S. G., Finch, J. F., and Curran, P. J. (1995). “Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: problems and remedies,” in Structural Equation Modeling , ed R. H. Hoyle (London: Sage), 56–77.

Xu, Y. J. (2016). Aspirations and application for graduate education: gender differences in low-participation STEM disciplines. Res. High. Educ. 57, 913–942. doi: 10.1007/s11162-016-9411-5

Ziegler, A. (2002). “Reattributionstrainings: Auf der Suche nach den Quellen der Geschlechtsunterschiede im MNT-Bereich,” in Hoch begabte Mädchen und Frauen. Begabungsentwicklung und Geschlechterunterschiede. Tagungsbericht , ed H. Wagner (Bad Honnef: Verlag Karl Heinrich Bock), 85–97.

Keywords: female STEM students, impacts, self-concept, stereotypes, support

Citation: Ertl B, Luttenberger S and Paechter M (2017) The Impact of Gender Stereotypes on the Self-Concept of Female Students in STEM Subjects with an Under-Representation of Females. Front. Psychol . 8:703. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00703

Received: 11 January 2017; Accepted: 21 April 2017; Published: 17 May 2017.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2017 Ertl, Luttenberger and Paechter. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Bernhard Ertl, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

How Gender Stereotypes Kill a Woman’s Self-Confidence

Women make up more than half of the labor force in the United States and earn almost 60 percent of advanced degrees, yet they bring home less pay and fill fewer seats in the C-suite than men, particularly in male-dominated professions like finance and technology.

This gender gap is due in part to “occupational sorting,” with men choosing careers that pay higher wages than women do, labor economists say. For example, women represent only 26 percent of US workers employed in computer and math jobs, according to the Department of Labor.

New research identifies one reason women might be shying away from certain professions: They lack confidence in their ability to compete in fields that men are stereotypically believed to perform more strongly in, such as science, math, and technology.

Women are also more reluctant to share their ideas in group discussions on these subjects. And even when they have talent—and are actually told they are high-achievers in these subjects—women are more likely than men to shrug off the praise and lowball their own abilities.

This weak self-confidence may hold some women back as they count themselves out of pursuing prestigious roles in professions they believe they won’t excel in, despite having the skills to succeed, says Harvard Business School Assistant Professor Katherine B. Coffman .

“Our beliefs about ourselves are important in shaping all kinds of important decisions, such as what colleges we apply to, which career paths we choose, and whether we are willing to contribute ideas in the workplace or try to compete for a promotion,” Coffman says. “If talented women in STEM aren’t confident, they might not even look at those fields in the first place. It’s all about how good we think we are, especially when we ask ourselves, ‘What does it make sense for me to pursue?’”

Coffman has recently co-written an article in the American Economic Review as well as two working papers, all aimed at studying men’s and women’s beliefs about their own abilities.

“Women are more likely than men to shrug off the praise and lowball their own abilities.”

What she found, in essence, is that gender stereotypes distort our views of both ourselves and others—and that may be especially troubling for women, since buying into those stereotypes could be creating a bleak self-image that is setting them back professionally.

Here’s a snapshot of findings from all three research studies:

Women are less confident than men in certain subjects, like math

In a study for the journal article Beliefs about Gender , Coffman and her colleagues asked participants to answer multiple-choice trivia questions in several categories that women are perceived to have a better handle on, like the Kardashians, Disney movies, cooking, art and literature, and verbal skills. Then they were quizzed in categories considered favorable for men, such as business, math, videogames, cars, and sports.

Respondents were asked to estimate how many questions they answered correctly on tests, and to guess the performance of a random partner whose gender was revealed. Both men and women exaggerated the actual gender performance gaps on average, overstating the male advantage in male-typed domains as well as overstating the female advantage in female-typed questions. And in predicting their own abilities, women had much less confidence in their scores on the tests they believed men had an advantage in.

“Gender stereotypes determine people’s beliefs about themselves and others,” Coffman says. “If I take a woman who has the exact same ability in two different categories—verbal and math—just the fact that there’s an average male advantage in math shapes her belief that her own ability in math is lower.”

Women discount positive feedback about their abilities

In an experiment for Coffman’s working paper Stereotypes and Belief Updating , participants completed a timed test of cognitive ability in five areas: general science, arithmetic reasoning, math knowledge, mechanical comprehension, and assembling objects. They were asked to guess their total number of correct answers, as well as how their performance compared to others. A woman who actually had the same score as a man estimated her score to be 0.58 points lower, a statistically significant gap. Even more surprising, even after participants were provided with feedback about how they performed, this gender gap in how well they perceived they did continued.

In a second study participants were asked to guess how they performed on a test in a randomly assigned subject matter and to predict their own rank relative to others completing the same test. The researchers then provided participants with feedback about their performance. They found that both men and women discounted good news about their scores in subjects that their gender was perceived to have more trouble with.

Stereotypes play on our minds so strongly that it becomes tougher to convince people of their talent in fields where they believe their gender is weak, Coffman says.

“A policy prescription to correct a confidence gap in women might be: Let’s find talented women and tell them, ‘Hey, you’re good at math. You got a really good score on this math test,'" she says. “But our results suggest that this feedback is less effective in closing the gender gap than we might hope. It’s harder than we thought to convince women in male-typed fields that they’ve performed well in these fields.”

It’s unclear whether women would feel better about their abilities if they received repeated rounds of positive feedback, rather than one piece of good news. “I’d be interested to find out if the gender bias gets smaller over time, once a woman has heard that she’s good at math over and over again,” Coffman says. “You might have to encourage women a few times if you want to close these gaps.”

"Our work suggests a need for structuring group decision-making in a way that assures the most talented members both volunteer and are recognized for their contributions, despite gender stereotypes.”

It's important to note, Coffman says, that these studies also show that men have less confidence than women in their ability to shine in fields dominated by women. “It’s not that women are simply less confident; what we find consistently is that individuals are less confident in fields that are more stereotypically outside of their gender’s domain,” Coffman says.

Women hold back on expressing ideas on ‘male topics’

In a third paper, Gender Stereotypes in Deliberation and Team Decisions, Coffman and colleagues studied how teams discuss, decide on, and reward ideas in a group.

The research team compared the behavior of two groups that had free-form discussions in response to questions that varied in the amount of “maleness” of the topic. In one group, the gender of each participant was known, and in the other group, the gender of speakers was not identifiable. They found that men and women had the same ability to answer the questions, yet once again, gender stereotypes warped people’s responses.

As the “maleness” of the question increased, women were significantly less likely than men to self-promote their ideas within the group when their gender was known, particularly in cases where only one woman was talking with a bunch of men. But in the groups where gender was unknown, no gender differences were found in terms of how much women and men talked up their ideas or were recognized by others for their input.

The researchers even found that stereotypes seemed to play a role in the way outside evaluators rated the contributions of each group member after reading transcripts of the conversations. Without knowing the gender of speakers, these evaluators were significantly more likely to guess that participants who came across in the transcripts as “warm,” or friendly, were female and that a negative or critical participant was male—even though researchers found no actual differences in how men and women in the group communicated. Male raters also were significantly less likely to believe that speakers who were judged as “competent” were female. In addition, warmer participants, particularly warmer women, were less likely to be rewarded for their input in the discussions.

Speak up for success

To achieve professional success, people must voice opinions and advocate for their ideas while working in decision-making teams, so it’s a problem if women are staying quiet when it comes to male-typed subjects—and if their ideas are appreciated less when they do express them, Coffman says.

“Our work suggests a need for structuring group decision-making in a way that assures the most talented members both volunteer and are recognized for their contributions, despite gender stereotypes,” the paper says.

It’s also important for managers to be aware of how confidence gaps may impact the workplace, particularly in professions long dominated by men, and to realize that women may need extra encouragement to express their ideas or to throw their hat in the ring for a promotion, Coffman says.

“I would encourage business leaders to think about how [workers’ confidence levels] impact the processes in their organizations,” Coffman says. “I would say providing extra feedback is a good start. If you as an employer see talent somewhere, reaching out to make sure the person is encouraged, recognized, and rewarded—not just once, but repeatedly—could be a helpful thing to do.”

With this new data on gender stereotyping, Coffman and her colleagues hope their work will help inform future research to piece together answers to some puzzling questions, like why men and women alike believe that men will perform better than women in some domains and what interventions can be considered to close this gender gap in self-confidence.

“Stereotypes are pervasive, widely-held views that shape beliefs about our own and others’ abilities, likely from a very young age,” Coffman says. “Until we can change these stereotypes, it’s essential to think about how we can better inoculate individuals from biases induced by stereotypes, helping people to pursue fulfilling careers in the areas where their passions and talents lie.”

Dina Gerdeman is senior editor at Harvard Business School Working Knowledge.

Image: Willbrasil21

Related Reading:

Women Receive Harsher Punishment at Work Than Men Sponsorship Programs Could Actually Widen the Gender Gap Gender-Diverse Companies Thrive Only Where Diversity is Embraced

Related reading from the Working Knowledge Archives

Women at Work

What do you think of this research?

How much intuition goes into your own decision making? Share your insights below.

• 01 Apr 2024
• In Practice

Navigating the Mood of Customers Weary of Price Hikes

• 02 Apr 2024
• What Do You Think?

What's Enough to Make Us Happy?

• 24 Jan 2024

Why Boeing’s Problems with the 737 MAX Began More Than 25 Years Ago

• Research & Ideas

Employees Out Sick? Inside One Company's Creative Approach to Staying Productive

• 25 Jan 2022

More Proof That Money Can Buy Happiness (or a Life with Less Stress)

• Equality and Inequality
• Organizational Culture
• Groups and Teams
• Prejudice and Bias

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Stereotypes and Gender Roles

Many of our gender stereotypes are strong because we emphasize gender so much in culture (Bigler & Liben, 2007). For example, children learn at a young age that there are distinct expectations for boys and girls. Gender roles refer to the role or behaviors learned by a person as appropriate to their gender and are determined by the dominant cultural norms. Cross-cultural studies reveal that children are aware of gender roles by age two or three and can label others’ gender and sort objects into gender categories. At four or five, most children are firmly entrenched in culturally appropriate gender roles (Kane, 1996). When children do not conform to the appropriate gender role for their culture, they may face negative sanctions such as being criticized, bullied, marginalized or rejected by their peers. A girl who wishes to take karate class instead of dance lessons may be called a “tomboy” and face difficulty gaining acceptance from both male and female peer groups (Ready, 2001). Boys, especially, are subject to intense ridicule for gender nonconformity (Coltrane and Adams, 2008; Kimmel, 2000)

By the time we are adults, our gender roles are a stable part of our personalities, and we usually hold many gender stereotypes. Men tend to outnumber women in professions such as law enforcement, the military, and politics. Women tend to outnumber men in care-related occupations such as child care, health care, and social work. These occupational roles are examples of typical Western male and female behavior, derived from our culture’s traditions. Adherence to these occupational gender roles demonstrates fulfillment of social expectations but may not necessarily reflect personal preference (Diamond, 2002).

Gender stereotypes are not unique to American culture. Williams and Best (1982) conducted several cross-cultural explorations of gender stereotypes using data collected from 30 cultures. There was a high degree of agreement on stereotypes across all cultures which led the researchers to conclude that gender stereotypes may be universal. Additional research found that males tend to be associated with stronger and more active characteristics than females (Best, 2001); however recent research argues that culture shapes how some gender stereotypes are perceived. Researchers found that across cultures, individualistic traits were viewed as more masculine; however, collectivist cultures rated masculine traits as collectivist and not individualist (Cuddy et al., 2015). These findings provide support that gender stereotypes may be moderated by cultural values.

There are two major psychological theories that partially explain how children form their own gender roles after they learn to differentiate based on gender. Gender schema theory argues that children are active learners who essentially socialize themselves and actively organize others’ behavior, activities, and attributes into gender categories, which are known as schemas . These schemas then affect what children notice and remember later. People of all ages are more likely to remember schema-consistent behaviors and attributes than schema-inconsistent behaviors and attributes. So, people are more likely to remember men, and forget women, who are firefighters. They also misremember schema-inconsistent information. If research participants are shown pictures of someone standing at the stove, they are more likely to remember the person to be cooking if depicted as a woman, and the person to be repairing the stove if depicted as a man. By only remembering schema-consistent information, gender schemas strengthen more and more over time.

A second theory that attempts to explain the formation of gender roles in children is social learning theory which argues that gender roles are learned through reinforcement, punishment, and modeling. Children are rewarded and reinforced for behaving in concordance with gender roles and punished for breaking gender roles. In addition, social learning theory argues that children learn many of their gender roles by modeling the behavior of adults and older children and, in doing so, develop ideas about what behaviors are appropriate for each gender. Social learning theory has less support than gender schema theory but research shows that parents do reinforce gender-appropriate play and often reinforce cultural gender norms.

Gender Roles and Culture

Hofstede’s (2001) research revealed that on the Masculinity and Femininity dimension (MAS), cultures with high masculinity reported distinct gender roles, moralistic views of sexuality and encouraged passive roles for women. Additionally, these cultures discourage premarital sex for women but have no such restrictions for men. The cultures with the highest masculinity scores were: Japan, Italy, Austria and Venezuela. Cultures low in masculinity (high femininity) had gender roles that were more likely to overlap and encouraged more active roles for women. Sex before marriage was seen as acceptable for both women and men in these cultures. Four countries scoring lowest in masculinity were Norway, Denmark, Netherlands and Sweden. The United States is slightly more masculine than feminine on this dimension; however, these aspects of high masculinity are balanced by a need for individuality.

Culture and Psychology Copyright © 2020 by L D Worthy; T Lavigne; and F Romero is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Home — Essay Samples — Sociology — Sociology of Gender — Gender Stereotypes

Essays on Gender Stereotypes

Gender stereotypes have been a prevalent issue in society for decades, influencing the way individuals are perceived and treated based on their gender. As such, it's a crucial topic for discussion and analysis in academic settings. When it comes to writing an essay on gender stereotypes, choosing the right topic is essential for producing an impactful piece of work. In this article, we'll explore the importance of the topic, provide advice on selecting a suitable essay topic, and offer a detailed list of recommended topics, divided by category.

The subject of gender stereotypes is significant as it directly impacts individuals' lives, shaping their opportunities, experiences, and self-perception. By addressing gender stereotypes in essays, students can contribute to the ongoing conversation about equality and challenge societal norms. Furthermore, exploring this topic can help individuals develop a deeper understanding of how gender stereotypes manifest in various aspects of life, such as education, the workplace, media, and relationships.

Advice on Choosing a Topic

When selecting a gender stereotypes essay topic, it's essential to consider personal interests, research opportunities, and the potential for making a meaningful impact. It's advisable to choose a topic that aligns with one's passion and allows for in-depth exploration. Additionally, students should assess the availability of scholarly resources and data related to the chosen topic to ensure a well-supported argument.

Recommended Gender Stereotypes Essay Topics Essay Topics

• The impact of gender stereotypes on academic performance
• Gender bias in STEM education
• Exploring the portrayal of gender roles in school textbooks
• The influence of teachers' gender stereotypes on students' learning experiences
• Gender stereotypes and the gender pay gap
• Challenges faced by women in male-dominated industries
• Leadership roles and gender bias in corporate environments
• The effects of gender stereotypes on career progression

Media and Entertainment

• Portrayal of masculinity and femininity in popular media
• Gender stereotypes in advertising
• Impact of social media on perpetuating gender stereotypes
• Representation of LGBTQ+ individuals in mainstream media

Relationships and Family Dynamics

• Gender roles in traditional vs. modern family structures
• The influence of gender stereotypes on dating and romantic relationships
• Parental expectations based on gender
• Effect of gender stereotypes on mental health within relationships

Health and Wellness

• Body image and gender stereotypes
• Gender-specific healthcare disparities
• Stigma surrounding mental health based on gender
• Impact of gender stereotypes on access to reproductive health services

Social and Cultural Gender Stereotypes

• Impact of gender stereotypes on society
• Role of media in perpetuating gender stereotypes
• Gender stereotypes in the workplace
• Gender stereotypes in education
• Effect of gender stereotypes on relationships

Psychological and Emotional Effects of Gender Stereotypes

• How gender stereotypes affect self-esteem
• Impact of gender stereotypes on mental health
• Gender stereotypes and body image
• Psychological effects of gender role expectations
• Gender stereotypes and emotional well-being

Historical and Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Gender Stereotypes

• Evolution of gender stereotypes throughout history
• Comparison of gender stereotypes in different cultures
• Impact of religion on gender role expectations
• Gender stereotypes in literature and art
• Challenges to traditional gender roles in different societies

Legal and Policy Implications of Gender Stereotypes

• Gender stereotypes and discrimination in the legal system
• Effect of gender stereotypes on policy-making
• Gender stereotypes and access to healthcare
• Legal protections against gender-based discrimination
• Impact of gender stereotypes on LGBTQ+ rights

Intersectionality and Gender Stereotypes

• Impact of race on gender stereotypes
• Gender stereotypes and disability
• Intersection of gender and socioeconomic status
• Gender stereotypes and age
• Challenges faced by individuals at the intersection of multiple marginalized identities

By exploring these diverse gender stereotypes essay ideas, students can delve into various facets of the issue and contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of its impact on society. Whether examining gender stereotypes in education, the workplace, media, relationships, or health, each topic offers a unique opportunity for critical analysis and meaningful discourse.

Iphone Vs Samsung: a Comparison

Barbie doll should be banned, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Hip Hop Negative Effects

Equality in workplace: sociology and gender stereotypes, gender stereotypes and their effect on children, the impact of society on creating gender stereotypes, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

A Report on Gender Equality

Literature's portrayal of gender roles in society, gender stereotypes and dilemma faced by female leaders, the meaning of being a man in nowadays culture, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

Gender Stereotypes in The Workplace: a Research

Gender stereotypes in modern movies: beauty and the beast, gender stereotypes in the usa, gender stereotypes in disney princess movies, gender stereotypes in parenting and family, definitions, development and aftermath of racial and gender stereotypes, representation of negative gender stereotypes in the movie mulan, gender stereotypes: disney princesses are not harmful to young girls, unfavorability and favorability of female boss, the problem of a lack of female leaders, a theme of gender equality in trifles by susan glaspell, women's struggle in fighting gender inequality in the us, gender roles and stereotypes in walt disney's films, representation of stereotypes in the media, gender differences in the education achievements of boys and girls, women in literature: lanyer vs. modern stereotypes, the portrayals of females and males in superhero movies, rape culture: victim blaming and gender stereotyping, the problem of stereotypes in american society, gender roles in asian culture: their reflection in literature.

A gender stereotype is a generalized view or preconception about attributes or characteristics, or the roles that are or ought to be possessed by, or performed by, women and men.

The four basic kinds of gender stereotypes can relate to personality traits, domestic behaviors, occupations, and physical appearance.

Women are natural nurturers; men are natural leaders. Women with children are less devoted to their jobs. Boys and men are expected to use violence and aggression to prove their manliness. Boys should be directed to like blue and green; girls toward red and pink.

1. Ellemers, N. (2018). Gender stereotypes. Annual review of psychology, 69, 275-298. (https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011719) 2. Heilman, M. E. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in organizational Behavior, 32, 113-135. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191308512000093) 3. Haines, E. L., Deaux, K., & Lofaro, N. (2016). The times they are a-changing… or are they not? A comparison of gender stereotypes, 1983–2014. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(3), 353-363. (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0361684316634081?journalCode=pwqa) 4. Deaux, K., & Lewis, L. L. (1984). Structure of gender stereotypes: Interrelationships among components and gender label. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 46(5), 991. (https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1984-25799-001) 5. Cvencek, D., Meltzoff, A. N., & Greenwald, A. G. (2011). Math–gender stereotypes in elementary school children. Child development, 82(3), 766-779. (https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01529.x) 6. Sanbonmatsu, K. (2002). Gender stereotypes and vote choice. american Journal of political Science, 20-34. (https://www.jstor.org/stable/3088412) 7. Bian, L., Leslie, S. J., & Cimpian, A. (2017). Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children’s interests. Science, 355(6323), 389-391. (https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aah6524) 8. Deaux, K., Winton, W., Crowley, M., & Lewis, L. L. (1985). Level of categorization and content of gender stereotypes. Social Cognition, 3(2), 145-167. (https://guilfordjournals.com/doi/abs/10.1521/soco.1985.3.2.145) 9. Koch, J. W. (2000). Do citizens apply gender stereotypes to infer candidates' ideological orientations?. The Journal of Politics, 62(2), 414-429. (https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1111/0022-3816.00019)

Relevant topics

• Sex, Gender and Sexuality
• Gender Roles
• Gender Criticism
• Sociological Imagination
• Social Justice
• Discourse Community
• Effects of Social Media

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Bibliography

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Essay on Gender Stereotypes

Students are often asked to write an essay on Gender Stereotypes in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Gender Stereotypes

Introduction.

Gender stereotypes are general beliefs about behaviors, characteristics, and roles of men and women in society. They can limit individuals’ potential and opportunities.

Common Stereotypes

Men are often seen as strong and decisive, while women are considered nurturing and emotional. These stereotypes can limit personal growth and career choices.

Consequences

Stereotypes can lead to discrimination and unequal treatment. They can also affect self-esteem and mental health.

Breaking Stereotypes

Education and awareness are key to breaking gender stereotypes. Encouraging individuality and respect for everyone’s abilities can help create a more equal society.

250 Words Essay on Gender Stereotypes

Gender stereotypes are preconceived notions about the roles and behaviors appropriate for men and women. They are deeply ingrained in society and influence our behavior, expectations, and perceptions.

The Origin of Gender Stereotypes

The roots of gender stereotypes can be traced back to traditional societal structures. Historically, men were hunters and protectors, while women were gatherers and caregivers. These roles have been passed down generations, evolving into modern stereotypes.

Implications of Gender Stereotypes

These stereotypes limit individual growth and societal progress. They force individuals into predefined boxes, stifling their true potential. For instance, the stereotype that women are not good at math discourages them from pursuing STEM fields, while the belief that men should not show emotions hinders their mental health.

Breaking Down Stereotypes

It’s crucial to challenge these stereotypes to achieve gender equality. This can be done through education, promoting representation, and encouraging open dialogue. It’s also essential to challenge our own biases and question the stereotypes we unconsciously uphold.

Gender stereotypes are not only unfair but also counterproductive. They limit individuals and society as a whole. By actively challenging these stereotypes, we can work towards a more equitable and inclusive society.

500 Words Essay on Gender Stereotypes

Gender stereotypes are preconceived notions about the roles, characteristics, and behaviors of men and women. These stereotypes are deeply ingrained in our society and have significant implications on individual and societal levels. They are often perpetuated by media, educational systems, and social interactions, and can limit the potential and freedom of individuals, as well as perpetuate inequality and discrimination.

The origins of gender stereotypes can be traced back to traditional societal structures. Historically, men were seen as the providers, hunters, and protectors, while women were perceived as caregivers and homemakers. These roles were often dictated by physical attributes and the need for survival. However, as societies evolved, these roles became less relevant but remained ingrained in societal consciousness, leading to the perpetuation of gender stereotypes.

Gender stereotypes have far-reaching implications. They can limit opportunities and possibilities for individuals, leading to unequal outcomes in education, employment, and leadership roles. For instance, women are often stereotyped as being less capable in STEM fields, which can discourage them from pursuing careers in these areas. Similarly, men may face societal pressure to avoid careers perceived as feminine, such as nursing or teaching.

Furthermore, gender stereotypes can perpetuate harmful norms and behaviors. For example, the stereotype that men should be emotionally strong can deter them from seeking help for mental health issues, leading to adverse health outcomes. On the other hand, women are often objectified and sexualized due to prevalent stereotypes, contributing to issues such as body shaming and sexual harassment.

Challenging Gender Stereotypes

Challenging gender stereotypes requires collective efforts at various levels. Education plays a crucial role in breaking down these stereotypes. Schools and universities should promote a curriculum that encourages critical thinking about gender roles and stereotypes.

Media also plays a significant role in shaping societal perceptions. Hence, it is essential for media outlets to portray diverse and non-stereotypical images of men and women. This includes showcasing women in leadership roles and men in caregiving roles.

Moreover, individuals can challenge gender stereotypes in their everyday lives. This can be achieved by questioning traditional gender roles, promoting gender equality in personal and professional spaces, and encouraging open conversations about gender stereotypes.

In conclusion, gender stereotypes are deeply entrenched in our society and have significant implications. While they are rooted in historical societal structures, they are perpetuated by modern institutions and interactions. Therefore, challenging these stereotypes requires concerted efforts at individual, societal, and institutional levels. By promoting gender equality and challenging traditional notions of gender roles, we can create a more inclusive and equitable society.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Gender Equality in India
• Essay on Gender Equality
• Essay on Life Below Water

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Gender Roles and Stereotyping in Education Essay

Introduction.

Gender issues have been discussed during many international meetings and forums. The role of both sexes in society has raised many questions while most analysts and researchers have found out that education plays a great role in determining the role of a gender personality. Teachers instructing children should be familiar with methods of effective analysis of gender roles with students since it is a serious problem affecting contemporary society. Stereotypes produce a negative effect on human beings leading to failure in understanding the needs and motivations of another sex. In this essay, the relationship between stereotypes and genuine gender roles is discussed broadly about activities and the effectiveness of performance of individuals.

The academic performance of male and female students differs due to stereotypes producing effects on their self-identification and individual progress. According to researches conducted in most schools worldwide, girls perform better in languages than boys (Pajares and Valiante, 2002) whereas male students are better in exact sciences that require a logical approach and numeric data analysis. Females are found to be better at defining and describing their thoughts because their skills and logic enable them to do it better than, for instance, calculating and solving mathematical problems. Masculine motivation is oriented toward performing challenging and resource-consuming assignments that deal with calculations and scientific innovations. Teachers play an important role in modeling the self-identification of students at school since they spend most of the time with them.

Educators should be trained on methods of explaining gender roles effectively about possible differences and shifts that occur due to technological progress and changes in society. It is necessary to encourage both genders to play active roles in society regardless of their sex though taking into account their skills and competencies (Connolly, 2008). The best way the teachers can do this is by encouraging the students to use their inborn skills.

Recent findings show that stereotyping is harmful to society because it reduces the chances of people searching for information effectively. As information is an integral part of our lives and most work is related to it, individuals should resist the effects of stereotyping. In the USA, the racial stereotyping of youth has led to the increase of antisocial activities such as robbery and murder in the streets (Welch, 2007). Stereotypes are based on a generalization of certain characteristics that are said to be typical for some groups of people leading to the labeling of all people of this group as those possessing such a characteristic.

To sum up, the topic of gender should be introduced in educational institutions to enable the students to learn the differences and peculiar features of gender roles in the community. Though findings show that female and male students do have some differences in academic performance that occur due to their sex, students should be encouraged to shift roles and use their skills regardless of the effects of stereotyping. Teachers should be trained to give clear and useful instruction to students on the issue of gender roles in modern society. Stereotypes help people to manipulate others’ viewpoints by omitting the details and escaping a multifaceted approach in dealing with a particular individual. Therefore, students should learn more about gender roles and the negative effects of stereotyping; besides, students need to avoid those effects.

• Connolly, P. (2008). A critical review of some recent developments in quantitative research on gender and achievement in the United Kingdom. Routledge and Francis Journal , 29(3), 249-260.
• Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (2002). Gender differences in writing motivation and achievement of middle school students: a function of gender orientation? Apps for Library Journal, 26 (3), 366-381.
• Welch, K. (2007). Black criminal stereotypes and racial profiling. Journal of Contemporary criminal Journal , 23 (3), 575-596.
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, January 14). Gender Roles and Stereotyping in Education. https://ivypanda.com/essays/gender-roles-and-stereotyping-in-education/

"Gender Roles and Stereotyping in Education." IvyPanda , 14 Jan. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/gender-roles-and-stereotyping-in-education/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Gender Roles and Stereotyping in Education'. 14 January.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Gender Roles and Stereotyping in Education." January 14, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/gender-roles-and-stereotyping-in-education/.

1. IvyPanda . "Gender Roles and Stereotyping in Education." January 14, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/gender-roles-and-stereotyping-in-education/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Gender Roles and Stereotyping in Education." January 14, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/gender-roles-and-stereotyping-in-education/.

• Common Media Stereotyping
• Stereotyping: Forms And Theories of Stereotypes
• The Issue of Stereotyping in the US
• Stereotyping in the Human Culture
• Racism, Privilege and Stereotyping Concepts
• Psychology: Stereotyping and Its Dynamics
• Self Identification at the Time of Enforcing the Law
• Stereotyping and Labeling Impact on Human Life
• Mass Media Role in Stereotyping Females in Sports
• Dangers of Stereotyping Students
• Sexuality, Gender, or the Natural History of Sex
• Women in the Moso Community
• Rust’s “Bisexuality: The State of the Union”
• Gender Related Questions in the Jewish War Novel by Tova Reich
• “Are There Differences Between the Brains of Males and Females?” by Doctor Sabattini

Gender Stereotypes Essay

Gender stereotypes are beliefs about the characteristics and behaviors of men and women. These beliefs can be based on biology, social norms, or cultural ideals. Gender roles are the expectations that individuals, groups, and societies have about the behaviors, attitudes, and emotions that men and women should express.

Gender stereotypes often lead to gender discrimination, which is the unequal treatment of individuals based on their gender. Gender discrimination can take many forms, including exclusion from education or employment opportunities, violence, and inequality in pay and promotion.

Despite progress in recent years, gender stereotypes and discrimination are still prevalent in many parts of the world. Efforts to address these issues must begin with an understanding of the origins of these stereotypes and how they are perpetuated. Only then can we begin to challenge and change them.

Throughout the years, society has evolved in many ways. There is always something new to criticize about a person, particularly when it comes to gender stereotypes. Society can have a significant impact on how children are raised and how they behave as adults. Children will learn a lot about the world from Gender roles

It is important to stop these kinds of gender roles so that everyone can have an equal opportunity to succeed. Gender stereotypes are preconceived notions, usually about a group of people, that one holds in their head. People often think of men as being strong and independent while women are nurturing and emotional.

These types of Stereotypes can be hurtful because they limit what people feel they can do. They also promote sexist attitudes and behaviors. For example, if a young girl is told that she can’t play with trucks because “that’s for boys” she may start to believe that she isn’t good at mechanical things.

This could then lead her to not pursue a career in engineering or mechanics. On the other hand, if a boy is told he has to play with trucks because “that’s what boys do” he may start to believe that he isn’t allowed to express his emotions. This could lead him to bottle up his feelings which could have negative consequences later on in life.

It is important to stop these kinds of gender roles so that everyone can have an equal opportunity to succeed. We need to break down the barriers that are preventing people from following their dreams. So instead of telling our children that they can’t do something because of their gender, we should be encouraging them to pursue anything they want. Because at the end of the day, we are all human beings with unlimited potential.

Stereotypes have been with us for a long time. A stereotype is an widely accepted concept or image of a certain sort of individual or object. For everything, from men to sandwiches, society has come up with a list of them. Someone who is obsessed with sex, lazy, messy, in love with automobiles, addicted to video games, a shoe collector

There are many other characteristics that could be added but these are some of the most commonly used. These traits have been ingrained in our society and because of it, they have become part of who we are as people.

The problem with stereotypes is that they’re usually based on very little evidence and they can be incredibly limiting. They stop us from seeing people as individuals and instead see them as a member of a group. This can lead to discrimination and prejudice, which can ultimately result in serious consequences like hate crimes.

So why do we have stereotypes? It’s likely because they offer us a way to simplify a complex world. Instead of having to think about all the individual differences between people, we can just lump them into groups and assume that they all share the same characteristics. It’s an easy way to make sense of our surroundings but it’s also a dangerous one.

If we want to move away from stereotypes, we need to start by acknowledging that they exist. Once we’re aware of them, we can start to question them when we see them being used. Only then can we start to change the way we think about gender and other groups of people.

A youngster has to learn about these things at a young age. Society will urge him to follow the norms of being a guy, and if he doesn’t, he’ll be seen as different from everyone else. female stereotypes are harsher than male stereotypes, given that terms and conditions for women were significantly different in the past.

For example, women were not able to vote or work. They were pretty much just stay at home housewives that had to cook and clean all day. The stereotype of a woman being a housewife still exists today to some extent. Even though times have changed and both genders are now able to do most things, some people are stuck in their ways.

Nowadays, there are still some gender stereotypes in society. Some people believe that men should be the ones working while the women stay at home. This is not always the case though as more and more women are becoming breadwinners for their families. In addition, there are also manysingle mothers who are raising their children on their own.

While it is true that men and women can both do most things, there are still some areas where one gender is typically better than the other. For example, men are generally stronger than women and thus can do jobs that require physical strength. Women, on the other hand, are usually better at multitasking and can often handle more than one thing at a time.

Despite the progress that has been made in recent years, there are still some people who cling to outdated gender stereotypes. This can be a problem as it can limit people’s opportunities and prevent them from reaching their full potential. It is important to remember that everyone is different and that anyone can do anything they set their mind to regardless of their gender.

Children are exposed to a plethora of ideas from all corners of the globe on social media and television. They’ll be talked into looking or acting a certain way, liking or disliking particular things; if they want to be accepted, society will put ideas in their heads about how to live their life. Girls and boys nag on themselves because they don’t meet society’s ideal standard and then grow up believing that something is wrong with them until one day they figure out something really significant: society is trash, so you should not let it influence your decisions.

If you’re a boy, you’re probably expected to like rough sports, be really good at math, and have little to no emotions. If you don’t like any of those things or if you excel in something that isn’t “manly” enough, society will put you down and try to change you. You’ll be called girly, weak, pathetic; anything that could bring your self esteem lower than it already is.

And if heaven forbid you actually have emotions, society will make sure to remind you that “boys don’t cry”. This phrase is one of the most toxic things ever said because it completely strips males of their emotions and teaches them that it’s wrong to have feelings. It’s no wonder that males have such a hard time opening up about their problems; they were never taught that it was okay.

Girls go through a similar process, but instead of being called weak they’re called bossy, dramatic, or attention seeking. If a girl shows any emotion other than happiness, she’s considered overreacting and is told to “calm down”. And if she dares to be good at math or science, she’s either accused of cheating or labeled as a nerd.

Society tells girls that they need to be pretty and skinny and like all the same things as other girls; they need to be put together at all times and they can never show any sort of weakness. This incredibly unrealistic standard that society has set for females is the reason why so many girls have low self esteem and are constantly dieting.

Neither of these gender stereotypes are healthy for anyone. They’re both incredibly harmful and they need to stop. So next time you see a boy crying or a girl being good at math, don’t give them weird looks or make fun of them. Let them know that it’s okay to be themselves and that you accept them for who they are. We need to start teaching children that they don’t have to adhere to society’s standards; they can like whatever they want and be whoever they want. Only then will we start to see a change.

More Essays

• Gender Roles In Media Portrayal Of Gender Stereotypes Research Paper
• Gender Stereotypes In Sports Essay
• Gender Stereotypes In Children Essay
• Gender Stereotypes In Inside Out Essay
• Gender Roles Essay
• Gender Stereotypes In The Film Mulan Essay
• Gender, Class, and Race Stereotypes in American Television
• Gender Stereotypes Affecting People’s Identity Essay
• Gender Stereotypes In Sailormoon Essay
• Gender Stereotypes In Children’s Books Essay

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.