Stereotype Threat and Women's Performance in Engineering
Amy Bell, Steven J. Spencer, Emma Iserman, Christine E. R. Logel
Abstract
Amy Bell, Steven J. Spencer, Emma Iserman, Christine E. R. Logel
Abstract
Abstract Recent research has demonstrated that stereotype threat—the concern that others will judge one negatively due to a stereotype that exists about one's group—interferes with women's performance on standardized math and engineering exams. In the current research we find that when a shortened version of the Fundamental of Engineering Exam is described as a test that is diagnostic of ability (i.e., when stereotype threat is high) women perform worse than men on the test. When stereotype threat is reduced, however (by characterizing the test as non‐diagnostic or as not producing gender differences), women do just as well as men. The implication of these results for improving the engineering education environment is discussed.
OpenAlex reports 149 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Abstract Recent research has demonstrated that stereotype threat—the concern that others will judge one negatively due to a stereotype that exists about one's group—interferes with women's performance on standardized math and engineering exams. In the current research we find that when a shortened version of the Fundamental of Engineering Exam is described as a test that is diagnostic of ability (i.e., when stereotype threat is high) women perform worse than men on the test. When stereotype threat is reduced, however (by characterizing the test as non‐diagnostic or as not producing gender differences), women do just as well as men. The implication of these results for improving the engineering education environment is discussed.
Key concepts: Stereotype threat, Stereotype (UML), Engineering education, Psychology, Engineering ethics, Engineering, Social psychology, Engineering management