Thể hiện bản thân hay đạt được sự an toàn qua lựa chọn học thuật: Những tác động đến khoảng cách giới tính trong việc theo đuổi STEM

Social Psychology of Education - Tập 25 - Trang 1507-1526 - 2022
Nur Soylu Yalcinkaya1, Glenn Adams2
1Department of Psychology, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey
2Department of Psychology, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA

Tóm tắt

Các khoảng cách giới tính trong việc đại diện cho các lĩnh vực Khoa học, Công nghệ, Kỹ thuật và Toán học (STEM) vẫn tồn tại ở nhiều xã hội, mặc dù kích thước của khoảng cách này có sự khác biệt. Dựa trên các khía cạnh tâm lý văn hóa, chúng tôi xem xét cách ý nghĩa và mục đích được gán cho lựa chọn học thuật (tức là, như một phương tiện để thể hiện bản thân hoặc đảm bảo tương lai) có thể thông tin đến sở thích và động lực của học sinh đối với STEM, phụ thuộc vào giới tính của họ. Chúng tôi lập luận rằng khái niệm lựa chọn học thuật dựa trên việc thể hiện bản thân có thể dẫn đến sự khác biệt trong lựa chọn học thuật giữa nam và nữ, vì sở thích của họ đã được định hình theo giới tính trong suốt cuộc đời. Cụ thể, việc chú trọng vào việc thể hiện bản thân có thể khiến phụ nữ lùi xa khỏi STEM, và đàn ông tiến gần hơn, bởi vì đây được coi là một lĩnh vực nam tính. Ngược lại, một khái niệm lựa chọn học thuật tập trung vào sự an toàn có thể dẫn đến việc nam và nữ thể hiện mức độ động lực tương tự để theo đuổi STEM do tiềm năng lợi nhuận của nó. Trong hai nghiên cứu thực nghiệm, chúng tôi đã kiểm tra liệu việc kích hoạt tạm thời các mục tiêu liên quan đến việc thể hiện bản thân hoặc an toàn tương lai có ảnh hưởng đến sở thích và động lực STEM dựa trên giới tính của sinh viên Mỹ hay không. Nghiên cứu 1 ghi nhận rằng việc kích hoạt khái niệm lựa chọn học thuật thể hiện bản thân dẫn đến sở thích và động lực STEM thấp hơn ở phụ nữ so với điều kiện kiểm soát. Việc kích hoạt các mục tiêu an toàn dẫn đến sở thích và động lực STEM cao hơn chỉ ở nam giới. Nghiên cứu 2 đã tái lập một phần mô hình này cho các lĩnh vực STEM và Kinh doanh thông qua một thao tác tập trung điều tiết. Các nghiên cứu cung cấp bằng chứng ban đầu về vai trò của những hiểu biết được hình thành văn hóa về lựa chọn học thuật trong những khoảng cách giới tính về động lực học thuật. Chúng tôi kết thúc bằng một cuộc thảo luận về việc hình thành lựa chọn học thuật theo khía cạnh xã hội và văn hóa ở cả phụ nữ và nam giới.

Từ khóa

#khoảng cách giới tính #lựa chọn học thuật #động lực học thuật #STEM #tâm lý văn hóa

Tài liệu tham khảo

Abowitz, D., & Knox, D. (2003). Goals of college students: Some gender differences. College Student Journal, 37, 550–556. Adams, G., Garcia, D. M., Purdie-Vaughns, V., & Steele, C. M. (2006). The detrimental effects of a suggestion of sexism in an instruction situation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(5), 602–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.10.004. Adams, G., Dobles, I., Gómez, L. H., Kurtiş, T., & Molina, L. E. (2015). Decolonizing psychological science: Introduction to the special thematic section. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 3(1), 213–238. https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.1766. Adams, G., & Markus, H. R. (2004). Toward a conception of culture suitable for a social psychology of culture. In M. Schaller & C. S. Crandall (Eds.), The psychological foundations of culture (pp. 335–360). Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.1766. Carli, L. L., Alawa, L., Lee, Y., Zhao, B., & Kim, E. (2016). Stereotypes about gender and science: Women ≠ scientists. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(2), 244–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843156226. Cech, E. A. (2013). The self-expressive edge of occupational sex segregation. American Journal of Sociology, 119(3), 747–789. https://doi.org/10.1086/673969. Charles, M. (2011a). What gender is science? Contexts, 10(2), 22–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536504211408795. Charles, M. (2011b). A world of difference: International trends in women’s economic status. Annual Review of Sociology, 37, 355–371. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102548. Charles, M. (2017). Venus, Mars, and math: Gender, societal affluence, and eighth graders’ aspirations for STEM. Socius, 3, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/237802311769717. Charles, M., & Bradley, K. (2009). Indulging our gendered selves? Sex segregation by field of study in 44 countries. American Journal of Sociology, 114(4), 924–976. https://doi.org/10.1086/595942. Charles, M., Harr, B., Cech, E., & Hendley, A. (2014). Who likes math where? Gender differences in eighth-graders’ attitudes around the world. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 24(1), 85–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/09620214.2014.895140. Cheryan, S. (2012). Understanding the paradox in math-related fields: Why do some gender gaps remain while others do not? Sex Roles, 66(3), 184–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0060-z. Cheryan, S., Meltzoff, A. N., & Kim, S. (2011). Classrooms matter: The design of virtual classrooms influences gender disparities in computer science classes. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1825–1835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.004. Cheryan, S., & Plaut, V. C. (2010). Explaining underrepresentation: A theory of precluded interest. Sex Roles, 63(7), 475–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9835-x. Cheryan, S., Master, A., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2015). Cultural stereotypes as gatekeepers: Increasing girls’ interest in computer science and engineering by diversifying stereotypes. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00049. Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Davies, P. G., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1045–1060. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016239. Cole, E. R., & Zucker, A. N. (2007). Black and white women’s perspectives on femininity. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.13.1.1. Correll, S. J. (2001). Gender and the career choice process: the role of biased self-assessments. American Journal of Sociology, 106(6), 1691–1730. https://doi.org/10.1086/321299. Correll, S. J. (2004). Constraints into preferences: Gender, status, and emerging career aspirations. American Sociological Review, 69(1), 93–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240406900106. Croft, A., Schmader, T., & Block, K. (2015). An underexamined inequality cultural and psychological barriers to men’s engagement with communal roles. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(4), 343–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314564789. Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(2), 117–132. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.2675. Diekman, A. B., Brown, E. R., Johnston, A. M., & Clark, E. K. (2010). Seeking congruity between goals and roles: A new look at why women opt out of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. Psychological Science, 21(8), 1051–1057. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610377342. Diekman, A. B., Clark, E. K., Johnston, A. M., Brown, E. R., & Steinberg, M. (2011). Malleability in communal goals and beliefs influences attraction to stem careers: Evidence for a goal congruity perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(5), 902–918. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025199. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573. Eastwick, P. W., Luchies, L. B., Finkel, E. J., & Hunt, L. L. (2014). The predictive validity of ideal partner preferences: A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(3), 623–665. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032432. Else-Quest, N. M., Mineo, C. C., & Higgins, A. (2013). Math and science attitudes and achievement at the intersection of gender and ethnicity. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37(3), 293–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684313480694. Emerson, K. T., & Murphy, M. C. (2015). A company I can trust? Organizational lay theories moderate stereotype threat for women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(2), 295–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214564969. Flore, P. C., & Wicherts, J. M. (2015). Does stereotype threat influence performance of girls in stereotyped domains? A meta-analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 53(1), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.10.002. Freeman, C. E. (2004). Trends in educational equity of girls and women (NCES 2005-016). Retrieved Aug 1, 2017, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005016.pdf. Gilmartin, S. K. (2005). The centrality and costs of heterosexual romantic love among first-year college women. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(6), 609–633. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2005.11772302. Guimond, S., Chatard, A., Martinot, D., Crisp, R. J., & Redersdorff, S. (2006). Social comparison, self-stereotyping, and gender dif- ferences in self-construals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(2), 221–242. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.2.221. Hall, W. M., Schmader, T., & Croft, E. (2015). Engineering exchanges: Daily social identity threat predicts burnout among female engineers. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(5), 528–534. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615572637. Hanson, S. L. (2006). African American women in science: Experiences from high school through the post-secondary years and beyond. In J. Bystydzienski, & S. Bird (Eds.), Removing barriers: Women in academic science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (pp. 123–141). Indiana University Press. Harris, A. C. (1996). African American and Anglo-American gender identities: An empirical study. Journal of Black Psychology, 22(2), 182–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/00957984960222004. Hegarty, P., & Pratto, F. (2001). The effects of social category norms and stereotypes on explanations for intergroup differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(5), 723–735. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.5.723. Henrich, J., Heine, S., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X. Higgins, E. T., Roney, C. J. R., Crowe, E., & Hymes, C. (1994). Ideal versus ought predilections for approach and avoidance: Distinct self-regulatory systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(2), 276–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.2.276. Hill, C., Corbett, C., & Rose, S. (2010). A. Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. AAUW. Retrieved Aug 1, 2017, http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED509653.pdf. Holland, D. C., & Eisenhart, M. A. (1990). Educated in romance: Women, achievement, and college culture. University of Chicago Press. Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, cultural change, and democracy: The human development sequence. Cambridge University Press. Kagitcibasi, C. (2005). Autonomy and relatedness in cultural context: Implications for self and family. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(4), 403–422. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022105275959. Kagitcibasi, C. (2007). Family, self, and human development across cultures: Theory and applications. Routledge. Kim, H. S., & Markus, H. R. (1999). Deviance or uniqueness, harmony or conformity? A cultural analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(4), 785–800. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.4.785. Kim, H. S., & Sherman, D. K. (2007). “Express yourself”: Culture and the effect of self- expression on choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.1. Leslie, S. J., Cimpian, A., Meyer, M., & Freeland, E. (2015). Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science, 347(6219), 262–265. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1261375. Ma, Y. (2009). Family socioeconomic status, parental involvement, and college major choices—Gender, ace/ethnic, and nativity patterns. Sociological Perspectives, 52(2), 211–234. https://doi.org/10.1525/sop.2009.52.2.211. MacPhee, D., Farro, S., & Canetto, S. S. (2013). Academic self-efficacy and performance of underrepresented STEM majors: Gender, ethnic, and social class patterns. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13(1), 347–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12033. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (2010). Cultures and selves: A cycle of mutual constitution. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 420–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610375557. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (2003). Models of agency: Sociocultural diversity in the construction of action. In V. Murphy-Berman, & J. J. Berman (Eds.), Cross-cultural differences in perspectives on the self (pp. 18–74). University of Nebraska Press. Markus, H. R., & Schwartz, B. (2010). Does choice mean freedom and well-being? Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 344–355. https://doi.org/10.1086/651242. Markus, H. R., & Hamedani, M. G. (2007). Sociocultural psychology: the dynamic interdependence among self systems and social systems. In S. Kitayama, & D. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (pp. 3–39). Guilford. Meyer, M., Cimpian, A., & Leslie, S. J. (2015). Women are underrepresented in fields where success is believed to require brilliance. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00235. Michniewicz, K. S., Vandello, J. A., & Bosson, J. K. (2014). Men’s (mis)perceptions of the gender threatening consequences of unemployment. Sex Roles, 70(3), 88–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-013-0339-3. Morgan, C. L., Isaac, J. D., & Sansone, C. (2001). The role of interest in understanding the career choices of female and male college students. Sex Roles, 44(5), 295–320. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010929600004. Mullen, A. L. (2014). Gender, social background, and the choice of college major in a liberal arts context. Gender & Society, 28(2), 289–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243213512721. Murphy, M. C., Steele, C. M., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Signaling threat how situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychological Science, 18(10), 879–885. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01995.x. Nguyen, H. H. D., & Ryan, A. M. (2008). Does stereotype threat affect test performance of minorities and women? A meta-analysis of experimental evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1314–1334. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012702. Nosek, B. A., Smyth, F. L, Sriram, N., Lindner, N., Devos, T., Ayala, A., et al. (2009). National differences in gender–science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(26), 10593–10597. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0809921106. Pajares, F. (2005). Gender differences in mathematics self-efficacy beliefs. In A. M. Gallagher, & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Gender differences in mathematics: An integrative psychological approach (pp. 294–315). Cambridge University Press. Park, L. E., Young, A. F., Troisi, J. D., & Pinkus, R. T. (2011). Effects of everyday romantic goal pursuit on women’s attitudes toward math and science. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(9), 1259–1273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211408436. Riegle-Crumb, C. (2005). The cross-national context of the gender gap in math and science. In L. V. Hodges, & B. Schneider (Eds.), The social organization of schooling (pp. 227–243). Russell Sage Foundation. Riemer, H., Shavitt, S., Koo, M., & Markus, H. R. (2014). Preferences don’t have to be personal: Expanding attitude theorizing with a cross-cultural perspective. Psychological Review, 121(4), 619–648. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037666. Rudman, L. A., & Heppen, J. B. (2003). Implicit romantic fantasies and women’s interest in personal power: A glass slipper effect? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(11), 1357–1370. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203256906. Savani, K., Markus, H. R., & Conner, A. L. (2008). Let your preference be your guide? Preferences and choices are more tightly linked for North Americans than for Indians. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(4), 861–876. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0011618. Settles, I. H. (2006). Use of an intersectional framework to understand Black women’s racial and gender identities. Sex Roles, 54(9), 589–601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9029-8. Sikora, J., & Pokropek, A. (2012). Gender segregation of adolescent science career plans in 50 countries. Science Education, 96(2), 234–264. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20479. Soylu Yalcinkaya, N., & Adams, G. (2020). A cultural psychological model of cross-national variation in gender gaps in STEM participation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 24(4), 345–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868320947005. Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52(6), 613–629. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.6.613. Stephens, N. M., Fryberg, S. A., & Markus, H. R. (2011). When choice does not equal freedom: A sociocultural analysis of agency in working-class American contexts. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(1), 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550610378757. Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2012). Can stereotype threat explain the gender gap in mathematics performance and achievement? Review of General Psychology, 16(1), 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026617. Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2018). The gender-equality paradox in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Psychological Science, 29(4), 581–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617741719. Van Veelen, R., Derks, B., & Endedijk, M. D. (2019). Double trouble: How being outnumbered and negatively stereotyped threatens career outcomes of women in STEM. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 150. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00150. Walton, G. M., & Spencer, S. J. (2009). Latent ability: Grades and test scores systematically underestimate the intellectual ability of negatively stereotyped students. Psychological Science, 20(9), 1132–1139. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02417.x. Welzel, C., & Inglehart, R. (2010). Agency, values, and well-being: A human development model. Social Indicators Research, 97(1), 43–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9557-z. Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2012). Biosocial construction of sex differences and similarities in behavior. In M. P. Zanna, & J. M. Olson (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 55–123). Academic Press.