Cultural stereotypes as gatekeepers: increasing girls’ interest in computer science and engineering by diversifying stereotypes

Abstract

Despite having made significant inroads into many traditionally male-dominated fields (e.g., biology, chemistry), women continue to be underrepresented in computer science and engineering. We propose that students’ stereotypes about the culture of these fields—including the kind of people, the work involved, and the values of the field—steer girls away from choosing to enter them. Computer science and engineering are stereotyped in modern American culture as male-oriented fields that involve social isolation, an intense focus on machinery, and inborn brilliance. These stereotypes are compatible with qualities that are typically more valued in men than women in American culture. As a result, when computer science and engineering stereotypes are salient, girls report less interest in these fields than their male peers. However, altering these stereotypes—by broadening the representation of the people who do this work, the work itself, and the environments in which it occurs—significantly increases girls’ sense of belonging and interest in the field. Academic stereotypes thus serve as gatekeepers, driving girls away from certain fields and constraining their learning opportunities and career aspirations.

Full text

HYPOTHESIS AND THEORY ARTICLE
published: 11 February 2015
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00049
Cultural stereotypes as gatekeepers: increasing girls’
interest in computer science and engineering by
diversifying stereotypes
Sapna Cheryan 1*, Allison Master 1,2 and Andrew N. Meltzoff1,2
1Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
2Institute for Learning & Brain Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
Edited by:
Stephen J. Ceci, Cornell University,
USA
Reviewed by:
Andrei Cimpian, University of Illinois,
USA
Toni Schmader, University of British
Columbia, Canada
*Correspondence:
Sapna Cheryan, Department of
Psychology, University of Washington,
Box 351525, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
e-mail: scheryan@uw.edu
Despite having made significant inroads into many traditionally male-dominated fields (e.g.,
biology, chemistry), women continue to be underrepresented in computer science and
engineering. We propose that students’ stereotypes about the culture of these fields—
including the kind of people, the work involved, and the values of the field—steer girls
away from choosing to enter them. Computer science and engineering are stereotyped in
modern American culture as male-oriented fields that involve social isolation, an intense
focus on machinery, and inborn brilliance. These stereotypes are compatible with qualities
that are typically more valued in men than women in American culture. As a result, when
computer science and engineering stereotypes are salient, girls report less interest in
these fields than their male peers. However, altering these stereotypes—by broadening
the representation of the people who do this work, the work itself, and the environments
in which it occurs—significantly increases girls’ sense of belonging and interest in the field.
Academic stereotypes thus serve as gatekeepers, driving girls away from certain fields and
constraining their learning opportunities and career aspirations.
Keywords: science, underrepresentation, belonging, gender, stereotypes
In 2010, Mattel let girls vote online for which career they wanted
Barbie to have next. They gave girls a choice of one of five careers:
news anchor, architect, surgeon, environmentalist, and computer
engineer. Computer Engineer Barbie ended up winning by a land-
slide after female engineers and others in technology launched
online campaigns in technology communities to get out the vote.
Their hope was that future generations of girls would play with
Computer Engineer Barbie and be inspired to pursue careers
in computer science and engineering (Martincic and Bhatnagar,
2012). After the voting closed, Mattel announced the simultane-
ous release of two of the Barbies: Computer Engineer and News
Anchor. Although Computer Engineer Barbie had won the “pop-
ular vote,” Mattel’s empirical research showed that the “girls’vote”
went to News Anchor Barbie (Zimmerman, 2010). This anecdote
is symbolic of a broader trend in our society: despite efforts by
people in education, technology, government, and non-profits to
get girls interested in a future in computer science and engineering,
girls are choosing other fields.
Women currently make up 48% of medical school graduates
and 47% of law school graduates (Jolliff et al., 2012;American
Bar Association, 2014). Even within STEM (science, technology,
engineering, and math), women obtain the majority of the U.S.
undergraduate degrees (59%) in biology and nearly half in chem-
istry and math (National Science Foundation, 2013). However,
in computer science and engineering, women earn less than 20%
of undergraduate degrees (National Science Foundation, 2013).
Gender disparities in computer science and engineering are prob-
lematic for at least three reasons. First, jobs in these fields are often
high-status, lucrative, and flexible (Kalwarski et al., 2007), and thus
women are missing out on jobs that are potentially beneficial for
them. Second, computer scientists and engineers design tools that
shape modern society, and diversifying the field can help to ensure
that these fields are creating designs appropriate for a broad pop-
ulation (Margolis and Fisher, 2002). Third, the U.S. is currently
not training enough computer scientists and engineers to keep up
with demand (Soper, 2014). Attracting more women and people
of color would be an effective way of reducing this gap.
Women have entered many other previously male-dominated
fields, including other STEM fields, but not computer science
and engineering. Why the differential? According to Gelernter
(1999), professor of computer science at Yale, the explanation
for women’s underrepresentation is obvious, “Women...must be
choosing not to enter, presumably because they don’t want to; pre-
sumably because they (by and large) don’t like these fields.” His
statement assumes that women’s choices are freely made and not
constrained. If women are freely choosing not to pursue computer
science, perhaps nothing can or should be done about it—after all,
it is their choice. However, it is clear from a large body of scientific
research that there are significant social barriers to women’s entry
into computer science and engineering that preclude women from
being able to make a truly “free” choice (Ceci et al., 2009). Here we
analyze those barriers and what can be done about them.
In what ways are girls’ educational choices constrained? First,
girls may be steered away from computer science and engineering
by parents, teachers, and others who think that these careers are
better suited for boys(Eccles et al.,1990;Sadker and Sadker, 1994).
Second, the mere fact of having underrepresentation can
perpetuate future underrepresentation (Murphy et al., 2007). If
www.frontiersin.org February 2015 |Volume 6 |Article 49 |1

Cheryan et al. Stereotypes as gatekeepers
girls do not see computer scientists and engineers as people with
whom they feel similar, they may be more reluctant to enter
these fields (Dasgupta, 2011;Meltzoff, 2013). Third, girls sys-
tematically underestimate how well they will do in these fields,
and this predicts their lower interest in entering them (Correll,
2001;Ehrlinger and Dunning, 2003). Fourth, girls may antic-
ipate encountering greater work-family conflicts in these fields
(Ceci et al., 2009). Fifth, there is discrimination in these fields
that prevents qualified women from receiving the same oppor-
tunities as their male counterparts (Moss-Racusin et al., 2012).
Sixth, women who enter traditionally masculine domains can be
socially and professionally penalized for exhibiting competence
and leadership qualities (Rudman, 1998). These are all barriers
that contribute to why some women choose not to enter and
persist in fields like computer science and engineering. Note,
however, that these barriers previously existed (and continue to
exist) in other male-dominated fields that women have entered.
A key question remains: what has allowed other fields to welcome
more women while computer science and engineering continue to lag
behind?
In this paper, we present evidence for a novel and power-
ful social factor perpetuating the underrepresentation of women
and girls: stereotypes about the culture of these fields. We begin
by differentiating stereotypes about the culture from the large
body of useful work on stereotype threat. Then, we describe
the content of students’ stereotypes about the culture of com-
puter science and engineering and document their pervasiveness
in the minds of American students. Third, we describe three
ways that these stereotypes about the culture are transmitted:
through environments, the media, and the people in the fields,
and why these stereotypes are a more powerful deterrent for
girls than boys. Fourth, we present empirical evidence that these
stereotypes cause gender disparities in interest in entering com-
puter science and engineering not only in college but earlier
in the pipeline, including among high-school students. Finally,
we show that these stereotypes, while powerful, are nonethe-
less highly malleable and that changing them encourages girls
and women to enter these fields (without dissuading boys and
men). Note that research on different populations, at differ-
ent ages, and asking different questions (e.g., why are women
underrepresented in the STEM workforce?) may discover differ-
ent factors responsible (e.g., Eagly and Carli, 2007;Hewlett et al.,
2008;Ceci et al., 2009,2014). Our argument is that stereotypes of
the field act as educational gatekeepers, constraining who enters
these fields, and that interventions to broaden the cultural rep-
resentation of these fields can help to draw more diversity into
them.
DUAL STEREOTYPES AND GENDER DISPARITIES
By elementary school, indeed as early as second grade, girls already
hold stereotypes associating boys with math (Cvencek et al., 2011).
A large body of research on stereotype threat has investigated the
consequences of concerns about being judged through the lens
ofanegativestereotype(Steele, 1997). This research has shown
that negative stereotypes about girls’ math abilities hinder their
math performance (Huguet and Regner, 2007; see also Spencer
et al., 1999;Master et al., 2014). There are three ways in which the
work presented here differs from this established work on stereo-
type threat. First, work on stereotype threat focuses on stereotypes
about girls and women whereas our focus is on students’ stereo-
types about the culture of the fields. Both sets of stereotypes –
stereotypes about girls themselves and girls’ stereotypes about
the culture – may be operating simultaneously to make girls feel
like they do not belong in computer science and engineering (see
Figure 1).
Second, whereas stereotypes about girls’ math abilities (“girls
are not good at math”) are negative, we investigate stereotypes
that are not always negative (Cheryan et al., 2009). Indeed, stereo-
types of computer scientists and engineers can be a source of
pride, identification, and belonging for some in the field (e.g.,
the Geek Girl Dinners organization). This lack of objective neg-
ativity can make diversifying how the fields are portrayed more
challenging because these stereotypes might not be seen as prob-
lematic, even in the face of evidence that many students find them
incompatible with how they see themselves. Third, stereotype
threat effects are most prominent among women who are already
highly identified and invested with STEM, such as STEM majors
(Schmader et al., 2008). In contrast, we suggest that stereotypes
about the culture preclude many girls from even considering the
fields in the first place, and thus deter a larger number of girls from
STEM.
THE ROLE OF STEREOTYPES EARLY IN THE PIPELINE
At what juncture in the pipeline are girls and women opting out of
computer science and engineering? Although many highly quali-
fied women leave these fields (Hewlett et al., 2008), a much larger
contributor to the gender gap is that girls are much less likely
than boys to choose them in the first place (de Cohen and Deterd-
ing, 2009). Among high-school students, girls are significantly less
likely to take a computer programming class than boys (Shashaani,
1994;Schumacher and Morahan-Martin, 2001), less likely to take
the computer science Advanced Placement (AP) test than boys
(College Board, 2013), and express less interest in pursuing careers
in computer science and engineering than boys (Weisgram and
Bigler, 2006). By the time they enter college, men are already
more than four times more likely to have an intention to major in
computer science and engineering than women (National Science
Foundation, 2012). Even if every woman who intended to major
in computer science and engineering upon entering college was
retained in these fields, men would still be significantly more likely
to earn a computer science and engineering degree than women
(see Figure 2).
Though there is debate on whether biological factors play a role
in women’s underrepresentation in STEM (Benbow and Stanley,
1982;Spelke, 2005), differences in interest in computer science and
engineering between boys and girls are evident even among stu-
dents with the highest math abilities. Among the top scorers on a
standardized math test administered in the 10th grade, girls relative
to boys were more likely to choose social science and health-related
majors in college over majors in computer science, engineering,
physical sciences, and mathematics (Perez-Felkner et al., 2012).
Computer science and engineering are missing out on an entire
population of talented girls who are not entering these fields to
begin with.
Frontiers in Psychology |Developmental Psychology February 2015 |Volume 6 |Article 49 |2

Cheryan et al. Stereotypes as gatekeepers
FIGURE 1 |Students have stereotypes about the culture of computer science and engineering and girls face negative stereotypes about their
abilities. Both types of stereotypes signal to girls that computer science and engineering are not appropriate fields for them.
FIGURE 2 |Percentage of freshmen women and men who intend to
major in computer science and engineering, and percentage of
undergraduates who graduate with computer science and engineering
degrees. Freshmen data are drawn from U. S. postsecondary institutions
while degree data are drawn from U. S. degree-granting institutions eligible
to participate in Title IV financial aid programs.The latest available data were
used (2010 for freshmen intentions and 2012 for degrees granted). Source:
National Science Foundation.
Intervening early in the pipeline (i.e., before college) is impor-
tant to remedying disparities in computer science and engineering.
Societal change will occur only to the extent that the students
who are initially drawn into the field are able to remain in it,
thus research on retention is, of course, important and useful.
However, closing the gender gap in computer science and engi-
neering participation will initially require convincing more girls
to join these fields. As we will argue, stereotypes of the culture
affect girls’ choices and interest, and do so early in the pipeline.
WHAT IS THE CONTENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE AND
ENGINEERING STEREOTYPES?
When students think of computer scientists, they often think of
“geeky” guys who are socially awkward and infatuated with tech-
nology (Mercier et al., 2006;Rommes et al., 2007).Theworkin
computer science and engineering is seen as isolating and rela-
tively dissociated from communalgoals such as helping societ y and
working with others (Hoh, 2009;Diekman et al., 2010). Computer
scientists and engineers are also perceived as having masculine
interests (e.g., playing video games; Cheryan et al., 2011b), and
their faculty are more likely than faculty in other fields (e.g., biol-
ogy, psychology) to believe that an inborn brilliance or genius is
required to be successful (Leslie et al., 2015). Of course, many
computer scientists do not fit these stereotypes (Borg, 1999).
But people’s beliefs have a tremendous power to determine their
attitudes, behaviors, and choices, even if these perceptions are
completely disconnected from reality (Hasdorf and Cantril, 1954;
Ross and Nisbett, 1991). In the words of one female computer sci-
ence major at Carnegie Mellon,“Oh my gosh,this isn’t for me.’...
I don’t dream in code like they do” (Margolis et al., 2000, p. 17).
Computer science and engineering stereotypes are pervasive
in modern American society and even young students frequently
endorse them. When high-school students described computer
scientists, the majority (84%) mentioned at least one measur-
able stereotype, including being technically oriented, singularly
www.frontiersin.org February 2015 |Volume 6 |Article 49 |3

Cheryan et al. Stereotypes as gatekeepers
focused on technology, socially awkward, masculine, intelligent,or
having particular physical traits such as glasses or pale skin (Master
et al., unpublished). College students reported similar stereotypes,
with 67% mentioning at least one of these stereotypes about com-
puter scientists (Cheryan et al., 2013b). College students were also
less likely to believe that computer science and engineering were
fields that could be used to help people or work with others than
fields such as medicine and law (Hoh, 2009;Diekman et al., 2010).
In today’s society, computer science and engineering stereo-
types are perceived as incompatible with qualities that are valued
in women, such as being feminine, people-oriented, and modest
about one’s abilities (Diekman et al., 2011;Cheryan, 2012;Leslie
et al., 2015). As a result, when these stereotypes are prominent,
girls and women, but not boys and men, believe that they are
dissimilar from those in the field and report a lower “sense of
belonging,” or feeling of fit with the culture of the field (Cheryan
et al., 2009; Master et al., under review). The less that students
feel a sense of belonging in a field, the less likely they are to pur-
sue that field (Good et al., 2012;Smith et al., 2013; Master et al.,
under review). Changing these stereotypes may allow more girls
and women to believe they are welcome in computer science and
engineering.
TRANSMISSION CHANNELS FOR STEREOTYPES ABOUT
COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
Below we review three ways in which students may be exposed to
computer science and engineering stereotypes – through media,
people in the fields, and environments. Because computer science
and engineering are not mandatory and often not even offered in
U.S. high schools (Stephenson et al., 2005), many students do not
have direct experience with these fields. As a result, students often
rely on cultural stereotypes about computer scientists and engi-
neers for knowledge about these fields. However, these stereotype
transmission channels have an upside as well: they are particu-
larly well-suited mechanisms of cultural change if interventions
are designed appropriately.
STEREOTYPES TRANSMITTED THROUGH THE MEDIA
Popular movies and television shows like Real Genius,The Big
Bang Theory, and Silicon Valley depict computer scientists and
engineers as mostly White (and more recently Asian) males,
socially unskilled, and singularly obsessed with technology. Simi-
larly, portrayals of technology companies in popular newspapers
and books often depict the “startup culture” that infuses some
technology and engineering jobs (e.g., Guo, 2014;Miller, 2014).
This is unfortunate because in reality such portrayals depict at
best only a small percentage of the jobs in computer science
and engineering (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014). Yet high-
school students report that their ideas about what scientists
are like are influenced more by the media than by any other
source (Steinke et al., 2007). Even brief exposures to television
portrayals can influence attitudes toward the group portrayed
(Weisbuch et al., 2009).
To examine the extent to which exposure to stereotypical and
non-stereotypical media representations influence women’s inter-
est in computer science, women undergraduates read one of two
fabricated newspaper articles. One article stated that computer
scientists fit the current stereotypes, while the other stated that
computer scientists were diversifying and no longer fit the stereo-
types. Women who read the stereotypical article expressed less
interest in majoring in computer science than women who read the
non-stereotypical article. Furthermore, women who read the non-
stereotypical article were significantly more interested in computer
science than women who read no article (Cheryan et al., 2013b).
Changing the images of computer science and engineering in the
media may increase women’s interest in these fields.
STEREOTYPES TRANSMITTED BY NARROW
CHARACTERIZATIONS OF PEOPLE IN THE FIELDS
Faculty, students, and industry professionals embody certain char-
acteristics, habits, and belief systems that can signal what is
normative and valued in the field. For instance, the National
Academy of Engineering’s engineeryourlife.org website features
a female computer engineer who appears to fit the definition of a
role model for girls: she is successful, competent, and shares their
gender (Marx et al., 2005;Stout et al., 2011). However, her profile
also describes how she embodies stereotypes of computer scien-
tists and engineers: she started programming at age 11 and works
as a Star Wars video game designer. Computer scientists and engi-
neers who embody these stereotypes may discourage women from
entering these fields.
To investigate whether encountering a stereotypical computer
science student can deter women, undergraduate women were
brought into a room to have a conversation with a participant
who was actually an actor. Three male and three female actors
were used. The conversation was brief – less than 2 min on aver-
age – and consisted of the participant and the actor exchanging
basic information about themselves (e.g., year, major, hobbies,
favorite movie). The actor always stated that he or she was a junior
and a computer science major, but half of the participants were
randomly assigned to interact with an actor who fit current stereo-
types in appearance and preferences (e.g., glasses, t-shirt that said
“I code therefore I am,” hobbies that included playing videogames)
or one who did not fit these stereotypes (e.g., solid colored t-shirt,
hobbies that included hanging out with friends). After the inter-
action was complete, participants were asked about their interest
in their partner’s major and then asked the same questions again
2 weeks later.
Results revealed that women who interacted with the stereo-
typical student were significantly less interested in majoring
in computer science than those who interacted with the non-
stereotypical student, and this effect was equally strong regardless
of whether the actor was male or female. Moreover, negative
effects of stereotypes endured for 2 weeks after the interaction
(Cheryan et al., 2013a). The computer science major’s gender mat-
tered less in influencing women’s interest in computer science
than the extent to which he or she fit current computer science
stereotypes.
Follow-up experiments (a) revealed similar effects of peer
stereotypicality on anticipated success in computer science
(Cheryan et al., 2011b) and also (b) investigated why people in
the field who embody computer science stereotypes may be steer-
ing women away from the field. Interacting with a stereotypical
computer science major reduced women’s anticipated success in
Frontiers in Psychology |Developmental Psychology February 2015 |Volume 6 |Article 49 |4

Cheryan et al. Stereotypes as gatekeepers
computer science but did not affect men’s anticipated success
(Cheryan et al., 2011b). Why? Women felt less similar to the stereo-
typical student than to the non-stereotypical student, suggesting
students may look to other characteristics besides gender when
determining with whom they feel similar (see also Cheryan et al.,
2011b;Meltzoff, 2013). When the people in computer science
depict themselves in a manner consistent with the stereotypes, it
can convey to other students that one must fit the stereotypes to
be successful in these fields.
Computer scientists and engineers who depict the work in their
fields as highly independent may also discourage women from
entering their fields. College women who read about an entry-
level scientist who spent a typical day doing independent tasks
reported less positive attitudes about science careers than col-
lege women who read about an entry-level scientist who spent a
typical day doing collaborative tasks (Diekman et al., 2011). More-
over, fewer female students are present in fields whose faculty
believe that success in their field requires innate brilliance, a belief
that is prominent in computer science and engineering (Leslie
et al., 2015). Changing stereotypes about the work being isolating
and requiring an innate brilliance may draw more women into
computer science and engineering.
STEREOTYPES TRANSMITTED THROUGH ENVIRONMENTS
Objects and environments are powerful because they are seen as
providing clues about the dominant culture within that environ-
ment, including information about the values, beliefs, norms,
and practices (Whiting, 1980;Cialdini et al., 1990;Markus and
Kitayama, 1991). Environments that depict computer science and
engineering as more compatible with characteristics, interests, and
values associated with men and boys are likely to draw fewer girls
than boys into them. However, exposing students to computer
science and engineering environments that do not fit current male-
oriented stereotypes may reduce gender disparities in interest in
these fields.
College undergraduates who were not computer science majors
(in order to focus on recruitment) entered a classroom in the
computer science department at Stanford University, which was
decoratedinoneoftwoways(Cheryan et al., 2009). For half the
participants, the room had objects that other undergraduates asso-
ciated highly with computer science majors—Star Trek posters,
science fiction books, and stacked soda cans. For the other half of
participants, the room contained objects that other undergrad-
uates did not associate with computer science majors—nature
posters, neutral books, and water bottles. Women in the room
that did not contain the stereotypical objects expressed signifi-
cantly more interest in majoring in computer science than those
in the room that did fit the stereotypes. For men, the environment
did not affect their interest in computer science (Cheryan et al.,
2009).
Online educational environments are becoming an increasingly
important presence in students’ lives as universities use them as
tools for education. To test whether the design of virtual class-
rooms influences educational outcomes, undergraduates virtually
entered two classrooms in Second Life, an online 3D interactive
virtual environment. Both were introductory computer science
classrooms, but one contained stereotypical objects while the other
contained non-stereotypical objects. Whereas only 18% of women
chose to take the course in the stereotypical classroom, more than
half of men (60%) chose that classroom. Furthermore, women
expected to perform worse in the class with the stereotypical
objects than men, but in the non-stereotypical classroom, women’s
expectations rose, so that women and men expected to do equally
well (Cheryan et al., 2011a).
Why did the stereotypical environment deter womenmore than
men? Women reported a lower sense of ambient belonging in
the stereotypical environment, or sense of fit with the material
components and with the people assumed to inhabit the envi-
ronment. In contrast, men reported an equal, and sometimes
greater, sense of ambient belonging in the stereotypical envi-
ronment than the non-stereotypical environment (Cheryan et al.,
2009,2011a). Women were less likely than men to associate them-
selves with the stereotypical objects, and the more that women
perceived the stereotypical environment as masculine, the less
interest they expressed in being in that environment (Cheryan
et al., 2009).
Earlier in the pipeline, high-school students also show sim-
ilar effects on their interest in taking introductory computer
science in a classroom that fits or does not fit current com-
puter science stereotypes (Master et al., under review). Girls were
more likely to choose a non-stereotypical classroom (68% of
girls) over a stereotypical one, while boys showed no prefer-
ence for a non-stereotypical classroom (48%). Moreover, girls’
baseline interest in a computer science course in which the class-
room was not described was no different from their interest
in a stereotypical course (and both were lower than the non-
stereotypical course), suggesting that a stereotypical classroom
was consistent with girls’ default assumptions about introduc-
tory computer science courses. However, a non-stereotypical
environment provided a new image of computer science and
increased their interest over baseline. Like their college coun-
terparts, high-school girls felt a lower sense of fit with current
computer science stereotypes than did boys. The less that girls
reported a sense of fit with the current stereotypes, the more
likely they were to be deterred from a stereotypical (but not a
non-stereotypical) computer science environment (Master etal.,
under review). The observed variability between girls is striking
and suggests that current stereotypes should be diversified rather
than eliminated, a point we discuss in more detail in the next
section.
Thus, women and girls may be choosing fields other than com-
puter science and engineering in part due to the constraining
power of current stereotypes that portray the culture of the field
in a manner that is incompatible with the way that women see
themselves. When the constraint is lifted by presenting a non-
stereotypical image, girls’ sense of belonging and interest in the
field can increase, without reducing boys’interest.
THE IMPORTANCE OF VARIABILITY AND DIVERSIFYING
PORTRAYALS OF COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
In all studies investigating effects of stereotypes, there is a siz-
able portion of students who may be drawn to these fields
because of these stereotypes. In the studies on environments, some
women (typically 20–25% of women) preferred the stereotypical
www.frontiersin.org February 2015 |Volume 6 |Article 49 |5

Cheryan et al. Stereotypes as gatekeepers
environment over the non-stereotypical environment. Rather than
attempting to overhaul current stereotypes, which may deter some
men and women, a more effective strategy may be to diversify the
image of these fields so that students interested in these fields do
not think that they must fit a specific mold to be a successful
computer scientist or engineer.
Diversifying the image of computer scientists and engineers
may not only attract more women to the field, but also make some
men feel more welcome in these fields. Indeed, in the studies
on environments, some men (typically 25–30% of men) pre-
ferred the non-stereotypical environment over the stereotypical
environment. In addition, many men also highly value oppor-
tunities to work with and help others (Diekman et al., 2011).
Attracting more non-stereotypical men to the field is a way to
further stretch stereotypes and diversify a field (Drury et al.,
2011).
A question that our readers may have is whether it is fair to
present girls with a non-stereotypical image of the fields of com-
puter science and engineering if they will then enter these fields and
be unprepared for the male-oriented culture that they encounter
there. We believe it is necessary and useful to prepare girls and
women for the obstacles they may encounter in male-dominated
fields and how to overcome them. We also believe that the cul-
tures of these fields should be changed to be more welcoming of
a diversity of people. However, our viewpoint is that girls are cur-
rently exposed to an unrealistic image of these fields that depicts
all computer science and engineering cultures as fitting a narrow
profile. A broader image that shows many different types of people
and working environments in computer science and engineering
actually represents a more realistic portrayal. Furthermore, once
we start the process of welcoming more women and girls into these
fields, the process of culture change will likely build on itself and
contribute to further improving the actual and perceived culture
of these fields for women.
The computer science departments at Carnegie Mellon and
Harvey Mudd provide two real-world examples of the power of
changing cultural stereotypes to reduce gender disparities in par-
ticipation. Both increased the proportion of women majoring
in computer science from ∼10 to 40% in 5 years (Margolis and
Fisher, 2002;Hafner, 2012). In addition to structural changes (e.g.,
changes in recruiting procedures), both programs changed stereo-
types of computer science by using diverse role models, exposing
students to a wide range of applications of computer science, and
revamping their introductory course so that it was no longer seen
as a field only for “geeky know-it-alls” (Margolis and Fisher, 2002;
Hafner, 2012). These examples show that efforts to reduce gen-
der disparities in computer science and engineering benefit from
actively working to change the culture of these fields, so that
they are seen as places where all students are valued and have
the potential to be successful.
CONCLUSION: CONTRIBUTIONS TO THEORY AND PRACTICE
Why are girls, even those who grew up with technology in their
homes and took advanced math classes in high school, less likely
than boys to pursue computer science and engineering? Our cen-
tral thesis is that girls’ underrepresentation in these fields is not
due to their intractable lack of interest in choosing these fields.
Instead, we argue that women’s choices are constrained by societal
factors, particularly their stereotypes about of the kind of people,
the work involved, and the values of these fields (see Figure 1).
These perceptions, even if they are not accurate, shape the aca-
demic choices that girls make by communicating to them where
they belong.
We also argue that we can change students’ stereotypes of
the culture using relatively simple interventions to environments,
the media, and by diversifying the type of people representing
these fields. Rather than “de-geeking” the fields, a more successful
approach involves creating inclusive cultures so that those who
are considering these fields do not necessarily have to embody the
stereotypes to believe that they fit there. One concrete way to cre-
ate inclusive cultures is to consider who is selected to represent
the field (e.g., who teaches the introductory courses) and what
messages he or she signals about the kind of student who belongs
in the field. If all representatives are similar to one another, it
can signal that one has to fit that mold in order to be successful
in that environment. If there is diversity in who is presented, it
sends the message that a variety of people can be successful. Phys-
ical spaces are another effective way to signal who belongs. We
have shown that it is possible and feasible to create physical spaces
within the larger environment that allow both men and women
to feel welcome there. Finally, it is also important to change the
stories told in the media about these fields and who is found in
them.
The main message of this research is that variability is key.
Instead of portraying computer science and engineering as nar-
row fields that are easily stereotyped—and which therefore steer a
large number of students away because they “do not belong”—we
can alter how the culture of these fields is represented in the minds
of youth. By broadening the mental picture of what it means to
be a computer scientist or engineer, we may not only attract more
women to these fields, but also be more accurate about what com-
puter science and engineering are like and what they have the
potential to become.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by grants from the National Science
Foundation, DRL-1420351 to SC and SMA-0835854 to ANM.
REFERENCES
American Bar Association. (2014). JD and LLB Degrees Awarded, 1981-2011.
Availableat: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_
education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/statistics/jd_llb_degrees_awarded.auth-
checkdam.pdf
Benbow, C. P., and Stanley, J. C. (1982). Consequences in high school and college of
sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability: a longitudinal perspective. Am.
Educ. Res. J. 19, 598–622. doi: 10.3102/00028312019004598
Borg, A. (1999). What draws women to and keeps women in computing? Annu.
N. Y. Acad. Sci. 869, 102–105. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1999.tb08362.x
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2014). Computer and Information Research Scientist.
Available at: http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/
computer-and-information-research-scientists.htm
Ceci, S. J., Ginther, D. K., Kahn, S., and Williams, W. M. (2014). Women in aca-
demic science: a changing landscape. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 15, 75–141. doi:
10.1177/1529100614541236
Ceci, S. J.,Williams, W. M.,and Bar nett,S. M. (2009). Women’s underrepresentation
in science: sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychol. Bull. 135, 218–
261. doi: 10.1037/a0014412
Frontiers in Psychology |Developmental Psychology February 2015 |Volume 6 |Article 49 |6

Cheryan et al. Stereotypes as gatekeepers
Cheryan, S. (2012). Understanding the paradox in math-related fields: why do
some gender gaps remain while others do not? Sex Roles 66, 184–190. doi:
10.1007/s11199-011-0060-z
Cheryan, S., Drury, B., and Vichayapai, M. (2013a). Enduring influence of stereo-
typical computer science role models on women’s academic aspirations. Psychol.
Women Q. 37, 72–79. doi: 10.1177/0361684312459328
Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Handron, C., and Hudson, L. (2013b). The stereotypical
computer scientist: gendered media representations as a barrier to inclusion for
women. Sex Roles 69, 58–71. doi: 10.1007/s11199-013-0296-x
Cheryan, S., Meltzoff, A. N., and Kim, S. (2011a). Classrooms matter: the
design of virtual classrooms influences gender disparities in computer sci-
ence classes. Comput. Educ. 57, 1825–1835. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.
02.004
Cheryan, S., Siy, J. O., Vichayapai, M., Drury, B., and Kim, S. (2011b).
Do female and male role models who embody STEM stereotypes hinder
women’s anticipated success in STEM? Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 2, 656–664. doi:
10.1177/1948550611405218
Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Davies, P. G., and Steele, C. M. (2009). Ambient belonging:
how stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. J. Pers.
Soc. Psychol. 97, 1045–1060. doi: 10.1037/a0016239
Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., and Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative
conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J. Pers.
Soc. Psychol. 58, 1015–1026. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015
College Board. (2013). AP Program Participation and Performance Data 2013. Avail-
able at: http://research.collegeboard.org/programs/ap/data/participation/2013
Correll, S. J. (2001). Gender and the career choice process: the role of biased self-
assessments. Am. J. Soc. 106, 1691–1730. doi: 10.1086/321299
Cvencek, D., Meltzoff, A. N., and Greenwald, A. G. (2011). Math–gender
stereotypes in elementary school children. Child Dev. 82, 766–779. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01529.x
Dasgupta, N. (2011). Ingroup experts and peers as social vaccines who inoculate
the self-concept: the stereotype inoculation model. Psychol. Inq. 22, 231–246. doi:
10.1080/1047840X.2011.607313
de Cohen, C. C., and Deterding, N. (2009). Widening the net: national estimates of
gender disparities in engineering. J. Eng. Educ. 98, 211–226. doi: 10.1002/j.2168-
9830.2009.tb01020.x
Diekman, A. B., Brown, E., Johnston, A., and Clark, E. (2010). Seeking congruity
between goals and roles: a new look at why women opt out of STEM careers.
Psychol. Sci. 21, 1051–1057. doi: 10.1177/0956797610377342
Diekman, A. B., Clark, E. K., Johnston,A. M., Brown, E. R., and Steinberg, M. (2011).
Malleability in communal goals and beliefs influences attraction to STEM careers:
evidence for a goal congruity perspective. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 101, 902–918. doi:
10.1037/a0025199
Drury, B. J., Siy, J. O., and Cheryan, S. (2011). When do female role models benefit
women? The importance of differentiating recruitment from retention in STEM.
Psychol. Inq. 22, 265–269. doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2011.620935
Eagly, A. H., and Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the Labyrinth: The Truth about How
Women Become Leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Eccles, J. S., Jacobs, J. E., and Harold, R. D. (1990). Gender role stereotypes,
expectancy effects, and parents’ socialization of gender differences. J. Soc. Issues
46, 183–201. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1990.tb01929.x
Ehrlinger, J., and Dunning, D. (2003). How chronic self-views influence (and poten-
tially mislead) estimates of performance. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 84, 5–17. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.5
Gelernter, D. (1999). Women and science at Yale. The Weekly Standard. Available
at: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Protected/Articles/000/000/010/277
gnvgd.asp
Good, C., Rattan, A., and Dweck, C. S. (2012). Why do women opt out? Sense of
belonging and women’s representation in mathematics. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 102,
700–717. doi: 10.1037/a0026659
Guo, P. (2014). Silent technical privilege. Slate. Available at: http://www.slate.com/
articles/technology/technology/2014/01/programmer_privilege_as_an_asian_
male_computer_science_major_everyone_gave.html
Hafner, K. (2012). Giving women the access code. The New York Times.
Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/science/giving-women-the-
access-code.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Hasdorf, A. H., and Cantril, H. (1954). They saw a game. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol.
49, 129–134. doi: 10.1037/h0057880
Hewlett, S. A., Luce, C. B., Servon, L. J., Sherbin, L., Shiller, P., Sosnovich, E., et al.
(2008). The Athena Factor: Reversing the Brain Drain in Science, Engineering, and
Technology. Harvard Business Review Research Report. Boston, MA.
Hoh, Y. (2009). Using notable women in environmental engineering to dispel
misperceptions of engineers. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 4, 117–131.
Huguet, P., and Regner, I. (2007). Stereotype threat among schoolgirls in
quasi-ordinary classroom circumstances. J. Educ. Psychol. 99, 545–560. doi:
10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.545
Jolliff, L., Leadley, J., Coakley, E., and Sloane, R. A. (2012). WomeninU.S.
Academic Medicine and Science: Statistics and Benchmarking Report 2011-2012.
Washington, DC: Association of American Medical Colleges. Available at:
https://www.aamc.org/download/415556/data/2011-2012wimsstatsreport.pdf
Kalwarski, T., Mosher, D., Paskin, J., and Rosato, D. (2007). Best jobs in Amer-
ica. CNNMoney.com. Available at: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/
bestjobs/index.html
Leslie, S. J., Cimpian, A., Meyer, M., and Freeland, E. (2015). Expectations of
brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science 347,
262–265. doi: 10.1126/science.1261375
Margolis, J., and Fisher, A. (2002). Unlocking the clubhouse: women in computing.
Psychol. Women Q. 26, 381–382.
Margolis, J., Fisher, A., and Miller, F. (2000). Anatomy of interest: women in
undergraduate computer science. Womens Stud. Q. Spec. Issue Women Sci. 28,
104–126.
Markus, H. R., and Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: implications
for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychol. Rev. 98, 224–253. doi:
10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
Martincic, C. J., and Bhatnagar, N. (2012). Will Computer Engineer Barbie® impact
young women’s career choices? Inform. Syst. Educ. J. 10, 4–14.
Marx, D. M., Stapel, D. A., and Muller, D. (2005). We can do it: the interplay of
construal orientation and social comparisons under threat. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
88, 432–446. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.432
Master, A., Cheryan, S., and Meltzoff, A. N. (2014). Reducing adolescent girls’
concerns about STEM stereotypes: when do female teachers matter? Int. Rev. Soc.
Psychol. 27, 79–102.
Meltzoff,A. N. (2013). “Origins of social cognition: bidirectional self-other mapping
and the “Like-Me” hypothesis,” in Navigating the Social World: What Infants,
Children, and Other Species Can Teach us, eds M. Banaji and S. Gelman (New
York, NY: Oxford University Press).
Mercier, E. M., Barron, B., and O’Connor, K. M. (2006). Images of self and others
as computer users: the role of gender and experience. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 22,
335–348. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00182.x
Miller, C. C. (2014). Technology’s man problem. The New York Times. Available at:
http://www.nytimes.com
Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., and Handelsman,
J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 109, 16464–16479. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1211286109
Murphy, M. C., Steele, C. M., and Gross, J.J. (2007). Signaling threat: how situational
cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychol. Sci. 18,
879–885. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01995.x
National Science Foundation. (2012). Appendix Table 2-12. Freshmen Intend-
ing S&E Major, by Field, Sex, and Race/Ethnicity: 1995–2010. Available at:
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/append/c2/at02-12.xls
National Science Foundation. (2013). TABLE 5-2. Bachelor’s Degrees Awarded, by
Field and Sex: 2002–2012. Available at: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/2013/
pdf/tab5-2_updated_2014_05.pdf
Perez-Felkner, L., McDonald, S., Scheider, B., and Grogan, E. (2012). Female and
male adolescents’ subjective orientations to mathematics and the influence of
those orientations on postsecondary majors. Dev. Psychol. 48, 1658–1673. doi:
10.1037/a0027020
Rommes, E., Overbeek, G., Scholte, R., Engels, R., and De Kemp, R. (2007).
‘I’m not interested in computers’: gender-based occupational choices of ado-
lescents. Inform. Commun. Soc. 10, 299–319. doi: 10.1080/136911807014
09838
Ross, L., and Nisbett, R. E. (1991). The Person and the Situation: Perspectives of Social
Psychology. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: the costs and
benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74,
629–645. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.629
www.frontiersin.org February 2015 |Volume 6 |Article 49 |7

Cheryan et al. Stereotypes as gatekeepers
Sadker, M., and Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at Fairness: How America’s Schools Cheat
Girls. New York: Scribner.
Schmader, T., Johns, M., and Forbes, C. (2008). An integrated process model
of stereotype threat effects on performance. Psychol. Rev. 115, 336–356. doi:
10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.336
Schumacher, P., and Morahan-Martin, J. (2001). Gender, internet and computer
attitudes and experiences. Comput. Hum. Behav. 17, 95–110. doi: 10.1016/S0747-
5632(00)00032-7
Shashaani, L. (1994). Gender differences in computer experience and its influence
on computer attitudes. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 11, 347–367. doi: 10.2190/64MD-
HTKW-PDXV-RD62
Smith, J. L., Lewis, K. L., Hawthorne, L., and Hodges, S. D. (2013). When trying
hard isn’t natural: women’s belonging with and motivation for male-dominated
STEM fields as a function of effort expenditure concerns. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull.
39, 131–143. doi: 10.1177/0146167212468332
Soper, T. (2014). Analysis: the exploding demand for computer sci-
ence education, and why America needs to keep up. Geekwire. Avail-
able at: http://www.geekwire.com/2014/analysis-examining-computer-science-
education-explosion/
Spelke, E. S. (2005). Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics and
science? A critical review. Am. Psychol. 60, 950–958. doi: 10.1037/0003-
066X.60.9.950
Spencer,S. J., Steele, C. M., and Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s
math performance. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 35, 4–28. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1998.1373
Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: how stereotypes shape intellectual identity
and performance. Am. Psychol. 52, 613–629. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.52.6.613
Steinke, J., Lapinski, M. K., Crocker, N., Zietsman-Thomas, A., Williams, Y.,
Evergreen, S. H., et al. (2007). Assessing media influences on middle school–
aged children’s perceptions of women in science using the Draw-A-Scientist Test
(DAST). Sci. Commun. 29, 35–64. doi: 10.1177/1075547007306508
Stephenson, C., Gal-Ezer, J., Haberman, B., and Verno, A. (2005). The New Edu-
cational Imperative: Improving High School Computer Science Education. Final
Report of the Computer Science Teachers Association, Curriculum Improvement
Task Force. New York, NY: Computer Science Teachers Association.
Stout, J. G., Dasgupta, N., Hunsinger, M., and McManus, M. (2011). STEMing
the tide: using ingroup experts to inoculate women’s self-concept in science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 100,
255–270. doi: 10.1037/a0021385
Weisbuch, M., Pauker, K., and Ambady, N. (2009). The subtle transmission
of race bias via televised nonverbal behavior. Science 326, 1711–1714. doi:
10.1126/science.1178358
Weisgram, E. S., and Bigler, R. S. (2006). Girls and science careers: the role of
altruistic values and attitudes about scientific tasks. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 27,
326–348. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2006.04.004
Whiting, B. B. (1980). Culture and social behavior: a model for the devel-
opment of social behavior. Ethos 8, 95–116. doi: 10.1525/eth.1980.8.2.02a
00010
Zimmerman, A. (2010). Revenge of the nerds: How Barbie got her geek on. The Wall
Street Journal. Availableat: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000142405270230419
8004575171791681002592;
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.
Received: 17 October 2014; paper pending published: 01 December 2014; accepted: 10
January 2015; published online: 11 February 2015.
Citation: Cheryan S, Master A and Meltzoff AN (2015) Cultural Stereotypes as gate-
keepers: increasing girls’ interest in computer science and engineering by diversifying
stereotypes. Front. Psychol. 6:49. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00049
This article was submitted to Developmental Psychology, a section of the journal
Frontiers in Psychology.
Copyright © 2015 Cheryan, Master and Meltzoff. This is an open-access article dis-
tributed 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.
Frontiers in Psychology |Developmental Psychology February 2015 |Volume 6 |Article 49 |8