Open to Everyone: PRISM Interventions Reduce Boys' Gender Bias and Improve Girls' Anticipated Fit in STEM

• In Event: "Yes We Can": Improving Equity in Education Through STEM Motivation and Engagement

Abstract

Objectives and Framework
Despite efforts toward equality, gender gaps in STEM persist. Evidence also continues to mount that gender gaps are linked to systemic biases, and that these biases emerge even in early childhood (e.g., Cvencek, Meltzoff, & Greenwald, 2011). We took a two-pronged approach to address these inequities, deploying two interventions; one focused on debiasing the STEM climate and one focused on directly improving girls’ connection with STEM. These interventions took place within the “critical window” when early adolescents begin deciding on their gateway high school courses (e.g., Grade 11 Physics, required for most engineering undergraduate programs). Namely, attendees of STEM-focused early-adolescent co-ed summer camps were randomly assigned to complete gender-matched interventions (or control activities), with pre/post surveys. See Figure 1.

The Boys’ Intervention
The “Boys’ Intervention” aimed at debiasing the climate by reducing boys’ stereotyping of girls’ STEM ability via a direct persuasive appeal (e.g., Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). To increase the impact of our appeal, we targeted both central (e.g., evidence-based research) and peripheral (e.g., confident authority figure) routes to persuasion (see the Elaboration-Likelihood model; Petty & Cacioppo, 1979); this information was delivered by men with no personal stake in the matter (Walster, Aronson, & Abrahams, 1966). Finally, we reduced backlash by preceding the intervention with a values affirmation (Steele, 1988). Across three studies, boys (Ns = 88, 289, 327) in the treatment condition received an interpersonal values affirmation, engaged with information on women’s latent abilities in STEM (conversationally in Study 1; via video in Studies 2 and 3), and discussed with a male role model how stereotypes can conceal girls’ true abilities. Compared with boys in the control condition, boys in treatment had more positive beliefs about girls’ abilities in STEM (beliefs about boys’ abilities were unchanged; see Figure 2).

The Girls’ Intervention
The “Girls’ Intervention” focused on directly improving girls’ experiences in STEM via a multi-faceted prospection exercise focused on girls’ sense of fit in STEM (Schmader & Sedikides, 2018), as well as their interest in specific STEM courses and careers. Importantly, in this talk we focus on Study 3 (Study 1 and 2 saw no consistent differences between the girls in treatment and control), which refined the focus of the intervention on future orientation and broadened our variety of role models. Specifically, in Study 3, girls in treatment discussed communal value affordances in STEM with a female role model (Diekman et al., 2017), watched a video with several near-peer role models discussing STEM fit, and explored the concept of double inclusion (having strong friendships in STEM and non-STEM settings; Cheryan et al., 2019). The Study 3 treatment significantly improved girls’ (N = 257) anticipated fit and efficacy in STEM, plus elevated their interest in STEM high school courses and careers (vs. girls in control; see Figure 3).

Scholarly Significance
Through two interventions, we improved the STEM climate (by debiasing boys) and encouraged girls’ fit and interest in STEM. Implications of these interventions for co-ed and gender-segregated educational programming and STEM outreach will be discussed.

Authors

• Emily Cyr, University of Waterloo

• Kathryn M Kroeper, The Ohio State University

• Tara Dennehy, University of British Columbia

• Hilary Bergsieker, University of Waterloo

• Stephen Wright, Simon Fraser University

• Steven Spencer, The Ohio State University