Intervention about Children’s Intergroup Friendships Reduces Children’s STEM Stereotypes

• In Event: STEM Inequity: Promoting STEM Engagement and Challenging STEM Stereotypes among Marginalized Youth

Abstract

Gender stereotypes concerning math and science are present from early childhood throughout adolescence and adulthood (Liben & Bigler, 2002; Mulvey & Irvin, 2018). From early childhood, children make inferences about “who is good at science,” which is often constrained by race and gender. These inferences are the result of multiple factors including stereotypic expectations, group identity, belonging, and group norms. This opens the possibility that facilitating children’s peer discussions about, and their about reasoning for, exclusion in science contexts may help to change children’s stereotypic attitudes. We conducted a school-based intervention study with 983 children (502 females; 58.5% White, 41.5% Ethnic/racial minority; MAge = 9.64 years) focused on promoting intergroup friendships and decreasing children’s stereotypes. Children in the intervention condition participated in eight weekly sessions where they witnessed the harm of intergroup exclusion and the benefits of intergroup inclusion. Each week focused on a different target group, with the second week focusing on the benefits of including girls in science. Pre- and post-test assessments were conducted concerning children’s gender and racial stereotypes about math and science. Additionally, for children in the intervention group, we collected evaluations (how OK or not OK it is to include/exclude a girl from a science project) and reasoning within the science scenario.

At pre-test, children in the business as usual (BAU) and intervention groups did not differ on their stereotypes about math and science (ps > .07). However, at post-test children in the intervention group rated girls (t = 2.697, p = .007), White students (t = 2.511, p = .012), Black students (t = 2.426, p = .015), and Asian students (t = 1.992, p = .047) as better at math and science compared to children in the BAU condition.

Next, we examined intervention participants’ variability in evaluations and reasoning within the science scenario. We found that children who thought excluding a girl from a science project was acceptable were more likely to cite personal choice reasons and children who thought exclusion was wrong were more likely to cite pragmatic and moral fairness reasons (χ2 = 33.971, p < .001). Participants who chose to include a girl in a science activity disproportionally cited moral welfare and fairness reasons (χ2 = 1257.388, p < .001). Lastly, we examined how children’s use of moral reasoning within the science scenario was related to their differences in math and science stereotypes from pre- to post-test. We found that children who used moral reasoning throughout the science scenario demonstrated fewer stereotypic expectations about math and science ability at post-test (t = 2.014, p = .045).

These findings support our expectation that facilitating discussion about STEM inclusivity can impact their reasoning about inclusion in STEM contexts. Our final presentation will include details of children’s reasoning responses within the science scenario and make connections to other post-test measures such as children’s gender stereotypes about high status occupations and their desire to play with gender outgroup peers. Further, we will discuss the role of inclusivity programs in changing children’s STEM biases.

Authors

• Jacquelyn Glidden, University of Maryland - College Park
  Presenting Author

• Riley N. Sims, University of Maryland - College Park

• Melanie A. Killen, University of Maryland - College Park