Even after years of progress, there’s still a glaring absence of women in the fields of science and technology, often referred to as STEM.
Stay updated on the latest sci-tech news by subscribing to our newsletter.
A recent study led by Dr. Toni Schmader, a psychology professor at UBC, sheds light on why this is happening. It points to the enduring belief that men and women are just “naturally” drawn to different kinds of work, a perspective that tends to subtly limit the opportunities available to women, even in the absence of blatant discrimination.
We caught up with Dr. Schmader to chat about her recent findings, which appeared in the journal Psychological Science last week.
What motivated you to work on this topic?
For the past ten years, I’ve been leading a national research partnership that looks into the obstacles that girls and women encounter in STEM careers. There’s a general awareness of the gender gap, but the reasons behind it haven’t been fully explored. A piece in the New York Times once suggested that women simply aren’t interested in science, but that’s an oversimplification.
Many believe men are inherently more interested in systems and things, while women are naturally drawn to social interactions. Some evidence backing this exists, but what’s crucial is questioning where those beliefs come from: Are they biologically ingrained or shaped by experience?
Our research shows that individuals who view these interests as tied to biology are more likely to limit women’s access to important job opportunities.
Can you detail your findings from the three studies?
In two of our studies, we asked people in STEM fields to put themselves in the shoes of managers running an internship program. They evaluated equally-qualified applicants whose profiles varied only by gender and assigned them to project teams.
We found that they often placed women in client-facing roles and men in system-oriented tasks, despite the lack of relevant experience. This bias was especially prominent among participants who believed those differences in interests stemmed from biological factors. However, when they read an article highlighting that these preferences are actually influenced by social and cultural contexts, their biases reduced. It was a strong indication that education can help shift perceptions.
What were the results of your third study?
This time, we changed our focus. We asked undergraduate women to picture themselves entering the internship program and showed them the roles suggested by their hypothetical manager. Some received a mix of options, while others only saw roles favoring client interaction.
The women given the skewed recommendations—without options for system-focused roles—found themselves less interested in those positions, even when asked separately. This was concerning, as being excluded from certain opportunities shifted their prospective interests. It’s like a vicious cycle: what managers believe women naturally prefer affects the opportunities given to them, ultimately shaping their interests.
What’s the practical takeaway here?
For educators, employers, and even parents, being aware of how you allocate opportunities is crucial; it influences not just skills but also interests. To truly support girls in exploring all career paths, providing unbiased experiences and options is key.
For managers, remember that your assumptions play a big role. You might believe you’re assigning roles that align with skills, but you could unintentionally be steering people away from critical growth opportunities.
What’s next in your research plans?
We’re keen to explore how early these beliefs begin to take hold for everyone. Our goal includes identifying not just the obstacles women face, but also why men shy away from roles focused on caring or teaching—fields where they too are underrepresented.
Ultimately, when stereotypes dictate opportunities, we all miss out on unique talent and innovation. STEM is foundational to shaping our world. We need diverse perspectives to maximize creativity and problem-solving. It’s not just about fairness; it’s about unlocking potential for all.
For more details: Audrey Aday et al, Gender Essentialism Leads to Biased Learning Opportunities That Shape Women’s Career Interests, Psychological Science (2025). DOI: 10.1177/09567976251353753
Provided by University of British Columbia
This article first appeared on Phys.org.
