Search

Women's underrepresentation in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) has been linked, among others, to gender stereotypes and ability-related beliefs as well as gender differences in specific cognitive abilities. However, the bulk of studies focused on gender stereotypes related to mathematics. The present study, therefore, aimed to map gender stereotypes and incremental beliefs (i.e., the conviction about modifiability) with respect to a wide range of stereotypical male-favouring and female-favouring abilities. Gender stereotypes and incremental beliefs were assessed with self-report questionnaires in 132 STEM students (65 women) and 124 non-STEM students (73 women) in three European countries ranked in the top, middle, and bottom of the Global Gender Gap Report. Moreover, a mental rotation and a verbal fluency test were completed. Men endorsed male-favouring stereotypes more than women, and women endorsed female-favouring stereotypes more than men, an effect that was most pronounced in the country with the larger gender gap. Male STEM students endorsed male-favouring stereotypes more strongly than male non-STEM and female STEM students. Male non-STEM students endorsed female-favouring stereotypes less than female and male STEM students. Female STEM students reported higher incremental beliefs than female non-STEM students, especially in the country with the lowest gender gap. Men outperformed women, and STEM students outperformed non-STEM in mental rotation, while women outperformed men in verbal fluency. Male STEM students' stronger endorsement of male-favouring stereotypes might reflect genuine group differences, at least in mental rotation. While potentially such gender stereotypes can help creating a "chilly climate" where women in academic STEM degrees are expected to perform poorly, those women believed more in the possibility to change and improve in male-favouring abilities which could help them to overcome the potential negative effect of stereotyping.

The visual half-field technique has been shown to be a reliable and valid neuropsychological measurement of language lateralisation, typically showing higher accuracy and faster correct responses for linguistic stimuli presented in the right visual field (RVF) than left visual field (LVF). The RVF advantage corresponds to the well-known dominance of the left hemisphere (LH) in processing language(s). However, clinical and experimental neuroscientists around the globe use different variations of the visual half-field paradigm, making direct comparisons difficult. The current study used a word/non-word visual half-field paradigm with translingual stimuli. In total, 496 participants from seven European countries were investigated: Belgium (64), England (49), Germany (85), Italy (34), The Netherlands (87), Norway (51), and Switzerland (126), covering six international languages (Dutch, English, French, German, Italian, Norwegian). All language groups revealed a significant RVF/LH advantage in accuracy and reaction times that accounted for up to 26.1% of the total variance in performance. We found some variation in the degree of the RVF/LH advantage across language groups, accounting for a maximum of 3.7% of the total variance in performance. The RVF/LH advantage did not differ between subsamples speaking English, French or German as first or second languages or between monolingual and early/late bi/multilinguals. The findings suggest that the translingual lexical decision task (TLDT) is a simple but reliable measurement of language lateralisation that can be applied clinically and experimentally across linguistic and national boundaries., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)