Gender Essentialism Leads to Biased Learning Opportunities That Shape Women’s Career Interests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gender differences in occupational interests are often assumed to reflect sex differences in empathizing or systemizing preferences. Do such essentialized explanations lead people to provide gender-biased learning affordances that constrain women’s career interests? In Study 1 ( N = 292), North American STEM professionals endorsing a biologically essentialized (vs. sociocultural) explanation for gender differences in occupational interests provided women (men) with more empathizing (systemizing) learning affordances in a mock management task. Study 2 replicated these gendered affordances by experimentally manipulating essentialized explanations ( N = 379; participants were North American men with management experience in male-dominated fields). In Study 3, North American undergraduate women ( N = 300) who received gendered learning affordances reported greater interest in, and possible alignment with, empathizing work assignments, whereas those who received countergendered affordances reported greater interest in, and possible alignment with, systemizing assignments. These results reveal that gender-essentialist beliefs can foster self-fulfilling gender gaps in occupational interests.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".