Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 3 replies
  • Subscribers 15 subscribers
  • Views 299 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

6-Year-Old Girls Already Have Gendered Beliefs About Intelligence

Amber Thomas
This is a really interesting article and includes some studies which might show why girls are put off from certain (STEM- based) games or toys at a very young age. Read more: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/six-year-old-girls-already-have-gendered-beliefs-about-intelligence/514340/


A short description was read out to children aged 5 to 7 and the children asked to guess who was being described from a selection of 4 photos (2 male, 2 female). The story was this: “There are lots of people at the place where I work, but there is one person who is really special. This person is really, really smart. This person figures out how to do things quickly and comes up with answers much faster and better than anyone else. This person is really, really smart.”


Among the 5-year-olds, both boys and girls associated brilliance with their own gender. But among those aged 6 or 7, only the boys still held to that view. At an age when girls tend to outperform boys at school, and when children in general show large positive biases towards their own in-groups, the girls became less likely than boys to attribute brilliance to their own gender. 


Why do these beliefs occur? It’s not to do with actual ability. At that age, girls tend to outclass their male peers—and the girls in this study knew it. When she showed them pictures of four children and asked them to guess who got the best grades, the older girls were actually more likely to pick girls than the older boys were to pick boys. “Everyone agreed that girls do better in school but that didn’t seem to matter."


Those girls who had most strongly assimilated the stereotype of male brilliance showed the lowest interest in a game for children “who are really, really smart” rather than in games for children who “try really, really hard”.  They had already mentally assigned themselves to Hufflepuff instead of Ravenclaw.

Read more: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/six-year-old-girls-already-have-gendered-beliefs-about-intelligence/514340/
Parents
  • 0
    @ Virginia Hodge:

    Re.University of Washington Sapna Cheryan's comments and possible impact on what we (the IET, I assumed) are trying to do - that is, inspire more girls to try out STEM subjects

    "Sapna Cheryan from the University of Washington notes that in Bian’s study, the 5-year-olds had a kind of gender arrogance, which persisted in the boys but disappeared in the girls. “Do we want a society where each gender thinks they are smarter, or do we want one where boys and girls think the genders are equally smart?” Cheryan asks. “If the latter, then it may be boys’ beliefs that we should try to change." 

    Since the gender arrogance disappered in the girls and persisted in the boys, one must assumed that the arrogance or lack of arrogance was being reinforced/re-adjusted by the children's parents, teachers, siblings, peers and society. 


    Just as the colour of one's skin, straight hair or curly hair do not define a person, gender cannot determine "smartness"  or how "smart" a person is.

    “Similarly, do we want a society where people would rather play the game that requires being ‘being smart’ over the one that require ‘hard work?’” she says. “We as a society should figure out what we value before concluding that it is the girls we need to change.” 

    This is a deep question, presumably "being smart" is meant as being smart within a legal framework - in which case being smart should not preclude "hard work". In STEM subjects, being smart does not imply that every aspects of a subject will be easily understood, there will be areas of uncertainty (if the knowlege is deep and wide enough) where persistence and hard graft will be needed for better understanding and clarity.



Reply
  • 0
    @ Virginia Hodge:

    Re.University of Washington Sapna Cheryan's comments and possible impact on what we (the IET, I assumed) are trying to do - that is, inspire more girls to try out STEM subjects

    "Sapna Cheryan from the University of Washington notes that in Bian’s study, the 5-year-olds had a kind of gender arrogance, which persisted in the boys but disappeared in the girls. “Do we want a society where each gender thinks they are smarter, or do we want one where boys and girls think the genders are equally smart?” Cheryan asks. “If the latter, then it may be boys’ beliefs that we should try to change." 

    Since the gender arrogance disappered in the girls and persisted in the boys, one must assumed that the arrogance or lack of arrogance was being reinforced/re-adjusted by the children's parents, teachers, siblings, peers and society. 


    Just as the colour of one's skin, straight hair or curly hair do not define a person, gender cannot determine "smartness"  or how "smart" a person is.

    “Similarly, do we want a society where people would rather play the game that requires being ‘being smart’ over the one that require ‘hard work?’” she says. “We as a society should figure out what we value before concluding that it is the girls we need to change.” 

    This is a deep question, presumably "being smart" is meant as being smart within a legal framework - in which case being smart should not preclude "hard work". In STEM subjects, being smart does not imply that every aspects of a subject will be easily understood, there will be areas of uncertainty (if the knowlege is deep and wide enough) where persistence and hard graft will be needed for better understanding and clarity.



Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines