A group of student researchers working in Dr. Kiran Soma’s Lab. Photo: Paul Joseph
Despite decades of progress, women remain underrepresented in science and technology (STEM) careers.
New research by UBC psychology professor Dr. Toni Schmader and her team offers insight into one key reason why: the persistent belief that men and women are “naturally” interested in different kinds of work. Even when discrimination isn’t overt, this belief subtly shapes which opportunities women are offered—and which they aren’t.
UBC Media Relations spoke with Dr. Schmader about the paper published last week in Psychological Sciences.
What made you want to explore this issue?
For more than a decade, I’ve led a national research partnership examining barriers girls and women face in science and technology careers. While there’s long been awareness of gender gaps, there’s been less clarity around why they persist. A New York Times op-ed once claimed that science isn’t sexist and women just aren’t interested, but I think it’s more complicated.
There’s this idea that men are inherently more interested in things or systems, and women are more drawn to people and social interactions. While there is some evidence that such differences exist, what matters is why people think they exist: Are they biologically hardwired, or shaped by life experience?
“We found that people who think those differences are biological were more likely to act on them in ways that limit women’s exposure to career-building experiences.”
We found that people who think those differences are biological were more likely to act on them in ways that limit women’s exposure to career-building experiences.
Your team ran three studies. Can you walk us through what you found?
In the first two, we asked people working in STEM to imagine they were managers at a tech company running an internship program. They were given applicant profiles equal in qualifications but differing by gender and asked to assign interns to project teams.
Some of the project teams were client-facing, and others were back-end, system-focused roles. We found that participants tended to assign women to the people-oriented teams and men to the system-oriented ones, even though no applicants had relevant experience.
This bias was stronger among participants who believed that gender differences in interests are biologically based. And when we had these managers read an article explaining that gender differences in career interest are shaped by sociocultural experiences, that bias diminished. So education helped.
What happened in the third study?
We flipped the perspective. We asked undergraduate women to imagine they were entering this same internship program and showed them roles recommended by their hypothetical manager. Some saw balanced suggestions; others received options skewed toward client-facing roles.
Women who got the biased recommendations—who weren’t offered back-end roles—reported less interest in those roles even when asked independently. So not only were their choices limited, but their interests shifted accordingly. That was troubling. Being denied an opportunity made women less likely to see themselves as interested in that type of work.
So it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy: The beliefs that managers hold, especially when they think women “naturally” prefer people-focused work, shape the opportunities they offer. That in turn shapes what women become interested in. It’s a powerful cycle.
What are the practical takeaways?
For schools, employers, even parents, it’s about being aware that opportunities you provide shape not just skills, but interests. If you want to support girls in exploring all careers, you need to offer them real, unbiased experiences.
And for managers, it’s a reminder that your assumptions matter. You might think you’re matching people to what they’re good at, but you might just be steering them away from growth opportunities.
What’s next for your research?
We want to study how early this begins, for everyone. Our goal is to understand not just the barriers women face, but also the forces that discourage men from entering people-focused careers such as teaching or care work, where they’re similarly underrepresented.
When opportunities are shaped by stereotypes, we miss out on talent and innovation. STEM shapes the world around us. If only a subset of people feel welcome, we lose the perspectives and creativity that come from diverse lived experiences. It’s not just about fairness, it’s about what we can achieve when we open doors for everyone.
“When opportunities are shaped by stereotypes, we miss out on talent and innovation. STEM shapes the world around us.”
This Q&A was originally posted on the UBC news website by UBC Media Relations.
