Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, vol. 8, pp. 41–52, 2002
ISSN 1072-8325/02$3.00 Copyright © 2002 by Begell House, Inc.
41
GENDER AND ACHIEVEMENT-RELATED BELIEFS AMONG
ENGINEERING STUDENTS
Gail D. Heyman,
*
Bryn Martyna, and Sangeeta Bhatia
University of California, San Diego
Achievement-related beliefs were examined among a group of 238 college students in engineering (38 female, 104 male)
and nonengineering majors (57 female, 39 male) to understand why women enter engineering majors at a low rate and
are more likely than men to leave such majors. The results indicated that (a) among the engineering majors, women were
more likely than men to identify engineering aptitude as a fixed ability, a belief that was associated with a tendency to
drop classes when faced with difficulty; (b) female engineering majors were more likely to perceive male and female engi-
neering students as receiving different treatment than their male counterparts; and (c) female engineering majors tended
to place more emphasis on extrinsic factors and less emphasis on intrinsic factors than female nonengineering majors, a
pattern not seen among men. Implications for intervention programs are discussed.
INTRODUCTION
The proportion of women entering many traditionally male-dominated professions has
increased substantially in recent years. However, gender ratios in the field of engineering have
remained highly unbalanced in the United States, with women constituting only about 20%
of engineering majors and holding only about 9% of engineering jobs (National Science Foun-
dation, 2000). This situation contrasts with many other traditionally male-dominated pro-
fessions, such as law and medicine. For example, in the 1999–2000 academic year, 45.8% of
entering medical students in the United States were female (Barzansky, Jonas, & Etzel, 2000).
What might account for the gender imbalance in engineering? There can be little doubt
that historical patterns of institutionalized gender discrimination play a key role. However,
there is evidence that achievement-related beliefs are also involved (Eccles, 1987, 1994). This
article examines beliefs that may be related to the differential entry and retention rates in
engineering for women versus men. The beliefs of female engineering students were of central
interest, and the beliefs of male engineering students and of male and female nonengineering
students were examined for the purpose of comparison.
Three major types of beliefs were examined in this exploratory study: (a) beliefs about
the nature of abilities and the meaning of difficulties that are encountered, (b) beliefs about
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Gail D. Heyman, Department of Psy-
chology, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0109; e-mail: ghey-
man@ucsd.edu. This research was supported by National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
Grant HD38529. We thank Brian Compton and Jessica Giles for helpful comments on an earlier version of
this article.
42 Gail D. Heyman et al.
whether male and female engineering students are treated differently, and (c) values and inter-
ests. Each of these is described below.
Beliefs About the Nature of Abilities and the Meaning of Difficulties
Numerous research studies have suggested that individuals’ conceptions of their own
abilities (or efficacy) can have substantial implications for career-related choices (see Bandura,
Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 2001). It is also possible that individuals’ more general
implicit beliefs about the nature of ability may have implications for these processes (see Dweck,
1999). As a first step in addressing this issue, one set of questions in the present study focused
on how engineering and nonengineering students conceptualize intellectual abilities and how
they interpret and respond to the academic difficulties they encounter. The key dimension of
interest was whether individuals tend to view intelligence as being fixed or malleable (see
Dweck, 1999). An individual with an entity (fixed) view of intelligence would be likely to
agree that intelligence is an aspect of a person that cannot be changed. In contrast, someone
with an incremental (malleable) view of intelligence would be likely to disagree with such
statements. These views of intelligence have been linked to different motivational responses
to challenging situations (Cain & Dweck, 1995; Henderson & Dweck, 1990; Leggett, 1985;
see also Dweck, 1999; Stipek & Gralinski, 1996) . For individuals who hold entity views of
intelligence, difficulties are seen as potentially reflecting on enduring intellectual deficits. Con-
sequently, difficulties tend to be associated with performance decrements and a failure to persist
in the face of obstacles. In contrast, for individuals who hold incremental views of intelligence,
difficulties tend to be viewed as less threatening, merely signaling a need for increased effort
or a change in strategy.
Dweck (1999) argued that girls and women, particularly those of high ability, may be
more likely than boys and men to develop entity views of ability and to view difficulties as
aversive. One reason is that bright girls are especially likely to receive a great deal of global
praise when they are young (see Dweck, 1999). This global praise can convey the implicit
message that ability that can be readily assessed on the basis of performance outcomes (see
also Kamins & Dweck, 1999, and Mueller & Dweck, 1998, regarding the paradoxical effects
of praise). Such patterns may also lead high-ability girls and women to expect frequent praise.
As a result, many become attracted to tasks in which they are confident of success. Conse-
quently, they may “opt for easier programs of study, avoiding advanced math and science
because these feel too risky” (Dweck, 1999, p. 124). Dweck also raised the possibility that
bright girls and women are especially vulnerable to treating any outcome short of the highest
grade as a failure (see also Bell, 1989). Consequently, when such women do not receive high
grades, they may feel that it is time to consider whether they might be more successful in
another major.
Perceptions of Whether Gender Affects Treatment
The second major set of questions in the present study concerned perceptions of the
social climate faced by female engineering students, which has been identified as an important
factor affecting women’s persistence (Brainard & Carlin, 1998; Davis 1996, Meinhodlt &
Murray, 1999; Seymour & Hewitt, 1994; Solnick, 1995). The social climate may be especially
important in a domain such as engineering, in which women face stereotype threat. Steele
Gender and Beliefs 43
and Aronson (1995) defined stereotype threat as “being at risk for confirming as self-charac-
teristic a negative stereotype about one’s group” (p. 797). According to this view, it is not
necessary for an individual to internalize a negative stereotype to experience stereotype threat;
one need only be aware that he or she may be judged by others with reference to the stereotype
(Steele, 1997). Even though women in engineering may perform well and have confidence in
their skills, a situational stereotype threat may produce a fear of being linked to the negative
stereotype about their group. The presence of a stereotype threat creates a recurrent need for
individuals to disprove the stereotype as they progress to increasingly more advanced levels
within a domain.
Might there be differences between male and female engineering students in the extent
to which they perceive differential treatment on the basis of gender? Consistent with this
possibility, Meinholdt and Murray (1999) found that in a sample composed primarily of engi-
neering and science majors, male students tended to have relatively negative attitudes about
women. For example, men were more likely than women to agree with the statement “men
make better engineers than women.” If women are in an environment in which they perceive
differential treatment, but their male classmates do not, it might serve to increase the gender
divide between men and women. For example, in such a context, a woman may be reluctant
to express her concerns about differential treatment from men because of the likelihood that
her perspective will be discounted.
Values and Interests
The third set of exploratory questions focused on self-perceptions as they relate to
achievement and achievement-related decisions. One question concerned whether male and
female engineering students differ in the extent to which they see their interests as well matched
to their chosen courses of study. Such questions of fit play an important role in many models
of achievement motivation, such as expectancy-value models (Atkinson, 1966; Wigfield &
Eccles, 2000). Although there is evidence that men are more likely than women to view tech-
nical fields such as engineering to be a good fit with their interests (Benbow & Minor, 1986;
see Eccles, 1987, 1994), it is not clear that such factors play a role among female students who
have chosen engineering from a range of available options (see Deaux, 1984, concerning evi-
dence that among men and women engaged in the same activity, few gender differences are
typically found).
A related issue is the role of personal values about careers and achievement. Previous
research has suggested that values about the importance of different factors in one’s career can
have important implications for one’s choice of an occupation (see Eccles, 1994). Of key
interest in the present study was whether female engineering majors differ from nonengineering
majors in their personal values about careers. Of particular interest were values emphasizing
extrinsic factors, such as money and prestige, and intrinsic motivational factors, such as the
enjoyment that comes from participating in an activity (see Lepper & Henderlong, 2000).
Also of interest were the value of a flexible work environment and the opportunity to make a
contribution to society. Understanding whether women inside and outside of engineering
differ in their perceptions of the importance of such factors may provide insights into what
factors might facilitate the recruitment and retention of women in engineering.
44 Gail D. Heyman et al.
METHOD
Participants
Participants were 238 undergraduates enrolled at the University of California, San
Diego. Among the 142 participants (38 female, 104 male) who were enrolled in an engineering
program, 73 were in computer science and engineering (a major that combines computer
science and engineering curricula), 26 were in bioengineering, 22 were in structural engineer-
ing, 11 were in mechanical engineering, 7 were in electrical engineering, and 3 were in other
engineering majors. The reported ethnicities for this group are as follows: 47.2% White, 1.4%
African American, 38.0% Asian, 1.4% Hispanic, and 4.2% other; 7.7% did not report their
ethnicities. Among the comparison group of 96 nonengineering majors (57 female, 39 male),
46 were social science majors, 28 were natural science majors, 17 were humanities majors, and
5 were in other nonengineering majors. The reported ethnicities for this group are as follows:
52.3% White, 1.0% African American, 22.9% Asian, 8.3% Hispanic, and 9.4% other; 6.2%
did not report their ethnicities.
Participants were recruited with the assistance of faculty members across a range of
disciplines. Participants filled out questionnaires in their classes.
Measures
Beliefs about the nature of abilities and the meaning of difficulties. To examine beliefs about
the nature of an aptitude for engineering, participants were asked to rate their levels of agree-
ment with the following two statements: (a) “You have a certain amount of aptitude for engi-
neering, and you really can’t do much to change it”; and (b) “You can learn new things, but
you can’t really change your basic aptitude for engineering.” Participants rated their agreement
on scales ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 6 (strongly disagree). Consistent with other research
examining entity and incremental beliefs (e.g., Levy & Dweck, 1999) responses were averaged,
and participants whose averages were above 3.5 (indicating a tendency to disagree with the
statements) were classified as having an incremental theory of aptitude for engineering. Those
whose average scores were below 3.5 were classified as having an entity theory of aptitude for
engineering. Participants whose scores were exactly 3.5 were excluded from all analyses that
included the entity-incremental distinction.
An analogous pair of questions was included to assess beliefs about general intelligence.
These questions were identical, except that the phrase basic intelligence replaced the phrase
aptitude for engineering. Responses were scored in the same way, with each participant being
classified as having an incremental theory of intelligence or an entity theory of intelligence
(except for those whose average responses were 3.5, who were excluded from all analyses that
included this distinction).
To examine responses to difficulty, participants were asked to recall a time when they
had difficulty in a college course and to describe the difficulty. They were asked to select from
a set of forced-choice options to describe how they had responded to the difficulty: They
dropped the class, worked less hard, worked about the same amount, or worked harder.
Perceptions of whether gender affects treatment. Two measures were used to examine students’
perceptions of possible gender differences in how engineering students are treated. One
measure asked students whether they believed that male and female students in their major
were treated differently. The second measure asked students to rate their levels of agreement
Gender and Beliefs 45
with the statement “The climate women face in engineering is no different from the climate
faced by men.” Participants rated their agreement on a forced-choice scale ranging from 1
(strongly agree) to 6 (strongly disagree).
Values and interests. To assess whether men and women in engineering differed in the
extent to which they viewed their interests as being a good fit with their majors, they were
asked, “To what extent do you think this major is a good match to your interests?” The scale
ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (perfect).
To assess students’ weighting of particular factors in their careers, they were instructed,
“Rate the importance to your career of each of the following, from 1 (not at all important) to
5 (essential).” All categories for which multiple items were used were averaged to form a single
scale. The following items assessed the importance of extrinsic factors: “making enough money
to live comfortably,” “the opportunity to make a large amount of money,” and “a prestigious
occupation.” The following items assessed the importance of intrinsic factors: “working on
interesting projects” and “the opportunity to learn new things.” Additional items included
“having a flexible schedule” and “making a contribution to society.”
RESULTS
Beliefs About the Nature of Abilities and the Interpretation of Difficulties
One goal of the present research was to determine whether female engineering students
would show a greater tendency than their male counterparts to endorse entity (fixed) views of
engineering aptitude. This was indeed the case: Of participants who endorsed either entity or
incremental beliefs (i.e., their scores were above or below 3.5, the midpoint of the scale), 72%
of female engineering students were classified as holding entity theories of aptitude for engi-
neering, as compared to 46% of male engineering students, χ
2
(1, n = 125) = 6.28, p < .05. In
contrast, no such gender differences were seen concerning more general beliefs about intelli-
gence, with both male and female engineering students endorsing entity views of intelligence
about half of the time. Table 1 shows the percentage of participants who endorsed entity beliefs
about engineering aptitude and intelligence by gender and major.
Of the women who reported dropping a class in the face of difficulty, 100% also endorsed
entity beliefs about engineering aptitude. In contrast, among women who did not report drop-
Ta b l e 1. Percentage of Participants Who Endorsed Entity Beliefs
Concerning Engineering Aptitude and Intelligence,
by Gender and Major
Women Men
ENE ENE
Engineering aptitude 72 38 46 60
Intelligence 50 35 46 45
