↓ Skip to main content

Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children’s interests

Overview of attention for article published in Science, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#8 of 60,798)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
359 news outlets
blogs
34 blogs
twitter
2112 tweeters
facebook
98 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
9 Google+ users
reddit
3 Redditors
video
11 video uploaders

Citations

dimensions_citation
87 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
637 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children’s interests
Published in
Science, January 2017
DOI 10.1126/science.aah6524
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lin Bian, Sarah-Jane Leslie, Andrei Cimpian

Abstract

Common stereotypes associate high-level intellectual ability (brilliance, genius, etc.) with men more than women. These stereotypes discourage women's pursuit of many prestigious careers; that is, women are underrepresented in fields whose members cherish brilliance (such as physics and philosophy). Here we show that these stereotypes are endorsed by, and influence the interests of, children as young as 6. Specifically, 6-year-old girls are less likely than boys to believe that members of their gender are "really, really smart." Also at age 6, girls begin to avoid activities said to be for children who are "really, really smart." These findings suggest that gendered notions of brilliance are acquired early and have an immediate effect on children's interests.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2,112 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 637 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 <1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Portugal 3 <1%
Switzerland 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Other 5 <1%
Unknown 611 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 145 23%
Student > Bachelor 98 15%
Student > Master 87 14%
Researcher 83 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 47 7%
Other 176 28%
Unknown 1 <1%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 186 29%
Social Sciences 95 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 77 12%
Unspecified 62 10%
Neuroscience 24 4%
Other 192 30%
Unknown 1 <1%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4736. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 May 2019.
All research outputs
#60
of 12,962,154 outputs
Outputs from Science
#8
of 60,798 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6
of 342,918 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science
#2
of 945 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,962,154 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 60,798 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 42.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 342,918 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 945 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.