Free, but not too free

Gender stereotypes at school and at work

Do we ever ask ourselves why our society works the way it does?

How much do gender stereotypes weigh on the way our society is organized?

“Researchers from a variety of fields have studied the effects of gender stereotypes on outcomes. Areas most typically explored relate to the effects of expectancies on achievement outcomes in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), successes and leadership positions in the work world, and in the exhibition of stereotypically gender-related personality traits. Significant attention has also been given to the role of stereotype threat as a potential cause of stereotypical performance-related behaviors. Results have revealed that gender-specific behaviors in these domains are often the function of a self-fulfilling prophecy in which social expectations shape performance.”

SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY AND GENDER, Midlarsky, Rosenzweig

Are boys more suited to science and girls to the humanities?

Meta-analyses consistently show that girls and boys are, on average, far more alike than people believe across a range of abilities. For example, a meta-analysis of sex differences in mathematical ability, based on 100 studies and on tests of more than three million people (Hyde, Fennema, and Lamon, 1990), found a slight advantage for girls in computation in elementary and middle school, no difference in problem solving through middle school, and a male advantage in problem solving only from high school onward.

Despite the many studies showing that gender does not affect mathematical ability, our society still steers boys toward STEM degrees (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) and girls toward HASS degrees (humanities, arts, and social sciences).

The gap between male and female results on math tests depends on how gender-equal the country you live in is (Guiso, Monte, Sapienza, and Zingales, Science, 2008): in Norway and Sweden there is no difference between men and women on these tests, while in Turkey the difference is considerable. It seems, then, that gender differences in aptitude for mathematics are social constructs. A meta-analysis of nearly half a million students in 69 countries (Else-Quest, Hyde, and Linn, 2010) found very small average differences in achievement, but ones that varied from country to country; the gap was associated with certain specific indicators of equality, such as the share of women in research and in parliament. This is an association, not proof of a cause.

What accounts for these differences?

Some of the main motivations that can push us in one direction rather than another are:

1. social belonging: we are steered toward the studies and professions in which our gender is better represented.
2. self-efficacy: how far we believe we can succeed in a field also depends on how competent we think we can be
3. social value: how much value, and which rewards, we associate with the possible paths of study and career.

All of these motivations are tied to gender stereotypes.

From early childhood we are exposed to behaviors that push us toward a stereotyped view of the genders, and young children learn more from what they see than from what is explained to them: family, television, and school lead children to build an image of themselves tied to their sex. Clothing, toys, the way they are spoken to, role models, books, and fairy tales all help create a clear picture of what a boy or a girl is supposed to be like.

Social psychology courses often refer to the stereotype-driven expectations that arise in primary school and even earlier. One of the examples concerns how the self-fulfilling prophecy grows out of the gender stereotypes held by teachers and parents.

The impact of stereotypes from childhood on

A study published in Science in 2017 revealed that as early as age 6, girls are less likely than boys of the same age to attribute being “really, really smart” to their own gender. This stereotype, which associates brilliance with males, is already shaping their interests at that age: 6-year-old girls more often steer clear of activities presented as being for children who are “really, really smart” (Bian et al., 2017).

But why does this happen? Research suggests that children absorb cultural stereotypes implicitly, through:

• Differentiated language (“You’re good at Italian; he has a gift for math”).

• Role models (textbooks, media, and games that reinforce traditional roles).

• Unconscious expectations on the part of parents and teachers, who may encourage different behaviors depending on gender.

The self-fulfilling prophecy is the creation of behavior consistent with a preconceived impression.

When the expectations that an important person (or society as a whole) holds about someone else cause that person to act in a way that confirms those expectations, we are looking at a self-fulfilling prophecy.

This happens because, without realizing it, our expectations lead us to act in ways that elicit from the other person the very behaviors that confirm them.

In short: I behave according to what is expected of me, until doing so makes me conform to the expectations.

Self-fulfilling prophecies can arise anywhere (at home, at school, at work, in free time with friends) and are very hard to recognize.

A famous case in point is the experiment by Rosenthal and Jacobson (Pygmalion in the Classroom, 1968), in which the researchers gave teachers the names of some students who, according to the results of a test, had above-average ability; in reality, the students’ names had been chosen at random. After a few months, the students flagged as promising began to do better than their classmates, and not only in the teachers’ assessments but on objective tests.

The teachers’ expectations of these children led the teachers themselves to pay them more attention, stimulating them and helping them become better prepared.

Teachers’ behavior and expectations are therefore an important factor contributing to students’ results.

The self-fulfilling prophecy works best on those who do not yet hold firm opinions about their own abilities, so it acts powerfully on school-age children.

Stereotypes at school and in the choice of a degree

Although meta-analyses show that cognitive differences between the sexes are minimal, women remain poorly represented in STEM degree programs. Why?

• Self-perception of ability: Girls, exposed to the stereotype that “math is for boys,” develop less confidence in their abilities, even when they get high grades (OECD, 2017).

• Teacher influence: A study by Lavy and Sand (NBER working paper, 2015, later Journal of Public Economics, 2018) showed that primary school teachers’ biases in favor of boys benefit boys and penalize girls, influencing their later choices.

• Country effect: as seen above, in nations with greater gender equality (e.g., Norway, Sweden) the STEM gap narrows, confirming that this is a social construct, not a biological one. In Italy the gap remains wide: in the OECD PISA 2022 survey, 15-year-old boys outscored girls of the same age by 21 points in mathematics, while girls outscored boys by 19 points in reading.

The gender stereotypes of teachers and parents thus condition children, who, in unconsciously trying to please them, end up making those stereotypes come true.

The path toward equal opportunity (and equal pay) is therefore obstructed by the unwitting creation of preferred tracks for each gender, regardless of ability. This causes economic harm as well as fostering inequality.

Consequences in the world of work

Stereotypes do not stop at school; they carry over into careers:

• Underrepresentation in STEM: among science graduates, women work in the field less often than men. According to Eurostat, in 2023 women made up 41.0% of employed scientists and engineers in the European Union; in Italy, 34.1%, one of the lowest shares.

• Pay gap: Women who enter STEM fields earn less than men on average, even in the same role.

• Barriers to leadership: Women are perceived as less suited to positions of command, so much so that only 11.2% of Fortune 500 companies are led by a woman (56 out of 500; Fortune, June 2026). The same happens in Italian universities: according to the European Commission’s She Figures 2024, in 2022 women held 27% of top academic positions (grade A), up from 21% in 2013.

Countering stereotypes

It is nonetheless possible to reduce these effects with targeted interventions:

At school:

• Positive female role models: Studying women scientists, mathematicians, and engineers increases girls’ interest (Microsoft, 2018).
• Neutral teaching: Avoiding phrases such as “boys are better at math” improves everyone’s results.
• Non-stereotyped play: Girls exposed to construction toys develop better spatial skills, which are useful for STEM (Levine et al., 2012).

At work:

• Blind recruitment (anonymized résumés) reduces bias in hiring.
• Mentoring programs: having a mentor or a sponsor helps women advance in their careers.
• Flexibility policies: These help reduce the “motherhood penalty” (the disadvantage mothers face at work).

The economic cost of stereotypes

Beyond the social injustice, stereotypes have an economic impact:

• According to the McKinsey Global Institute (The Power of Parity, 2015), narrowing the gender gap in work at the pace of the best-performing countries could have added $12 trillion to annual global GDP by 2025.

Conclusions

Gender stereotypes are not just “prejudices” but structural mechanisms that limit the potential of individuals and societies. Fighting them requires awareness, education, and active policies, starting at school and continuing into the world of work.

Sources:

• Bian, L., Leslie, S. J., & Cimpian, A. (2017). Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children’s interests. Science, 355(6323).
• Guiso, L., Monte, F., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2008). Culture, Gender, and Math. Science.
• Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., & Lamon, S. J. (1990). Gender differences in mathematics performance: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2).
• Lavy, V., & Sand, E. (2018). On the origins of gender gaps in human capital: short- and long-term consequences of teachers’ biases. Journal of Public Economics, 167.
• OECD (2017). The Pursuit of Gender Equality: An Uphill Battle.
• Fortune (2026). Fortune 500: companies led by women (56, or 11.2%).
• McKinsey Global Institute (2015). The Power of Parity: How Advancing Women’s Equality Can Add $12 Trillion to Global Growth.
• Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the Classroom.

Alberto Viotto