Although women have nearly attained equality with men in several formerly male-dominated fields, they remain underrepresented in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). We argue that one important reason for this discrepancy is that STEM careers are perceived as less likely than careers in other fields to fulfill communal goals (e.g., working with or helping other people). Such perceptions might disproportionately affect women’s career decisions, because women tend to endorse communal goals more than men. As predicted, we found that STEM careers, relative to other careers, were perceived to impede communal goals. Moreover, communal-goal endorsement negatively predicted interest in STEM careers, even when controlling for past experience and self-efficacy in science and mathematics. Understanding how communal goals influence people’s interest in STEM fields thus provides a new perspective on the issue of women’s representation in STEM careers.

The goal congruity perspective posits that 2 distinct social cognitions predict attraction to science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) fields. First, individuals may particularly value communal goals (e.g., working with or helping others), due to either chronic individual differences or the salience of these goals in particular contexts. Second, individuals hold beliefs about the activities that facilitate or impede these goals, or goal affordance stereotypes. Women's tendency to endorse communal goals more highly than do men, along with consensual stereotypes that STEM careers impede communal goals, intersect to produce disinterest in STEM careers. We provide evidence for the foundational predictions that gender differences emerge primarily on communal rather than agentic goals (Studies 1a and 3) and that goal affordance stereotypes reflect beliefs that STEM careers are relatively dissociated from communal goals (Studies 1b and 1c). Most critically, we provide causal evidence that activated communal goals decrease interest in STEM fields (Study 2) and that the potential for a STEM career to afford communal goals elicits greater positivity (Study 3). These studies thus provide a novel demonstration that understanding communal goals and goal affordance stereotypes can lend insight into attitudes toward STEM pursuits.

The goal congruity perspective provides a theoretical framework to understand how motivational processes influence and are influenced by social roles. In particular, we invoke this framework to understand communal goal processes as proximal motivators of decisions to engage in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). STEM fields are not perceived as affording communal opportunities to work with or help others, and understanding these perceived goal affordances can inform knowledge about differences between (a) STEM and other career pathways and (b) women’s and men’s choices. We review the patterning of gender disparities in STEM that leads to a focus on communal goal congruity (Part I), provide evidence for the foundational logic of the perspective (Part II), and explore the implications for research and policy (Part III). Understanding and transmitting the opportunities for communal goal pursuit within STEM can reap widespread benefits for broadening and deepening participation.

This research examined the proposition that differential role occupancy by women and men fosters gender gaps in sociopolitical attitudes. Analyses of the General Social Survey (J. A. Davis & T. W. Smith, 1998) and a community sample showed that women, more than men, endorsed policies that are socially compassionate, traditionally moral, and supportive of equal rights for women and for gays and lesbians. To clarify the sources of these gaps, the research examined (a) similarities between gender gaps and gaps associated with other respondent attributes such as race and parenthood, (b) interactions between respondent sex and other attributes, (c) the temporal patterning of gender gaps, and (d) the mediation of attitudinal gender gaps by 3 ideological variables--commitment to equality, group-based dominance, and conservatism versus liberalism.