Children’s evaluations of deviant peers in the context of science and technology: The role of gender group norms and status

Abstract

Women are drastically under-represented within computer science, which is in part informed by societal ideas of who can and should belong in the sciences. Less is known about how children evaluate their peers who challenge gendered expectations of who can and should take part in computer science. The present study asked children (n = 213; female n = 110) from middle (Mage = 8.71, n = 108) and late childhood (Mage = 10.56, n = 105) to evaluate a gender-matched peer who challenged a group norm related to either computer science (male-gendered domain) or biology (less male-gendered domain). Male participants most negatively evaluated a peer who wanted to take part in a biology activity when the rest of the group wanted to do a programming activity. Further, male participants expected their group to negatively evaluate this deviant peer in the programming condition. Mediation analysis revealed that for boys in the computer science condition, perceived group evaluation predicted individual evaluation. Female participants, in contrast, did not negatively evaluate someone who challenged a STEM peer group norm. This study demonstrates that male peer groups may perpetuate the idea that computer science is for men through negative evaluation of in-group members who challenge those ideas, and in turn maintain their dominant position as the high-status group. Achieving equity in the computer science field will require a greater understanding of these peer group norms.