Unpacking mathematical gender stereotypes: trends and directions from 25 years of research

Gender norms shape multiple domains, including mathematics—long framed as a male-dominated field—thereby fostering pervasive mathematical gender stereotypes (MGS) that affect individuals’ participation and achievement. This study aims to systematically synthesize empirical research published between 1999 and 2024, indexed in Web of Science, written in English, and available in full text. Only articles explicitly examining MGS were included; studies focused on broader STEM stereotypes, non-English publications, records without full-text access, and papers outside the specified time window were excluded. Limitations include the absence of protocol pre-registration—although inclusion/exclusion criteria and the analysis plan were specified in writing prior to the search and PRISMA 2020 guidelines were followed—and the unavoidable subjectivity in interpretation and categorization despite established inter-coder reliability. Analyses indicate that most studies are situated in psychology, frequently employ experimental designs, and primarily sample university students. Surveys dominate data collection, and parametric inferential statistics are commonly used. Geographically, the literature is concentrated in Western countries—particularly the United States and Germany—with limited contributions from the Global South. Publication counts fluctuate over time, with notable peaks in 2012 and 2022. Conceptually, the literature converges on two principal axes: (i) belief/domain-ownership formulations centered on male superiority and (ii) process-based formulations centered on ST. Less frequently examined yet theoretically informative extensions include endorsement, internalization, counter-stereotypic role models, and stereotype lift. Across qualitative, descriptive, correlational, mediation, meta-analytic, and experimental evidence, findings consistently cluster around these axes, with stereotype endorsement and MGS occupying central positions. Taken together, the results underscore the need for future research that is more interdisciplinary, cross-cultural, and methodologically diverse to more comprehensively address MGS.

1 Introduction

Societies often categorize individuals based on particular traits, assigning attributes to social groups that are widely accepted regardless of whether all members of that group actually possess such characteristics (Dökmen, 2017). The concept of “stereotype” was introduced into academic discourse by Lippmann (1922), who defined it as a mental image formed in the minds of individuals—an exaggerated belief or generalization, often based on a single feature of a group or individual (Lippmann, 2009). These stereotypes, which mix elements of truth and distortion, pose serious challenges to discerning the reality of the traits attributed to certain groups (Lippmann, 2009).

Among the most persistent and socially embedded stereotypes are those based on race, religion, and gender. For example, the portrayal of African Americans as lazy and poor reflects an ethnic stereotype (Smith, 1990); viewing Alevis as ill-fated represents a sectarian stereotype (Uyanık, 2012); and associating Muslims with violence or terrorism exemplifies a religious stereotype (Sides and Gross, 2013). Similarly, deeply rooted and persistent societal beliefs contribute to the formation and maintenance of gender-based stereotypes.

Based on characteristics ascribed to women and men, distinctions have emerged across social roles and professions. Women are often described in terms of beauty, grace, and emotionality, and characterized as passive, dependent, and self-sacrificing, whereas men are typically associated with traits like assertiveness, rationality, toughness, and dominance (Külahçı, 1989). These perceptions help reinforce traditional gender roles in both domestic and professional spheres, portraying men as breadwinners and women as caretakers. Accordingly, women are generally linked with communal traits (i.e., social qualities), while men are associated with agency (i.e., autonomy) (Eagly and Steffen, 1984). As a result, certain professions, such as teaching or nursing, are perceived as more appropriate for women, while others, like engineering or law, are more strongly associated with men. Likewise, academic disciplines such as mathematics have traditionally been linked to male identity, contributing to the widespread belief that men possess greater competence and success in mathematics (Beilock et al., 2010).

Historically, the association of mathematics with male identity has reinforced the pervasive stereotype that men are more competent and successful in this domain (Beilock et al., 2010). Given mathematics’ gatekeeping function for socially and economically prestigious careers (Keller and Dauenheimer, 2003; Martinot and Désert, 2007), construing it as a “male” field can undermine girls’ performance on high-stakes transition examinations and, consequently, their educational and occupational choices (Jacobs, 2005). Moreover, mathematical stereotypes operate differentially across intersecting axes of identity—particularly race/ethnicity and gender—shaping both the magnitude and the form of inequality in context-sensitive ways. In this regard, ethnicity may moderate the association between perceptions of academic sexism and academic self-concepts: some girls simultaneously belong to multiple devalued social groups. For example, Latina girls are members of both an ethnic and a gender group linked to negative stereotypes about mathematical competence. This “double-minority” status may heighten sensitivity to both ethnic- and gender-based discrimination, increasing the likelihood of recognizing sexism (Kane, 2000) and amplifying its detrimental effects on academic self-concepts. Consistent with this account, prior research shows that Latina women are more susceptible to gender based stereotype threat (ST) effects than European American women (Gonzales et al., 2002), suggesting that lower ethnic status can increase vulnerability to MGS relative to women from higher-status ethnic groups.

Beyond these socially constructed beliefs, gender has become a critical variable in academic research—particularly in mathematics—where studies have focused on affective, cognitive, and performance-related gender differences. While some research suggests no significant difference in mathematics achievement between male and female students (Hyde et al., 2008), others report differences in specific domains. Studies in cognitive areas such as problem-solving and mathematical reasoning often point to male students having an advantage (Gallagher et al., 2000; Geary et al., 2000). Affective variables—like mathematics anxiety (Barroso et al., 2021), beliefs (Suthar and Tarmizi, 2010), self-efficacy (Skaalvik and Skaalvik, 2006), attitudes (Hwang and Son, 2021) and perceptions about tasks (Bianca and Spagnolo, 2024)—also influence mathematical performance. Findings generally suggest that male students tend to exhibit more favorable affective traits, which positively affect their mathematical outcomes (Markovits and Forgasz, 2017; Miller and Bichsel, 2004; Mozahem et al., 2021; Wilkins and Ma, 2003). Furthermore, several studies have documented gender differences in mathematics performance, often in favor of male students (Lu et al., 2023; Van de Gaer et al., 2008).

Given these patterns, it becomes important to explore the factors underlying such differences. One line of inquiry attributes gender disparities in mathematics to biological distinctions, such as chromosomal or hormonal differences (Berenbaum et al., 2012; Ross et al., 2006). However, the validity of these explanations is contested. Ceci et al. (2009), for example, argue that biological studies on mathematical performance often yield inconsistent and inconclusive results. If gender differences in mathematics were primarily biologically determined, they would likely be consistent across cultures, generations, and educational systems.

Supporting this argument, Else-Quest et al. (2010) conducted a meta-analysis of international data from TIMSS and PISA and found only small average effect sizes for gender differences in mathematics achievement—though these varied widely by country. Their findings suggest that societal factors such as school enrolment equality, female representation in research, and political participation are key predictors of gender disparities in mathematics. Other meta-analyses echo this view, finding that the supposed male superiority in mathematics has diminished over time (Hyde et al., 1990; Hyde, 1981; Lindberg et al., 2010), and that such differences become more pronounced in adolescence, likely due to increased exposure to cultural influences (Fan et al., 1997). Caplan and Caplan (2005) argue that observed gender differences in mathematical ability are shaped more by experience and environment than biology. Cultural transmission plays a significant role in perpetuating stereotypes across generations through media such as television (Hall and Suurtamm, 2020; Wille et al., 2018), children’s books (Ladd, 2011; Nurlu-Üstün and Uzuner-Yurt, 2023), textbooks (Guichot-Reina and De la Torre-Sierra, 2023; Moser and Hannover, 2014; Nurlu, 2021), parental attitudes (Herbert and Stipek, 2005; Tiedemann, 2000; Tomasetto et al., 2015), and teacher interactions (Chionidou-Moskofoglou and Chatzivasiliadou-Lekka, 2008; Heyder et al., 2019; Keller, 2001; Mittelberg et al., 2011; Nurlu-Üstün and Aksoy, 2022).

Although the literature on MGS spans a broad range of topics and approaches, this diversity complicates efforts to assess the field’s current status. Comprehensive syntheses can provide a holistic understanding of the issue, inform educational policy and classroom practice, and raise societal awareness. Moreover, such reviews can guide researchers by mapping the existing literature (Ulutaş and Ubuz, 2008), identifying research gaps, and suggesting new directions (Çiltaş et al., 2012; Suri and Clarke, 2009).

In light of this, the present study aims to systematically examine empirical research on MGS. It specifically seeks to answer the following questions:

1. What is the disciplinary distribution of articles on MGS?

2. What is the thematic focus of these articles?

3. What research methodologies and designs are employed?

4. What are the characteristics of the study samples?

5. a. What data collection instruments are used?

b. To what extent do these instruments report reliability and validity evidence (e.g., internal consistency, structural validity, test-retest/split-half), and what are the typical values and reporting coverage by instrument family?

6. What types of data analysis methods are applied?

7. What is the geographical distribution of the studies?

8. How has the publication frequency changed over time?

9. What are the definitional axes of “stereotype” in these articles, and how prevalent is each?

10. What types of conclusions regarding gender stereotypes in mathematics are reported across studies?

2 Methods

2.1 Research design

This study adopts a systematic review methodology to compile and analyze peer-reviewed journal articles that focus on MGS. A systematic review is a rigorous and structured method of synthesizing existing research to answer a clearly defined research question. This process involves identifying, selecting, and critically appraising relevant studies based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, and follows a transparent and replicable procedure (Higgins and Green, 2011).

2.2 Data source

The Web of Science database was selected as the sole data source for this review due to its comprehensive indexing of high-impact scholarly journals, particularly those included in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) and Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI). These indices are widely regarded for their academic credibility and coverage of rigorous, peer-reviewed publications. This approach was intended to enable a focused and reproducible search of peer-reviewed outlets. It should be acknowledged, however, that Scopus, ERIC, and PsycINFO index partially non-overlapping corpora (e.g., education-focused venues, psychology-specific journals, practitioner outlets, and conference proceedings) that may not be fully covered by WoS. The search was last conducted in October 2024. No other databases or sources were used.

All retrieved records were screened for eligibility by the author based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Screening was performed manually by reviewing titles and abstracts, followed by full-text assessment for potentially eligible studies. As this study is single-authored, no independent dual screening was performed. No automation tools were used in the screening process.

The literature search was conducted using the keywords “MGS” and “sex stereotype math.” The search was finalized in October 2024. A total of 343 articles were retrieved using the first keyword, and 408 articles were identified with the second. After removing 70 duplicates, the remaining records were screened based on predefined criteria.

Figure 1 presents the PRISMA flow diagram, which details the flow of information through the phases of the systematic review.

FIGURE 1

Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram illustrating the identification, screening, eligibility assessment, and inclusion of articles in the systematic review.

Only studies that included the terms “math and gender stereotypes,” “mathematics and gender stereotypes,” or “mathematical gender stereotypes” in their titles and/or abstracts were retained for further analysis. Following this initial screening, 274 articles were shortlisted for a more detailed eligibility assessment.

The following inclusion criteria were applied to refine the final list of studies:

2.2.1 Full-text accessibility

Articles without full-text access were initially excluded. Authors of these papers were contacted directly. Of the 12 inaccessible studies, only two authors responded and provided the full text. The remaining 10 articles were excluded due to non-availability.

2.2.2 Language

Only studies published in English were included. As a result, four studies written in German, Russian, and Czech were excluded due to language barriers.

2.2.3 Topical relevance

Only studies that explicitly focused on MGS were included. Consequently, 88 articles that discussed gender stereotypes in broader STEM fields were excluded. In addition, although the titles and/or abstracts of 20 studies referred to mathematics and gender stereotypes, these studies were excluded from the analysis as their content was not deemed sufficiently aligned with the theme of MGS.

After applying these inclusion and exclusion criteria, 152 articles remained and were included in the final review. The full list of the analyzed articles is provided in Supplementary Appendix 1.

2.3 Data analysis

Data were extracted independently by one reviewer from each report. The reviewer systematically collected information based on predefined criteria and a coding framework. Although this systematic review was not prospectively registered, the research was guided by the code and category framework developed by Baş and Özturan Sağırlı (2017). No automation tools were used in the data codding process. The code and category list used for analyzing each article is presented in Figure 2.

FIGURE 2

Figure 2. Visual representation of the coding and categorization scheme employed in the systematic review.

The framework presented in Figure 2 encompasses eight categories: field, subject matter, methodology, sample, data collection tools, data analysis methods, year, and country. Meta-analysis was not conducted due to the data’s unsuitability for quantitative synthesis.

For each synthesis category (e.g., discipline, methodology, sample, data collection tools, country, year), all included studies were reviewed and coded according to a predefined coding framework. The studies were tabulated and categorized under relevant headings. No studies were excluded from individual syntheses unless they lacked information specific to the category being analyzed.

However, in some studies, MGS were not directly measured using a specific instrument (e.g., questionnaire, scale, or test), but were introduced through experimental manipulation within the research design. In these cases, stereotypes were treated as an independent variable; however, no measurement tool or statistical analysis related to the stereotype variable was reported. Therefore, “ST manipulation” was noted as the data collection tool, while the analysis section was left blank for these studies.

In addition to these structured extractions, we conducted an integrated qualitative synthesis covering stereotype-focused definitions, stereotype-related measurement instruments and their reported reliability, and the substantive findings of each study. All three components were analyzed with the same descriptive-interpretive thematic coding approach. In the first coding cycle, texts were read closely and explicit definitions and conceptual framings of stereotypes, the instruments/scales employed together with their psychometric reports (e.g., internal consistency, structural validity, test-retest), and each study’s principal findings were open-coded. In the second cycle, initial codes were clustered into hierarchical schemes reflecting definitional axes and subthemes, measurement types/instrument families and reported reliability indicators, and direction of findings (female-disadvantaging/female-advantaging/null/mixed) alongside the domain of effect (e.g., performance, attitudes/anxiety, selection/intention, instructional context).

Although no formal risk-of-bias assessment was conducted due to the qualitative content-analysis design, reliability was supported through several procedures: a pilot calibration on a small, randomly selected subset prior to full coding (to clarify inclusion/exclusion criteria, and stabilize thematic categories); independent double coding of approximately 30% of the corpus (n = 45) by a second researcher with expertise in education, using pre-specified codes and categories applied to randomly selected studies from the 152 articles; resolution of discrepancies via discussion and consensus with subsequent revisions to the coding scheme as needed; and computation of inter-coder agreement using the Huberman coefficient (Miles and Huberman, 1994), which yielded 83.5%—a level generally considered acceptable in qualitative content analysis. Throughout, a detailed codebook documenting definitions, rules, and representative excerpts was maintained, all updates were logged. In addition, no formal assessment of risk of bias due to missing results (reporting bias) was conducted, as this study employed qualitative content analysis and included all available data from the selected studies.

The coding process was conducted across 10 categories (Supplementary Appendix 4). The main categories were: field, subject matter, methodology, sample, data collection tools, data analysis, country, year, definitions, and conclusions.

3 Findings

This section presents the findings of both the individual studies and the synthesized analyses, developed on the basis of the coding framework provided in Figure 2. In addition, it outlines the definitional axes of the concept of “stereotype” identified across the reviewed publications and reports their prevalence. The section also provides a detailed account of the extent to which the instruments employed in these studies include evidence of reliability and validity, such as internal consistency, structural validity, and test-retest or split-half reliability, together with typical values and reporting coverage by instrument family. Finally, it offers a comprehensive synthesis of the patterns of conclusions reached in the literature regarding MGS, encompassing outcomes related to performance, affective factors, intentions, and instructional contexts.

3.1 Distribution of MGS-themed articles according to fields

Figure 3 shows the distribution details of the examined articles across the fields in which they were conducted.

FIGURE 3

Figure 3. Distribution of the examined articles across research fields.

Figure 3 shows that the majority of articles on MGS were published in the field of psychology. Psychology is followed by education/educational sciences and women’s studies. Although there are studies on MGS in various disciplines such as communication or science and technology, the number of published studies appears to be limited.

3.2 Distribution of MGS-themed articles according to subject matters

Figure 4 shows the findings of the distribution of the subject matters covered in articles on MGS.

FIGURE 4

Figure 4. Distribution of subject matters in MGS-themed articles.

As shown in Figure 4, the most frequently addressed subject in MGS-themed articles is MGS themselves. This is followed by topics such as mathematical ST, counter-stereotypical information regarding mathematical ability, the masculinity of mathematics, and gender equity in mathematics education.

3.3 Distribution of MGS-themed articles according to research methods/design

Figure 5 presents the findings on the distribution of research methods/designs employed in the reviewed articles.

FIGURE 5

Figure 5. Distribution of research methods/designs in MGS-themed articles.

As shown in Figure 5, studies on MGS were predominantly designed as quantitative research. Among quantitative studies, the experimental design was the most commonly used, followed by survey studies and scale development. In contrast, qualitative and mixed-method designs were the least frequently employed research methodologies.

3.4 Distribution of MGS-themed articles with respect to the sample

Figure 6 illustrates findings of the distribution of the samples studied in the reviewed articles.

FIGURE 6

Figure 6. Distribution of samples in MGS-themed articles.

Figure 6 illustrates that the majority of data in MGS-themed articles were collected from undergraduate students. Additionally, some studies focused on high school students, middle school students, primary school students, and documents. However, fewer studies were conducted with adults, graduate students, early childhood students, teachers, and parents.

3.5 Distribution of MGS-themed articles with regard to data collection tools

Figure 7 illustrates the distribution of data collection tools used in MGS-themed articles.

FIGURE 7

Figure 7. Distribution of data collection tools in MGS-themed articles.

As shown in Figure 7, the most commonly used data collection tool in MGS-themed articles was surveys/questionnaires. ST manipulations, categorized under “other,” were also widely utilized. Consistent with the findings on research methods/design, only a few studies employed interviews, observations, and documents.

Table 1 shows the distribution of instrument families and sub-types across the included studies.

TABLE 1

Table 1. Measurement instruments used in studies on mathematical gender stereotypes.

Questionnaire-based approaches clearly dominate: non-psychometric survey items and validated psychometric scales together constitute the largest share. Within the experimental family, stereotype-threat manipulations are the modal sub-type, while other experimental tasks are comparatively rare. Qualitative instruments are infrequently used and, when present, typically serve as supplements rather than primary measures. Taken together, Figure 7 and Table 1 indicate a literature anchored in survey and experimental paradigms with limited qualitative triangulation.

Across the 152 studies, we identified 42 distinct psychometric instruments. Reliability evidence was reported for 23/42 (54.8%)—most often Cronbach’s α—while 19/42 (45.2%) reported none; where provided, evidence was largely confined to internal-consistency coefficients, pointing to a shortfall in psychometric reporting transparency. Qualitative techniques appeared in 23/152 (≈15.1%) studies; 18/23 (≈78.3%) reported no study-specific trustworthiness indicators. The remaining 5/23 (≈21.7%) offered primarily procedural assurances aligned with Lincoln & Guba (e.g., audio/video recording and verbatim transcription; protocol standardization; triangulation across interviews, observations, and documents; inductive/thematic coding by multiple trained researchers), with a small subset quantifying inter-coder agreement (Fleiss’ κ = 0.425–0.461; Kendall’s W = 0.489; both p < 0.001), indicative of moderate agreement by common benchmarks.

Validity reporting was even sparser: 30/42 (71.4%) psychometric instruments provided no study-context validity evidence. Among the remaining 12/42 (28.6%), evidence centred on structural validity (CFA/EFA/PCA), with fewer instances of convergent/discriminant/criterion and adaptation/procedural evidence. Most reported CFA solutions showed good-excellent fit (typically CFI ≈0.98–0.99, TLI ≈0.96–0.99, SRMR ≈0.02–0.03, RMSEA ≈0.04–0.07), though a minority were marginal (e.g., CFI ≈0.93; RMSEA ≈0.08). EFA/PCA findings commonly supported single-factor structures with high loadings, but KMO/Bartlett statistics and/or follow-up CFAs were frequently omitted. Convergent/criterion evidence included parallels with implicit and explicit indicators, age-appropriate known-group differences, and prediction of mathematics self-concept; discriminant evidence indicated separability from ability-stereotype measures.

Among the 23 studies that employed qualitative measurement tools, eight provided information regarding validity. The reported evidence was primarily grounded in content- and process-oriented indicators, including triangulation across field applications (observations, interviews, and materials), unannounced/randomized visits to capture typical lessons, video/audio recording and verbatim transcription, protocol standardization (shared opening prompt), thematic/iterative coding conducted by multiple researchers, prolonged engagement, and ethical safeguards (e.g., minimizing coercion, use of pseudonyms), as well as phenomenological reduction and context-specific descriptions. Notably, no quantitative validity evidence (e.g., convergent/discriminant/criterion relations, factor analysis, and measurement invariance) was identified in these studies; the reported indicators were confined to content and process assurances. Importantly, the κ/W values reported for expert agreement should be regarded as evidence of reliability, rather than validity.

3.6 Distribution of MGS-themed articles with regard to data analysis methods

Figure 8 illustrates the distribution of data analysis methods used in MGS-themed articles.

FIGURE 8

Figure 8. Distribution of data analysis methods in MGS-themed articles.

Various data analysis methods have been used in articles themed on MGS. As seen in Figure 8, the most frequently used analysis method in quantitative studies is inferential/parametric analysis, which was employed in 191 studies. Among the inferential parametric analysis methods, regression analysis (38 studies), ANOVA (36 studies) and t-test (35 studies) stand out as the most commonly used methods. Additionally, correlation analysis (26 studies), and ANCOVA (13 studies) were also frequently preferred. The next most frequently used analysis method is statistical descriptive analysis, which was employed in 40 studies. Among the inferential non-parametric analysis methods, chi-square test (11 studies), Mann Whitney-U test (2 study), Kendall correlation coefficient (1 study), and binomial distribution test (1 study) were employed. For qualitative analysis methods, content analysis (9 studies), document analysis (9 studies), discourse analysis (1 study), and descriptive analysis (2 studies) were used.

3.7 Distribution of MGS-themed articles by the countries

Figure 9 displays the findings regarding the distribution of countries in the reviewed articles.

FIGURE 9

Figure 9. Distribution of countries represented in the reviewed MGS-themed articles.

It is observed that a large proportion of articles themed on MGS have been published in Western countries. Countries such as the United States (51 studies) and Germany (18 studies) are prominent, while other Western countries like Spain (6 studies), the United Kingdom (8 studies), France (8 studies), and Italy (6 studies) also show a noticeable concentration. Other countries, on the other hand, host a relatively smaller number of studies. In the context of MGS research, contributions from Ethiopia (1 study), Uganda (1 study), India (1 study), Chile (2 studies), and Mexico (1 study) remain limited. This distribution suggests that the majority of studies are concentrated in the Western world, whereas regions such as the Global South contribute far less to the field. Accordingly, it may be argued that research on gender and mathematics in the Global South is still at an early, developmental stage.

3.8 Distribution of MGS-themed articles published over the years

Figure 10 illustrates the annual distribution of publications on MGS.

FIGURE 10

Figure 10. Annual distribution of publications on MGS.

Figure 10 presents information on the distribution of the examined articles over the years. According to the data in the graph, there are noticeable fluctuations in the number of articles published on MGS. In 1999 the number of articles was limited to 2, while in 2002, it increased to 6. In 2012, however, there was a significant rise, reaching 10 articles. In 2013, 2014, and 2015, the number of articles remained around 6, while in 2016 and 2017, there was an increase, with eight articles published. In 2020, the number dropped further to 2. However, there was a resurgence in 2022, with seeing 15 articles. In 2023, the number reached 11, but in 2024, it dropped back to 4. These findings indicate that research in this area peaked particularly in 2012 and 2022, with fluctuations in other years.

3.9 Distribution of definitional axes of “stereotype” across the included articles

Figure 11 illustrates the distribution of definitional axes and subthemes across the included studies.

FIGURE 11

Figure 11. Distribution of definitional axes and subthemes across included studies.

Across the 158 definitional assignments, the literature conceptualizes stereotypes primarily along two axes: a belief/domain-ownership axis centered on male superiority, and a process-based axis centered on ST. The MGS (MGS) axis accounts for 89 (56.3%) of all instances; within MGS, Superiority of Males in Math is by far the most prevalent subtheme (n = 59; 66.3% of MGS). Additional MGS subthemes appear less frequently: Math Is for Males (n = 8; 9.0%), Math Is a Male/Gendered Domain (n = 7; 7.9%), Males Are Associated with Math (n = 5; 5.6%), Math Is a Masculine Domain (n = 5; 5.6%), Affective Dimension (n = 3; 3.4%), and Achievement Dimension (n = 2; 2.3%). The second major axis, ST (ST), comprises n = 64 (40.5%) of assignments. Here, Risk of Confirming the Stereotypes is most common (n = 35; 54.7% of ST), followed by ST—Performance Decrement (n = 21; 32.8%) and Public Stereotype Salience (n = 8; 12.5%). Other definitional axes collectively form a long tail (n = 5; 3.2%) including Stereotype Internalization (n = 2), Mathematical Stereotype Endorsement (n = 1), Counter-Stereotypic Role Model/Exemplar (n = 1), and Stereotype Lift (n = 1).

Consistent with the quantitative profile, the qualitative synthesis indicates a concentration of stereotypes along the belief/domain-ownership axis—particularly the emphasis on male superiority. Across many articles, the stereotype is framed as a direct belief in gender-based ability superiority. In our qualitative document analysis, multiple texts articulated this stance; one source states: “One of the most obvious forms of stereotyping relates to explicit beliefs alleging a male or female ability-superiority in domains such as mathematics and language arts” (Supplementary Appendix 1, Study 12, p. 2). In doing so, such texts position mathematical success and ability as more properly male, permeating both individual attitudes and contextual expectations. The most concrete instantiation of this theme reduces to the explicit claim that “boys are better at math” (Supplementary Appendix 1, Study 86, p. 597). This formulation recurred verbatim; for example, one text states: “gender stereotypes often manifest as the belief that boys are better at math than girls” (Supplementary Appendix 1, Study 142, p. 1). Together, these formulations show that superiority is articulated not only through implicit associations but also through explicit declarations, with implications for self-efficacy, sense of belonging, and expectancy structures.

In parallel, some studies do not state male superiority explicitly yet underscore the associative linkage between mathematics and masculinity; for example: “… stereotypical beliefs that associate math and gender (i.e., math-gender stereotypes, where math = male)” (Supplementary Appendix 1, Study 4, p. 638). Such associations function as an implicit filter for the questions “for whom” and “to whom it is suited,” thereby aligning domain belongingness with gender and reinforcing the psychosocial mechanisms noted above. Several texts go further, framing mathematics as male-owned rather than merely male-associated, marking a shift from belongingness to normative exclusion. A representative formulation states: “Mathematics-gender stereotype is the false idea that mathematics is for men, not for women” (Supplementary Appendix 1, Study 18, p. 123). These formulations legitimize institutional expectations that construct mathematics as a naturally male domain and, by implication, position girls as guests.

Additionally, several texts frame mathematical ability in essentialist, masculine terms—for example: “… mathematical ability’ as natural, individual and masculine…” (Supplementary Appendix 1, Study 88, p. 204), which portrays ability not as a developable skill but as an innate attribute aligned with masculinity. The corpus also frequently labels mathematics as a gendered domain; for example: “… stereotypically male domains such as mathematics” (Supplementary Appendix 1, Study 110, p. 233). Such usage constructs the field’s cultural image in a male-centered manner. Finally, some definitions extend beyond domain ownership/superiority to invoke affective (enjoyment/interest) and achievement (expectancies of success) dimensions. For instance: “It is a common stereotype that boys/men are more likely to enjoy and succeed in mathematics while girls/women are more likely to enjoy and succeed at language arts subjects that require more reading and writing skills” (Supplementary Appendix 1, Study 127, p. 173). These formulations reproduce the view that boys/men enjoy and excel in mathematics, whereas girls/women enjoy and excel in language-heavy subjects, thereby reinforcing gendered expectations in valuation, self-efficacy, and performance beliefs.

Mirroring the quantitative distribution, the qualitative synthesis shows a marked concentration along the process-based axis around the conceptualization of ST. First, across many texts, ST is framed as the risk of confirming a negative in-group stereotype. One source states this explicitly: “ST is the risk of confirming, as self-characteristic, a negative stereotype about one’s group” (Supplementary Appendix 1, Study 1, p. 62). Second—analogous to the superiority discourse—the most concrete outcome-level manifestation of ST is performance decrement; for example: “The threat of being negatively stereotyped in mathematics can impair the performance of women on difficult math tests, a phenomenon referred to as ST” (Supplementary Appendix 1, Study 151, p. 13). Third, some definitions—without invoking male superiority per se—emphasize public/social salience of the stereotype as the trigger of threat: “ST is the sense of threat that can arise when one knows that he or she can possibly be judged or treated negatively on the basis of a negative stereotype about one’s group” (Supplementary Appendix 1, Study 112, p. 437). Such framings suggest that expectations about who is doing the judging and by what criteria operate as an implicit filter, shaping perceptions of evaluative contexts and potentiating the threat experience.

Notwithstanding their small share (3.2%), these long-tail axes introduce distinct focal points that enrich the conceptual landscape and offer fine-grained process insights. In several reviewed studies, the emphasis shifts from situational activation to individuals’ agreement with or endorsement of the stereotype: “Specifically, mathematics-gender stereotype endorsement (MGS endorsement) regards the degree of agreement with or endorsement of this stereotype” (Supplementary Appendix 1, Study 18, p. 123). Other texts conceptualize the stereotype as a multi-stage process of internalization progressing from awareness to self-ascription: “Stereotype internalization is usually defined as the incorporation of negative societal views in the self-concept: People first become aware of societal stereotypes (e.g., their group reputation); then some of them tend to endorse these stereotypes (i.e., they believe the stereotype is true about their group); finally they come to internalize the stereotype believing that the stereotype is true about themselves” (Supplementary Appendix 1, Study 74, p. 858). This definition delineates a pathway awareness → endorsement → self-attribution, indicating durable effects on self-perception and suggesting interaction with—indeed, potential amplification of—stereotype-threat processes.

A further set of texts emphasizes the regulatory effect of information and figures that reverse the stereotypic association: “By definition, a counter-stereotype plays on stereotypes by reversing them. For Pedulla (2014), the central idea is that counter-stereotypical information provides positive associations between a perceiver and the negatively stereotyped individual or group” (Supplementary Appendix 1, Study 36, p. 4). Analytically, this framing posits positive associative bridges between the perceiver and the negatively stereotyped target, thereby weakening endorsement/internalization pathways and, contextually, attenuating the threat experience. Finally, some texts highlight a mechanism that operates asymmetrically within the same ecosystem: “stereotype lift,” which can be defined as “a performance boost that occurs when downward comparisons are made with a denigrated outgroup” (Supplementary Appendix 1, Study 1, p. 62). This indicates that downward social comparisons vis-à-vis a devalued out-group can yield performance gains—a process distinct from, yet mirroring, ST, with implications for how evaluative contexts distribute cognitive and motivational resources across groups.

Taken together, the corpus conceptualizes MGS predominantly through belief/domain-ownership formulations centered on male superiority and process-based formulations centered on ST. Less frequent, yet conceptually informative, are definitional strands concerning endorsement, internalization, counter-stereotypic exemplars, and stereotype lift. This layered map clarifies where the field’s definitional center of gravity lies and highlights under-articulated mechanisms that future research could leverage for theory development and intervention design.

3.10 Distribution of reported conclusions on MGS-themed articles

This section synthesizes the reported findings in the literature on MGS into six outcome categories: qualitative findings, descriptive findings, correlational findings, mediation findings, meta-analytic findings, and experimental findings.

Figure 12 displays the thematic map of qualitative results in the reviewed articles.

FIGURE 12

Figure 12. Thematic map of qualitative results in the reviewed articles.

Qualitative findings converge around five themes: (i) School Ecology and Representation. One line of research documents how teacher discourse and material representation reproduce gendered expectations; for example, one study reports the following observation: “Everyone does the same exercises. The girls have a problem finding solutions by themselves…” (Supplementary Appendix 1, Study 63, p. 6). Another study examining imbalances in visual depictions arrives at this conclusion: “Altogether, of the 423 characters shown carrying out a professional activity, 146 are women, as compared to 277 men.” (Supplementary Appendix 1, Study 35, p. 1,491). (ii) Domain/Identity Stereotypes. A text documenting conventional framings states: “These discourses are oppositional and gendered; they inscribe mathematics as masculine…” (Supplementary Appendix 1, Study 88, p. 217). A study reporting more balanced cases notes: “It shows mostly balanced gender distribution in freetime and shopping categories…” (Supplementary Appendix 1, Study 38, p. 231). Another finding pointing to unconventional early-childhood patterns is conveyed as follows: “5-year-olds of both genders thought that girls liked math more than boys did” (Supplementary Appendix 1, Study 25, p. 1,273). (iii) ST Dynamics. Narratives differentiating by susceptibility record, for low susceptibility: “[In sixth grade] me and about four other people in our class were at a higher level than the rest of the class…” (Supplementary Appendix 1, Study 148, p. 614); and for high susceptibility, the same study offers: “Females who are good in math are smart… But males are probably gonna end up using math in their future…” (Supplementary Appendix 1, Study 148, p. 616). (iv) Measurement and Instrumentation. An example in which reliability is explicitly documented reports: “… Kendall’s W = 0.489, p < 0.001” (Supplementary Appendix 1, Study 17, p. 1). (v) Affect and Self-Perception. Among studies describing mathematically aversive profiles, one states: “These women do not like math…” (Supplementary Appendix 1, Study 105, p. 139); for successfully encouraged profiles, the same corpus reports: “These women appeared to have very positive attitudes toward math…” (Supplementary Appendix 1, Study 105, p. 136); stereotypically discouraged profiles are characterized as follows: “Two things are most noticeable about this group…” (Supplementary Appendix 1, Study 105, p. 139). Taken together, these findings indicate that mathematical gender stereotyping operates in a multi-layered manner across classroom ecology, domain-identity constructions, affective and self-belief processes, threat dynamics, and the quality of measurement.

In the descriptive strand of the literature, Figure 13 displays two higher-order themes: (i) Domain/Identity Stereotypes and (ii) ST. Codes cluster predominantly under the former. “MGS” (n = 19) is the dominant category; the masculinized framing of mathematics emerges early in development. “Egalitarian beliefs” (n = 3) point to more balanced representations. “Math-gender misconceptions” (n = 1) capture educator-specific misunderstandings. “In-group bias” (n = 2) and “unconventional” patterns (n = 1) are rare. Across descriptive studies, ST is reported only infrequently.

FIGURE 13

Figure 13. Higher-order themes in the descriptive strand of MGS literature.

Within the correlational strand of the literature, the code co-occurrence network (Table 2) indicates that gender-stereotype endorsement (23 co-occurrences) and MGS beliefs (11) occupy central positions. The most frequent pairings are performance × stereotype endorsement (n = 8), performance × mathematical stereotype beliefs (n = 3), and academic intention × mathematical stereotype beliefs (n = 2). Math attitudes, self-ascribed ability, self-perception, participation, and math anxiety also co-occur primarily with stereotype endorsement. These analyses, however, do not establish causality; the co-occurrences reflect joint reporting within the same textual segments. The subsequent sections on moderation/mediation and experimental evidence elaborate the directionality of—and mechanisms underlying—these associations.

TABLE 2

Table 2. Distribution of co-occurring codes in correlational studies on MGS.

Within the mediation strand of the literature, as summarized in Table 3, evidence from 11 SEM and 19 experimental mediation tests indicates that the dominant pathway links stereotypes to performance and intentions via self-beliefs and affect (e.g., self-concept, self-efficacy, anxiety). In two studies, parental math-gender stereotypes were associated with girls’ non-STEM orientations through intrusive support as a social-transmission mechanism. Consistent with this account, most experimental findings show that stereotype threat elevates anxiety, activates performance-avoidance goals, and elicits dejection, thereby undermining performance. By contrast, conditions incorporating self-affirmation/positive achievement identity, counter-stereotypic role models, or self-monitoring attenuate the threat effect and are associated with improved performance. A subset of studies reported null or mixed mediation effects.

TABLE 3

Table 3. Pathways from stereotypes to outcomes: mediation results.

Within the experimental strand of the literature, as summarized in Table 4, the modal pattern is that stereotype threat reduces women’s mathematics-related outcomes, whereas effects for men are typically null. The effect intensifies when the threat is made salient and in mixed-gender settings; conversely, conditions involving self-affirmation/positive achievement identity, counter-stereotypic role models, self-monitoring, and selected mindfulness practices attenuate—indeed, in some cases, reverse—the threat effect.

TABLE 4

Table 4. Experimental manipulations and outcomes: direction of effects by gender and domain.

Two comprehensive meta-analyses indicate that gender-ST is associated with small yet reliable performance decrements for girls/women. A child-adolescent meta-analysis (47 effects) estimated an average effect of d ≈-0.22, with no significant moderators and signals of publication bias. A broader synthesis (86 studies; 224 effects) found a small-to-moderate decrement only under threats targeting women (d ≈0.29), evident for mathematics but not for spatial tasks; heterogeneity was partly explained by task type, experimenter gender, and control condition. No consistent mean effects emerged for stereotype lift or for threats targeting men. Overall, the effects are context-sensitive and small in magnitude (| d| ≈0.20–0.30).

4 Discussion and Conclusion

This study presents the detailed distribution of MGS-themed articles by fields, topics, study groups, methods, data-collection instruments, data-analysis methods, countries, and years. In addition, the text discusses how the concept of “stereotype” is treated across definitional axes and how reported conclusions are distributed in MGS-themed studies; it also presents the distribution of instrument families and subtypes used in the reviewed research and offers a critical evaluation of the accompanying evidence on reliability and validity.

4.1 Field

The research findings indicate that the majority of studies are situated within the field of psychology. Additionally, a significant number of articles focused on MGS have been conducted in the fields of education and women’s studies. Given the concept of MGS, the emergence of this finding is quite natural.

Mathematical knowledge is often perceived as entirely rational (Tang et al., 2010); however, McDonald (1989) suggests that individuals have emotional responses to mathematics and that every thought has an emotional component. From this perspective, it can be argued that there is a relationship between emotions and information processing. It is well-established that individuals, particularly when faced with challenging learning experiences, experience emotions such as anxiety, which in turn shape their mathematical learning (Ashkenazi and Danan, 2017; Skagerlund et al., 2019). Additionally, attitudes and beliefs are significant factors that lead individuals to respond to mathematics in various ways. In this context, the impact of gender-based beliefs on mathematics is an important and noteworthy issue. Therefore, it is expected that studies related to MGS are frequently explored within the field of psychology.

Mandler (Adams and McLeod, 1989) posits that experiences lacking value or meaning do not elicit emotional responses. Accordingly, emotional reactions to mathematics may be understood as reflecting the cultural values to which individuals are exposed. For example, White students have frequently been observed to outperform their peers in mathematics (Brown-Jeffy, 2009), and in many countries boys score higher than girls (Ayalon and Livneh, 2013; Gutfleisch and Kogan, 2024). Indeed, the gender gap in mathematics achievement appears even more pronounced among Turkish-origin girls in the fourth grade, who occupy a “double-minority” position as the other within the other (Guiso et al., 2008). The relatively higher achievement of individuals from particular gendered and ethnic subcultures can be linked to the elevated value ascribed to science—particularly mathematics—since the Industrial Revolution, coupled with the pervasive belief that mathematics may not be suitable for everyone (McDonald, 1989). Within this frame, the causes and consequences of MGS naturally fall within the purview of researchers focused on gender equality.

Research indicates that male students outperform female students in cognitive domains that bear on academic achievement, such as problem solving and mathematical reasoning (Altunçekiç et al., 2005; Gallagher et al., 2000; Geary et al., 2000). In affective domains—mathematics anxiety, beliefs, self-confidence, self-efficacy, and attitudes toward mathematics—male students likewise tend to show more favorable outcomes than their female counterparts (Çakiroglu and Isiksal, 2009; Frenzel et al., 2007; Kargar et al., 2010; Keller, 2001; Köğce et al., 2009). Several studies directly examining academic performance in mathematics also report significant differences favoring male students (Tate, 1997; Van de Gaer et al., 2008). Nonetheless, perspectives positing a decisive biological basis for gender differences in mathematical ability (Auyeung et al., 2006) are challenged by evidence showing that studies of biological effects yield contradictory and insufficient results (Ceci et al., 2009). Caplan and Caplan (2005) argue that gender differences in mathematical ability have never been conclusively demonstrated and, when observed, are more plausibly attributable to factors linked to individual experiences. If biological differences do not necessarily exclude women from mathematics and mathematics-adjacent fields, then it is reasonable that researchers have shifted attention to classroom contexts to ask which experiences lead young women to disengage from mathematics (Keller, 2007). Accordingly, factors that may impede learning—such as MGS—have become a central focus for educators within a broad ecological framework spanning classroom practices, teacher attitudes, peer relations, and instructional materials. It follows that scholarship on mathematical gender roles has naturally moved from reductionist accounts emphasizing biological explanations of gender gaps in achievement toward research that centers educational practices.

As a result, it is important to explore MGS not only within the fields of psychology, education, and women’s studies but also across other related disciplines such as philosophy, sociology, communication, and science and technology. Moreover, such interdisciplinary research is expected to provide deeper insights from the perspective of gender equality.

4.2 Subject matters

The analysis reveals that “MGS” is the most frequently addressed topic in the reviewed literature, followed closely by “mathematical ST.” Other topics, such as “counter-stereotypical information about mathematical ability,” “gender equity in mathematics education,” and the “masculinity of mathematics,” are explored significantly less.

The prominence of MGS as the most frequently addressed topic in the reviewed literature is an expected outcome, given the scope of this systematic review. Since this study examines research on gender stereotypes in mathematics, the centrality of MGS aligns naturally with the thematic boundaries of the selected literature. Furthermore, this prevalence can be attributed to the foundational role the concept plays. It serves as a starting point for understanding and investigating related phenomena such as ST, counter-stereotype interventions, and gender inequalities in mathematics education.

Research examining how MGS shape individuals’ perceptions of mathematics (Martinot and Désert, 2007; Passolunghi et al., 2014; Tiedemann, 2002), career choice behaviors (Chaffee and Plante, 2022; Liu, 2018), and mathematical achievement (Cvencek et al., 2015; Smetackova, 2015; Song et al., 2016) has long been an important focus. Due to the widespread and profound impact of these stereotypes, it can be argued that they have become a central element in understanding gender inequalities in mathematics and fields requiring advanced mathematical skills. As a result, MGS have become a fundamental topic for both theoretical research and practical interventions.

In the reviewed studies it has been observed that the most frequently investigated topic after MGS is ST. ST can be defined as a psychological situation in which individuals are at risk of confirming a negative stereotype expectation based on their gender (Hyde et al., 2008). Comprehensive research on this threat not only aims to understand the existence of MGS but also explores the negative effects of these threats on the mathematical performance of stigmatized social groups (Hyde et al., 2008) and the psychological mechanisms involved in this process (Bertrams et al., 2022; Casad et al., 2017; Pérez-Garín et al., 2017). Specifically, this threat has been shown to have a significant negative impact on the academic performance of women, who are a group often questioned about their mathematical competence (Bedyńska et al., 2018; Doyle and Voyer, 2016). In this context, ST can be considered a significant reason for the challenges faced by girls and women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. Therefore, research on ST clearly demonstrates that this issue is a critical topic and has been frequently addressed in the literature.

However, the intense emphasis on MGS and ST carries the risk of overshadowing other critical dimensions of the relationship between mathematics and gender. For instance, counter-stereotypical interventions that challenge traditional gender norms can provide valuable insights into mitigating the negative effects of these stereotypes. It is well-established that the presentation of female role models associated with mathematics and science reduces the harmful impacts of MGS (Drury et al., 2011). In a study conducted by Good et al. (2010), the effects of stereotypical (e.g., male scientists) and counter-stereotypical (e.g., female scientists) textbook visuals on high school students’ understanding of a science lesson were examined. The study concluded that female students demonstrated better comprehension when exposed to counter-stereotypical visuals.

Similarly, exploring the phenomenon of masculinity associated with mathematics offers a profound perspective on how male identities are constructed and how this influences students’ engagement in mathematics lessons. Studies reveal strong evidence that mathematics teachers pay more attention to male, students than female students and assign greater responsibilities to male students during the learning process. Furthermore, high-level cognitive questions are systematically directed at male students significantly more often than at female students (Mittelberg et al., 2011; Nurlu-Üstün and Aksoy, 2022). Male teachers are also noted to provide more support and attention to male students during problem-solving activities, and male students predominantly participate in mathematical discussions (Lafrance, 1991). Other research suggests that the increased interaction between teachers and male students places women at a clear disadvantage in mathematics lessons compared to their male counterparts (Black and Radovic, 2018).

A broader research agenda that includes these less-explored dimensions can help us grasp the complexities of gender dynamics in mathematics in a more nuanced manner. Future studies that go beyond focusing solely on MGS and ST could more effectively address the multiple and intersecting factors contributing to gender imbalances in mathematics and other related disciplines. Such an approach would foster a more comprehensive and holistic understanding of how gender operates in educational contexts and the broader professional world.

4.3 Research methods

Studies on MGS predominantly employ quantitative methods, with mixed and qualitative approaches being less commonly utilized. The prominence of quantitative research can be attributed to its inherent strengths. For instance, quantitative findings are often generalizable to entire populations or subpopulations due to their reliance on large, randomly selected samples (Carr, 1994). Additionally, the processes of data collection and analysis in quantitative research are typically time- and cost-efficient, often leveraging online surveys, forms, or statistical software.

Beyond these advantages, the dominance of quantitative research paradigms in this field can also be explained by the historical evolution and characteristics of the disciplines in which these studies are conducted. Most research on MGS has been carried out in psychology and educational sciences—fields that have historically favored quantitative approaches. This is consistent with findings in psychology (Gezici-Yalçın and Coskan, 2021) and educational sciences (Göktaş et al., 2012; Gül and Sözbilir, 2015; Nurlu-Üstün, 2023; Sağırlı-Özturan and Baş, 2020), where quantitative methodologies are predominant.

In psychology, this tendency is rooted in the discipline’s emergence as an independent science distinct from philosophy and medicine. From its inception, psychology adopted the deductive research methods of the natural sciences (Mayring, 2002). Early on, a dominant belief held that an objective reality existed independently of human perception or interpretation (Tebes, 2005). Consequently, experimental methods were advocated as fundamental to psychological research (Walsh et al., 2014). However, addressing complex societal issues such as MGS requires psychology to transcend these methodological limitations. There is a growing need for sophisticated approaches that integrate qualitative and mixed-methods research to provide a more nuanced understanding.

Similarly, educational research is also dominated by the quantitative paradigm. This prevalence is attributed to the scientific backgrounds of many education scholars, who often assume that research must produce statistical results, offer generalizable conclusions, and follow traditional methodologies (Ekiz, 2004). Yıldırım and Şimşek (2013) argue that some scholars trained in the positivist tradition reject qualitative methods that deviate from this framework as unscientific. Ekiz (2004) adds that these scholars have, either directly or indirectly, hindered the development and acceptance of qualitative methodologies in educational research. Nonetheless, studies exploring the impacts of MGS on educational settings, classroom practices, teacher behaviors, and student outcomes would benefit significantly from employing diverse qualitative research designs. Such approaches can offer a more comprehensive and holistic perspective, ultimately addressing critical gaps in the literature and advancing the field.

In conclusion, the predominance of quantitative methods in research on MGS stems from both the advantages of this methodology and the historical tendencies of disciplines such as psychology and educational sciences. However, relying solely on quantitative approaches may be insufficient to fully capture the complex social dynamics of this field. Therefore, future research should enhance methodological diversity to broaden the scope of the field and provide a more comprehensive perspective.

4.4 Sample

The research findings indicate that studies on MGS are most commonly conducted with undergraduate students, followed by middle and high school students. It has been observed that undergraduate students are the most common group sampled in studies on MGS. Similarly, Henrich et al. (2010) note that, particularly in the fields of psychology and cognitive science, samples are predominantly drawn from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) populations, and more specifically from American undergraduate students. As Gül and Sözbilir (2015) have pointed out, conducting research with undergraduate students is often easier and more cost-effective.

The second most commonly studied groups are middle school students and high school students. Because the middle and high school years represent a critical period during which individuals’ career expectations begin to take shape and their vocational preferences are influenced (Correll, 2001). It is suggested that the initial steps of career planning are taken during this period (Göncü-Akbaş and Okutan, 2020). These years are regarded as a pivotal transition phase into either the workforce or higher education (Rowland, 2004). Consequently, the decisions made during this period play a significant role in shaping individuals’ vocational preferences in adulthood (Çakır, 2004). In this context, the increasing focus on middle and high school samples in studies examining the impact of MGS on career choices is noteworthy. The rise in research targeting these age groups can be considered a crucial step toward identifying stereotypes during this critical developmental period and developing intervention strategies. Such studies contribute significantly to the academic literature by facilitating the early detection and mitigation of negative stereotypes that could influence individuals’ career expectations.

However, it has been found that articles themed around MGS focus less frequently on elementary school students, preschool children, parents, teachers, and documents such as media elements and educational materials. One of the findings of this study is the limited number of studies conducted with samples from the preschool and elementary school years. The scarcity of studies may partly stem from the methodological difficulties of conducting survey-based research with children, including issues of comprehension and response validity. MGS weaken women’s and girls’ connection to mathematics, their sense of belonging (Good et al., 2010), and their willingness to engage in activities aimed at improving their mathematical abilities (Appel et al., 2011). This, in turn, negatively affects their mathematical achievement (Cvencek et al., 2015; Kiefer and Sekaquaptewa, 2007) and prevents them from pursuing careers that require advanced mathematical knowledge (Correll, 2001). Along with these negative effects of MGS, it is suggested that early ages are critical for the formation and reinforcement of such stereotypes (Cvencek et al., 2011; Del Río and Strasser, 2013; Herbert and Stipek, 2005). However, the limited number of studies conducted at the early childhood and elementary school levels indicates that gender stereotypes in these critical periods have not been sufficiently explored.

In addition, the limited focus on groups such as adults, teachers, and parents in studies on MGS may lead to a lack of comprehensive understanding of how these groups influence or are influenced by such stereotypes. It is well-established that both teachers and parents play a pivotal role in socializing children’s academic values and attitudes. A substantial body of research documents how parents’ and teachers’ expectations, gender stereotypes, and attributions affect children’s attitudes and performance in mathematics (Eccles et al., 1990; Ing, 2013; Tiedemann, 2000; Yee and Eccles, 1988). The limited research on groups such as adults, teachers, and parents regarding MGS results in a lack of understanding about how these groups influence or are influenced by such stereotypes. From this perspective, understanding how parents and teachers shape children’s perceptions of mathematics is crucial for developing interventions aimed at breaking these stereotypes.

In the literature on MGS, it has been observed that research based on documents is relatively scarce. However, studies that analyze documents such as textbooks and various media materials provide an important methodology for examining the historical and social context of MGS. For instance, textbooks, which are considered the primary source of knowledge (Çalışkan and Uymaz, 2022) and one of the most commonly used materials in classrooms (Kılıç and Seven, 2002), are distributed for free to students by the government in countries like Turkey. Therefore, these materials, which are accessible to every student, are shaped according to social and cultural norms and values (Wu et al., 2016). Zhang and Zhou (2008) emphasize that mathematics textbooks have a long-term and deep impact on students’ MGS, influencing their future mathematical learning processes. Studies have shown that while there is an attempt to maintain gender balance in mathematics textbooks, these materials still play a significant role in reproducing traditional gender stereotypes through elements such as occupational and family roles, as well as the gender of characters involved in mathematical activities (Guichot-Reina and De la Torre-Sierra, 2023; Moser and Hannover, 2014; Nurlu, 2021).

Similarly, media, ranging from movies to comic books and video games, has the power to convey stereotypical gender representations and mathematical content to new generations (Binark and Bek, 2009). Popular media tools aimed at children, including children’s books, television programs, films, websites, and video games, carry traditional gender stereotypes and contain gender-biased messages related to mathematics (Fellus et al., 2022; Hall and Suurtamm, 2020; Ladd, 2011; Wille et al., 2018). Similarly, posts on TikTok and X illustrate how the phrase “girl math” functions as a discursive practice. Within consumer and shopping contexts, the jargon frames women’s mathematical reasoning as “illogical” or “wrong.” Humorous examples circulate under this label, such as “Anything under five dollars feels like it’s pretty much free.” While presented as lighthearted or ironic, such usage reproduces the longstanding stereotype that girls and women lack mathematical competence. In this way, girl math normalizes gendered assumptions about cognitive ability and embeds them into everyday consumption practices and self-perceptions (Salma and Leiliyanti, 2024). Exposure to such media content has been shown to lead both male and female students to adopt these gender stereotypes (Hall and Suurtamm, 2020). In this context, studies on documents such as media materials and textbooks can provide valuable insights into how mathematical gender representations are shaped by societal norms and cultural values. However, the limited number of studies in this area suggests that the historical and cultural contexts have not been adequately addressed, highlighting the need for a broader perspective on MGS.

In conclusion, imbalances in research samples indicate the need for future studies to focus on a wider range of age groups and social roles. For instance, qualitative research on early childhood students and influential figures in their environment (such as parents and teachers), along with studies on documents such as educational materials and media elements, could provide a strong foundation for preventing and transforming MGS.

4.5 Data collection tools

These findings reveal that data collection tools in research on MGS are largely based on surveys and questionnaires. This can be seen as a reflection of the commonly preferred quantitative research methods in the literature and the generalizability advantages these methods provide. Quantitative data collection methods are frequently preferred because they are believed to yield high-quality data. These methods encourage more honest and sincere responses by ensuring anonymity and typically achieve higher response rates compared to methods like interviews. Additionally, surveys and questionnaires offer the ability to collect a large amount of data in a short period of time and at a low cost (Marshall, 2005).

However, the limited use of qualitative data collection methods such as interviews, observations, and document analysis in the studies examined creates a gap in the more in-depth and holistic exploration of the topic. This is because children and adults may be reluctant or unable to directly express their views on sensitive topics, such as gender stereotypes (Muzzatti and Agnoli, 2007). In this context, the interview method, which allows access to understanding another person’s perspective and gaining insight into their thoughts and stories (Patton, 2014), may enable a more comprehensive understanding of how MGS are shaped and propagated. Similarly, another important qualitative data collection method, observation, allows the researcher to experience the phenomenon first hand through direct observation rather than relying on assumptions. The observation method enables the researcher to engage directly with the environment, establish personal contacts, and gain a holistic understanding of the context in which individuals interact (Patton, 2014). In this regard, observation can be considered a valuable method for studying MGS. Moreover, document analysis, unlike data collected at the individual level, reflects our collective behaviors and reveals the dynamics at the societal level (Lune and Berg, 2017). In this context, document analysis can provide valuable insights into how social and cultural norms reinforce MGS. However, the widespread adoption of the quantitative paradigm in current research may limit the in-depth and qualitative understanding of societal phenomena such as MGS, thereby creating a significant narrowing in this area. Therefore, it should be considered that qualitative and mixed-method approaches could provide a more comprehensive perspective in understanding such complex social phenomena.

The widespread use of data collection tools categorized under the “other” category, such as ST manipulations, indicates a preference for behavioral and experimental approaches in research. These types of manipulations provide the opportunity to directly observe the effects of gender stereotypes, offering in-depth insights into how individuals respond to these stereotypes. However, it should be noted that these tools rely on a cause-and-effect relationship within a limited context, often conducted in laboratory settings, which raises questions about their applicability to persons, environments, treatments, and outcomes not included in the experiment (Shadish et al., 2002). In other words, findings from laboratory settings may not always be applicable to real-world contexts.

In conclusion, the imbalance in data collection tools points to the need for a more holistic approach to addressing MGS. Relying solely on quantitative data in research may be insufficient to understand the impact of stereotypes on individuals’ lives. Therefore, the use of qualitative data collection methods will contribute to a deeper understanding of these stereotypes and the development of more effective intervention strategies. Future studies should aim to balance both qualitative and quantitative research methods, enabling the generation of more comprehensive and accurate findings.

Our findings indicate that methodological transparency remains limited in both quantitative psychometric reporting and qualitative studies. On the quantitative side, only 23 of the 42 instruments identified across 152 studies (54.8%) reported reliability evidence, and most of these were confined to Cronbach’s α; 19 of 42 instruments (45.2%) provided no reliability information whatsoever. Yet the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (American Educational Research Association et al., 2014) frame the documentation of validity, reliability/measurement error (precision), and fairness for each intended use as a professional obligation. Likewise, APA JARS-Quant expects researchers to report study-specific reliability coefficients (e.g., internal consistency, test-retest, interrater agreement) alongside relevant validity evidence and implementation details aimed at improving measurement quality (Appelbaum et al., 2018). Methodological work further notes that the assumptions underlying α (tau-equivalence, independence of errors) are often violated, such that α may under- or over-estimate reliability; reporting McDonald’s ω in addition to α is therefore recommended (McNeish, 2017). On the validity side, 30 of the 42 instruments (71.4%) offered no context-specific evidence; the remaining 12/42 (28.6%) relied predominantly on structural validity (EFA/CFA/PCA). Although most CFA solutions reported good-excellent fit (CFI ≈0.98–0.99; TLI ≈0.96–0.99; SRMR ≈0.02–0.03; RMSEA ≈0.04–0.07), critical steps such as KMO/Bartlett diagnostics, parallel analysis, and independent confirmation were frequently omitted; convergent/discriminant/criterion and adaptation/procedural evidence was sparse. This pattern aligns with broader reviews showing that validity is either unreported or disproportionately reliant on structural indicators (Flake et al., 2017; Ntumi and Twum Antwi-Agyakwa, 2022). In such circumstances, the validity of research findings may be largely ungrounded and uninterpretable.

A similar picture emerges on the qualitative side. Only 23 of 152 studies (≈15.1%) employed qualitative techniques; of these, 18 (≈78.3%) did not report study-specific trustworthiness indicators. The remaining five (≈21.7%) provided process-based assurances aligned with Guba & Lincoln (recording-verbatim transcription, protocol standardization, triangulation, thematic coding by multiple researchers), while a small subset quantified inter-coder agreement at moderate levels (Fleiss’ κ = 0.425–0.461; Kendall’s W = 0.489; both p < 0.001). This pattern is consistent with work showing that qualitative reporting is typically at a moderate-low level and that “how trustworthiness was established” is often insufficiently specified (Walsh et al., 2020; Watts and Finkenstaedt-Quinn, 2021). Under the naturalistic paradigm, qualitative quality should be evaluated via credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability (Guba and Lincoln, 1985); however, these criteria should not be merely named. Following SRQR/COREQ/JARS-Qual, researchers should report in detail the definition and evidence of saturation, the nature of iteration, researcher positioning (reflexivity), and the scope of triangulation (O’Brien et al., 2014). Moreover, inter-rater reliability (IRR) is regarded as paramount in content analysis (Neuendorf, 2010); indeed, in science education journals, only 19 of 103 studies in 2019 reported IRR (Cheung and Tai, 2021). Process-based assurances are therefore necessary but not sufficient; where appropriate, they should be complemented by quantitative indices such as κ/α/AC1–AC2/W/ICC and reported transparently.

In sum, our results reveal that reporting on measurement quality remains limited in scope and depth across both quantitative and qualitative research. For policy and practice, we recommend: (i) reporting ω alongside α, as well as test-retest and ICC; (ii) supplementing structural validity with convergent/discriminant/criterion and adaptation/procedural evidence; and (iii) in qualitative studies, providing systematic and transparent accounts of reflexivity, saturation, iterative decisions, triangulation, and IRR. Such practices will strengthen the credibility, transferability, and dependability of findings.

4.6 Data analysis

This finding provides significant insight into the data analysis methods employed in research on MGS. Firstly, it is observed that the most frequently used methods in quantitative analyses are inferential analyses. This suggests that, whether employing experimental or survey designs, researchers aim to make inferences about variables and demonstrate how sample results can be generalized to a broader population (Creswell and Creswell, 2018). Additionally, it is noted that most of these inferential analyses are parametric, including ANOVA, t-tests, correlation, and regression analyses. The limited use of non-parametric analysis methods indicates a preference for parametric methods that typically validate their assumptions in research (Field, 2013). Chin and Lee (2008) state that parametric analyses offer more robust and reliable results compared to non-parametric ones. Therefore, the widespread use of parametric tests in articles focusing on MGS can be considered advantageous. Descriptive analyses play a significant role in studies focusing on MGS. The frequent use of descriptive analyses indicates that researchers often employ this method to define the group under study and summarize its characteristics using tables, graphs, and statistical measures such as central tendency and variability. This approach provides information about sample and population values (Çakıcı-Eser, 2022). Consequently, the application of descriptive statistics in articles addressing MGS has more clearly revealed the prevalence and acceptance rates of the phenomenon of mathematical gender stereotyping.

The observation that qualitative analysis methods—such as content analysis, document analysis, and discourse analysis—are less frequently employed compared to quantitative analyses is noteworthy. This trend may be attributed to the complexity and time-consuming nature of qualitative data analysis. Patton (2014) highlights these challenges, emphasizing the difficulty in reducing the volume of raw data, distinguishing the trivial from the significant, identifying key patterns, and constructing a framework that effectively conveys the essence of the data. However, in areas influenced by emotional and social factors, such as MGS, qualitative analyses can provide in-depth insights. They are instrumental in understanding how such stereotypes are shaped within social and cultural contexts. Therefore, these findings suggest that future research should aim for a more balanced application of both quantitative and qualitative data analysis methods.

4.7 Countries

The majority of academic research on MGS is concentrated in Western countries. Notably, the United States, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom are at the forefront of publications in this field, whereas academic studies on this topic are significantly less frequent in non-Western countries such as Israel, Ethiopia, Uganda, Turkey, and India. This disparity can be attributed not only to the overall dominance of Western countries in academic publishing but also to their higher levels of gender equality, democracy, and human rights.

The academic pre-eminence of Western nations is reinforced by historical processes, economic investments, and scientific publishing systems. From a historical standpoint, the Scientific Revolution in Central and Western Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries laid the foundation for the systematic production and dissemination of academic knowledge. For instance, in the 18th century, Encyclopédie, ouDictionnaireraisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers, compiled by Diderot and d’Alembert, played a pivotal role in the structured development of knowledge by integrating scientific information within an interdisciplinary framework. Porter (1990) further asserts that the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment were instrumental in the emergence of modern social sciences such as sociology, economics, psychology, and anthropology. Thus, the quantitative dominance of academic output in Western countries has deep historical roots.

Moreover, the substantial financial resources allocated by Western nations for academic research and R and D (Research and Development) further solidify their leadership in scientific production. For example, annual R and D expenditures in the United States exceed $789 billion in 2021 (National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2024). Such significant economic investments render the Western world an attractive hub for researchers, thereby facilitating brain drain from developing nations to more developed regions. Indeed, two-thirds of highly skilled immigrants have settled in North America (Lucas, 2008).

The Western-centric structure of scientific publishing systems further perpetuates this academic dominance. Academic reputation and influence are largely determined by journal rankings, impact factors, and H-indices. Established in 1963 with financial backing from the United States, the Science Citation Index (SCI) encompasses citations from the most prestigious scientific journals. However, the vast majority of these journals are based in the United States and the United Kingdom, while nearly all others originate from Europe. Over time, citation indices such as journal rankings have become key indicators of “reputable” academic knowledge, reinforcing a Euro-American-centered academic publishing landscape. Digitalization and financial investments have further amplified the impact of these citation indices, elevating Western academic networks to an even more dominant position. Consequently, regional academic journals and those publishing in languages other than English face increasing marginalization if they are not incorporated into these citation indices, thereby entrenching existing academic hierarchies. As a result, long-standing regional knowledge ecosystems are weakened, and the legitimacy of journals excluded from these indices is continuously scrutinized (Mills, 2024).

Another critical factor contributing to the concentration of academic studies on MGS in the West is the high level of development in gender equality, democracy, and human rights within these nations. According to the 2024 Global Gender Gap Report by the World Economic Forum, Europe has closed 75% of the gender gap, establishing itself as a global leader in this domain, while North America follows closely with a closure rate of 74.8%. In contrast, non-Western countries such as Israel, Ethiopia, India, and Turkey rank lower due to their comparatively weaker gender equality scores (World Economic Forum, 2024). Similarly, the 2024 Democracy Index classifies Europe and North America as “full democracies” (Economist Intelligence, 2025), while the Freedom in the World 2025 report by Freedom House designates countries in these regions as “free” (Freedom House, 2025). The presence of strong democratic institutions, extensive civil liberties, and robust human rights protections in these nations fosters a conducive environment for research on gender equality, thereby reinforcing the predominance of scholarly literature on this subject within Western academia.

While the academic dominance of Western countries is rooted in historical, economic, and structural factors, expanding research on MGS beyond these regions would enhance the diversity and inclusivity of knowledge production. To achieve this, fostering academic research in non-Western countries, integrating regional journals into international citation indices, and supporting scholars publishing in languages other than English are essential steps. Furthermore, advancements in gender equality, democracy, and human rights within these countries could create a more conducive environment for such studies. A more balanced global distribution of scientific knowledge would not only enrich academic discourse but also contribute to broader societal awareness and policy development.

4.8 Years

An examination of the annual distribution of research on MGS reveals fluctuations in the number of publications over time, with notable increases and decreases observed in specific periods. Since 1999, the number of articles has shown a fluctuating trend, with significant peaks in 2012 and 2022. In 2012, the number of publications reached its highest point with 10 articles, followed by a period of relative stability in 2017, when 8 articles were published. In 2022, the number of articles again reached 15, marking another peak. These fluctuations indicate that academic interest in the topic has concentrated in certain periods, influenced by various factors that may have shaped these trends.

The Fourth World Conference on Women, held in Beijing in 1995, significantly increased global awareness of gender equality and initiated a transformative process at the international level (United Nations, 2025). The Beijing Platform for Action, adopted at the end of the conference, facilitated the promotion of research on gender equality and pioneered the creation of international funding opportunities (UN Women, 2000). In this context, the emergence of academic studies on MGS from 1999 onwards can be seen as a consequence of the scientific and political environment shaped by the Beijing Platform for Action.

The increase in academic production in 2012 and 2022 can be attributed to global initiatives and policy changes aimed at advancing gender equality during these periods. Established in 2010, UN Women launched projects in 2011 to support the economic and academic empowerment of women, with various initiatives in the United States and the United Kingdom further complementing these efforts (UN Women, 2025). During the same period, the White House Council on Women and Girls in the U.S. allocated new funding to support women in STEM fields (White House Council on Women and Girls, 2025), while the National Science Foundation (NSF) expanded its ADVANCE Program to develop new policies aimed at empowering female academics (National Science Foundation, 2011). Similarly, in the UK, the Athena SWAN program was expanded to offer awards promoting gender equality in universities and research centers, providing support to female researchers (Athena SWAN, 2025).

The year 2022 stands out as a period during which academic funding agencies implemented stricter criteria for supporting gender equality. Under the European Union’s Horizon Europe Program, the Gender Equality Plan (GEP) became mandatory for research projects, and the inclusion of gender considerations in funding applications was established as an evaluation criterion (European Commission, 2022). Additionally, the “Women TechEU” program provided special funding for female leaders and entrepreneurs (European Innovation Council, 2025). UNESCO’s “STEM and Gender Advancement (SAGA)” initiative offered support to increase the participation of female academics in research, while UN Women and UNDP promoted gender equality awareness within academic institutions through the “Gender Equality Seal for Research Institutions” program (UNDP, 2025; UNESCO, 2025).

The fluctuations in academic interest in MGS at certain periods are directly linked to global policies, available funding, and academic trends. These dynamics help explain the periods of accelerated development in the field. However, the notable decline in the number of relevant publications in 2020, dropping to just two publications, necessitates an investigation into the underlying factors contributing to the fluctuations in scientific production.

Considering the impact of global crises on scientific output, the decline in these years becomes more understandable. For instance, the COVID-19 pandemic, which had a global impact in 2020, caused significant disruptions in academic research. The closure of universities, the transition to remote education, and the suspension of fieldwork greatly hindered scientific production. During this period, many scholars focused on the inequalities created by the pandemic in education (Czerniewicz et al., 2020; Frohn, 2021; Özer et al., 2020), and academic interest shifted toward educational technologies and remote teaching (Başaran et al., 2020). As a result, more specific areas, such as MGS, inevitably became a lower priority in academic agendas.

Moreover, the pandemic led to changes in the peer review and publication policies of many academic journals. As a result, a significant portion of the research published in 2020 focused on the COVID-19 pandemic (Raynaud et al., 2021; Riccaboni and Verginer, 2022). This shift contributed to the lower number of publications on MGS. Considering all these factors, the notable decline in publications in 2020 can be understood in the context of shifts in academic focus and the impact of global crises on scientific production.

The fluctuations in academic publications on MGS reflect broader global trends, shaped by political, social, and economic factors. While significant peaks in 2012 and 2022 highlight the importance of international initiatives and funding opportunities, the decline in 2020 suggest the vulnerability of research areas to shifts in academic focus and external crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. By recognizing and addressing the factors influencing these fluctuations, the academic community can better prioritize and continue to advance research on gender equality in mathematics.

4.9 Definitions

Our findings indicate that the literature organizes the theme of stereotypes along two robust axes: (i) belief- and belonging-based formulations centered on male superiority, and (ii) process-oriented formulations structured around ST. The former casts mathematics as a form of identity-linked “ownership,” shaping choice and persistence through belonging and expectancy structures; the latter attenuates momentary performance via cognitive and affective mechanisms activated within evaluative contexts. Together, these axes align with evidence on achievement disparities (Cvencek et al., 2015; Kiefer and Sekaquaptewa, 2007) and on problems of retention and persistence in the field (Correll, 2001).

Definitions that explicitly assert male superiority or implicitly construe mathematics as a “male domain” (Supplementary Appendix 1, Study 89, p. 237) emerge as the most persistent trope in the literature. This discourse structures not only individual expectancy beliefs but also classroom interaction patterns (Nurlu-Üstün and Aksoy, 2022), representational practices in instructional materials (Guichot-Reina and De la Torre-Sierra, 2023; Nurlu, 2021), and the visibility of role models (Ladd, 2011; Nurlu-Üstün and Uzuner-Yurt, 2023). Normative frames such as “Mathematics is for men, not for women” (Supplementary Appendix 1, Study 18, p. 123) masculinize the field as “naturally” male, thereby weakening girls’ sense of belonging and relegating them to a guest status (Good et al., 2012), and—over the longer term—suppressing course selection and career intentions (Correll, 2001).

Defining ST as the “risk of confirming, as self-characteristic, a negative stereotype about one’s group” (Supplementary Appendix 1, Study 1, p. 62) affirms the centrality of processes that are sensitive to evaluative context. As public visibility and the expectation of being judged increase, threat intensifies, producing performance decrements that are especially pronounced on cognitively demanding tasks (Steele and Aronson, 1995). This pattern helps explain why threat-reducing statements, low-threat task designs, and context-sensitive instructions can be effective.

Although the “long-tail” axes may appear quantitatively small, they enrich the stereotyping ecosystem. Endorsement and internalization delineate a pathway from mere awareness to self-ascription (McKown and Weinstein, 2003), whereas counter-stereotypic role models forge associative bridges that disrupt this chain (Dasgupta, 2011). Meanwhile, “stereotype lift” reminds us that derogating an out-group in comparative contexts can artificially inflate performance, underscoring the importance of fair assessment designs (Walton and Cohen, 2003).

The findings indicate that unidimensional measures may inadequately capture the plural nature of stereotypes. Future work should proceed with multidimensional scales that disentangle belonging/superiority, threat, endorsement, and internalization, and with designs that combine implicit and explicit indicators. At the same time, the conceptual map suggests that interventions must operate on two fronts: (i) representational and role-model strategies that weaken belonging/superiority discourse; and (ii) assessment designs and instructional guidelines that reduce the activation of threat.

4.10 Conclusions

Mathematics is widely framed as masculine; this framing is sustained by the school ecology (teacher discourse, material representation) and early-life experiences, and is transmitted to achievement and intentions via cognitive/affective processes. In the correlational network, stereotype endorsement and mathematical gender-stereotype beliefs occupy central positions; SEM and experimental evidence link them to performance through self-beliefs (self-concept/self-efficacy) and affective pathways (anxiety, dejection). This pattern accords with expectancy-value accounts (e.g., self-concept/self-efficacy and domain value (Eccles and Wigfield, 2020) and with stereotype-threat theory (Steele, 1997): gendered contexts erode self-resources, activate avoidance goals, and depress performance.

Meta-analytic evidence indicates small but reliable effects (approximately | d| ≈0.20–0.30) that are sensitive to context. Effects tend to intensify when threat is salient and in mixed-gender settings. However, they can be attenuated—and in some cases even reversed—through self-affirmation/positive achievement identity, counter-stereotypic role models, self-monitoring, and selected mindfulness practices. Experimental mediation findings largely align with a “threat → anxiety/avoidance → performance ↓” pathway (Schmader et al., 2004). Nevertheless, some studies report null or complex mediation, suggesting that task type, measurement timing, and differences in operationalization are decisive factors (Pennington et al., 2016).

Linking parental stereotypes—enacted through behaviors such as intrusive support—to girls’ non-STEM trajectories indicates that stereotypes function as social practices transmitted within the family-school ecology, rather than merely as individual attitudes (Carlana, 2019; Crowley et al., 2001). Likewise, teacher discourse and the uneven representation in instructional materials generate symbolic cues that, as qualitative excerpts illustrate, entrench classroom norms (Blumberg, 2008; Tiedemann, 2002).

Taken together, these findings underscore both conceptual and methodological challenges, while simultaneously pointing toward actionable implications for practice and future research. Methodologically, divergent operationalization of “mathematics-gender stereotype” (identity labels, competence clichés, implicit associations) hinder cross-study comparability. Although some reliability is reported, stronger evidence is needed for measurement invariance across age and cultural groups and for adherence to reporting standards. Empirically, the findings support: (i) teacher professional development (language/comparative feedback), (ii) curriculum-materials review (balanced representation), (iii) pre-exam self-affirmation/identity-supportive micro-interventions, (iv) visibility of counter-stereotypic role models, and (v) adjustments to class composition and task framing—each requiring context-sensitive design and external-validity testing. Priorities for future work include adequately powered, multi-source experiments; time-segmented mediation and multilevel SEM; rigorous measurement invariance by age/sex/culture; standardized operationalization of threat salience, control conditions, and task types; and open-science practices. Longitudinal studies of early-childhood masculinized framings could identify ecological windows for intervention.

The evidence demonstrates that MGS operate in multilayered ways, with effects that are small yet consistent and context-sensitive, and that these effects can be mitigated through appropriate psychosocial interventions and ecological adjustments. Advancing definitional and measurement standardization, alongside strengthening causal research designs, appears critical for the next advancement of the field.

5 Conclusion

The findings of this review indicate that research on MGS is concentrated primarily within psychology, followed by education/educational sciences and women’s studies, with only limited contributions from other fields such as communication or science and technology. Thematically, the most frequently examined subject is MGS themselves, with related strands including ST, counter-stereotypical information, the masculinity of mathematics, and gender equity in mathematics education. Methodologically, studies are predominantly quantitative, with experimental designs most common, followed by surveys and scale development, while qualitative and mixed-method approaches remain scarce. Data are largely collected from undergraduate students, with fewer studies focusing on other populations such as school-aged children, teachers, parents, or early childhood groups. Surveys and questionnaires dominate as data collection instruments, supplemented by stereotype-threat manipulations, whereas qualitative tools such as interviews and observations are rarely employed. Analytically, the literature relies heavily on inferential parametric statistics—particularly regression, ANOVA, and t-tests—while descriptive and non-parametric analyses are used less frequently, and qualitative methods are underrepresented. Geographically, research is concentrated in Western countries, especially the United States and Germany, with only sparse contributions from the Global South, where such scholarship appears still emergent. Publication trends fluctuate over time, with peaks in 2012 and 2022. Conceptually, stereotypes are defined along two main axes: belief/domain-ownership formulations centered on male superiority and process-based formulations centered on ST, with less frequent but conceptually meaningful extensions such as endorsement, internalization, counter-stereotypic role models, and stereotype lift. Finally, across six outcome categories—qualitative, descriptive, correlational, mediation, meta-analytic, and experimental—findings converge to show that stereotypes operate primarily through self-beliefs and affective processes, influencing performance and intentions, with effects that are small yet reliable, context-sensitive, and attenuated by interventions such as self-affirmation, counter-stereotypic role models, and self-monitoring.

5.1 Limitations

This systematic review has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the literature search was restricted to the Web of Science database. Although Web of Science indexes high-quality, peer-reviewed publications, the exclusion of other major databases (e.g., Scopus, ERIC, PsycINFO) may have led to the omission of relevant studies—particularly education-sector proceedings, regional journals, and psychology-specific outlets. This coverage decision could bias the corpus toward internationally indexed journals and may have affected the observed distribution of samples (e.g., early childhood/elementary), methods, and contexts. Future updates should implement multi-database searches (WoS, Scopus, ERIC, PsycINFO), and backward/forward citation chasing to strengthen comprehensiveness and reproducibility.

Second, the review included only studies published in English, potentially excluding valuable research conducted in other languages—particularly in non-Western contexts. This language restriction may have limited the cultural and geographical diversity of the findings.

Third, gray literature such as dissertations, conference proceedings, and institutional reports was not included in the review. As a result, emerging or unpublished research related to MGS may have been overlooked.

No protocol pre-registration (e.g., PROSPERO/OSF) was undertaken for this systematic review. The absence of pre-registration constitutes a limitation, as it may increase the flexibility of decision-making during the study and thereby heighten the risk of selection or reporting bias. To mitigate this risk, however, the inclusion/exclusion criteria and the analysis plan were specified in writing prior to the search, and adherence to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines was maintained (Supplementary Appendix 2).

Finally, although the coding procedure followed a systematic approach and inter-coder reliability was established, some degree of subjectivity in interpreting and categorizing studies is unavoidable. In addition, the review was conducted by a single researcher; the absence of independent dual screening and cross-validation constitutes an additional limitation that may increase the risk of selection and reporting bias. Taken together, these factors suggest that the synthesis may inadvertently reflect some bias. A list of PRISMA items not implemented and the justification for their omission is available in Supplementary Appendix 3.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author contributions

ÖN: Project administration, Writing – original draft, Data curation, Supervision, Formal analysis, Methodology, Visualization, Validation, Investigation, Resources, Conceptualization, Software, Writing – review & editing, Funding acquisition.

Funding

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The authors declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1660583/full#supplementary-material

References

Adams, D. B. M. V., and McLeod, D. B. (1989). “Affect and mathematical problem solving,” in Affect and mathematical problem solving: A new perspective, eds D. B. McLeod and V. M. Adams (New York, NY: Springer).

Google Scholar

Altunçekiç, A., Yaman, S., and Koray, Ö. (2005). Ögretmen adaylarinin öz-yeterlik inanç düzeyleri ve problem çözme becerileri üzerine bir araştirma (Kastamonu ili örneği). [Koray Ö. A study on the self-efficacy belief levels and problem-solving skills of prospective teachers (Kastamonu province example)]. Kastamonu Eğit Derg 13, 93–102. Turkish.

Google Scholar

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: AERA.

Google Scholar

Appel, M., Kronberger, N., and Aronson, J. (2011). ST impairs ability building: Effects on test preparation among women in science and technology. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 41, 904–913. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.835

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Appelbaum, M., Cooper, H., Kline, R. B., Mayo-Wilson, E., Nezu, A. M., and Rao, S. M. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology: The APA publications and communications board task force report. Am. Psychol. 73, 3–25. doi: 10.1037/amp0000191

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ashkenazi, S., and Danan, Y. (2017). The role of mathematical anxiety and working memory on the performance of different types of arithmetic tasks. Trends Neurosci. Educ. 7, 1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.tine.2017.05.001

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Athena SWAN (2025). Athena SWAN Charter. United Kingdom: Advance HE.

Google Scholar

Auyeung, B., Baron-Cohen, S., Chapman, E., Knickmeyer, R., Taylor, K., and Hackett, G. (2006). “Foetal testosterone and the child systemizing quotient,” in Paper presented at: 4th ferring pharmaceuticals international paediatric endocrinology symposium, (Paris), doi: 10.1530/eje.1.02260

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ayalon, H., and Livneh, I. (2013). Educational standardization and gender differences in mathematics achievement: A comparative study. Soc. Sci. Res. 42, 432–445. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.10.001

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Barroso, C., Ganley, C. M., McGraw, A. L., Geer, E. A., Hart, S. A., and Daucourt, M. C. (2021). A meta-analysis of the relation between math anxiety and math achievement. Psychol. Bull. 147:134. doi: 10.1037/bul0000307

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Baş, F., and Özturan Sağırlı, M. (2017). A content analysis of the articles on metacognition in education in Turkey. Educ. Sci. 42, 1–3. doi: 10.15390/EB.2017.7115

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Başaran, M., Doğan, E., Karaoğlu, E., and Şahin, E. (2020). Koronavirüs (COVID-19) pandemi sürecinin getirisi olan uzaktan eğitimin etkililiği üzerine bir çalışma. [A study on the effectiveness of distance education as a result of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic process]. Acad. Educ. Res. J. 5, 368–397. Turkish

Google Scholar

Bedyńska, S., Krejtz, I., and Sedek, G. (2018). Chronic ST is associated with mathematical achievement on representative sample of secondary schoolgirls: The role of gender identification, working memory, and intellectual helplessness. Front. Psychol. 9:428. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00428

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Beilock, S. L., Gunderson, E. A., Ramirez, G., and Levine, S. C. (2010). Female teachers’ math anxiety affects girls’ math achievement. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 107, 1860–1863. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0910967107

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Berenbaum, S. A., Bryk, K. L. K., and Beltz, A. M. (2012). Early androgen effects on spatial and mechanical abilities: Evidence from congenital adrenal hyperplasia. Behav. Neurosci. 126:86. doi: 10.1037/a0026652

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bertrams, A., Lindner, C., Muntoni, F., and Retelsdorf, J. (2022). Self-control capacity moderates the effect of ST on female university students’ worry during a math performance situation. Front. Psychol. 13:794896. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.794896

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bianca, N., and Spagnolo, C. (2024). Gender differences in relation to perceived difficulty of a mathematical task. Proc. Int. Group Psychol. Mathemat. Educ. 3, 257–264.

Google Scholar

Binark, M., and Bek, M. G. (2009). Eleştirel medya okuryazarlığı: Kuramsal yaklaşımlar ve uygulamalar. Türk Kütüphaneciliği 23, 648–650.

Google Scholar

Black, L., and Radovic, D. (2018). “Gendered positions and participation in whole class discussions in the mathematics classroom,” in Inside the mathematics class. Advances in mathematics education, eds U. Gellert, C. Knipping, and H. Straehler-Pohl (Cham: Springer), 269–289. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-79045-9_13

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Blumberg, R. L. (2008). The invisible obstacle to educational equality: Gender bias in textbooks. Prospects 38, 345–361. doi: 10.1007/s11125-009-9086-1

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Brown-Jeffy, S. (2009). School effects: Examining the race gap in mathematics achievement. J. Afr. Am. Stud. 13, 388–405. doi: 10.1007/s12111-008-9056-3

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Çakıcı-Eser, D. (2022). “Ýstatistikte temel kavramlar. [Basic concepts in statistics],” in Adım adım uygulamalı istatistik, eds S. Göçer-Şahin and M. Buluş (Ankara: Pegem Akademi), 1–8. Turkish

Google Scholar

Çakır, M. A. (2004). Mesleki karar envanterinin geliştirilmesi. [Development of a career decision inventory]. Ankara Univ. Egit Bilim Fak Derg. 37, 1–14.

Google Scholar

Çakiroglu, E., and Isiksal, M. (2009). Preservice elementary teachers’ attitudes and self-efficacy beliefs toward mathematics. Egitim ve Bilim. 34, 132–139. doi: 10.15390/ES.2009.799

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Çalışkan, H., and Uymaz, M. (2022). “Sosyal bilgiler ders kitaplarında ölçme ve değerlendirme. [Measurement and evaluation in social studies textbooks],” in Sosyal bilgiler ders kitabi inceleme ve tasarım kılavuzu, eds B. Akbaba and S. Kaymakcı (Ankara: Pegem Akademi), 353–376. Turkish

Google Scholar

Caplan, J. B., and Caplan, P. J. (2005). “The perseverative search for sex differences in mathematics ability,” in Gender differences in mathematics: An integrative psychological approach, eds A. M. Gallagher and J. C. Kaufman (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 25–47.

Google Scholar

Carlana, M. (2019). Implicit stereotypes: Evidence from teachers’ gender bias. Q. J. Econ. 134, 1163–1224. doi: 10.1093/qje/qjz008

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Carr, L. T. (1994). The strengths and weaknesses of quantitative and qualitative research: What method for nursing? J. Adv. Nurs. 20, 716–721. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1994.20040716.x

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Casad, B. J., Hale, P., and Wachs, F. L. (2017). ST among girls: Differences by gender identity and math education context. Psychol. Women Q. 41, 513–529. doi: 10.1177/0361684317711412

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ceci, S. J., Williams, W. M., and Barnett, S. M. (2009). Women’s underrepresentation in science: Sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychol. Bull. 135, 218–261. doi: 10.1037/a0014412

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chaffee, K. E., and Plante, I. (2022). How parents’ stereotypical beliefs relate to students’ motivation and career aspirations in mathematics and language arts. Front. Psychol. 12:796073. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.796073

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cheung, K. K. C., and Tai, K. W. H. (2021). The use of intercoder reliability in qualitative interview data analysis in science education. Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 41, 1–21. doi: 10.1080/02635143.2021.1993179

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chin, R., and Lee, B. Y. (2008). “Analysis of data,” in Principles and practice of clinical trial medicine, eds R. Chin and B. Y. Lee (London: Elsevier), 325–359.

Google Scholar

Chionidou-Moskofoglou, M., and Chatzivasiliadou-Lekka, K. (2008). “Teachers’ perceptions about gender differences in Greek primary school mathematics classrooms,” in Promoting equity in maths achievement. The current discussion, eds M. Chionidou-Moskofoglou, A. Blunk, R. Siemprinska, Y. Solomon, and R. Tanzberger (Barcelona: Edicions Universitat Barcelona).

Google Scholar

Çiltaş, A., Güler, G., and Sözbilir, M. (2012). Mathematics education research in turkey: A content-analysis study. Educ. Sci. Theory Pract. 12, 565–580.

Google Scholar

Correll, S. J. (2001). Gender and the career choice process: The role of biased self-assessments. Am. J. Sociol. 106, 1691–1730. doi: 10.1086/321299

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Creswell, J. W., and Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Google Scholar

Crowley, K., Callanan, M. A., Tenenbaum, H. R., and Allen, E. (2001). Parents explain more often to boys than to girls during shared scientific thinking. Psychol. Sci. 12, 258–261. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00347

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cvencek, D., Kapur, M., and Meltzoff, A. N. (2015). Math achievement, stereotypes, and math self-concepts among elementary-school students in Singapore. Learn Instr. 39, 1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.04.002

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cvencek, D., Meltzoff, A. N., and Greenwald, A. G. (2011). Math–gender stereotypes in elementary school children. Child Dev. 82, 766–779. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01529.x

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Czerniewicz, L., Agherdien, N., Badenhorst, J., Belluigi, D., Chambers, T., Chili, M., et al. (2020). A wake-up call: Equity, inequality and Covid-19 emergency remote teaching and learning. Postdigit. Sci. Educ. 2, 946–967. doi: 10.1007/s42438-020-00187-4

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Dasgupta, N. (2011). Ingroup experts and peers as social vaccines who inoculate the self-concept: The stereotype inoculation model. Psychol. Inquiry 22, 231–246. doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2011.607313

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Del Río, M. F., and Strasser, K. (2013). Preschool children’s beliefs about gender differences in academic skills. Sex Roles 68, 231–238. doi: 10.1007/s11199-012-0195-6

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Dökmen, Y. Z. (2017). Toplumsal cinsiyet: Sosyal psikolojik açıklamalar. [Gender: Social psychological explanations]. Ýstanbul: Remzi. Turkish

Google Scholar

Doyle, R. A., and Voyer, D. (2016). Stereotype manipulation effects on math and spatial test performance: A meta-analysis. Learn. Individ. Differ. 47, 103–116. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2015.12.018

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Drury, B. J., Siy, J. O., and Cheryan, S. (2011). When do female role models benefit women? The importance of differentiating recruitment from retention in STEM. Psychol. Inq. 22, 265–269. doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2011.620935

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Eagly, A. H., and Steffen, V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 46:735. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.46.4.735

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Eccles, J. S., and Wigfield, A. (2020). From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-value theory: A developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural perspective on motivation. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 61:101859. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101859

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Eccles, J. S., Jacobs, J. E., and Harold, R. D. (1990). Gender role stereotypes, expectancy effects, and parents’ socialization of gender differences. J. Soc. Issues 46, 183–201. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1990.tb01929.x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Economist Intelligence (2025). Democracy Index 2024: What’s Wrong with Representative Democracy? [Internet]. London: Economist Intelligence.

Google Scholar

Ekiz, D. (2004). Examination of the educational world with a qualitative research paradigm: Natural or artificial. J. Turk. Educ. Sci. 2, 415–439.

Google Scholar

Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., and Linn, M. C. (2010). Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: A meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 136, 103–127. doi: 10.1037/a0018053

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

European Commission (2022). Horizon Europe guidance on gender equality plans [Internet]. Belgium: European Commission.

Google Scholar

European Innovation Council (2025). EU launches second edition of Women TechEU with an increased budget of €10 million. Belgium: European Innovation Council.

Google Scholar

Fan, X., Chen, M., and Matsumoto, A. R. (1997). Gender differences in mathematics achievement: Findings from the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988. J. Exp. Educ. 65, 229–242. doi: 10.1080/00220973.1997.9943456

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Fellus, O. O., Low, D. E., Guzmán, L. D., Kasman, A., and Mason, R. T. (2022). Hidden figures, hidden messages: The construction of mathematical identities with children’s picturebooks. For Learn. Math. 42, 2–8.

Google Scholar

Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics. London: Sage.

Google Scholar

Flake, J. K., Pek, J., and Hehman, E. (2017). Construct validation in social and personality research: Current practice and recommendations. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 8, 370–378. doi: 10.1177/1948550617693063

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Freedom House (2025). Freedom in the World 2025: Uphill Battle to Safeguard Rights [Internet]. Available online at: https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2025/uphill-battle-to-safeguard-rights. (accessed Mar 17, 2025).

Google Scholar

Frenzel, A. C., Pekrun, R., and Goetz, T. (2007). Girls and mathematics—a “hopeless” issue? A control-value approach to gender differences in emotions towards mathematics. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 22, 497–514. doi: 10.1007/BF03173468

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Frohn, J. (2021). Troubled schools in troubled times: How COVID-19 affects educational inequalities and what measures can be taken. Eur. Educ. Res. J. 20, 667–683. doi: 10.1177/14749041211020974

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gallagher, A. M., De Lisi, R., Holst, P. C., McGillicuddy-De Lisi, A. V., Morely, M., and Cahalan, C. (2000). Gender differences in advanced mathematical problem solving. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 75, 165–190. doi: 10.1006/jecp.1999.2532

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Geary, D. C., Saults, S. J., Liu, F., and Hoard, M. K. (2000). Sex differences in spatial cognition, computational fluency, and arithmetical reasoning. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 77, 337–353. doi: 10.1006/jecp.2000.2594

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gezici-Yalç,ın, M., and Coskan, C. (2021). A critical approach to methodological problems in psychology and suggestions. Stud. Psychol–Psikoloji Çalışmaları 41, 759–787. doi: 10.26650/SP2020-844357

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Göktaş, Y., Hasançebi, F., Varışoğlu, B., Akçay, A., Bayrak, N., Baran, M., et al. (2012). Trends in educational research in Turkey: A content analysis. Educ. Sci. Theory Pract. 12, 443–460.

Google Scholar

Göncü-Akbaş, M., and Okutan, E. (2020). Lise öğrencilerinin kariyer kaygısına yönelik alan araştırması: Antalya ili örneği. [Field research on career anxiety of high school students: Antalya province example]. Gençlik Araştırmaları Dergisi. 8, 158–187. Turkish

Google Scholar

Gonzales, P. M., Blanton, H., and Williams, K. J. (2002). The effects of ST and double-minority status on the test performance of Latino women. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 28, 659–670. doi: 10.1177/0146167202288010

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Good, C., Rattan, A., and Dweck, C. S. (2012). Why do women opt out? Sense of belonging and women’s representation in mathematics. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 102, 700–717. doi: 10.1037/a0026659

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Good, J. J., Woodzicka, J. A., and Wingfield, L. C. (2010). The effects of gender stereotypic and counter-stereotypic textbook images on science performance. J. Soc. Psychol. 150, 132–147. doi: 10.1080/00224540903366552

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Guba, E. G., and Lincoln, Y. S. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Google Scholar

Guichot-Reina, V., and De la Torre-Sierra, A. M. (2023). The representation of gender stereotypes in Spanish mathematics textbooks for elementary education. Sex Cult. 27, 1481–1503. doi: 10.1007/s12119-023-10075-1

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Guiso, L., Monte, F., Sapienza, P., and Zingales, L. (2008). Culture, gender, and math. Science 320, 1164–1165. doi: 10.1126/science.1154094

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gül, S., and Sözbilir, M. (2015). Biology education research trends in Turkey. EURASIA J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 11, 93–109. doi: 10.12973/eurasia.2015.1309a

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gutfleisch, T., and Kogan, I. (2024). Gender disparities in mathematics achievement by ethnic origin: Evidence from Germany. Soziale Welt 75, 198–246. doi: 10.5771/0038-6073-2024-2-198

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hall, J., and Suurtamm, C. (2020). Numbers and nerds: Exploring portrayals of mathematics and mathematicians in children’s media. Int. Electron. J. Math. Educ. 15, 2–17. doi: 10.29333/iejme/8260

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Henrich, J., Heine, S., and Norenzayan, A. (2010). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature 466:29. doi: 10.1038/466029a

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Herbert, J., and Stipek, D. (2005). The emergence of gender differences in children’s perceptions of their academic competence. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 26, 276–295. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2005.02.007

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Heyder, A., Steinmayr, R., and Kessels, U. (2019). Do teachers’ beliefs about math aptitude and brilliance explain gender differences in children’s math ability self-concept? Front. Educ. 4:34. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2019.00034

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Higgins, J. P. T., and Green, S. (eds) (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. London: The Cochrane Collaboration.

Google Scholar

Hwang, S., and Son, T. (2021). Students’ attitude toward mathematics and its relationship with mathematics achievement. J. Educ. e-Learn. Res. 8, 272–280. doi: 10.20448/journal.509.2021.83.272.280

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hyde, J. S. (1981). How large are cognitive gender differences? A meta-analysis using w² and d. Am. Psychol. 36, 892–901. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.36.8.892

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., and Lamon, S. J. (1990). Gender differences in mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 107, 139–155. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.139

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hyde, J. S., Lindberg, S. M., Linn, M. C., Ellis, A. B., and Williams, C. C. (2008). Gender similarities characterize math performance. Science 321, 494–495. doi: 10.1126/science.1160364

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ing, M. (2013). Can parents influence children’s mathematics achievement and persistence in STEM careers? J. Career Dev. 41, 87–103. doi: 10.1177/0894845313481672

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Jacobs, J. E. (2005). Twenty-five years of research on gender and ethnic differences in math and science career choices: What have we learned? New Dir. Child Adolesc. Dev. 110, 85–94. doi: 10.1002/cd.151

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kane, E. (2000). Racial and ethnic variations in gender-related attitudes. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 26, 419–439. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.419

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kargar, M., Tarmizi, R. A., and Bayat, S. (2010). Relationship between mathematical thinking, mathematics anxiety and mathematics attitudes among university students. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 8, 537–542. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.074

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Keller, C. (2001). Effect of teachers’ stereotyping on students’ stereotyping of mathematics as a male domain. J. Soc. Psychol. 141, 165–173. doi: 10.1080/00224540109600544

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Keller, J. (2007). ST in classroom settings: The interactive effect of domain identification, task difficulty and ST on female students’ maths performance. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 77, 323–338. doi: 10.1348/000709906X113662

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Keller, J., and Dauenheimer, D. (2003). ST in the classroom: Dejection mediates the disrupting threat effect on women’s math performance. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 29, 371–381. doi: 10.1177/0146167202250218

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kiefer, A. K., and Sekaquaptewa, D. (2007). Implicit stereotypes, gender identification, and math-related outcomes: A prospective study of female college students. Psychol. Sci. 18, 13–18. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01841.x

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kılıç, A., and Seven, S. (2002). Konu alani ders kitabi incelmesi. [Subject area textbook review]. Ankara: Pegem. Turkish

Google Scholar

Köğce, D., Yıldız, C., Aydın, M., and Altındağ, R. (2009). Examining elementary school students’ attitudes towards mathematics in terms of some variables. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 1, 291–295. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.053

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Külahçı, ŞG. (1989). İlkokul Türkçe kitaplarında cinsiyet ayrımcılığı. [Gender discrimination in primary school Turkish textbooks]. Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi 3. Turkish

Google Scholar

Ladd, P. R. (2011). A study on gendered portrayals in children’s picture books with mathematical content. Int. J. Knowl. Content Dev. Technol. 1, 5–14. doi: 10.5865/IJKCT.2011.1.2.005

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lafrance, M. (1991). School for scandal: Different educational experiences for females and males. Gend. Educ. 3, 3–13. doi: 10.1080/0954025910030101

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lindberg, S. M., Hyde, J. S., Petersen, J. L., and Linn, M. C. (2010). New trends in gender and mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 136:1123. doi: 10.1037/a0021276

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. Harcourt, Brace and Company.

Google Scholar

Lippmann, W. (2009). Public opinion. New York, NY: NuVision.

Google Scholar

Liu, R. (2018). Gender-math stereotype, biased self-assessment, and aspiration in STEM careers: The gender gap among early adolescents in China. Comp. Educ. Rev. 62, 522–541. doi: 10.1086/699565

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lu, Y., Zhang, X., and Zhou, X. (2023). Assessing gender difference in mathematics achievement. Sch. Psychol. Int. 44, 553–567. doi: 10.1177/01430343221149689

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lucas, R. (2008). International labor migration in a globalizing economy. Washington, DC: Carnegie Papers.

Google Scholar

Lune, H., and Berg, B. L. (2017). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Essex: Pearson.

Google Scholar

Markovits, Z., and Forgasz, H. (2017). “Mathematics is like a lion”: Elementary students’ beliefs about mathematics. Educ. Stud. Math. 96, 49–64. doi: 10.1007/s10649-017-9759-2

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Marshall, G. (2005). The purpose, design and administration of a questionnaire for data collection. Radiography 11, 131–136. doi: 10.1016/j.radi.2004.09.002

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Martinot, D., and Désert, M. (2007). Awareness of a gender stereotype, personal beliefs and self-perceptions regarding math ability: When boys do not surpass girls. Soc. Psychol. Educ. 10, 455–471. doi: 10.1007/s11218-007-9028-9

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mayring, P. (2002). Einführung in die qualitative Sozialforschung (5. bs.). [Introduction to Qualitative Social Research (5th semester)]. Weinheim: Beltz Verlag. Turkish

Google Scholar

McDonald, B. A. (1989). “Psychological conceptions of mathematics and emotion,” in Affect and mathematical problem solving: A new perspective, eds D. B. McLeod and V. M. Adams (New York, NY: Springer).

Google Scholar

McKown, C., and Weinstein, R. S. (2003). The development and consequences of stereotype consciousness in middle childhood. Child Dev. 74, 498–515. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.7402012

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

McNeish, D. (2017). Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychol. Methods 23, 412–433. doi: 10.1037/met0000144

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Miles, M. B., and Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook, 2nd Edn. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications.

Google Scholar

Miller, H., and Bichsel, J. (2004). Anxiety, working memory, gender, and math performance. Pers. Individ. Dif. 37, 591–606. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2003.09.029

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mills, D. (2024). One index, two publishers and the global research economy. Oxford Rev. Educ. 51, 1–16. doi: 10.1080/03054985.2024.2348448

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mittelberg, D., Rozner, O., and Forgasz, H. (2011). Mathematics and gender stereotypes in one Jewish and one Druze grade 5 classroom in Israel. Educ. Res. Int. 2011, 1–10. doi: 10.1155/2011/545010

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Moser, F., and Hannover, B. (2014). How gender fair are German schoolbooks in the twenty-first century? An analysis of language and illustrations in schoolbooks for mathematics and German. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 29, 387–407. doi: 10.1007/s10212-013-0204-3

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mozahem, N. A., Boulad, F. M., and Ghanem, C. M. (2021). Secondary school students and self-efficacy in mathematics: Gender and age differences. Int. J. Sch. Educ. Psychol. 9, S142–S152. doi: 10.1080/21683603.20201763877

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Muzzatti, B., and Agnoli, F. (2007). Gender and mathematics: Attitudes and ST susceptibility in Italian children. Dev. Psychol. 43, 747–759. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.43.3.747

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (2024). U.S. R&D increased by $72 billion in 2021 to $789 billion; estimate for 2022 indicates further increase to $886 billion [Internet]. Available online at: https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf24317 (accessed Mar 17, 2025).

Google Scholar

National Science Foundation (2011). ADVANCE: Organizational Change for Gender Equity in STEM Academic Professions (ADVANCE) [Internet]. Available online at: https://www.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/advance-advance-organizational-change-gender-equity-stem-academic/5383/nsf20-554 (accessed Mar 18, 2025).

Google Scholar

Neuendorf, K. A. (2010). “Reliability for content analysis,” in Media messages and public health, eds H. Cho, T. Reimer, and K. McComas (New York, NY: Routledge), 85–105.

Google Scholar

Ntumi, S., and Twum Antwi-Agyakwa, K. (2022). A systematic review of reporting of psychometric properties in educational research. Med. J. Soc. Behav. Res. 6, 53–59. doi: 10.30935/mjosbr/11912

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Nurlu, Ö (2021). Analysis of gender fairness of primary school mathematics textbooks in Turkey. Int. J. Psychol. Educ. Stud. 8, 78–95. doi: 10.52380/ijpes.2021.8.4.543

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Nurlu-Üstün, Ö (2023). A content analysis of mathematics self-efficacy themed articles published in Türkiye. Ýnsan Toplum Bilim Araşt Derg. 12, 1331–1352. doi: 10.15869/itobiad.1250293

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Nurlu-Üstün, Ö, and Aksoy, N. (2022). Determination of primary school teachers’ MGS and examination of their reflection on students. Egitimde Nitel Arastirmalar Derg. 9, 235–264. doi: 10.14689/enad.29.9

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Nurlu-Üstün, Ö, and Uzuner-Yurt, S. (2023). Gender equality in math-themed picture books: The example of ‘Math Matters’. Int. J. Prog. Educ. 19, 225–249. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2023.603.15

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

O’Brien, B. C., Harris, I. B., Beckman, T. J., Reed, D. A., and Cook, D. A. (2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research: A synthesis of recommendations. Acad. Med. 89, 1245–1251. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Özer, M., Suna, E., Çelik, Z., and Aşkar, P. (2020). Covid-19 salgını dolayısıyla okulların kapanmasının eğitimde eşitsizlikler üzerine etkisi. İnsan Toplum 10, 217–246. doi: 10.12658/M0611

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Passolunghi, M. C., Ferreira, T. I. R., and Tomasetto, C. (2014). Math–gender stereotypes and math-related beliefs in childhood and early adolescence. Learn. Individ. Differ. 34, 70–76. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2014.05.005

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Google Scholar

Pedulla, D. (2014). The positive consequences of negative stereotypes: Race, sexual orientation, and the job application process. Soc. Psychol. Q. 77, 75–94.

Google Scholar

Pennington, C. R., Heim, D., Levy, A. R., and Larkin, D. T. (2016). Twenty years of ST research: A review of psychological mediators. PLoS One 11:e0146487. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0146487

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Pérez-Garín, D., Bustillos, A., and Molero, F. (2017). Revealing ST effects and women’s maths performance: The moderating role of mathematical anxiety. Int. J. Soc. Psychol. 32, 276–300. doi: 10.1080/02134748.2017.1291746

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Porter, R. (1990). The Enlightenment. London: MacMillan.

Google Scholar

Raynaud, M., Goutaudier, V., Louis, K., Al-Awadhi, S., Dubourg, Q., Truchot, A., et al. (2021). Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on publication dynamics and non-COVID-19 research production. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 21:255. doi: 10.1186/s12874-021-01404-9

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Riccaboni, M., and Verginer, L. (2022). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on scientific research in the life sciences. PLoS One 17:e0263001. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263001

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ross, J., Roeltgen, D., and Zinn, A. (2006). Cognition and the sex chromosomes: Studies in Turner syndrome. Horm. Res. Paediatr. 65, 47–56. doi: 10.1159/000090698

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rowland, K. D. (2004). Career decision-making skills of high school students in The Bahamas. J. Career Dev. 31, 1–13. doi: 10.1177/089484530403100101

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sağırlı-Özturan, M., and Baş, F. (2020). A content analysis of the problem-themed articles published in Turkey. J. Gazi Univ. Gazi Educ. Fac. 40, 1105–1135. doi: 10.17152/gefad.565265

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Salma, H. Z., and Leiliyanti, E. (2024). Girl math, boy math: The presence of toxic masculinity in TikTok and X jargon. KnE Soc. Sci. 9, 59–77. doi: 10.18502/kss.v9i9.15656

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Schmader, T., Johns, M., and Barquissau, M. (2004). The costs of accepting gender differences: The role of stereotype endorsement in women’s experience in the math domain. Sex Roles 50, 835–850. doi: 10.1023/B:SERS.0000029101.74557.a0

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., and Campbell, D. T. (2002). “Quasi-Experiments: Interrupted time-series designs,” in Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference, 2nd Edn, eds W. R. Shadish, T. D. Cook, and D. T. Campbell (New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin), 171–206.

Google Scholar

Sides, J., and Gross, K. (2013). Stereotypes of Muslims and support for the war on terror. J. Polit. 75, 583–598. doi: 10.1017/S0022381613000388

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Skaalvik, E. M., and Skaalvik, S. (2006). “Self-concept and self-efficacy in mathematics: Relation with mathematics motivation and achievement,” in The concept of self in education, family and sports, ed. A. P. Prescott (New York, NY: Nova), 51–74.

Google Scholar

Skagerlund, K., Östergren, R., Västfjäll, D., and Träff, U. (2019). How does mathematics anxiety impair mathematical abilities? Investigating the link between math anxiety, working memory, and number processing. PLoS One 14:e0211283. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211283

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Smetackova, I. (2015). Gender stereotypes, performance and identification with math. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 190, 211–219. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.937

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Smith, T. W. (1990). Ethnic images (GSS Topical Report No. 19). Chicago, IL: National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago.

Google Scholar

Song, J., Zuo, B., and Yan, L. (2016). Gender differences in math-related behavior: An international perspective. Soc. Behav. Pers. 44, 943–952. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2016.44.6.943

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. Am. Psychol. 52, 613–629. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.52.6.613

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Steele, C. M., and Aronson, J. (1995). ST and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 69, 797–811. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Suri, H., and Clarke, D. (2009). Advancements in research synthesis methods: From a methodologically inclusive perspective. Rev. Educ. Res. 79, 395–430. doi: 10.3102/0034654308326349

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Suthar, V., and Tarmizi, R. (2010). Effects of students’ beliefs on mathematics and achievement of university students: Regression analysis approach. J. Soc. Sci. 6, 146–152. doi: 10.3844/jssp.2006.146.152

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Tang, H., Chen, B., and Zhang, W. (2010). Gender issues in mathematical textbooks of primary schools. J. Math. Educ. 3, 106–114.

Google Scholar

Tate, W. F. (1997). Race-ethnicity, SES, gender, and language proficiency trends in mathematics achievement: An update. J. Res. Math. Educ. 28, 652–679. doi: 10.5951/jresematheduc.28.6.0652

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Tebes, J. K. (2005). Community science, philosophy of science, and the practice of research. Am. J. Commun. Psychol. 35, 213–230. doi: 10.1007/s10464-005-3399-x

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Tiedemann, J. (2000). Parents’ gender stereotypes and teachers’ beliefs as predictors of children’s concept of their mathematical ability in elementary school. J. Educ. Psychol. 92, 144–151. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.92.1.144

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Tiedemann, J. (2002). Teachers’ gender stereotypes as determinants of teacher perceptions in elementary school mathematics. Educ. Stud. Math. 50, 49–62. doi: 10.1023/A:1020518104346

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Tomasetto, C., Mirisola, A., Galdi, S., and Cadinu, M. (2015). Parents’ math–gender stereotypes, children’s self-perception of ability, and children’s appraisal of parents’ evaluations in 6-year-olds. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 42, 186–198. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.06.007

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ulutaş, F., and Ubuz, B. (2008). Research and trends in mathematics education: 2000 to 2006. Elem Educ. Online 7, 614–626.

Google Scholar

UN Women (2000). The Beijing Platform for Action [Internet]. New York, NY: United Nations.

Google Scholar

UN Women (2025). Annual Report 2010-2011. New York, NY: UN Women.

Google Scholar

UNDP (2025). Gender Equality Seal for Public Institutions. New York, NY: UNDP.

Google Scholar

UNESCO (2025). Be part of the change! STEM and Gender Advancement (SAGA): Improved measurement of gender equality in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Paris: UNESCO.

Google Scholar

United Nations (2025). Report of the Fourth World Conference on Women, Beijing, New York. New York, NY: United Nations.

Google Scholar

Uyanık, Z. (2012). 20. yüzyıl Türk edebiyatında Alevi-Bektaşi unsurların negatif temsil edildiği bazı eserler. [Some works in 20th century Turkish literature in which Alevi-Bektashi elements are represented negatively]. Türk Kültürü ve Hacı Bektaş Veli Araştırma Dergisi 62, 109–134. Turkish

Google Scholar

Van de Gaer, E., Pustjens, H., Van Damme, J., and De Munter, A. (2008). Mathematics participation and mathematics achievement across secondary school: The role of gender. Sex Roles 59, 568–585. doi: 10.1007/s11199-008-9455-x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Walsh, R., Teo, T., and Baydala, A. (2014). A critical history and philosophy of psychology: Diversity of context, thought, and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press.

Google Scholar

Walsh, S., Jones, M., Bressington, D., McKenna, L., Brown, E., Terhaag, S., et al. (2020). Adherence to COREQ reporting guidelines for qualitative research: A scientometric study in nursing social science. Int. J. Qual. Methods 19:1609406920982145. doi: 10.1177/1609406920982145

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Walton, G. M., and Cohen, G. L. (2003). Stereotype lift. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 39, 456–467. doi: 10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00019-2

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Watts, F. M., and Finkenstaedt-Quinn, S. A. (2021). The current state of methods for establishing reliability in qualitative chemistry education research articles. Chem. Educ. Res. Practice 22, 565–578. doi: 10.1039/D1RP00007A

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

White House Council on Women and Girls (2025). The white house and national science foundation announce new workplace flexibility policies to support america’s scientists and their families. Available online at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/26/white-house-and-national-science-foundation-announce-new-workplace-flexi. (accessed Mar 18, 2025).

Google Scholar

Wilkins, J. L., and Ma, X. (2003). Modeling change in student attitude toward and beliefs about mathematics. J. Educ. Res. 97, 52–63. doi: 10.1080/00220670309596628

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wille, E., Gaspard, H., Trautwein, U., Oschatz, K., Scheiter, K., and Nagengast, B. (2018). Gender stereotypes in a children’s television program: Effects on girls’ and boys’ stereotype endorsement, math performance, motivational dispositions, and attitudes. Front. Psychol. 9:2435. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02435

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

World Economic Forum (2024). Global gender gap 2024 [Internet]. Switzerland: World Economic Forum.

Google Scholar

Wu, Y., Widjaja, W., and Li, J. (2016). “Gender issues in elementary mathematics teaching materials: A comparative study between China and Australia,” in Multidisciplinary Research Perspectives in Education: Shared Experiences from Australia and China, eds I. Liyanage and B. Lima (Rotterdam: Sense), 149–160.

Google Scholar

Yee, D. K., and Eccles, J. S. (1988). Parent perceptions and attributions for children’s math achievement. Sex Roles 19, 317–333. doi: 10.1007/BF00289840

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Yıldırım, A., and Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. [Qualitative research methods in social sciences]. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık. Turkish

Google Scholar

Zhang, X., and Zhou, H. M. (2008). Analyzing gender stereotypes within primary mathematics textbooks. Educ. Res. Mon. 7, 23–25.

Google Scholar