Thanks for the provocative question. Given the scale of content in entertainment media that preferences heteronormative male representation as smart (ie: Dexter's Laboratory and his irritating sister DeeDee), how might you talk about migrating the model beyond classroom content?

What an intriguing study! Thank you for sharing your efforts. I would love if you could describe more of your survey metric.   Awesome stuff!

This is interesting stuff, and connects so nicely with the research on (for instance) the way that academics discuss male vs. female students in letters of recommendation. My question is similar to John's. I'm a little troubled by the suggestion that the problem can be solved by changing how girls (and boys) think about the value of particular attributes/behavior patterns in science. It seems to me that there is very powerful social and cultural messaging around science that is likely to reinforce the opposite message - and that unless you can change how scientists, science journalists, and popular media (plus little things like the Nobel and Macarthur awards, which tend not be advertised as rewarding hard work) describe the basis of success, whatever messaging you do with young children is just going to come out in the wash. What leads you to believe that intervention focused on the kids, rather than the social context, will have a meaningful effect? 

Thank you for sharing your project and for highlighting the complexity of stereotypes acquired at an early age and reinforced by social norms, experiences and contexts (as others have mentioned above). I'm curious about your responses to John's and Noah's questions, and also am curious...have you seen any differences in how youth assign brilliance based on the context presented in the photos? I realize the videos have room for only limited examples, but is there any difference when the visual depiction is different (clothing, work/home setting, physical stature and positioning of people in the photos)? I'd be interested to know if the trend you describe holds broadly.

I also am curious - have you been at all interested in race and gender in your project? It strikes me that the intersection of those domains might lead to more nuanced - but socially pervasive - stereotypes (e.g. Black women as smarter than Black men, but less smart than white men). Do you see any evidence of this and if so, how might it connect to longer-term STEM pursuit?

Do you have a sense at all for how the way science is portrayed, or how young children perceive the process of science, might play into this? For example, are there ways to portraying science/scientists that emphasize more stereotypically "male" vs. "female" attributes? Would teaching children that science as a collaborative, problem-solving process, as opposed to the work of a lone genius, make a difference in these gendered perceptions?

When one looks to a "critical feminist framework" (CFF) to inform us about creating mentoring programs that align with some fundamental criteria of a CFF, issues of gender and patriarchy are easier to attend to, however, more systemic change and societal changes are more difficult. Any thoughts about how we could go about proposing some of these changes?

Thanks for sharing your work. We're looking at elementary students' engineering role models (Role Models in Elementary Engineering Education: https://videohall.com/p/1432) and it sounds like we're drawing from some of the same literature as you.

I'm curious to hear more about the suggestion in the video that providing relatable role models can inoculate students against gender-linked stereotypes about innate brilliance. Do you have thoughts about how to provide those role models? Something we're thinking about in our project is what it means to "provide" a role model - for example, what kind of relationship might children need to have with a potential role model to see that person as a role model? Are you thinking of role models as closely analogous to vaccines - that is, do children need a brief exposure to a potential role model? Or do they need more ongoing contact?

What a great project, and such compelling findings.  I would like to echo some of the responses by pointing to a trove of social science research that shows persistent cultural stereotypes that are gendered precisely in the ways you suggest we *should* pursue -- attributing women's success to effort (even in light of lacking innate ability) and attributing men's success to brilliance.  By implication then, attributions for failure are also gendered.... (she failed because not smart enough, he failed even though smart just because he did not invest himself).  What will be the unintended consequences then if we try to recruit more women into STEM by stressing they can do it via effort?  How about we change the script to stressing that being brilliant has nothing to do with it -- what if any resistance to that do you anticipate?

I am amazed and dismayed that at age 6 you can observe a significant decrease in females believing they are brilliant.  All efforts to change this response are needed and welcome.  You noted in the presentation that related role models are needed.  Could you share resources or ways that you identify these "relatable" role models that others can adapt to their own classrooms/situations?

A great video! Thank you for sharing your efforts!