Document Type

Thesis

Degree Name

Master of Arts (MA)

Department

Psychology

Program Name/Specialization

Developmental Psychology

Faculty/School

Faculty of Arts

First Advisor

Kim Roberts

Advisor Role

Supervisor

Abstract

The present study examined how children’s peer selection in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) may be influenced by gender, ethnicity, and physical disability. Sixty-four children (ages 6-12) from elementary schools in Southwestern Ontario completed three tasks: a simulated peer selection task, an attribution of ability task, and a stereotype belief questionnaire. In the peer selection task, participants were repeatedly asked to select one peer from a set of AI-generated photographs showing children who differed by gender (male, female), ethnicity (White, Black, East Asian), and physical disability status (able-bodied user vs. nondisabled). The Peer Selection Task was based on the Peer Selection tasks in Wauters and Roberts (2022) study. For each of 16 scenarios in the Peer Selection task, four in each STEM domain (Engineering, Math, Science, and Technology), participants chose a partner and then rated each peer’s perceived ability in each area of STEM. Participants were also asked to verbally explain the reasoning behind why they selected the peer that they did, allowing for qualitative analyses of reasoning patterns.

Results revealed that both males and females were selected more than chance, however there was no consistent preference for males in STEM, although, in-group gender preferences emerged, especially among males. Additionally, males were still preferred in engineering, highlighting that it may still be a male dominated domain. This finding suggests that in-group preferences, as well as gender stereotypes may potentially contribute to children's peer selection.

No significant preferences were found for ethnicity or physical disability. Ethnicity based differences were minimal suggesting that although children may be aware of ethnic stereotypes, these may not yet be applied in academics consistently. For physical disability, peers with disabilities were selected less often in unadjusted data selections, which may suggest competence-based exclusion. However, when data was adjusted to account for unequal selection probability, no significant differences between selecting an able-bodied peer or a peer with a physical disability were found.

Exploratory analyses also found that children’s justification for selecting peers to collaborate with was mainly based on cognitive ability (i.e. who seemed smart or skilled).

Task-specific reasoning, such as experience, and perceived task fit, relates peers' traits to the perceived task competence. Social factors, such as friendliness and cooperation, were also frequently mentioned, particularly when children explained selecting peers with physical disabilities. Importantly, while moral reasoning occasionally led children to select peers with physical disabilities out of fairness or inclusivity, this was not the only pattern, and ability-related reasoning remained most common.

Together, these findings highlight the possible importance of social stereotypes and in-group preferences in shaping children’s collaborative decision-making in the STEM field. Even at an early age, children may demonstrate in-group biases and rely on visible physical differences when making STEM collaboration choices. These results align with Social Learning Theory and bio-cognitive perspectives, which highlight both social reinforcement and natural categorization processes in stereotype formation. The findings highlight the need for interventions that address biases early, particularly by promoting inclusive group work practices and challenging assumptions about competence involving gender, ethnicity, or physical disability. By examining both the patterns of selection and the reasoning children provide, this study offers a nuanced view of how stereotypes may operate in academic collaboration and provides a foundation for future research examining broader disability categories and more diverse ethnic groups. Implications for stereotype development theories, inclusive education, and equity in STEM participation are discussed.

Convocation Year

2026

Convocation Season

Spring

Download

Share

COinS