In the evolving landscape of education and social psychology, few topics command as much attention and debate as the intricate dynamics shaping students’ attitudes toward mathematics, particularly through the intertwined lenses of gender stereotypes and comparative advantage. A new groundbreaking study by Liu, published in the International Journal of STEM Education in 2025, offers a compelling synthesis of intra-individual and social comparisons, unveiling mechanisms that fundamentally influence how young learners perceive their own abilities and the stereotypical narratives attached to gender in math-related contexts.
At the heart of Liu’s research lies the integration of two traditionally separate psychological frameworks: intra-individual comparisons, which involve self-reflection over time or across domains, and social comparisons, which pertain to how individuals gauge themselves against their peers or societal benchmarks. For decades, these two comparative dimensions have largely been studied in isolation, with limited attempts to articulate their collective impact on educational attitudes. Liu’s innovative approach bridges this gap, enabling a deeper understanding of how students’ internal evaluations intersect with external social cues, collectively shaping their mathematical engagement and the stereotypes they internalize or resist.
Delving into the methodology, Liu employs a combination of longitudinal data analysis and experimental manipulation involving diverse cohorts of middle and high school students. This dual approach allows for a nuanced exploration of how students’ perceived comparative advantage—essentially, which subjects or skill sets they believe they excel at compared to themselves and others—modulates their math attitudes over time. More intriguingly, the study uncovers how these comparative vantage points influence the persistence or challenge of pervasive gender stereotypes about math proficiency, such as the myth that males naturally outperform females in mathematics.
One of the pivotal findings addressed in the study is the notion of integrated comparative advantage, a concept that synthesizes internal subjective assessments with the socially informed comparative landscape. Liu’s analysis reveals that students who perceive a holistic comparative advantage in math—acknowledging both personal progress and relative standing among peers—exhibit more positive attitudes toward math and are less likely to endorse gender-biased beliefs. Conversely, when these comparison processes are disjointed or skewed, negative attitudes and stereotype endorsements become more salient.
Technically, this research leverages sophisticated psychometric modeling and multilevel analyses, capturing the dynamic interplay between individual cognitive appraisal and socio-contextual factors. The utilization of latent growth curve models sheds light on the trajectories of math attitude development, offering compelling evidence that comparative advantage is not a static construct but one subject to fluctuation, mediated by educational environment, peer influences, and self-efficacy beliefs.
Liu also addresses the mechanisms by which gender stereotypes form and sustain themselves within the educational system. Through an intricate examination of stereotype internalization and social transmission pathways, the study demonstrates how integrated comparative assessments can either reinforce or dismantle entrenched gender norms. When students interpret their comparative success or failure in math through gendered lenses, these interpretations solidify stereotypical beliefs. However, when the integrated framework highlights individual progress independent of gendered expectations, it facilitates stereotype resistance and promotes equity in math engagement.
Expanding on the practical implications, Liu suggests that educators and policymakers should design curricula and classroom environments that intentionally foster integrated comparative advantages. By promoting self-reflective practices alongside cooperative, rather than competitive, social learning contexts, it becomes possible to recalibrate the comparative reference points that underlie math attitudes. This approach not only mitigates stereotype threat but also cultivates resilience and intrinsic motivation in students often marginalized by traditional comparative metrics.
Further technical contributions include the delineation of temporal factors influencing comparison processes. The study finds that early adolescence is a critical period wherein the convergence of intra-individual and social comparisons most powerfully impacts math attitudes and stereotype adoption. Interventions targeting this developmental window could leverage neurocognitive flexibility and social plasticity to disrupt negative stereotype trajectories, effectively reshaping long-term educational outcomes.
What sets Liu’s work apart is its capacity to integrate micro-level cognitive processes with macro-level sociocultural phenomena, using a rigorous empirical toolkit that blends quantitative precision with theoretical richness. By conceptualizing comparative advantage as a dynamic integrative mechanism, the research transcends simplistic cause-effect models, instead highlighting a complex, bidirectional flow of influence between personal belief systems and cultural stereotype systems.
Liu’s study also touches on intersectionality, acknowledging how the interplay of gender with other identity factors—such as socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and access to resources—modulates the comparative advantage framework. While the primary focus remains gendered math attitudes, the recognition of these intersecting modalities points toward fertile ground for future investigations into more inclusive and context-sensitive educational psychology models.
The article further challenges prevailing educational narratives that frame math achievement disparities purely as a function of innate ability or external opportunity gaps. Instead, it posits that the subjective comparative frameworks students adopt are equally powerful in shaping achievement attitudes and outcomes. This reframing encourages a departure from deficit thinking toward strength-based, comparative advantage-informed pedagogies.
Importantly, Liu provides evidence that altering comparison contexts—such as shifting from rank-based grading to mastery-based assessments—can recalibrate integrated comparative advantage perceptions. Such shifts have the potential to democratize math attitudes across genders, breaking cycles of stereotype confirmation and disengagement.
To communicate these complex ideas, Liu masterfully weaves technical descriptions with accessible explanations, making the article an essential read for educators, psychologists, and policymakers alike. The findings hold promise for practical application, suggesting that the battle against gender stereotypes in STEM education is not only about changing external structures but about transforming the internal comparison processes students engage in daily.
Moreover, the research invites renewed attention to the social ecology of classrooms and peer groups, suggesting interventions that integrate social comparison dynamics rather than suppress them. Viewing comparative advantage as an integrative bridge shifts the conversation from competition to collaboration, recognizing how social intelligence can be harnessed to elevate marginalized students’ math identities.
At a conceptual level, Liu’s synthesis challenges the dichotomous perspectives that have fragmented educational psychology research, proposing instead a systemic model that accounts for the fluidity and interplay of internal cognition and social experience. This model presents a powerful framework for understanding and disrupting the mechanisms that sustain gender disparities in STEM engagement.
In conclusion, Liu’s 2025 study marks a decisive step forward in unpacking the cognitive-social matrix driving math attitudes and gender stereotypes. By elucidating how integrated comparative advantage shapes these processes, the research offers a transformative lens for shaping equitable STEM education policies and practices, generating hope for more inclusive futures where all students can realize their mathematical potential free from the shackles of stereotype and unrealistic comparison.
Subject of Research:
The interplay between intra-individual and social comparisons in shaping mathematics attitudes and gender stereotypes.
Article Title:
Synthesizing intra-individual and social comparisons: how integrated comparative advantage shapes math attitudes and gender stereotypes.
Article References:
Liu, R. Synthesizing intra-individual and social comparisons: how integrated comparative advantage shapes math attitudes and gender stereotypes.
IJ STEM Ed 12, 28 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-025-00549-z
Image Credits: AI Generated
