The study, conducted by Ricardo Navarro, Monica Takushi-Rodriguez, and Lucía Gurbillon of the Faculty of Psychology at the Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, set out to address a persistent problem in higher education: although STEM programs are central to scientific and technological advancement, the academic experience of women in these predominantly male environments is often not the same as that of their male peers. The researchers wanted to know whether the same educational factors that support men’s success in STEM do the same work for women, or whether the psychological machinery differs beneath the surface.

At the heart of the investigation lies academic self-efficacy, the belief a student holds in their own capability to organize and execute the actions required to succeed academically. Decades of research have tied self-efficacy to persistence, effort, and achievement, but the new study asks where this belief comes from in the specific context of STEM classrooms and what consequences it carries. The researchers focused on two upstream factors. The first is an autonomy-supportive climate—an educational environment in which instructors acknowledge students’ perspectives, offer meaningful choices, minimize controlling language, and nurture intrinsic motivation. This construct is grounded in Self-Determination Theory, the influential framework holding that autonomy, competence, and relatedness are basic psychological needs whose satisfaction fuels motivation and well-being. The second factor is the use of metacognitive strategies: the planning, monitoring, and self-regulation techniques that learners deploy to manage their own thinking—setting goals before studying, checking comprehension along the way, and adjusting tactics when material refuses to yield.

To trace the relationships among these constructs, the team employed structural equation modeling, a statistical framework that allows researchers to test whether a hypothesized network of cause-like associations fits observed data. Their general model posited that an autonomy-supportive climate and metacognitive strategies would each be associated with academic self-efficacy, which in turn would be associated with academic performance and academic satisfaction, with direct pathways from the climate to satisfaction and performance as well. The hypothesized general SEM model demonstrated good fit indices, meaning the observed pattern of relationships among variables was statistically consistent with the proposed structure. The researchers evaluated fit using established benchmarks, including the Comparative Fit Index, the Tucker-Lewis Index, the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation, and the Standardized Root Mean Squared Residual—metrics that together assess whether the model reproduces the covariance structure of the data adequately.

Critically, the team did not stop at a single pooled model. Because their central question concerned gender, they needed to verify that the same measurement instruments were functioning equivalently across men and women before making comparisons. The model met invariance criteria, the statistical prerequisite for meaningful multigroup comparison, after which the researchers conducted multigroup SEM analyses—essentially fitting the network of associations separately for male and female students and testing whether specific pathways held in each group.

The results were revealing. In both gender groups, the factors associated with academic self-efficacy were the same: an autonomy-supportive climate and the use of metacognitive strategies were each significantly linked to students’ belief in their own academic capabilities. In other words, whether students were men or women, environments that supported autonomy and study habits grounded in self-regulated learning were associated with stronger confidence. This consistency suggests that these two levers remain powerful entry points for supporting all STEM students, regardless of gender.

The downstream picture, however, fractured along gender lines. Academic satisfaction—the sense of contentment and fulfillment students derive from their studies—was significantly associated with academic self-efficacy among women but not among men. For male students, the association with an autonomy-supportive climate was significant instead, while for women it was not. This pattern implies that what makes a woman in a STEM program feel satisfied with her academic life may be tied closely to whether she believes she can succeed, whereas men’s satisfaction appears more directly sensitive to the motivational character of their learning environment.

Academic performance told a similar story of divergence. Among women, both academic self-efficacy and an autonomy-supportive climate were associated with academic performance; among men, neither association reached statistical significance. The finding is striking because it inverts a common assumption that self-efficacy functions as a universal predictor of grades. In this STEM sample, confidence in one’s capabilities and an educational climate that respects student autonomy tracked with measurable achievement only for women, while men’s performance appears to ride on other factors outside the modeled network.

The researchers caution, appropriately, that the study’s design captures associations rather than experimental causation, and the divergent significance patterns raise as many questions as they answer. Yet the implications are considerable. If the same interventions do not produce the same psychological consequences across genders, then STEM retention programs, teaching training initiatives, and academic support services built on one-size-fits-all models may be quietly failing a substantial share of their audience. A mentoring scheme that boosts men’s satisfaction by enriching their learning environment might do little for women whose satisfaction hinges on self-efficacy; conversely, programs that build women’s confidence through mastery experiences and strategy training may be precisely the lever that both grades and satisfaction require for female students.

The broader context sharpens the stakes. International assessments such as the Programme for International Student Assessment have long documented gender gaps in mathematics and science confidence, and bodies like the OECD and national ministries—including Peru’s Ministry of Education, whose institutional landscape frames this research—have prioritized widening STEM participation. Women remain underrepresented in many STEM careers, and attrition during undergraduate study is one point at which the pipeline narrows. Understanding which psychological factors predict performance and satisfaction differently for men and women offers a route toward targeted, evidence-based support rather than blunt institutional policy.

Methodologically, the study demonstrates the value of multigroup structural equation modeling for educational psychology. Had the researchers stopped with the pooled model, which showed good overall fit, they might have concluded that a single unified story explained all students’ experiences. Only by testing invariance and then partitioning the sample did the gender-specific pathways emerge—an analytic lesson with relevance well beyond this single dataset. The work also underscores the continuing utility of instruments derived from frameworks like the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire, a widely used measure of students’ learning strategies and self-efficacy, when combined with rigorous measurement-invariance testing.

The research was funded by Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú under grant CAP PI-1139 and approved by the university’s ethics committee under approval number 085–2024-CEI-CCSSHHyAA/PUCP, with all participants providing informed consent. Published as an open-access article in BMC Psychology, the study was received in August 2025, accepted in August 2026, and published on 03 September 2026, with a citable version carrying a permanent DOI.

For educators, the takeaway is that autonomy-supportive teaching and explicit training in metacognitive strategies remain foundational—both were linked to self-efficacy in every group examined. But the study also warns that confidence, satisfaction, and performance are woven together differently for women and men in STEM fields. For women, whose self-efficacy connects to both grades and satisfaction, cultivating belief in capability may be the single most consequential intervention. For men, satisfaction appears tied to the climate itself. As universities worldwide scramble to close gender gaps in science and engineering, this research suggests that the path to equity runs not through uniform policies but through a finer-grained understanding of how the same classroom can be, in psychological terms, two very different places.

The research indicates that persistent gender gaps in STEM careers can’t be attributed solely to differences in academic performance or cognitive ability. Instead, the study reveals that distinct cognitive strengths play vital roles in shaping career trajectories. The researchers examined the effects of two specific types of visual imagery: spatial imagery and object imagery. Spatial imagery encompasses skills related to navigation and mental rotation, while object imagery pertains to memory for objects’ features and colors. Understanding these dimensions of cognitive functioning offers novel insights into participation and success in STEM disciplines.

Findings from the study reinforce prior research demonstrating a positive correlation between spatial imagery abilities and success in STEM careers for all genders. However, the results reveal a surprising twist: object imagery abilities had a negative association with the selection and success in computational STEM careers, but this was predominantly observed among men. This notable differentiation signals a divergence in how spatial and object imagery comprehensively inform career pathways based on gender.

The implications of this research extend beyond academic achievements. Among the participants, composed of 4,545 individuals, researchers found that men with less vivid object imagery capabilities were more inclined to pursue computational roles within STEM disciplines and perform better in coursework related to these fields. In contrast, women who exhibited similar cognitive profiles did not display the same proclivity toward entering computational STEM careers, signaling potential sociocultural barriers that might discourage their participation despite equivalent cognitive competencies.

Dr. Moriah Sokolowski, the lead author of the study and an Adjunct Scientist at Baycrest’s Rotman Research Institute, articulates that the traditional views of spatial thinking as the cornerstone of STEM success remain intact. Yet, her findings emphasize the necessity of recognizing nonvisual reasoning as an important component in the landscape of computational STEM. This approach urges educators and industry professionals to reassess their criteria for identifying and nurturing future talent in these critical fields.

The comprehensive study also delved into the recruitment of participants with aphantasia, a condition that severely limits the ability to visualize imagery, to better understand the relationship between cognitive strengths and career success. By including individuals with diverse cognitive profiles, the researchers aimed to replicate and generalize their findings across different demographics, making a strong case for the importance of acknowledging the multitude of cognitive strengths that exist beyond conventional definitions of capability.

Notably, the researchers highlighted that women with comparable spatial and abstract reasoning skills were significantly less inclined to pursue careers in computational STEM despite their cognitive parity with men. This disparity may be influenced by a myriad of external factors, including social conditioning, cultural expectations, and potential experiences such as stereotype threat or math anxiety. By shining a light on these sociocultural dynamics, the research advocates for a more holistic understanding of the factors shaping career choices in STEM fields.

The findings prompt a broader discussion about how educational systems and corporate environments must evolve to create more inclusive avenues for engaging women in STEM. Current methodologies centered around identifying talent based purely on spatial skills may inadvertently overlook other crucial cognitive strengths relevant to computational roles. Redefining what constitutes skill in STEM could help inform the development of supportive learning environments tailored to diverse cognitive profiles.

In an era where technology and innovation are pivotal to our societal progress, adapting the approach to talent identification and support will be key to ensuring a diverse workforce that reflects the range of perspectives necessary for holistic growth in the field. Recognizing cognitive diversity as an asset rather than a limitation can help educators and employers implement strategies that resonate with a broader spectrum of individuals.

The research findings from Baycrest echo a pressing need for systemic change within educational and professional frameworks to facilitate dimensions of cognitive functioning that have been historically underestimated. This awareness could lead to the expansion of STEM educational programs that value various forms of intelligence, allowing institutions to nurture a wider array of talents and support women in their pursuit of STEM careers.

Through rigorous exploration of cognitive diversity, this pioneering study compels a rethinking of how societal, educational, and industry norms intersect to influence career trajectories in STEM. The evidence strongly supports the notion that when educational strategies account for multiple cognitive strengths, individuals, particularly women, are more likely to find pathways to successful careers in computational fields.

As the STEM landscape continues to evolve, it is imperative that stakeholders—educators, policymakers, and industry leaders—collaborate on initiatives fostering an inclusive environment where cognitive diversity is celebrated. Only then can the true potential of individuals be unlocked, paving the way for a more equitable representation of women in the future of STEM.

This research has important implications not only for those within the education sector but also for the industries reliant on STEM talent. By advocating for a culture that values cognitive diversity, the study opens doors to innovation and breakthroughs that are inclusive and representative of society as a whole.

In conclusion, the report from Baycrest not only highlights the cognitive dimensions influencing gender representation in computational STEM but also establishes a roadmap for future inquiries aimed at dismantling barriers. Recognizing and nurturing diverse cognitive strengths may ultimately reshape the narrative surrounding women’s participation in STEM, propelling our society toward a more equitable future where everyone can thrive in their chosen fields.

Subject of Research: Gender representation in STEM fields
Article Title: Visual Imagery and Gender Disparities in STEM Careers
News Publication Date: February 9, 2026
Web References: Baycrest website
References: Visual imagery and STEM occupational attainment: Gender matters. Published in Personality and Individual Differences. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2025.113552
Image Credits: Courtesy of Baycrest

Keywords

Dementia, Gender, Cognition