Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Gendered beliefs about mathematics ability transmit across generations through children’s peers


In many societies, beliefs about differential intellectual ability by gender persist across generations. These societal beliefs can contribute to individual belief formation and thus lead to persistent gender inequality across multiple dimensions. We show evidence of intergenerational transmission of gender norms through peers and how this affects gender gaps in learning. We use nationally representative data from China and the random assignment of children to middle-school classrooms to estimate the effect of being assigned a peer group with a high proportion of parents who believe that boys are innately better than girls at learning mathematics. We find this increases a child’s likelihood of holding the belief, with greater effects from peers of the same gender. It also affects the child’s demonstrated mathematics ability, generating gains for boys and losses for girls. Our findings highlight how the informational environment in which children grow up can shape their beliefs and academic ability.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Mapping of exposure to peers whose parents believe that Bm > Gm onto child beliefs.
Fig. 2: Mapping of exposure to peers whose parents believe that Bm > Gm onto test scores.

Data availability

Our data are publicly available at the CEPS website, hosted by Renmin University of China, from which we accessed them: This repository contains the entire ‘minimum dataset’ necessary to interpret, verify and extend the research in the article.

Code availability

Custom code that supports the findings of this study is available on the GitHub public repository at


  1. Kovács, Á. M., Téglás, E. & Endress, A. D. The social sense: susceptibility to others’ beliefs in human infants and adults. Science 330, 1830–1834 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Frith, C. D. & Frith, U. Mechanisms of social cognition. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 63, 287–313 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Jayachandran, S. The roots of gender inequality in developing countries. Annu. Rev. Econ. 7, 63–88 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Beilock, S. L., Gunderson, E. A., Ramirez, G. & Levine, S. C. Female teachers’ math anxiety affects girls’ math achievement. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 1860–1863 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Tsui, M. Gender and mathematics achievement in China and the United States. Gend. Issues 24, 12 (2007).

  6. Eble, A. & Hu, F. Child beliefs, societal beliefs, and teacher-student identity match. Econ. Educ. Rev. 77, 101994 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Nollenberger, N., Rodríguez-Planas, N. & Sevilla, A. The math gender gap: the role of culture. Am. Econ. Rev. 106, 257–261 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bian, L., Leslie, S.-J. & Cimpian, A. Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children’s interests. Science 355, 389–391 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Steele, C. M. A threat in the air: how stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. Am. Psychol. 52, 613–629 (1997).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Olivetti, C., Patacchini, E. & Zenou, Y. Mothers, peers, and gender-role identity. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 18, 266–301 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Su, R. & Rounds, J. All STEM fields are not created equal: people and things interests explain gender disparities across STEM fields. Front. Psychol. 6, 189 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Lucas, C. G., Bridgers, S., Griffiths, T. L. & Gopnik, A. When children are better (or at least more open-minded) learners than adults: developmental differences in learning the forms of causal relationships. Cognition 131, 284–299 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gopnik, A., Griffiths, T. L. & Lucas, C. G. When younger learners can be better (or at least more open-minded) than older ones. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 24, 87–92 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gopnik, A. et al. Changes in cognitive flexibility and hypothesis search across human life history from childhood to adolescence to adulthood. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 7892–7899 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Blanco, N. J. & Sloutsky, V. M. Systematic exploration and uncertainty dominate young children’s choices. Dev. Sci. 24, e13026 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Goldin, C. Understanding the Gender Gap: An Economic History of American Women (Oxford Univ. Press, 1990).

  17. Fernández, R., Fogli, A. & Olivetti, C. Mothers and sons: preference formation and female labor force dynamics. Q. J. Econ. 119, 1249–1299 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Dhar, D., Jain, T. & Jayachandran, S. Intergenerational transmission of gender attitudes: evidence from India. J. Dev. Stud. 55, 2572–2592 (2019).

  19. Rodríguez-Planas, N. & Nollenberger, N. Let the girls learn! It is not only about math… it’s about gender social norms. Econ. Educ. Rev. 62, 230–253 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Math Course Requirements during Compulsory Education 2011 version (Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China, 2011).

  21. Siegler, R. S. Emerging Minds: The Process of Change in Children’s Thinking (Oxford Univ. Press, 1998).

  22. Sacerdote, B. in Handbook of the Economics of Education Vol. 3 (eds Hanushek, E. A. et al.) 249–277 (Elsevier, 2011).

  23. Feld, J. & Zölitz, U. Understanding peer effects: on the nature, estimation, and channels of peer effects. J. Labor Econ. 35, 387–428 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hu, F. Do girl peers improve your academic performance? Econ. Lett. 137, 54–58 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Fruehwirth, J. C. & Gagete-Miranda, J. Your peers’ parents: spillovers from parental education. Econ. Educ. Rev. 73, 101910 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Carrell, S. E., Page, M. E. & West, J. E. Sex and science: how professor gender perpetuates the gender gap. Q. J. Econ. 125, 1101–1144 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Steffens, M. C. & Jelenec, P. Separating implicit gender stereotypes regarding math and language: implicit ability stereotypes are self-serving for boys and men, but not for girls and women. Sex Roles 64, 324–335 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Cheryan, S. Understanding the paradox in math-related fields: why do some gender gaps remain while others do not? Sex Roles 66, 184–190 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Feld, S. L. The focused organization of social ties. Am. J. Sociol. 86, 1015–1035 (1981).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L. & Cook, J. M. Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annu. Rev. Socio. 27, 415–444 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Currarini, S., Jackson, M. O. & Pin, P. An economic model of friendship: homophily, minorities, and segregation. Econometrica 77, 1003–1045 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Steele, C. M. & Aronson, J. Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 69, 797–811 (1995).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Niederle, M. & Vesterlund, L. Gender and competition. Annu. Rev. Econ. 3, 601–630 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Saccardo, S., Pietrasz, A. & Gneezy, U. On the size of the gender difference in competitiveness. Manag. Sci. 64, 1541–1554 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Cai, X., Lu, Y., Pan, J. & Zhong, S. Gender gap under pressure: evidence from China’s national college entrance examination. Rev. Econ. Stat. 101, 249–263 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Angrist, J. D. The perils of peer effects. Labour Econ. 30, 98–108 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Snowberg, E., Wolfers, J. & Zitzewitz, E. in Handbook of Economic Forecasting Vol. 2 (eds Elliott, G. & Timmermann, A.) 657–687 (North Holland, 2013).

  38. Fair, R. C. & Shiller, R. J. Comparing information in forecasts from econometric models. Am. Econ. Rev. 80, 375–389 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Manski, C. F. Identification of endogenous social effects: the reflection problem. Rev. Econ. Stud. 60, 531–542 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Siegler, R. S., DeLoache, J. S. & Eisenberg, N. How Children Develop (Macmillan, 2003).

  41. Piaget, J. The Origins of Intelligence in Children (W W Norton & Co, 1952).

  42. Shafer, E. F. & Malhotra, N. The effect of a child’s sex on support for traditional gender roles. Soc. Forces 90, 209–222 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Baxter, J., Buchler, S., Perales, F. & Western, M. A life-changing event: first births and men’s and women’s attitudes to mothering and gender divisions of labor. Soc. Forces 93, 989–1014 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Perales, F., Jarallah, Y. & Baxter, J. Men’s and women’s gender-role attitudes across the transition to parenthood: accounting for child’s gender. Soc. Forces 97, 251–276 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Sun, X. & Lai, K. Are mothers of sons more traditional? The influence of having son(s) and daughter(s) on parents’ gender ideology. J. Chin. Sociol. 4, 1 (2017).

  46. Angrist, J. D. & Pischke, J.-S. The credibility revolution in empirical economics: how better research design Is taking the con out of econometrics. J. Econ. Perspect. 24, 3–30 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Liu, T., Ungar, L. & Kording, K. Quantifying causality in data science with quasi-experiments. Nat. Comput. Sci. 1, 24–32 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Ammermueller, A. & Pischke, J.-S. Peer effects in European primary schools: evidence from the progress in international reading literacy study. J. Labor Econ. 27, 315–348 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Hill, A. J. The positive influence of female college students on their male peers. Labour Econ. 44, 151–160 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Chung, B. W. Peers’ parents and educational attainment: the exposure effect. Labour Econ. 64, 101812 (2020).

  51. Wang, H., Cheng, Z. & Smyth, R. Do migrant students affect local students’ academic achievements in urban China? Econ. Educ. Rev. 63, 64–77 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Qian, N. Missing women and the price of tea in China: the effect of sex-specific earnings on sex imbalance. Q. J. Econ. 123, 1251–1285 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Kipnis, A. B. Governing Educational Desire: Culture, Politics, and Schooling in China (Univ. Chicago Press, 2011).

  54. Chen, X. & Ge, S. Social norms and female labor force participation in urban China. J. Comp. Econ. 46, 966–987 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Jensen, R. & Oster, E. The power of TV: cable television and women’s status in India. Q. J. Econ. 124, 1057–1094 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Gong, J., Lu, Y. & Song, H. The effect of teacher gender on students’ academic and noncognitive outcomes. J. Labor Econ. 36, 743–778 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Antecol, H., Eren, O. & Ozbeklik, S. The effect of teacher gender on student achievement in primary school. J. Labor Econ. 33, 63–89 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Bruhn, M. & McKenzie, D. In pursuit of balance: randomization in practice in development field experiments. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 1, 200–232 (2009).

  59. Hansen, B. B. & Bowers, J. Covariate balance in simple, stratified and clustered comparative studies. Stat. Sci. 23, 219–236 (2008).

  60. Li, X. & Lamb, M. E. in Fathers in Cultural Context (eds Shwalb, D. W. et al.) 15–41 (Routledge/Taylor & Francis, 2013).

  61. Dobbie, W. & Fryer, R. G. Jr The impact of attending a school with high-achieving peers: evidence from the New York City exam schools. Am. Econ J. Appl. Econ. 6, 58–75 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


We are grateful to seminar audiences at Columbia, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Northeastern Universities Development Consortium, Northwestern, Queens College, Rutgers, Texas A&M and UT Austin. We are also grateful to M. Angelucci, P. Bergman, P. Blair, B. Cheble, S. Cohodes, J. Das, J. Doleac, A. Estefan, M. Hoekstra, W. Huang, J. Keller, L. Linden, J. Lindo, R. Lumsdaine, J. Matsudaira, J. Meer, K. Pop-Eleches, R. Reback, J. Rockoff, J. Scott-Clayton, M. Urquiola and T. Vogl for helpful comments. This paper replaces and updates the results previously circulated as a working paper under the titles: ‘How important are beliefs about gender differences in math ability? Transmission across generations and impacts on child outcomes’ and ‘The sins of the parents: persistence of gender bias across generations and the gender gap in math performance’. We acknowledge the following sources of support: The Humanities and Social Science Fund of Ministry of Education of China (grant no. 19YJA790029) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 71373002) to F.H.; National Academy of Education and Spencer Foundation via an NAEd/Spencer Postdoctoral Fellowship (no grant number) to A.E. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



A.E. and F.H. contributed equally to all stages of the research and to preparation of the manuscript and are listed alphabetically.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Alex Eble or Feng Hu.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Human Behaviour thanks Lin Bian, David Figlio and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Tables 1–17 and Figs. 1–3.

Reporting Summary

Peer Review File

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Eble, A., Hu, F. Gendered beliefs about mathematics ability transmit across generations through children’s peers. Nat Hum Behav 6, 868–879 (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing