Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42693266›Full record

ArticleNature human behaviour2026

Gender and LGBTQ+ representation across college majors and achievement levels using nationally representative US data.

Joseph R Cimpian, Zachary T McDermott, Jo R King, Nathaniel Woznicki, Taek H Kim

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Nature human behaviour, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Joseph R CimpianDepartment of Applied Statistics, Social Science, and Humanities, New York University, New York, NY, USA. joseph.cimpian@nyu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6111-8895
Zachary T McDermottAbt Global, Rockville, MD, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1276-4625
Jo R KingWheelock College of Education and Human Development, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA.
Nathaniel WoznickiDepartment of Psychology, New York University, New York, NY, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4441-135X
Taek H KimKorean Educational Development Institute, Jincheon-gun, Republic of Korea.

Funding

ED | Institute of Education Sciences (IES) R305B140037ED | Institute of Education Sciences (IES) R305B200010
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gender segregation across college majors persists, yet how these patterns vary across achievement levels and intersect with LGBTQ+ identity remains unclear. We examine whether field cultures and social norms may create 'in-group benefits' for lower-achieving members of field-specific majority groups. Using two nationally representative US longitudinal datasets (the High School Longitudinal Study, n = 6,340; and the Baccalaureate and Beyond Class of 2016, n = 12,950), we estimate relative representation across majors spanning male-majority physics/engineering/computer science to female-majority health fields. Across datasets, representation is most polarized among lower-achieving students, particularly in male-majority fields, where lower-achieving straight-cisgender males are overrepresented relative to lower-achieving straight-cisgender females (relative ratio, 2.62; 95% confidence interval, 2.29-3.00), while this representation gap is smaller among higher-achieving students (P < 0.001). The patterns persist after adjusting for achievement, coursework, interests and aspirations. In female-majority fields, evidence for analogous in-group benefits is mixed across models vis-à-vis LGBTQ+ identity. The findings suggest that the forces shaping field-level sorting operate differently across achievement levels, with implications for talent development and broadening participation.

Identifiers

PMID42693266

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.