ArticleNature human behaviour2026
Gender and LGBTQ+ representation across college majors and achievement levels using nationally representative US data.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
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
42693266What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.