From an early age, children learn from their parents and within an environment that is shaped by them. Parents usually influence what toys and objects are in the home, what topics are discussed at dinner, how children spend their free time, and what developmental paths are even considered for their offspring. Parents are not neutral, but influence their children based on their own interests, values, and preferences – including familiarity and affinity for STEM-related content. We assume that family influences and experiences have a lasting effect and even in adolescence are linked to whether young people consider themselves to be STEM persons. Our research seeks to uncover, to what extent and how parents´ value beliefs regarding STEM shape their children´s identification with STEM.

STEM identity is a powerful concept for the explanation of persistence and choices in STEM. It emerges from the personal identification as a STEM person, together with recognition from others (Carlone & Johnson, 2007; Vincent-Ruz & Schunn, 2018). Experiences relevant to the development of a STEM identity can be gained as early as childhood as shown in research from the U.S. (Cohen et al., 2021; Dou et al., 2019). That family background is still relevant even in adolescence, showed Pfeuffer et al., (2025) with data from Germany: Adolescents from families that reported STEM occupations for their parents reported higher STEM identity values than adolescents of the control group .

The idea of a shared identity reflects in the term family habitus that captures shared dispositions within a family (Archer et al., 2012). Our first research question aims to determine whether and to what extent parental value beliefs regarding STEM impact adolescents´ identification with STEM:

RQ1: Do mothers´ and father´s value beliefs predict adolescents’ STEM Identity?

Our second set of research questions aims to identify mechanisms. We draw conceptually on science capital, that is a theoretical tool to capture one´s cultural, social and economic resources that matter for access to and participation in science (Archer et al., 2015). Parents' values, knowledge and dispositions towards science are one facet of science capital alongside other dimensions (DeWitt et al., 2016; Jones, et al., 2021). In our study, we seek to analyse whether parents´ value beliefs shape adolescents´ equipment with further dimensions of science capital. In this way, we want to find out, to what extent relevant aspects of STEM educational participation are related to the parental home and its attitude towards STEM.

RQ2a: Does the relationship between parents' STEM background and higher identification with STEM result from increased STEM activities?

RQ2b: Does the relationship between parents' STEM background and higher identification with STEM result from increased social capital?

RQ2c: Does the relationship between parents' STEM background and higher identification with STEM result from increased individual value beliefs?

Finally, building on theoretical reasoning on gendered socialization in families (Eccles, 2015), child-specific value beliefs or parents´ endorsed gender stereotypes might reflect in the upbringing of children and therefore shape girls´ and boys´ STEM activities, STEM-related social surrounding and individual value beliefs regarding STEM differently.

RQ3: Does the expected relationships regarding parents´ value beliefs, hypothesized mechanisms and STEM identity account for both boys and girls?

The data originates from a longitudinal study conducted at secondary schools in Germany. The schools in the sample share an emphasis on STEM education, that reflects in a broad range of opportunities to participate in in-school STEM activities and out-of-school STEM cooperation programmes. The variables of analyses were collected at the third measurement point at the end of the school year in summer 2025. Students attended year 9 or 10 depending on the regular duration of the secondary school. This cross-sectional dataset comprises data of about 500 students with an average age of approximately 15,5 years (SD ≈ 0.5). To capture parental value beliefs, we adapted items of the measurement of perceived family science achievement value by Jones et al., (2021). We asked the items separately for both parents and used the term STEM instead of science. Example items are: (1) `My father/mother thinks it is important for me to learn STEM.´, (2) `My father/mother knows a lot about STEM.´ Our measurement of STEM identity goes back on the Science Identity Scale by Vincent-Ruz and Schunn (2018), that we adapted to the term STEM. Example items are (1) `I am a STEM person.´, (2) `My family thinks of me as a STEM person.´, To assess social capital we asked students about the number of persons they know they could potentially speak to about STEM outside of school and to how many persons they have spoken about STEM in the past year. STEM activities were measured with eleven items based on Stoeger et al., (2013). Example items are: (1) `I have already read a book, an e-book or an article about STEM.´, (2)`I have already watched or listened to a programme about STEM subjects.´ To assess individual value beliefs, we aimed to capture different dimensions as described by Gaspard et al. (2017). Example items are: (1) ` I simply like STEM subjects.´ (2) `The contents of STEM subjects will help me in my life.´ To answer the research questions, we estimate structural equation models. To find out whether the hypothesized relationships apply to both girls and boys, the models are estimated separately by gender.

Preliminary analyses based on (measured variable) path analyses indicate that both maternal and paternal value beliefs related to STEM are linked to young people's self-image as STEM individuals even if we control for parents' STEM occupations. However, no significant relationship was found between father's value beliefs and daughters´ identification with STEM. Conversations about STEM in the last school year and further STEM activities were found to partially mediate the relationship between parents´ value beliefs and STEM identity. Instead, adolescents´ value beliefs fully mediated the relationship. On the one hand, the results emphasize that parents´ affinity is related to adolescents´ sense of self which implies unequal access to the self-image of a STEM person and dependence on origin. Adolescents who have little exposure to STEM in their families seem to be at a disadvantage here. This means, sharing a STEM identity is socially inherited to a certain extent. On the other hand, our research points to reasons that explain the identity advantage of students from families with STEM interest. The results therefore convey a constructive message, because they point out possible starting points for encouraging girls and boys to consider STEM as a field that aligns with their selves. Both STEM conversations and activities represent opportunities to gain recognition, experience STEM and to perceive fit with the field. However, the most important factor in closing the identity gap seems to be strengthening young people's own value beliefs regarding STEM. Even though promoting these mechanisms in educational settings among less STEM familiar young people may be challenging, we underscore that considering these mechanisms as milestones can be worthwhile to exert influence on inherited identities.

Archer, L., Dawson, E., DeWitt, J., Seakins, A., & Wong, B. (2015). “Science capital”: A conceptual, methodological, and empirical argument for extending bourdieusian notions of capital beyond the arts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(7), 922–948. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21227 Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2012). Science aspirations, capital, and family habitus: How families shape children’s engagement and identification with science. American Educational Research Journal, 49(5), 881–908. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831211433290 Carlone, H. B., & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1187–1218. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20237 Cohen, S. M., Hazari, Z., Mahadeo, J., Sonnert, G., & Sadler, P. M. (2021). Examining the effect of early STEM experiences as a form of STEM capital and identity capital on STEM identity: A gender study. Science Education, 105(6), 1126–1150. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21670 DeWitt, J., Archer, L., & Mau, A. (2016). Dimensions of science capital: Exploring its potential for understanding students’ science participation. International Journal of Science Education, 38(16), 2431–2449. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1248520 Dou, R., Hazari, Z., Dabney, K., Sonnert, G., & Sadler, P. (2019). Early informal STEM experiences and STEM identity: The importance of talking science. Science Education, 103(3), 623–637. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21499 Eccles, J. (2015). Gendered socialization of STEM interests in the family. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 7(2), 116–132. Gaspard, H., Häfner, I., Parrisius, C., Trautwein, U., & Nagengast, B. (2017). Assessing task values in five subjects during secondary school: Measurement structure and mean level differences across grade level, gender, and academic subject. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 48, 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.09.003 Jones, M. G., Ennes, M., Weedfall, D., Chesnutt, K., & Cayton, E. (2021). The development and validation of a measure of science capital, habitus, and future science interests. Research in Science Education, 51(6), 1549–1565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09916-y Pfeuffer, J., Stoeger, H., & Ziegler, A. (2025). Amplified social inheritance in STEM: Parental careers shape adolescent identity and choice intentions. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 30(1), 2551107. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2025.2551107 Stoeger, H., Duan, X., Schirner, S., Greindl, T., & Ziegler, A. (2013). The effectiveness of a one-year online mentoring program for girls in STEM. Computers & Education, 69, 408–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.032 Vincent-Ruz, P., & Schunn, C. D. (2018). The nature of science identity and its role as the driver of student choices. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), Article 48. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0140-5