Science Bootcamp Goes Virtual: a Compressed, Interdisciplinary Online CURE Promotes Psychosocial Gains in STEM Transfer Students.

Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) are well-documented as high-impact practices that can broaden participation and success in STEM. Drawing primarily from a community of practice theoretical framework, we previously developed an interdisciplinary CURE course (Science Bootcamp) for STEM majors focused entirely on the scientific process. Among first-year students, Science Bootcamp leads to psychosocial gains and increased retention. In the current study, we test whether an online Science Bootcamp also improved outcomes for STEM transfer students-a group that faces "transfer shock," which can negatively impact GPA, psychosocial outcomes, and retention. To this end, we redesigned Science Bootcamp to a 2-week course for STEM transfer students to complete prior to beginning the fall semester at our 4-year institution. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the course was conducted in an entirely virtual format, using primarily synchronous instruction. Despite the course being virtual, the diverse group of STEM majors worked in small groups to conduct rigorous, novel empirical research projects from start to finish, even presenting their results in a poster symposium. Assessment data confirmed the compressed, online Science Bootcamp contained key CURE components-opportunities for collaboration, discovery and relevance, and iteration-and that students were highly satisfied with the course. Moreover, in line with our hypothesis, STEM transfer students who participated in the online Science Bootcamp experienced a range of psychosocial gains (e.g., belonging to STEM). In sum, these findings suggest our online Science Bootcamp promotes positive STEM outcomes, representing a highly flexible and affordable CURE that can be scaled for use at institutions of any size.

The affiliative consequences of same-race and cross-race mimicry.

Few studies have replicated and extended the classic mimicry → liking effect. The present research sought to (a) replicate the affiliative consequences of mimicry; (b) test whether the affiliative consequences hold in a context where mimicry may not be normative (i.e., cross-race interactions); and (c) investigate how excluded individuals respond to same- versus cross-race mimicry and non-mimicry. Participants wrote about a control topic or social exclusion and then engaged in a brief laboratory interaction in which they were mimicked or not mimicked by a confederate who was either same-race or cross-race. Then they reported how much they liked the confederate. Within the control condition, the effect of mimicry on affiliation depended on the race of the confederate - but this pattern did not emerge for excluded individuals. The study was unable to conclusively replicate and extend previous findings. The authors make recommendations to promote a more cumulative science of behavioral mimicry.

Inferring Perspective Versus Getting Perspective: Underestimating the Value of Being in Another Person's Shoes.

People use at least two strategies to solve the challenge of understanding another person's mind: inferring that person's perspective by reading his or her behavior (theorization) and getting that person's perspective by experiencing his or her situation (simulation). The five experiments reported here demonstrate a strong tendency for people to underestimate the value of simulation. Predictors estimated a stranger's emotional reactions toward 50 pictures. They could either infer the stranger's perspective by reading his or her facial expressions or simulate the stranger's perspective by watching the pictures he or she viewed. Predictors were substantially more accurate when they got perspective through simulation, but overestimated the accuracy they had achieved by inferring perspective. Predictors' miscalibrated confidence stemmed from overestimating the information revealed through facial expressions and underestimating the similarity in people's reactions to a given situation. People seem to underappreciate a useful strategy for understanding the minds of others, even after they gain firsthand experience with both strategies.