Positive Feedback as a Lever to Boost Students' STEM Outcomes.

Although many college students intend to major in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM), dropout from these fields is high, especially among members of historically underrepresented groups, such as women and racial-ethnic minorities. We propose a minimal, yet potentially powerful intervention to broaden participation in STEM: giving positive feedback to students in STEM. Studies 1 and 2 found that giving positive feedback is less normative in math (vs. English) courses, and instructors' feedback-giving practices and students' experiences mirror these norms. However, students who received positive (vs. only objective) feedback on introductory-level college calculus exams showed greater belonging and self-efficacy in math, which predicted better STEM outcomes (i.e., increased interest in STEM and higher final math course grades, respectively, Study 3). These findings were especially strong for racial-ethnic minority students. Giving positive (vs. only objective) feedback is thus a potentially transformative tool that boosts student outcomes, especially for underrepresented groups.

An effective COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy intervention focused on the relative risks of vaccination and infection.

We designed the Relative Risk Tool (RRT) to help people assess the relative risks associated with COVID-19 vaccination and infection. In May 2022 (N = 400) and November 2022 (N = 615), U.S. residents participated in a survey that included questions about the risks of vaccination and infection. In both cohorts, we found an association between relative risk perception and vaccine hesitancy. Participants in the May cohort were randomly assigned an intervention: to see information from the RRT or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). After the intervention, participants answered the same questions about risk perception and vaccination intent again. The RRT was more effective than the CDC at changing risk perception and increasing vaccination intent. In November, the survey structure was the same, but the RRT was the only intervention included, and we confirmed that the RRT was effective at changing opinions in this new sample. Importantly, the RRT provided accurate information about the risks of serious adverse outcomes to vaccination and still increased vaccination intent. Our work suggests that the RRT helps people assess relative risk, which can in turn help empower them to make informed decisions and ultimately reduce vaccine hesitancy.