Science for Others or the Self? Presumed Motives for Science Shape Public Trust in Science.

Science can improve life around the world, but public trust in science is at risk. Understanding the presumed motives of scientists and science can inform the social psychological underpinnings of public trust in science. Across five independent datasets, perceiving the motives of science and scientists as prosocial promoted public trust in science. In Studies 1 and 2, perceptions that science was more prosocially oriented were associated with greater trust in science. Studies 3 and 4a & 4b employed experimental methods to establish that perceiving other-oriented motives, versus self-oriented motives, enhanced public trust in science. Respondents recommend greater funding allocations for science subdomains described as prosocially oriented versus power-oriented. Emphasizing the prosocial aspects of science can build stronger foundations of public trust in science.

In the Mindset of Opportunity: Proactive Mindset, Perceived Opportunities, and Role Attitudes.

Perceiving roles as fulfilling goals offers motivational benefits to students, and yet the features of individuals or contexts that align with seeing such role opportunities have not been studied systematically. The current research investigated how these goal affordances are related to proactive mindset or a person's belief that they can shape their contexts. Three studies examined how variation in proactivity aligns with perceiving more communal and agentic goal opportunities in roles. Study 1 found that highly proactive college students (vs. less proactive students) tended to perceive their future careers as fulfilling communal and agentic goals, which predicted positive career attitudes. Study 2 replicated this association, while ruling out behavioral flexibility as accounting for the proactivity-positivity relationship. Study 3 experimentally tested whether growth-oriented contexts foster proactivity. Proactive mindset aligns with more expansive views of roles as fulfilling fundamental motives. These views, in turn, carry positive implications for one's future career attitudes.

Unpacking Motivational Culture: Diverging Emphasis on Communality and Agency Across STEM Domains.

The current research examined whether life sciences vs. engineering/physical sciences vary in the visibility and value of communality and agency. Overall, we find an emphasis on agency in engineering/physical sciences and a greater balance between communality and agency in the life sciences. We examine motivational culture as represented in environmental structures (Study 1), in signals sent and received in academic displays (Studies 2A-B), and in individual-level motives and cognitions (Studies 3-4). Study 1 analyzed archival course data to find that courses (N=11,222) in engineering/physical sciences included fewer collaborative assignments than courses in life sciences. Study 2A's content analysis documented that bulletin boards (N=68) in engineering/physical sciences academic buildings conveyed less communal purpose, and Study 2B found that participants (N=44) perceived greater communal purpose when viewing novel bulletin boards experimentally manipulated to include the cues identified in Study 2A. In Studies 3 (N=326) and 4 (N=110), engineering/physical science majors reported a strong agentic focus, compared to life science majors' more balanced focus. Further, the strong agentic focus of engineering/physical science students waned over time. This investigation of motivational cultures highlights the daily practices and institutional contexts that can shape individual-level motives and cognition related to engagement in STEM, both within and across different STEM pathways.

Out of the Lab and Into the World: Analyses of Social Roles and Gender in Profiles of Scientists in The New York Times and The Scientist.

Although representations of female scientists in the media have increased over time, stereotypical portrayals of science persist. In-depth, contemporary profiles of scientists' roles have an opportunity to reflect or to challenge stereotypes of science and of gender. We employed content and linguistic analyses to examine whether publicly available profiles of scientists from New York Times and The Scientist Magazine support or challenge pervasive beliefs about science. Consistent with broader stereotypes of STEM fields, these portrayals focused more on agency than communality. However, profiles also challenged stereotypes through integrating communality, purpose, and growth. This analysis also found similar presence of communal and agentic constructs for both female and male scientists. The current findings highlight the importance of considering counterstereotypic representations of science in the media: Communicating messages to the public that challenge existing beliefs about the culture of science may be one path toward disrupting stereotypes that dissuade talented individuals from choosing science pathways.