Purpose reflection benefits minoritized students' motivation and well-being in STEM.

Students from groups historically excluded from STEM face heightened challenges to thriving and advancing in STEM. Prompting students to reflect on these challenges in light of their purpose can yield benefits by helping students see how their STEM work connects to fundamental motives. We conducted a randomized, controlled trial to test potential benefits of reflecting on purpose-their "why" for pursuing their degrees. This multimethod study included 466 STEM students (232 women; 237 Black/Latinx/Native students). Participants wrote about their challenges in STEM, with half randomly assigned to consider these in light of their purpose. Purpose reflection fostered benefits to beliefs and attitudes about the major, authentic belonging, and stress appraisals. Effects were robust across race and gender identities or larger for minoritized students. Structural and cultural shifts to recognize students' purpose in STEM can provide a clearer pathway for students to advance.

Inferences of Masculinity and Femininity Across Intersections of Social Class and Gender: A Social Structural Perspective.

This research employs a social structural perspective to analyze the content of intersectional social class and gender stereotypes. We investigated how the structural positioning of class and gender categories differentially foster inferences of masculinity and femininity. The social structures that organize class and gender differ: Class is marked by access to resources, and gender is marked by a division of labor for care work. Thus, we examined whether masculinity inferences more strongly varied by social class and whether femininity inferences more strongly varied by gender categories. In Study 1, a total 427 undergraduates provided open-ended descriptions of social class and gender groups. In Study 2, a total 758 undergraduates rated the same groups on preselected trait measures. In Study 3, a total 83 adult participants considered a vignette that manipulated a target's structural resources and gender. Across datasets, variation in social class primarily influenced inferences about masculinity while variation in gender primarily influenced inferences about femininity.

Changing the culture of peer review for a more inclusive and equitable psychological science.

Peer review is a core component of scientific practice. Although peer review ideally improves research and promotes rigor, it also has consequences for what types of research are published and cited and who wants to (and is able to) advance in research-focused careers. Despite these consequences, few reviewers or editors receive training or oversight to ensure their feedback is helpful, professional, and culturally sensitive. Here, we critically examine the peer-review system in psychology and neuroscience at multiple levels, from ideas to institutions, interactions, and individuals. We highlight initiatives that aim to change the normative negativity of peer review and provide authors with constructive, actionable feedback that is sensitive to diverse identities, methods, topics, and environments. We conclude with a call to action for how individuals, groups, and organizations can improve the culture of peer review. We provide examples of how changes in the peer-review system can be made with an eye to diversity (increasing the range of identities and experiences constituting the field), equity (fair processes and outcomes across groups), and inclusion (experiences that promote belonging across groups). These changes can improve scientists' experience of peer review, promote diverse perspectives and identities, and enhance the quality and impact of science. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

In the Face of Opportunities: Facial Structures of Scientists Shape Expectations of STEM Environments.

Impressions of role leaders provide information about anticipated opportunities in a role, and these perceptions can influence attitudes about science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) pathways. Specifically, the facial structures of role leaders influenced perceived affordances of working with that person, such as the availability of communal and agentic opportunities (e.g., mentorship; achievement). STEM faculty with trustworthy (relative to dominant) faces were seen as valuing communal goals (Studies 1-3), and in turn, perceived as affording both communal and agentic opportunities in their research groups (Studies 2-3b). These heightened goal opportunities aligned with perceptions that trustworthy-faced advisors would enact more group-supportive behaviors (Study 2). Consequently, students anticipated fairer treatment and reported greater interest in labs directed by trustworthy- than dominant-faced leaders (Studies 3a-4a), even when images were accompanied by explicit information about leaders' collaborative behavior (Study 4b). The faces of leaders can thus function as the "face" of that role and the surrounding culture.

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.

The Pandemic as a Portal: Reimagining Psychological Science as Truly Open and Inclusive.

Psychological science is at an inflection point: The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated inequalities that stem from our historically closed and exclusive culture. Meanwhile, reform efforts to change the future of our science are too narrow in focus to fully succeed. In this article, we call on psychological scientists-focusing specifically on those who use quantitative methods in the United States as one context for such conversations-to begin reimagining our discipline as fundamentally open and inclusive. First, we discuss whom our discipline was designed to serve and how this history produced the inequitable reward and support systems we see today. Second, we highlight how current institutional responses to address worsening inequalities are inadequate, as well as how our disciplinary perspective may both help and hinder our ability to craft effective solutions. Third, we take a hard look in the mirror at the disconnect between what we ostensibly value as a field and what we actually practice. Fourth and finally, we lead readers through a roadmap for reimagining psychological science in whatever roles and spaces they occupy, from an informal discussion group in a department to a formal strategic planning retreat at a scientific society.

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.

My Fair Lady? Inferring Organizational Trust From the Mere Presence of Women in Leadership Roles.

The history of male dominance in organizational hierarchy can leave a residue of mistrust in which women in particular do not expect fair treatment. The mere presence of a female leader relative to a male leader led perceivers to anticipate fairer treatment in that organization (Study 1) and greater projected salary and status (Study 2). This mere presence effect occurred uniquely through communal and not agentic affordances; these patterns emerged especially or only for women. Female leaders cued organizational trust in both male- and female-dominated industries (Study 3) and when they occupied different levels of the organizational hierarchy (Study 4). When information about organizational communal affordances is directly communicated, both female and male leaders signal trust (Study 5). The processes and practices of male-dominated organizational culture can leave a residue of mistrust, but viewing women in leadership is one beacon illuminating paths forward and upward.

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.

Open science, communal culture, and women's participation in the movement to improve science.

Science is undergoing rapid change with the movement to improve science focused largely on reproducibility/replicability and open science practices. This moment of change-in which science turns inward to examine its methods and practices-provides an opportunity to address its historic lack of diversity and noninclusive culture. Through network modeling and semantic analysis, we provide an initial exploration of the structure, cultural frames, and women's participation in the open science and reproducibility literatures (n = 2,926 articles and conference proceedings). Network analyses suggest that the open science and reproducibility literatures are emerging relatively independently of each other, sharing few common papers or authors. We next examine whether the literatures differentially incorporate collaborative, prosocial ideals that are known to engage members of underrepresented groups more than independent, winner-takes-all approaches. We find that open science has a more connected, collaborative structure than does reproducibility. Semantic analyses of paper abstracts reveal that these literatures have adopted different cultural frames: open science includes more explicitly communal and prosocial language than does reproducibility. Finally, consistent with literature suggesting the diversity benefits of communal and prosocial purposes, we find that women publish more frequently in high-status author positions (first or last) within open science (vs. reproducibility). Furthermore, this finding is further patterned by team size and time. Women are more represented in larger teams within reproducibility, and women's participation is increasing in open science over time and decreasing in reproducibility. We conclude with actionable suggestions for cultivating a more prosocial and diverse culture of science.

Putting Belonging in Context: Communal Affordances Signal Belonging in STEM.

A sense of belonging in a particular context is cued not only by the people in the role but by the affordances of the role-that is, the opportunities for goal pursuit. We investigate this role-based belonging in four studies documenting that the perceived affordances of social roles inform sense of belonging and convey known benefits of belonging. Perceiving more communal opportunities in naturalistic science, technology, engineering, and mathematic (STEM) settings was associated with heightened belonging in those roles (Studies 1-2). Experimentally manipulating collaborative activities in a science lab increased anticipated belonging in the lab and fostered interest, particularly among women (Study 3). Finally, mentally simulating communal affordances in a role promoted recovery from belonging threat: Considering communal opportunities in STEM facilitated recovery of STEM-specific belonging after recalling exclusion in STEM (Study 4). Investigations of role-based belonging offer the potential for both theoretical and practical advances.

Growing STEM: Perceived faculty mindset as an indicator of communal affordances in STEM.

As students explore science and engineering fields, they receive messages about what competencies are required in a particular field, as well as whether they can reach their goals by entering the field. Faculty members convey information both about whether students might have the ability to succeed in a particular field and also whether students might want to succeed in a particular field-is this career one that serves the values or goals of the student? We hypothesize a novel pathway through which growth versus fixed mindset messages communicated by faculty affect students. Specifically, we explore whether emphasizing the potential for growth, rather than emphasizing fixed abilities, can indicate to students that science, technology, engineering, or math (STEM) fields offer opportunities to fulfill their goals. Across 8 studies, we find that perceiving that faculty endorse growth versus fixed mindset beliefs increases beliefs that STEM contexts afford communal and agentic goals; perceived communal affordances more strongly predict people's interest in pursuing STEM education and careers. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Can I Work with and Help Others in This Field? How Communal Goals Influence Interest and Participation in STEM Fields.

Although science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines as a whole have made advances in gender parity and greater inclusion for women, these increases have been smaller or nonexistent in computing and engineering compared to other fields. In this focused review, we discuss how stereotypic perceptions of computing and engineering influence who enters, stays, and excels in these fields. We focus on communal goal incongruity-the idea that some STEM disciplines like engineering and computing are perceived as less aligned with people's communal goals of collaboration and helping others. In Part 1, we review the empirical literature that demonstrates how perceptions that these disciplines are incongruent with communal goals can especially deter women and girls, who highly endorse communal goals. In Part 2, we extend this perspective by reviewing accumulating evidence that perceived communal goal incongruity can deter any individual who values communal goals. Communal opportunities within computing and engineering have the potential to benefit first generation college students, underrepresented minority students, and communally-oriented men (as well as communally-oriented women). We describe the implications of this body of literature: describing how opting out of STEM in order to pursue fields perceived to encourage the pursuit of communal goals leave the stereotypic (mis)perceptions of computing and engineering unchanged and exacerbate female underrepresentation. In Part 3, we close with recommendations for how communal opportunities in computing and engineering can be highlighted to increase interest and motivation. By better integrating and publically acknowledging communal opportunities, the stereotypic perceptions of these fields could gradually change, making computing and engineering more inclusive and welcoming to all.

A Goal Congruity Model of Role Entry, Engagement, and Exit: Understanding Communal Goal Processes in STEM Gender Gaps.

The goal congruity perspective provides a theoretical framework to understand how motivational processes influence and are influenced by social roles. In particular, we invoke this framework to understand communal goal processes as proximal motivators of decisions to engage in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). STEM fields are not perceived as affording communal opportunities to work with or help others, and understanding these perceived goal affordances can inform knowledge about differences between (a) STEM and other career pathways and (b) women's and men's choices. We review the patterning of gender disparities in STEM that leads to a focus on communal goal congruity (Part I), provide evidence for the foundational logic of the perspective (Part II), and explore the implications for research and policy (Part III). Understanding and transmitting the opportunities for communal goal pursuit within STEM can reap widespread benefits for broadening and deepening participation.

Not By Success Alone: Role Models Provide Pathways to Communal Opportunities in STEM.

Because of stereotypes that science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields do not fulfill communal goals, communally oriented individuals may select out of STEM. One potential route to engaging and promoting communally oriented individuals in STEM fields is through interactions with advisors or role models in STEM. We first demonstrate the perceived difficulty of finding role models who enact communal behaviors in STEM relative to other fields (Preliminary Study). Communally oriented students reported higher likelihood of observing admired others in math or science (i.e., investigative vicarious learning) over time (Study 1). Individuals preferred hypothetical STEM advisors who enacted communal workplace behaviors (Studies 2a-2b). Finally, individuals' communal orientation predicted how important they found the communal behaviors of actual role models (Studies 3a-3b). These findings provide further support for the goal congruity prediction that contexts-whether relational or occupational-that offer the pursuit of valued goals will be preferred.

Closing the Communal Gap: The Importance of Communal Affordances in Science Career Motivation.

To remain competitive in the global economy, the United States (and other countries) is trying to broaden participation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) by graduating an additional 1 million people in STEM fields by 2018. Although communion (working with, helping, and caring for others) is a basic human need, STEM careers are often (mis)perceived as being uncommunal. Across three naturalistic studies we found greater support for the communal affordance hypothesis, that perceiving STEM careers as affording greater communion is associated with greater STEM career interest, than two alternative hypotheses derived from goal congruity theory. Importantly, these findings held regardless of major (Study 1), college enrollment (Study 2), and gender (Studies 1-3). For undergraduate research assistants, mid-semester beliefs that STEM affords communion predicted end of the semester STEM motivation (Study 3). Our data highlight the importance of educational and workplace motivational interventions targeting communal affordances beliefs about STEM.

Prejudice in context departs from attitudes toward groups.

The analysis offered by Dixon et al. fails to acknowledge that the attitudes that drive prejudice are attitudes that are constructed in particular contexts. These attitudes (e.g., toward men as childcare workers) can diverge strongly from attitudes toward the group in general. Social change is thus best achieved through challenging the requirements of roles and by changing group stereotypes.

Malleability in communal goals and beliefs influences attraction to stem careers: evidence for a goal congruity perspective.

The goal congruity perspective posits that 2 distinct social cognitions predict attraction to science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) fields. First, individuals may particularly value communal goals (e.g., working with or helping others), due to either chronic individual differences or the salience of these goals in particular contexts. Second, individuals hold beliefs about the activities that facilitate or impede these goals, or goal affordance stereotypes. Women's tendency to endorse communal goals more highly than do men, along with consensual stereotypes that STEM careers impede communal goals, intersect to produce disinterest in STEM careers. We provide evidence for the foundational predictions that gender differences emerge primarily on communal rather than agentic goals (Studies 1a and 3) and that goal affordance stereotypes reflect beliefs that STEM careers are relatively dissociated from communal goals (Studies 1b and 1c). Most critically, we provide causal evidence that activated communal goals decrease interest in STEM fields (Study 2) and that the potential for a STEM career to afford communal goals elicits greater positivity (Study 3). These studies thus provide a novel demonstration that understanding communal goals and goal affordance stereotypes can lend insight into attitudes toward STEM pursuits.

A change will do us good: threats diminish typical preferences for male leaders.

The current research explores role congruity processes from a new vantage point by investigating how the need for change might shift gender-based leadership preferences. According to role congruity theory, favorability toward leaders results from alignment between what is desired in a leadership role and the characteristics stereotypically ascribed to the leader. Generally speaking, these processes lead to baseline preferences for male over female leaders. In this research, the authors propose that a shift in gender-based leadership preferences will emerge under conditions of threat. Because the psychological experience of threat signals a need for change, individuals will favor candidates who represent new directions in leadership rather than consistency with past directions in leadership. Specifically, they find that threat evokes an implicit preference for change over stability (Experiment 1) and gender stereotypes align women with change but men with stability (Experiments 2a and 2b). Consequently, the typical preference for male leaders is diminished, or even reversed, under threat (Experiments 3 and 4). Moreover, the shift away from typical gender-based leadership preferences occurs especially among individuals who highly legitimize the sociopolitical system (Experiment 4), suggesting that these preference shifts might serve to protect the underlying system.