The role of feedback in young people’s academic choices

Women are underrepresented in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics subjects with more girls leaving these subjects at every stage in education. The current research used a scenario methodology to examine the impact of teacher feedback on girls’ and boys’ choices to study a specific science subject, engineering. British participants aged 13 (N = 479) were given scenarios where a new teacher encouraged them to take engineering using person feedback which focussed on their abilities, process feedback which focussed on their effort levels or gave them no reason. Results suggested that both boys and girls were more likely to select to study engineering when they received person feedback rather than process or no feedback. Young people also thought that ability was more important to being successful in science than in non-science subjects.This suggests young people feel that ability is needed to succeed in science subjects and person feedback can lead them to believe that they have this ability. Therefore, teacher feedback which gives ability attributions for possible success could be used to encourage more young people to persist in science. However, the potentially negative longer term outcomes of ability attributions and how they may be negated are also discussed

Authority and moral reasons: parenting style and<br /> children’s perceptions of adult rule justifications

The style of parenting of 100 children (mean age 11 years, 5 months) was established according to Baumrind's typology. Children were asked to indicate what they thought an adult would say to justify a moral rule in five different scenarios. Results indicated that parenting style did not relate to the number of justifications that children thought adults would produce but did affect the types of justifications they thought adults would give. Children of authoritative parents thought that adults would use more justifications based on reciprocity or equality in social relations than children of authoritarian parents. The results suggest that children of authoritative parents do not perceive adults to offer a more discursive moral atmosphere than children of other parents do; rather these children are more likely than others to think that adults will justify moral rules specifically in terms of equality in social relations. An unexpected finding was that children of permissive parents tended to judge that adults would legitimise judgments by pointing to the consequences of action for other people

Improving psychological science: further thoughts, reflections and ways forward

Cogent Psychology is a pioneering and dynamic Open Access journal for the psychology community, publishing original research, reviews, and replications that span the full spectrum of psychological inquiry. In 2021, it relaunched with a new Editor-in-Chief and Section Editors with an exciting vision to combine open access publishing with open research practices. As such, the journal welcomes traditional and new article formats, including Registered Reports, Brief Replication Reports, Review Articles, and Brief Reports. This broader range of formats is designed to reflect the evolving nature of psychological research and open science approaches. To the best of our knowledge, no other psychology journal offers such a distinctive combination of article publishing formats. Moreover, we welcome submissions in nine key areas of psychological science: Clinical Psychology, Cognitive & Experimental Psychology, Developmental Psychology, Educational Psychology, Health Psychology, Neuropsychology, Personality & Individual Differences, Social Psychology and Work, Industrial & Organisational Psychology

Beliefs in conspiracy theories and the need for cognitive closure

An important component of conspiracy theories is how they influence, and are influenced by, the evaluation of potential evidence. Some individuals may be more open minded regarding certain explanations for events whereas others may seek closure and thus cut off a conspiracy explanation. Two studies examined the relationship between the need for cognitive closure (NFCC), levels of belief in real world conspiracy theories, and the attribution of conspiracy theories to explain events. A first, small (N=30) and preliminary study found no relationship between NFCC and beliefs in conspiracy theories, suggesting that both advocates and opponents of conspiracy explanations do not differ on this dimension. A second study (N=86) revealed that evidence for and against conspiracy theories had an influence on attributions of the likelihood of a conspiracy to explain a novel event. Specifically, after reading evidence individuals with high levels of belief in conspiracy theories tended to rate a conspiracy explanation as more likely whereas those with low levels of belief rated it as less likely. However, when the need for cognitive closure was experimentally lowered the effects of prior beliefs in conspiracy theories diminished