How students socially evaluate interest: peer responsiveness influences evaluation and maintenance of interest

ManuscriptSocial influences (e.g., by teachers, parents and peers) on students' experience of interest are typically described in terms of affecting students' initial choice of and/or completion of specific educational activities. When considered within the framework of the Self-Regulation of Motivation (SRM) model, however, other people may influence the interest experience even after activity completion, by influencing how a person evaluates that past experience. Previous experimental research showed that when students talked about a game upon completion, listeners' responsiveness influenced their evaluation of interest. The present research examined whether peer responsiveness when undergraduates talked about topics covered in actual classes predicted students' evaluation of class interest. In Study 1, we examined responsiveness in the context of conversations that took place as a structured part of an online psychology class (i.e., discussion board), and found that the frequency of replies from classmates to students' posts (but not the reverse) predicted students' interest in the class measured at the end of the semester. In Study 2, we examined responsiveness in the context of students' reported everyday conversations about two completed interesting class topics or two completed class exams in an introductory physics course. Perceived listener responsiveness in conversations about class topics (but not about exams) predicted students' concurrent evaluation of class interest, even when controlling for anticipated interest at the beginning of the semester. Moreover, listeners indirectly affected interest measured at the end of the semester via their influence on interest during the semester

Regulating interest socially 1 DRAFT 11/26/05 Talking about interest: Exploring the role of social interaction for regulating motivation and the interest experience

construction Regulating interest socially 2 The Self-Regulation of Motivation Model suggests that the experience of interest is an important source of human motivation and that people often strategically regulate the experience of interest. Previous work based on this model suggests that the social context may influence this process at multiple points. The present research focuses on whether talking to others about an activity experience is one means by which individuals evaluate how interesting that activity is. In Study 1 college students completed questionnaires that asked about real life experiences where working on an activity was more interesting because they worked with others. They described experiences that occurred first in any domain, and then that occurred specifically in the school domain. Results suggested that the more students talked with others about the activity after it happened the more they reported greater interest in the activity after the conversations. In the school domain, this was especially true for Latinos and for individuals who scored higher on the Relational Self-Construal scale. Study 2 employed a lab paradigm to control for the task that individuals talked to others about and to examine whether the nature of listeners ’ reaction

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

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

Losing its expected communal value: how stereotype threat undermines women’s identity as research scientists

The worry or concern over confirming negative gender group stereotypes, called stereotype threat, is one explanation for women’s worldwide underrepresentation in undergraduate science classes and majors. But how does stereotype threat translate into fewer women motivated for science? In this quantitative study with a sample from the US, we use Expectancy Value Theory to examine whether and how stereotype threat concerns might influence women’s science identification. To do this, we collected survey data from 388 women enrolled in introductory physics (male-dominated) and biology (female-dominated) undergraduate laboratory classes at three universities. We examined multiple indirect effect paths through which stereotype threat could be associated with science identity and the associated future motivation to engage in scientific research. In addition to replicating established expectancy-value theory motivational findings, results support the novel prediction that one route through which stereotype threat negatively impacts women’s science identity is via effects on perceptions about the communal utility value of science. Especially among women in physics who expressed greater stereotype threat concerns than women in biology, science identification was lower to the extent that stereotype threat reduced how useful science was seen for helping other people and society. Implications for ways to create an inclusive learning context that combats stereotype threat concerns and broadens undergraduate women’s participation in science are discussed

From bench to bedside: A communal utility value intervention to enhance students’ biomedical science motivation.

Motivating students to pursue science careers is a top priority among many science educators. We add to the growing literature by examining the impact of a utility value intervention to enhance student’s perceptions that biomedical science affords important utility work values. Using an expectancy-value perspective we identify and test two types of utility value: communal (other-oriented) and agentic (self-oriented). The culture of science is replete with examples emphasizing high levels of agentic value, but communal values are often (stereotyped as) absent from science. However, people in general want an occupation that has communal utility. We predicted and found that an intervention emphasizing the communal utility value of biomedical research increased students’ motivation for biomedical science (Studies 1–3). We refined whether different types of communal utility value (working with, helping, and forming relationships with others) might be more or less important, demonstrating that helping others was an especially important predictor of student motivation (Study 2). Adding agentic utility value to biomedical research did not further increase student motivation (Study 3). Furthermore, the communal value intervention indirectly impacted students’ motivation because students believed that biomedical research was communal and thus subsequently more important (Studies 1–3). This is key, because enhancing student communal value beliefs about biomedical research (Studies 1–3) and science (Study 4) was associated both with momentary increases in motivation in experimental settings (Studies 1–3) and increased motivation over time among students highly identified with biomedicine (Study 4). We discuss recommendations for science educators, practitioners, and faculty mentors who want to broaden participation in science

From bench to bedside: A communal utility value intervention to enhance students\u27biomedical science motivation

Motivating students to pursue science careers is a top priority among many science educators. We add to the growing literature by examining the impact of a utility value intervention to enhance student\u27s perceptions that biomedical science affords important utility work values. Using an expectancy-value perspective, we identified and tested 2 types of utility value: communal (other-oriented) and agentic (self-oriented). The culture of science is replete with examples emphasizing high levels of agentic value, but communal values are often (stereotyped as) absent from science. However, people in general want an occupation that had communal utility. We predicted and found that an intervention emphasizing the communal utility value of biomedical research increased students\u27motivation for biomedical science (Studies 1-3). We refined whether different types of communal utility value (i.e., working with, helping, and forming relationships with others) might be more or less important, demonstrating that helping others was an especially important predictor of student motivation (Study 2). Adding agentic utility value to biomedical research did not further increase student motivation (Study 3). Furthermore, the communal value intervention indirectly impacted students\u27motivation because students believed that biomedical research was communal and thus subsequently more important (Studies 1-3). This is key, because enhancing student communal value beliefs about biomedical research (Studies 1-3) and science (Study 4) was associated both with momentary increases in motivation in experimental settings (Studies 1-3) and increased motivation over time among students highly identified with biomedicine (Study 4). We discuss recommendations for science educators, practitioners, and faculty mentors who want to broaden participation in science

“Why MANtoring is not the solution. A Rebuttal to ‘The association between early career informal mentorship in academic collaborations and junior author performance.’”

The findings of AlShebli Makovi & Rahwan1 highlight an endemic problem in science: co-authoring with men is associated with greater numbers of citations for junior scientists than co-authoring with women. The reasons for this likely stem from a long history and culture in science where White, straight, cisgender men are the dominant force. Under the authors’ assumption that authorship is equal to mentorship (a notion we criticize below), the reported citation disparity by coauthor gender for junior scientists may simply reflect that under the current status quo there are more barriers for women to establish strong mentorship programs and secure resources to support their mentees compared to men. In other words, citation disparity is the problem, not the solution as proposed by the authors. We argue that the citation disparity is uncorrelated with mentorship and the quality of the publication. Unfortunately, AlShebli Makovi & Rahwan err in their publication in two ways: they define mentorship as co-authorship (albeit with conditions), and they prescribe the problem as a solution suggesting that junior scientists, especially women, ought to be mentored by men - a proposal we have aptly named “MANtoring”. These faulty interpretations and conclusions reveal a broader problem in scholarship: failure to critically examine structural biases and assumptions when evaluating and interpreting data showing disparity. Much work is needed to improve the culture of science and to provide a more fair and equitable environment for individuals of any background (women in this case, but a similar reasoning would apply to people historically marginalized based on gender, race, sexuality, class, and other dimensions) to thrive2. The AlShebli et al article is a wakeup call to authors in all disciplines to take greater care in interpreting and acting on their disparity data. Failure to do so could have catastrophic effects on science including the irony of exacerbating the very problems researchers are attempting to address