EXPRESS YOURSELF OR SECURE YOUR FUTURE? CONSTRUCTIONS OF CHOICE AND GENDER GAPS IN STEM FIELDS

In many developed societies, women have greater freedom than ever before to engage in academic and professional pursuits of their own choosing. However, gender gaps in representation in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) fields persist. In these settings, which commonly construct academic choice as a means of self-expression, men and women may diverge in their motivation to pursue STEM, because the personal preferences they express through academic choice would bear the imprint of gender stereotypes. In settings that construct academic choice as a means to reach material security, however, men and women alike may be likely to prefer lucrative fields, including STEM. Three studies examined the implications of self-expression and security goals for STEM interest and motivation across genders. Study 1 documented that experimental activation of self-expression goals steered women away from STEM, but led to greater STEM interest among men. However, activation of security goals only affected men’s STEM interest positively. Study 2 partially replicated this pattern for STEM and Business fields using a regulatory focus manipulation. In light of the findings, Study 3 examined whether security goals may be gendered in certain cultural settings, such that they play a larger role in men’s choices than women’s. Indeed, perceived lucrativeness of STEM played a positive role in STEM interest and motivation only among men, and particularly among those who did not find STEM enjoyable. The studies provide initial evidence for the role of constructions of academic choice—as a means of self-expression or material security—in academic interest and motivation, highlighting the sociocultural shaping of academic choices among both women and men

The (Biological or Cultural) Essence of Essentialism: Implications for Policy Support among Dominant and Subordinated Groups

Most research links (racial) essentialism to negative intergroup outcomes. We propose that this conclusion reflects both a narrow conceptual focus on biological/genetic essence and a narrow research focus from the perspective of racially dominant groups. We distinguished between beliefs in biological and cultural essences, and we investigated the implications of this distinction for support of social justice policies (e.g., affirmative action) among people with dominant (White) and subordinated (e.g., Black, Latino) racial identities in the United States. Whereas, endorsement of biological essentialism may have similarly negative implications for social justice policies across racial categories, we investigated the hypothesis that endorsement of cultural essentialism would have different implications across racial categories. In Studies 1a and 1b, we assessed the properties of a cultural essentialism measure we developed using two samples with different racial/ethnic compositions. In Study 2, we collected data from 170 participants using an online questionnaire to test the implications of essentialist beliefs for policy support. Consistent with previous research, we found that belief in biological essentialism was negatively related to policy support for participants from both dominant and subordinated categories. In contrast, the relationship between cultural essentialism and policy support varied across identity categories in the hypothesized way: negative for participants from the dominant category but positive for participants from subordinated categories. Results suggest that cultural essentialism may provide a way of identification that subordinated communities use to mobilize support for social justice

Public opinion about solar radiation management: A cross-cultural study in 20 countries around the world

Some argue that complementing climate change mitigation measures with solar radiation management (SRM) might prove a last resort to limit global warming to 1.5 °C. To make a socially responsible decision on whether to use SRM, it is important to consider also public opinion, across the globe and particularly in the Global South, which would face the greatest risks from both global warming and SRM. However, most research on public opinion about SRM stems from the Global North. We report findings from the first large-scale, cross-cultural study on the public opinion about SRM among the general public (N = 2,248) and students (N = 4,583) in 20 countries covering all inhabited continents, including five countries from the Global South and five ‘non-WEIRD’ (i.e. not Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, and Democratic) countries from the Global North. As public awareness of SRM is usually low, we provided participants with information on SRM, including key arguments in favour of and against SRM that appear in the scientific debate. On average, acceptability of SRM was significantly higher in the Global South than in the ‘non-WEIRD’ Global North, while acceptability in the ‘WEIRD’ Global North was in between. However, we found substantial variation within these clusters, especially in the ‘non-WEIRD’ Global North, suggesting that countries do not form homogenous clusters and should thus be considered individually. Moreover, the average participants’ views, while generally neither strong nor polarised, differed from some expert views in important ways, including that participants perceived SRM as only slightly effective in limiting global warming. Still, our data suggests overall a conditional, reluctant acceptance. That is, while on average, people think SRM would have mostly negative consequences, they may still be willing to tolerate it as a potential last resort to fight global warming, particularly if they think SRM has only minor negative (or even positive) impacts on humans and nature

Renovascular hypertension in childhood: A nation-wide survey

43rd ERA-EDTA Congress -- JUL 15-18, 2006 -- Glasgow, SCOTLANDWOS: 000239919002224ERA, EDT