Plugging up the leaky stem pipeline with a stereotype threat ment

University of Central Florida STARS Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019 2014 Plugging Up the Leaky STEM Pipeline with a Stereotype Threat Mentoring Intervention Luiz Xavier University of Central Florida Part of the Industrial and Organizational Psychology Commons Find similar works at: https://stars.edu/etd University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.edu This Doctoral Dissertation (Open Access) is brought to you for free and open access by STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019 by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more information, please contact STARS@ucf. STARS Citation Xavier, Luiz, "Plugging Up the Leaky STEM Pipeline with a Stereotype Threat Mentoring Intervention" (2014).

Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019.edu/etd/4845 PLUGGING UP THE LEAKY STEM PIPELINE WITH A STEREOTYPE THREAT MENTORING INTERVENTION by LUIZ FRANCISCO XAVIER B. San Francisco State University, 2006 M. San Francisco State University, 2008 A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Industrial Organizational Psychology in the Department of Psychology in the College of Sciences at the University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida Summer Term 2014 Major Professor: Barbara Fritzsche © 2014 Luiz Francisco Xavier ii ABSTRACT The present study compared the effectiveness of different mentoring programs at reducing feelings of stereotype threat experienced by women in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields. Stereotype threat refers to the extra pressure a person feels to disprove a negative stereotype that applies to him or her.

Because stereotype threat has been found to undermine performance and interest in stereotyped domains, it may be a key factor contributing to female underrepresentation in STEM fields. Mentors and protégés were placed in either a stereotype threat reduction condition in which mentors and protégés were encouraged to participate in discussions designed to reduce stereotype threat, an academic condition in which mentors and protégés were encouraged to discuss academic goals and challenges, or a non- academic condition in which mentors and protégés were encouraged to discuss the challenges of balancing non-school commitments. It was hypothesized that mentoring that focused specifically on stereotype threat reduction would be the most effective in reducing stereotype threat and increasing intentions to remain in STEM fields. In addition, it was hypothesized that stereotype threat reduction mentoring would be the most effective at increasing beliefs in an incremental theory of intelligence (i., the belief that intelligence can be developed through hard work) and decreasing beliefs in an entity theory of intelligence (i., the belief that intelligence is innate and is unalterable).

Mentors were 36 male and 74 female upper-level STEM college students and protégés were 137 female lower-level STEM college students. Participants met online for 30 minutes, once per week, for 3 weeks. Results indicated that both mentors and protégés in the stereotype threat reduction mentoring condition reported feeling less stereotype threat in their STEM classes than mentors and protégés in the other mentoring conditions. Additionally, the iii frequency in which self-theories were discussed in the mentoring sessions partially mediated the effects of the stereotype threat reduction condition on protégés’ feelings of stereotype threat in their STEM classes.

Mentors and protégés in the stereotype threat reduction mentoring condition also reported endorsing incremental theories of intelligence more and endorsing entity theories of intelligence less than mentors and protégés in the other conditions. In summary, the present study’s findings suggest that in order maximum stereotype threat reduction to occur in a mentoring relationship, mentors and protégés engage in activities and discussions designed to reduce stereotype threat. Given that prior research has found that decreased stereotype threat, decreased entity theories of intelligence, and increased incremental theories of intelligence are associated with greater interest and performance in STEM domains, the utilization of a stereotype threat reduction mentoring program can help address the underrepresentation of women in science, technology, engineering, and math related fields iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank Dr. Barbara Fritzsche for your patience and support throughout the years.

Without your guidance my dissertation would not be possible. I would like to thank Dr. Ben-Zeev for inspiring me to pursue a Ph. and for being an integral part of my undergraduate honor’s thesis, my master’s thesis, and my dissertation.

I would also like to thank Dr. Kimberly Smith-Jentsch and Dr. James Szalma for your invaluable input and feedback. I would also like to thank my exceptional research assistants, Estefany Sabrina Bologna, Kara Corallo, Lisa Ellis, Eurachia Gibson, Alexandra Lexi Gorman, Haily Fowler, Adam Leisher, Willow McGinty, Halona Ng, Kalan Norris, Sara Ruiz, Taylor Scotese, Palak Shah, and Katelyn Stiller.

Without your dedication and hard work, the STEM Peer Mentoring program would not have been successful. I would like to thank Iliana Castro and Melissa Dagley for contacting students on my behalf. I would like to thank Kyle Heyne for taking the time to brainstorm ways of analyzing my data and for putting your research assistants at my disposal. I would like to thank Quincy for being a good dissertation dog.

Lastly, I would like to thank my lab members, Dorey Chaffee, Lindsay Dhanani, Michael Reeves, Elizabeth Sanz, Brandon Scholar, Nicholas Smith, and Amanda Wolcott, for your help and support. v TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES. ix LIST OF TABLES .x CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .1 Statement of the Problem .1 The Underrepresentation of Women in STEM Majors in College .2 The Attrition of Women from STEM Majors in College .3 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW.6 Gender Differences in Abilities .6 Gender Differences in Mathematical Ability .6 Gender Differences in Mathematical Admissions Tests .8 Gender Differences in Visual-Spatial Ability. 10 Gender Differences in Verbal Ability.

12 Gender Differences in Interests. 14 Ability and Interest. 18 Prior Explanations for Gender Differences in Abilities and Interests. 19 Stereotype Threat Theory.

20 Tests of Stereotype Threat Theory. 21 Generalizability of Stereotype Threat. 23 The Effects of Stereotype Threat on Women’s Performance. 25 The Effects of Stereotype Threat on Women’s Interests.

29 Stereotype Threat Risk Factors. 34 Existence of Stereotypes. 41 The Mediators of the Stereotype Threat-Performance Relationship. 47 Performance-Avoidance Goals.

51 The Mediators of the Stereotype Threat-Interest Relationship. 56 Stereotype Threat Interventions. 60 Adopting an Incremental View of Intelligence. 73 Summary of Stereotype Threat Intervention Research.

79 Outcomes Associated with Mentoring. 90 An Integrated Stereotype Threat Intervention. 100 CHAPTER THREE: METHODS. 110 Stereotype Threat Reduction.

113 Non-Academic-Control. 114 Theories of Intelligence. 114 Stereotype Threat Experienced in Classes. 115 Sense of Belonging.

116 Intentions of Remaining In STEM. 116 Stereotype Threat during Testing. 117 Performance-Avoidance Goals during Testing. 117 Worry during Testing.

118 Academic Career Development. 118 Academic Psychosocial Support. 121 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS. 156 vii Research Question 1.

183 CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION. 189 Summary of Results. 199 APPENDIX A: BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL EXPLANATIONS FOR GENDER DIFFERENCES IN STEM ABILITIES AND INTERESTS. 201 APPENDIX B: IRB APPROVAL LETTER.

215 APPENDIX C: PROTÉGÉ/MENTOR PROFILE. 217 APPENDIX D: DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONAIRE. 219 APPENDIX E: SELF-AFFIRMATION EXERCISE. 222 APPENDIX F: SELF-AFFIRMATION PROMPT.

225 APPENDIX G: MISATTRIBUTION PROMPT. 227 APPENDIX H: INCREMENTAL THEORY OF INTELLIGENCE PROMPT. 229 APPENDIX I: ACDEMIC CONTROL DISCUSSION PROMPTS. 231 APPENDIX J: NON-ACDEMIC CONTROL DISCUSSION PROMPTS.

234 APPENDIX L: STEREOTYPE THREAT EXPERIENCED IN CLASS QUESTIONNAIRE. 237 APPENDIX M: SENSE OF BELONGING QUESTIONNAIRE. 241 APPENDIX N: STEREOTYPE THREAT DURING TESTING QUESTIONNAIRE. 245 APPENDIX O: PERFORMANCE-AVOIDANCE GOALS DURING TESTING QUESTIONNAIRE.

247 APPENDIX P: WORRY DURING TESTING QUESTIONNAIRE. 249 APPENDIX Q: MATH TEST. 251 APPENDIX R: ACADEMIC CAREER DEVELOPMENT. 259 APPENDIX S: PSYCHOSOCIAL SUPPORT.

262 APPENDIX K: SELF-THEORIES QUESTIONAIRE. 265 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Graphical Representation of the Mediators of the Stereotype Threat-Performance Relationship. 56 Figure 2: Graphical Representation of Hypothesized Relationships. 105 Figure 3: Protégés’ Incremental Theory of Intelligence across Conditions.

133 Figure 4: Protégé Incremental Theory Mediation Analysis. 136 Figure 5: Protégés’ Entity Theory of Intelligence across Conditions. 137 Figure 6: Protégé Entity Theory Mediation Analysis. 140 Figure 7: Protégés’ Stereotype Threat in STEM Classes across Conditions.

141 Figure 8: Protégé Stereotype Threat in STEM Classes Mediation Analysis. 145 Figure 9: Protégé Math Test Mediation Analyses. 156 Figure 10: Mentors’ Incremental Theory of Intelligence across Conditions. 159 Figure 11: Mentors’ Incremental Theory of Intelligence by Gender.

160 Figure 12: Female Mentors’ Incremental Theory of Intelligence across Conditions. 161 Figure 13: Male Mentors’ Incremental Theory of Intelligence across Conditions. 162 Figure 14: Mentor Incremental Theory Mediation Analysis. 165 Figure 15: Mentors’ Entity Theory of Intelligence across Conditions.

166 Figure 16: Mentors’ Entity Theory of Intelligence by Gender. 167 Figure 17: Mentor Entity Theory Mediation Analysis. 169 Figure 18: Mentors’ Stereotype Threat in STEM Classes across Conditions. 170 Figure 19: Mentors’ Stereotype Threat in STEM Classes by Gender.

171 Figure 20: Mentor Stereotype Threat Mediation Analysis. 175 Figure 21: Mentor Math Test Mediation Analyses. 186 ix LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Academic Majors of Mentors and Protégés. 110 Table 2: Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations among Protégé Pre-Mentoring Variables.

125 Table 3: Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations among Protégé Post-Mentoring Variables. 126 Table 4: Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations among Mentor Pre-Mentoring Variables. 128 Table 5: Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations among Mentor Post-Mentoring Variables. 129 Table 6: Analysis of Covariance for Protégés’ STEM Intentions.

147 Table 7: Mediation Analysis for Protégés’ STEM Intentions. 149 Table 8: Analysis of Covariance for Mentors’ STEM Intentions. 177 Table 9: Mediation Analysis for Mentors’ STEM Intentions. 179 Table 10: Summary of Results of Study Hypotheses.

187 x CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION Statement of the Problem Continued scientific progress is vital to maintaining the quality of life and economic competitiveness of the United States (Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering, 2000; National Science Board, 2003). In order to maintain scientific progress, people must enter science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields in sufficient numbers. Unfortunately, the number of people currently entering into STEM careers is insufficient to meet the demands of these fields (Fassinger, 2008; Holden, 1989; National Science Board, 2003; Widnall, 1988). The current shortage of STEM workers is compounded by the likely increase in future demand for STEM employees.

Estimates indicate that the number of new jobs in STEM fields will be at least three times greater than the number of new jobs in other fields (Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering, 2000; National Science Board, 2003). Furthermore, a large portion of the STEM workforce is expected to retire within the next two decades (National Science Board, 2003). One way of potentially addressing the current and future demands for STEM employees is to focus efforts on fully utilizing the entire workforce population. At present, STEM fields are overrepresented by Caucasian men.

Despite representing 42% of the U. workforce, Caucasian men represent 68% of the STEM workforce (Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering, 2000). Further reliance on Caucasian men to fill the ranks of STEM fields may prove unviable in the future as Caucasian men are predicted to represent only 26% of the U. Because the number of Caucasian men pursuing STEM careers in the future may be insufficient to meet the demand for STEM employees, increasing the number of women 1 who pursue STEM careers may be one way of meeting future employment demands.

In addition to women, ethnic minorities such as African Americans and Latinos are also underrepresented in STEM fields (National Science Board, 2003). Efforts to increase the number of ethnic minorities who pursue STEM fields can also help address the shortage of STEM workers. However, this study will focus primarily on improving the retention rates of women in STEM fields because they represent a potentially larger pool of future employees. Despite representing 46% of the U.