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.

Although women have nearly attained equality with men in several formerly male-dominated fields, they remain underrepresented in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). We argue that one important reason for this discrepancy is that STEM careers are perceived as less likely than careers in other fields to fulfill communal goals (e.g., working with or helping other people). Such perceptions might disproportionately affect women's career decisions, because women tend to endorse communal goals more than men. As predicted, we found that STEM careers, relative to other careers, were perceived to impede communal goals. Moreover, communal-goal endorsement negatively predicted interest in STEM careers, even when controlling for past experience and self-efficacy in science and mathematics. Understanding how communal goals influence people's interest in STEM fields thus provides a new perspective on the issue of women's representation in STEM careers.

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.

No abstract

No abstract

A deterrent to recruiting students into STEM pathways is the stereotype that STEM fields do not afford communal goals to work with or help others. We investigate the challenges to cueing communal opportunities in science via brief exposure to scientist exemplars. Both male and female scientists depicted as engaged in communal work increased beliefs that science afforded communal goals and positivity toward science careers (Study 1). Without the direct performance of communal activities, communal affordances were cued only when a female scientist was prototypic of her gender category and respondents were highly communally oriented (Study 2). To change stereotypes that science does not involve communal goals, both female and male scientists can highlight communal aspects of their work.

Research is increasingly identifying the issues of ecological distress, eco-anxiety and climate grief. These painful experiences arise from heightened ecological knowledge and concern, which are commonly considered to be de facto aims of environmental education. Yet little research investigates the issues of climate change anxiety in educational spaces, nor how educators seek to respond to or prevent such emotional experiences. This study surveyed environmental educators in eastern Australia about their experiences and strategies for responding to their learners’ ecological distress. Educators reported that their students commonly experienced feeling overwhelmed, hopeless, anxious, angry, sad and frustrated when engaging with ecological crises. Educators’ strategies for responding to their learners’ needs included encouraging students to engage with their emotions, validating those emotions, supporting students to navigate and respond to those emotions and empowering them to take climate action. Educators felt that supporting their students to face and respond to ecological crises was an extremely challenging task, one which was hindered by time limitations, their own emotional distress, professional expectations, society-wide climate denial and a lack of guidance on what works.

The purpose of the present study was to examine the extent to which motherhood status predicts being a target of workplace incivility and moderates the relationship between incivility and negative outcomes among employed women. Participants included a nationwide sample of law school faculty members (N = 1,234; 48% female, 85% White) who completed measures of workplace incivility, parenting status, job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and depression. Results showed that mothers with 3 children were treated more uncivilly than women with fewer children and that mothering mitigated negative outcomes associated with being the target of incivility. Exploratory analyses examining fatherhood status as a predictor of workplace incivility and moderator of incivility and outcomes showed that fathers reported experiencing more workplace incivility than nonfathers, but being a father did not attenuate the negative outcomes of incivility. In addition, mothers reported more incivility than fathers and childless women reported more incivility than childless men. Childless women were also the most negatively affected by incivility at work. This study advances our understanding of how motherhood status affects women's experiences at work.