Two experiments and 2 field studies examine how college students’ perceptions of their science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) professors’ mindset beliefs about the fixedness or malleability of intelligence predict students’ anticipated and actual psychological experiences and performance in their STEM classes, as well as their engagement and interest in STEM more broadly. In Studies 1 (N = 252) and 2 (N = 224), faculty mindset beliefs were experimentally manipulated and students were exposed to STEM professors who endorsed either fixed or growth mindset beliefs. In Studies 3 (N = 291) and 4 (N = 902), we examined students’ perceptions of their actual STEM professors’ mindset beliefs and used experience sampling methodology (ESM) to capture their in-the-moment psychological experiences in those professors’ classes. Across all studies, we find that students who perceive that their professor endorses more fixed mindset beliefs anticipate (Studies 1 and 2) and actually experience (Studies 3 and 4) more psychological vulnerability in those professors’ classes—specifically, they report less belonging in class, greater evaluative concerns, greater imposter feelings, and greater negative affect. We also find that in-the-moment experiences of psychological vulnerability have downstream consequences. Students who perceive that their STEM professors endorse more fixed mindset beliefs experience greater psychological vulnerability in those professors’ classes, which in turn predict greater dropout intentions, lower class attendance, less class engagement, less end-of-semester interest in STEM, and lower grades. These findings contribute to our understanding of how students’ perceptions of professors’ mindsets can serve as a situational cue that affects students’ motivation, engagement, and performance in STEM.

Many college students intend to pursue science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) careers but quickly abandon these goals when confronted with notoriously competitive STEM courses that often pit students against each other. This emphasis on interpersonal competition could be especially detrimental for first-generation (FG) college students, an underrepresented group in STEM fields which more strongly values communality and collaboration relative to their continuing-generation peers. Thus, FG students may experience more imposter feelings in STEM courses perceived as having a competitive culture. A longitudinal study (with 818 students and 2,638 experience-sampling observations) found that perceived classroom competition was associated with greater daily in-class imposter feelings among all students—but especially among FG students. Imposter feelings in turn predicted students’ end-of-term course engagement, attendance, dropout intentions, and course grades. Classroom competition and the imposter feelings it engenders may be an overlooked barrier for promoting the engagement, performance, and retention of FG students in STEM.

Two decades of research consistently demonstrates that students’ beliefs about the malleability of intelligence (also known as “mindsets”) influence their motivation and academic outcomes. The current work provides a novel extension to this literature by examining how STEM professors’ mindset beliefs can influence students’—and particularly female students’— anticipated psychological experiences and interest in those professors’ courses. In 3 experiments, college students evaluated STEM courses taught by professors who espoused either fixed or growth mindset beliefs. Students’ anticipated psychological experiences (i.e., fair treatment concerns, sense of belonging, evaluation concerns), anticipated course performance, and ultimately, course interest were assessed. Results revealed that, regardless of gender, students anticipated more negative psychological experiences, lower performance, and lower course interest when courses were taught by STEM professors who endorsed more fixed (vs. growth) mindset beliefs. However, consistent with an identity threat framework, the effects of STEM professors’ mindset beliefs (in all studies and across all outcomes) were much larger among female students. Results suggest that professors’ perceived mindset beliefs may deter students from taking the STEM courses students need in order to major in STEM.

Over 10 years of research has illustrated the benefits of internal motivation to respond without prejudice (IMS) for prejudice regulation and high-quality intergroup contact (see Plant & Devine, 1998). Yet, it is unclear how this motivation develops. The current work tested one route through which feelings of acceptance from outgroup members facilitate the development of IMS. Longitudinally, feeling accepted by outgroup members predicted increases in IMS across a 15-week period (Study 1). Experimental manipulations of outgroup acceptance also increased IMS toward racial outgroups (Studies 2 and 3). Furthermore, IMS mediated the relationship between outgroup acceptance and participants' increased willingness to pay money to increase opportunities for interracial contact (Study 2). Tests of mediation also demonstrated that feelings of acceptance mediated the effect of outgroup acceptance on internal motivation (Study 3). In addition, this pattern of responses held for members of both high- and low-status racial groups. This research demonstrates one pathway through which the fulfillment of fundamental needs influences motivated intergroup processes.

Science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) stereotypic attribution bias (SSAB) is the tendency to spontaneously generate external attributions for men's setbacks in STEM fields and to spontaneously make internal attributions for women's setbacks in STEM fields. Among samples of undergraduate STEM students, STEM settings perceived as unwelcoming to women through self-report (Study 1) and a manipulation (Study 2) were shown to predict SSAB. Among undergraduate women, experiencing the negative treatment of other women in a science setting predicted SSAB, which was negatively correlated with feelings of belonging in STEM (Study 1) and with intentions to continue in STEM after graduation (Studies 1 and 2). Research materials (i.e., data, measures, materials, etc.) used in both studies will be made available upon request to either of first two authors. The results of our studies suggest that those interested in increasing retention of women in STEM majors should develop strategies designed to reduce internal attributions for women's setbacks among women facing negative STEM environments and cultivate a more positive climate for women in STEM fields.