No abstract

The university participant pool is a key resource for behavioral research, and data quality is believed to vary over the course of the academic semester. This crowdsourced project examined time of semester variation in 10 known effects, 10 individual differences, and 3 data quality indicators over the course of the academic semester in 20 participant pools (N = 2,696) and with an online sample (N = 737). Weak time of semester effects were observed on data quality indicators, participant sex, and a few individual differences-conscientiousness, mood, and stress. However, there was little evidence for time of semester qualifying experimental or correlational effects. The generality of this evidence is unknown because only a subset of the tested effects demonstrated evidence for the original result in the whole sample. Mean characteristics of pool samples change slightly during the semester, but these data suggest that those changes are mostly irrelevant for detecting effects. Word count = 151Keywords: social psychology; cognitive psychology; replication; participant pool; individual differences; sampling effects; situational effects 4 Many Labs 3: Evaluating participant pool quality across the academic semester via replication University participant pools provide access to participants for a great deal of published behavioral research. The typical participant pool consists of undergraduates enrolled in introductory psychology courses that require students to complete some number of experiments over the course of the academic semester. Common variations might include using other courses to recruit participants or making study participation an option for extra credit rather than a pedagogical requirement. Research-intensive universities often have a highly organized participant pool with a participant management system for signing up for studies and assigning credit. Smaller or teaching-oriented institutions often have more informal participant pools that are organized ad hoc each semester or for an individual class.To avoid selection bias based on study content, most participant pools have procedures to avoid disclosing the content or purpose of individual studies during the sign-up process.However, students are usually free to choose the time during the semester that they sign up to complete the studies. This may introduce a selection bias in which data collection on different dates occurs with different kinds of participants, or in different situational circumstances (e.g., the carefree semester beginning versus the exam-stressed semester end).If participant characteristics differ across time during the academic semester, then the results of studies may be moderated by the time at which data collection occurs. Indeed, among behavioral researchers there are widespread intuitions, superstitions, and anecdotes about the "best" time to collect data in order to minimize error and maximize power. It is common, for example, to hear stories of an effect being obtained in the first part of the semester that then "d...

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.

This research examined the effects of the objectifying gaze on math performance, interaction motivation, body surveillance, body shame, and body dissatisfaction. In an experiment, undergraduate participants (67 women and 83 men) received an objectifying gaze during an interaction with a trained confederate of the other sex. As hypothesized, the objectifying gaze caused decrements in women's math performance but not men's. Interestingly, the objectifying gaze also increased women's, but not men's, motivation to engage in subsequent interactions with their partner. Finally, the objectifying gaze did not influence body surveillance, body shame, or body dissatisfaction for women or men. One explanation for the math performance and interaction motivation findings is stereotype threat. To the degree that the objectifying gaze arouses stereotype threat, math performance may decrease because it conveys that women's looks are valued over their other qualities. Furthermore, interaction motivation may increase because stereotype threat arouses belonging uncertainty or concerns about social connections. As a result, the objectifying gaze may trigger a vicious cycle in which women underperform but continue to interact with the people who led them to underperform in the first place. Implications for long-term consequences of the objectifying gaze and directions for future research are discussed.

Homogeneity within science limits creativity and discovery, and can feed into a perpetuating cycle of underrepresentation. From enhancing social justice to alleviating health and economic disadvantages, broadening participation in science is imperative. We focus here on first-generation students (FGS) and identify factors which grab and hold science interest among this underrepresented group. Might the culture and norms within science unintentionally limit FGS' participation? We argue that two distinct aspects of communal goals contribute to FGS' underrepresentation at different stages of the STEM pipeline: cultural perceptions of science as uncommunal (little emphasis on prosocial behavior and collaboration) and the uncommunal structure of STEM graduate education and training. Across 2 studies we investigated factors that catch (Study 1) and hold (Study 2) FGS' science interest. In Study 1, we find only when FGS believe that working in science will allow them to fulfill prosocial communal purpose goals are they more intrinsically interested in science. Yet, later in the pipeline science education devalues prosocial communal goals creating a structural mobility barrier among FGS. Study 2 found that FGS generally want to stay close to home instead of relocating to pursue a graduate education. For FGS (versus continuing-generation students), higher prosocial communal goal orientation significantly predicted lower residential mobility. We discuss implications for interventions to counteract the uncommunal science education and training culture to help improve access to FGS and other similarly situated underrepresented populations.