The authors propose that the effects of multiple identities on psychological well-being depend on the number of identities, importance of those identities, and relationship between them. Specifically, this model predicts that when identities are highly important, having many versus few identities leads to greater psychological well-being if the identities are in harmony with each other-providing resources and expecting similar behaviors-but leads to lower psychological well-being if the identities conflict with each other-depleting resources and expecting incompatible behaviors. However, when identities are less important, neither the number of identities nor identity harmony should affect well-being. The authors further propose that emotions corresponding to self-perceptions of actual/ought self-discrepancies mediate these effects. Results supported this model. The authors discuss implications of this model for well-being in the context of the increasing social complexity of modern life.

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.

Laboratory experiments and surveys show that self-objectification increases body shame, disrupts attention, and negatively predicts well-being. Using experience sampling methodology, the authors investigated self-objectification in the daily lives of 49 female college students. Building on the predictions of objectification theory, they examined associations between internalizing an observer's perspective on the self and psychological well-being, and examined the moderating roles of trait self-esteem and appearance-contingent self-worth. Within-person increases in self-objectification predicted decreased well-being, but this association was moderated by trait self-esteem and trait appearance-contingent self-worth; high self-esteem, highly appearance-contingent participants reported increased well-being when they self-objectified. Furthermore, perceived unattractiveness partially mediated the main effect and the three-way interaction: high self-esteem, highly contingent participants experienced smaller drops in well-being when they self-objectified, in part because they felt less unattractive. These results suggest that in daily life, some women receive a boost from self-objectification, although most women experience decreases in well-being when self-objectifying.

think tanks, which, unlike universities, send out press releases. The lack of clear and certain results in much of education research, as well as the lack of a small set of peer-reviewed flagship journals, contributed to the media's failure to publicize peer-reviewed research in popular education reporting. (49 ref)-

The authors examined the link between malleable racial identification and psychological well-being among self-identified multiracial adults. Malleable racial identification refers to the tendency to identify with different racial identities across different social contexts. Results across three studies suggested that malleable racial identification was associated with lower psychological well-being. Study 2 found that unstable regard (i.e., fluctuating private regard about their multiracial background) was the mechanism through which malleable racial identification predicted lower psychological health. Results of Study 3 suggested that dialectical self-views played an important moderating role that determines whether malleability is associated with negative psychological outcomes. The present studies uniquely show that malleable racial identification among multiracial people is maladaptive for psychological health, but that this may depend on whether or not people have tolerance for ambiguity and inconsistency in the self.

No abstract

Science is undergoing rapid change with the movement to improve science focused largely on reproducibility/replicability and open science practices. This moment of change—in which science turns inward to examine its methods and practices—provides an opportunity to address its historic lack of diversity and noninclusive culture. Through network modeling and semantic analysis, we provide an initial exploration of the structure, cultural frames, and women’s participation in the open science and reproducibility literatures (n = 2,926 articles and conference proceedings). Network analyses suggest that the open science and reproducibility literatures are emerging relatively independently of each other, sharing few common papers or authors. We next examine whether the literatures differentially incorporate collaborative, prosocial ideals that are known to engage members of underrepresented groups more than independent, winner-takes-all approaches. We find that open science has a more connected, collaborative structure than does reproducibility. Semantic analyses of paper abstracts reveal that these literatures have adopted different cultural frames: open science includes more explicitly communal and prosocial language than does reproducibility. Finally, consistent with literature suggesting the diversity benefits of communal and prosocial purposes, we find that women publish more frequently in high-status author positions (first or last) within open science (vs. reproducibility). Furthermore, this finding is further patterned by team size and time. Women are more represented in larger teams within reproducibility, and women’s participation is increasing in open science over time and decreasing in reproducibility. We conclude with actionable suggestions for cultivating a more prosocial and diverse culture of science.

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.