A collective action approach to improving attitudes and self-efficacy towards gender equality among male STEM academics

IF 2.7 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL European Journal of Psychology of Education Pub Date : 2024-05-11 DOI:10.1007/s10212-024-00844-3
Zachary W. Petzel, Lynn Farrell, Teresa McCormack, Rhiannon N. Turner, Karen Rafferty, Ioana M. Latu
{"title":"A collective action approach to improving attitudes and self-efficacy towards gender equality among male STEM academics","authors":"Zachary W. Petzel, Lynn Farrell, Teresa McCormack, Rhiannon N. Turner, Karen Rafferty, Ioana M. Latu","doi":"10.1007/s10212-024-00844-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Despite the implementation of equality interventions within higher education, progress towards gender parity in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) remains slow. Male educators often exhibit poorer engagement with diversity initiatives, potentially contributing to persisting gender disparities in STEM given men’s longstanding dominance in these programs. Two experiments investigate how equality interventions should be designed to maximize support from male educators. Experiment 1 (<i>N</i> = 72;<i> M</i><sub><i>age</i></sub> = 39.72, <i>SD</i><sub><i>age</i></sub> = 12.33) used virtual reality to manipulate 2 factors among male academics: (1) exposure to gender inequality and (2) virtually taking the perspective of a female scientist. Using self-report and behavioral measures, viewing an empirical presentation outlining the prevalence of gender issues in STEM yielded the greatest support for equality initiatives following successful perspective-taking. Experiment 2 (<i>N</i> = 120;<i> M</i><sub>age</sub> = 32.48, <i>SD</i><sub>age</sub> = 10.36) varied two additional factors among male academics: (1) evidence-based methods to reduce gender biases in STEM (i.e., promoting self-efficacy) and (2) blaming male academics for gender inequalities. Promoting self-efficacy and blaming men for disparities led to greater confidence in male academics’ ability to address gender inequalities in their field. Notably, higher self-efficacy accounted for greater support for equality initiatives and internal motives to engage with diversity programs. Findings provide an empirical framework and high-tech training tools for promoting engagement with diversity initiatives among male educators, informing development of interventions within higher education to improve student and faculty experiences in STEM.</p>","PeriodicalId":47800,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Psychology of Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Psychology of Education","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-024-00844-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Despite the implementation of equality interventions within higher education, progress towards gender parity in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) remains slow. Male educators often exhibit poorer engagement with diversity initiatives, potentially contributing to persisting gender disparities in STEM given men’s longstanding dominance in these programs. Two experiments investigate how equality interventions should be designed to maximize support from male educators. Experiment 1 (N = 72; Mage = 39.72, SDage = 12.33) used virtual reality to manipulate 2 factors among male academics: (1) exposure to gender inequality and (2) virtually taking the perspective of a female scientist. Using self-report and behavioral measures, viewing an empirical presentation outlining the prevalence of gender issues in STEM yielded the greatest support for equality initiatives following successful perspective-taking. Experiment 2 (N = 120; Mage = 32.48, SDage = 10.36) varied two additional factors among male academics: (1) evidence-based methods to reduce gender biases in STEM (i.e., promoting self-efficacy) and (2) blaming male academics for gender inequalities. Promoting self-efficacy and blaming men for disparities led to greater confidence in male academics’ ability to address gender inequalities in their field. Notably, higher self-efficacy accounted for greater support for equality initiatives and internal motives to engage with diversity programs. Findings provide an empirical framework and high-tech training tools for promoting engagement with diversity initiatives among male educators, informing development of interventions within higher education to improve student and faculty experiences in STEM.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
以集体行动的方式改善男性科学、技术、工程和数学学者对性别平等的态度和自我效能感
尽管在高等教育中实施了平等干预措施,但在科学、技术、工程和数学(STEM)领域实现性别均等的进展仍然缓慢。男性教育工作者对多元化倡议的参与度往往较低,这可能会导致 STEM 领域长期存在性别差异,因为男性在这些项目中长期占据主导地位。两项实验研究了应如何设计平等干预措施,以最大限度地获得男性教育工作者的支持。实验 1(N = 72;Mage = 39.72,SDage = 12.33)使用虚拟现实技术来操纵男性学者的两个因素:(1)接触性别不平等;(2)虚拟地从女性科学家的角度看问题。通过自我报告和行为测量,观看概述 STEM 中普遍存在的性别问题的实证演示,在成功进行视角转换后,对平等倡议的支持度最高。实验 2(N = 120;Mage = 32.48,SDage = 10.36)在男性学者中增加了两个因素:(1)减少 STEM 中性别偏见的循证方法(即提高自我效能)和(2)将性别不平等归咎于男性学者。提高自我效能感和将性别差异归咎于男性,使人们更加相信男性学者有能力解决其所在领域的性别不平等问题。值得注意的是,自我效能感越高,对平等计划的支持度就越高,参与多元化计划的内部动机就越强。研究结果为促进男性教育工作者参与多元化计划提供了一个经验框架和高科技培训工具,为在高等教育中制定干预措施以改善学生和教师在科学、技术、工程和数学领域的体验提供了信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
3.30%
发文量
63
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Psychology of Education (EJPE) is a quarterly journal oriented toward publishing high-quality papers that address the relevant psychological aspects of educational processes embedded in different institutional, social, and cultural contexts, and which focus on diversity in terms of the participants, their educational trajectories and their socio-cultural contexts. Authors are strongly encouraged to employ a variety of theoretical and methodological tools developed in the psychology of education in order to gain new insights by integrating different perspectives. Instead of reinforcing the divisions and distances between different communities stemming from their theoretical and methodological backgrounds, we would like to invite authors to engage with diverse theoretical and methodological tools in a meaningful way and to search for the new knowledge that can emerge from a combination of these tools. EJPE is open to all papers reflecting findings from original psychological studies on educational processes, as well as to exceptional theoretical and review papers that integrate current knowledge and chart new avenues for future research. Following the assumption that engaging with diversities creates great opportunities for new knowledge, the editorial team wishes to encourage, in particular, authors from less represented countries and regions, as well as young researchers, to submit their work and to keep going through the review process, which can be challenging, but which also presents opportunities for learning and inspiration.
期刊最新文献
Giving voice to educators: Primary school teachers explain how they promote values to their pupils Developing gestures in the infant classroom: from showing and giving to pointing The authenticity dilemma: towards a theory on the conditions and effects of authentic learning Peers and value preferences among adolescents in school classes: a social network and longitudinal approach The ups and downs of online intergroup contact interventions: popular narratives and secondary transfer effect
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1