Social Psychology of Education

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 875–896 | Cite as

From classroom to career: the unique role of communal processes in predicting interest in STEM careers

  • Melissa A. Fuesting
  • Amanda B. Diekman
  • Lynette Hudiburgh


The current studies investigated how interest in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) careers is predicted both by academic motivation as well as by beliefs that STEM careers allow the fulfillment of communal goals (i.e., communal affordances). This research also examines whether past course experiences of being exposed to communal information about STEM predicts increased beliefs that STEM careers afford communal goals. As anticipated, STEM communal affordances predicted increased STEM career interest, above and beyond the benefits of academic motivation/attitudes (e.g., positivity toward courses, intention to persist). Classroom exposure to communal opportunities in math and science predicted increased beliefs that STEM careers afford communal goals, and in turn predicted increased STEM career interest (Studies 2 and 3). Taken together, these studies suggest that focusing only on fostering STEM academic motivation may be insufficient to foster interest in STEM careers. Instead, focusing on both student academic motivation and student beliefs about whether STEM careers provide opportunities to pursue valued communal goals may provide a more holistic approach to fostering STEM career interest.


Communion STEM Goals Motivation Education 



The authors wish to thank Aimee Belanger, Tessa Benson-Greenwald, Riley O’Grady, and Mia Steinberg for their suggestions on this manuscript. The authors also wish to thank Chrissy Graham, Dana Manson, Sam Farina, Caroline McClellan, and Daniel Friedman for their assistance with data collection. This research was supported by National Science Foundation (Grant Nos. GSE/RES 0827606, GSE/RES 1232364) grants awarded to Amanda Diekman.

Supplementary material

11218_2017_9398_MOESM1_ESM.docx (88 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 88 kb)


  1. Anlezark, A., Lim, P., Semo, R., & Nguyen, N. (2008). From STEM to leaf: Where are Australia’s science, mathematics, engineering and technology (STEM) students heading?. Adelaide: National Centre for Vocational Education Research.Google Scholar
  2. Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: An essay on psychology and religion. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  3. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belanger, A. L., Diekman, A. B., Weisgram, E., & Claypool, H. (2017). A new cue to belonging: Connecting STEM to communal values. Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar
  5. Bohrnstedt, G. W., & Carter, T. M. (1971). Robustness in regression analysis. Sociological Methodology, 3, 118–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boucher, K. L., Fuesting, M. A., Diekman, A. B., & Murphy, M. C. (2017). Can I work with and help others in this field? How communal goals influence interest and participation in STEM Fields. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, E. R., Smith, J. L., Thoman, D. B., Allen, J. M., & Muragishi, G. (2015a). From bench to bedside: A communal utility value intervention to enhance students’ biomedical science motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(4), 1116–1135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, E. R., Steinberg, M., Lu, Y., & Diekman, A. B. (2017). Is the lone scientist an American Dream? Perceived communal opportunities in STEM offer a pathway to closing US—Asia gaps in interest and positivity. Social Psychology and Personality Science. doi: 10.1177/1948550617703173.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, E. R., Thoman, D. B., Smith, J. L., & Diekman, A. B. (2015b). Closing the communal gap: The importance of communal affordances in science career motivation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 45(12), 662–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carifio, J., & Perla, R. J. (2007). Ten common misunderstandings, misconceptions, persistent myths and urban legends about Likert scales and Likert response formats and their antidotes. Journal of Social Sciences, 3(3), 106–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carli, L. L., Alawa, L., Lee, Y., Zhao, B., & Kim, E. (2016). Stereotypes about gender and science: Women ≠ scientists. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(2), 244–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clark, E. K., Fuesting, M. A., & Diekman, A. B. (2016). Enhancing interest in science: Exemplars as cues to communal affordances of science. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 46(11), 641–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diekman, A. B., Brown, E. R., Johnston, A. M., & Clark, E. K. (2010). Seeking congruity between goals and roles: A new look at why women opt out of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. Psychological Science, 21(8), 1051–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Diekman, A. B., Clark, E. K., Johnston, A. M., Brown, E. R., & Steinberg, M. (2011). Malleability in communal goals and beliefs influences attraction to stem careers: Evidence for a goal congruity perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(5), 902–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Diekman, A. B., Steinberg, M., Brown, E. R., Belanger, A. L., & Clark, E. K. (2017). A goal congruity model of role entry, engagement, and exit: Understanding communal goal processes in STEM gender gaps. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21(2), 142–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eccles, J. S. (2005). Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 105–121). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  17. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Finson, K. D. (2002). Drawing a scientist: What we do and do not know after fifty years of drawings. School Science and Mathematics, 102(7), 335–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fuesting, M. A., & Diekman, A. B. (2017). Not by success alone: Role models provide pathways to communal opportunities in STEM. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(2), 163–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Glass, G. V., Peckham, P. D., & Sanders, J. R. (1972). Consequences of failure to meet assumptions underlying the fixed effects analyses of variance and covariance. Review of Educational Research, 42(3), 237–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Havlicek, L. L., & Peterson, N. L. (1976). Robustness of the Pearson correlation against violations of assumptions. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 43(3 Suppl), 1319–1334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  23. Higher Education Careers Services Unit. (2016). What do graduates do? 2016. Manchester, England: Higher Education Careers Services Unit. Retrieved from
  24. Hulleman, C. S., Godes, O., Hendricks, B. L., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). Enhancing interest and performance with a utility value intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 880–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2009). Promoting interest and performance in high school science classes. Science, 326(5958), 1410–1412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jamieson, S. (2004). Likert scales: How to (ab) use them. Medical Education, 38(12), 1217–1218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Judd, C. M., James-Hawkins, L., Yzerbyt, V., & Kashima, Y. (2005). Fundamental dimensions of social judgment: Understanding the relations between judgments of competence and warmth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 899–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Landivar, L. C. (2013). The relationship between science and engineering education and employment in STEM occupations. Suitland, MD: United States Census Bureau.Google Scholar
  29. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45(1), 79–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Maltese, A. V., & Tai, R. H. (2011). Pipeline persistence: Examining the association of educational experiences with earned degrees in STEM among US students. Science Education, 95(5), 877–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mircioiu, C., & Atkinson, J. (2017). A comparison of parametric and non-parametric methods applied to a Likert scale. Pharmacy, 5(2), 26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Murray, J. (2013). Likert data: What to use, parametric or non-parametric? International Journal of Business and Social Science, 4(11), 258–264.Google Scholar
  33. National Science Board. (2016). Science and engineering indicators 2016. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation (NSB-2016-1).Google Scholar
  34. Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15(5), 625–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2012). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Retrieved from
  36. Riegle-Crumb, C., King, B., Grodsky, E., & Muller, C. (2012). The more things change, the more they stay the same? Prior achievement fails to explain gender inequality in entry into STEM college majors over time. American Educational Research Journal, 49(6), 1048–1073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stout, J. G., Grunberg, V. A., & Ito, T. A. (2016). Gender roles and stereotypes about science careers help explain women and men’s science pursuits. Sex Roles. doi: 10.1007/s11199-016-0647-5.Google Scholar
  39. Thoman, D., Brown, E., Mason, A., Harmsen, A., & Smith, J. L. (2015). The role of altruistic values in motivating underrepresented minority students for biomedicine. BioScience, 65(2), 183–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Thoman, D. B., Muragishi, G. A., & Smith, J. L. (2017). Research microcultures as socialization contexts for underrepresented science students. Psychological Science, 28(6), 760–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. UK Commission for Employment and Skills. (2015). Reviewing the requirement for high level STEM skills. Retrieved from
  42. Valla, J. M., Ceci, S. J., et al. (2014). Breadth-based models of women’s underrepresentation in STEM fields: An integrative commentary on Schmidt (2011) and Nye (2012). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(2), 219–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wang, X. (2013). Why students choose STEM majors: Motivation, high school learning, and postsecondary context of support. American Educational Research Journal, 50(5), 1081–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. (2013). Motivational pathways to STEM career choices: Using expectancy–value perspective to understand individual and gender differences in STEM fields. Developmental Review, 33(4), 304–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Watt, H. M., Eccles, J. S., & Durik, A. M. (2006). The leaky mathematics pipeline for girls: A motivational analysis of high school enrolments in Australia and the USA. Equal Opportunities International, 25(8), 642–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Watt, H. M., Shapka, J. D., Morris, Z. A., Durik, A. M., Keating, D. P., & Eccles, J. S. (2012). Gendered motivational processes affecting high school mathematics participation, educational aspirations, and career plans: A comparison of samples from Australia, Canada, and the United States. Developmental Psychology, 48(6), 1594–1611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Weisgram, E. S., & Bigler, R. S. (2006). Girls and science careers: The role of altruistic values and attitudes about scientific tasks. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27(4), 326–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyMiami UniversityOxfordUSA
  2. 2.Department of StatisticsMiami UniversityOxfordUSA

Personalised recommendations