Rethinking the STEM fields: the importance of definitions in examining women's participation and success in the sciences

This study uses longitudinal data of undergraduate students from five public land-grant universities to better understand undergraduate students’ persistence in and switching of majors, with particular attention given to women’s participation in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields. Specifically, the study examines patterns of behavior of women and minorities in relation to initial choice of college major and major field persistence, as well as what majors students switched to upon changing majors. Factors that impact major field persistence are also examined, as well as how switching majors affects students’ time-to-degree. Using a broad definition of STEM, data from nearly 17,000 undergraduate students was analyzed with descriptive statistics, cross tabulations, and binary logistic regressions. The results highlight women’s high levels of participation and success in the sciences, challenging common notions of underrepresentation in the STEM fields. The study calls for researchers to use a comprehensive definition of STEM and broad measurements of persistence when investigating students’ participation in the STEM fields.

The role of relevant information in functional counterfactual thinking

Although counterfactual thinking is typically activated by a negative outcome, it can have positive effects by helping to regulate and improve future behavior. Known as the content-specific pathway, these counterfactual ruminations use relevant information (i.e., information that is directly related to the problem at hand) to elicit insights about the problem, create a connection between the counterfactual and the desired behavior, and strengthen relevant behavioral intentions. The current research examines how changing the type of relevant information provided (i.e., so that it is either concrete and detailed or general and abstract) influences the relationship between counterfactual thinking and behavioral intentions. Experiments 1 and 2 found that counterfactual thinking facilitated relevant intentions when these statements involved detailed information (Experiment 1) or specific behaviors (Experiment 2) compared to general information (Experiment 1), categories of behavior, or traits (Experiment 2). Experiment 3 found that counterfactuals containing a category of behavior facilitated specific behavioral intentions, relative to counterfactuals focusing on a trait. However, counterfactuals only facilitated intentions that included specific behaviors, but not when intentions focused on categories of behaviors or traits (Experiment 4). Finally, this effect generalized to other relevant specific behaviors; a counterfactual based on one relevant specific behavior facilitated an intention based on another relevant specific behavior (Experiment 5). Together, these studies further clarify our understanding of the content-specific pathway and provide a more comprehensive understanding of functional counterfactual thinking.