Abstract
Women are less likely to choose physical Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (pSTEM) majors, partly because a lack of role models makes it hard for women to imagine themselves as successful in those fields. Possible self-interventions can help people imagine themselves having a successful future. Using social cognitive theory and expectancy-value framework, the current study explored virtual reality (VR; HTC Vive) as a space for a possible self-intervention to decrease stereotype threat and increase pSTEM motivation. Participants were 79 undergraduate women in California (46% Asian, 32% Latina, 14% white) who were randomly assigned to embody a future self either highly successful in pSTEM or highly successful in humanities. Following the virtual experience, women in the pSTEM condition differed significantly from women in the humanities condition regarding pSTEM value beliefs, anticipated stereotype threat, course motivation, and women-pSTEM implicit associations, after controlling for prior pSTEM-self implicit associations. However, this difference only occurred among women who identified with the experience. While women with high identification demonstrated an effect in the desired direction, women with low identification demonstrated reactance in the opposite direction. This speaks to the usefulness of identification as a moderator and implies that virtual reality might be a useful tool for future self-interventions among students.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Ahn, S. J. (2015). Incorporating immersive virtual environments in health promotion campaigns: A construal level theory approach. Health Communication, 30(6), 545–556.
Ahn, S. J., Fox, J., Dale, K. R., & Avant, J. A. (2015). Framing virtual experiences: Effects on environmental efficacy and behavior over time. Communication Research, 42(6), 839–863. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650214534973.
Ball, C., Huang, K. T., Cotton, S. R., & Rikard, R. V. (2017). Pressuring the STEM pipeline: An expectancy-value theory analysis of youths’ STEM attitudes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(4), 372–382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-017-9685-1.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychology, 3(3), 265–299. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0303_03.
Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological Review, 106(4), 676–713. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.676.
Cromley, J. G., Perez, T., Wills, T. W., Tanaka, J. C., Horvat, E. M., & Agbenyega, E. T. (2013). Changes in race and sex stereotype threat among diverse STEM students: Relation to grades and retention in the majors. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(3), 247–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.04.003.
Cundiff, J. L., Vescio, T. K., Loken, E., & Lo, L. (2013). Do gender–science stereotypes predict science identification and science career aspirations among undergraduate science majors? Social Psychology of Education, 16(4), 541–554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-013-9232-8.
Cvencek, D., Meltzoff, A. N., & Greenwald, A. G. (2011). Math–gender stereotypes in elementary school children. Child Development, 82(3), 766–779. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01529.x.
Cvencek, D., Kapur, M., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2015). Math achievement, stereotypes, and math self-concepts among elementary-school students in Singapore. Learning and Instruction, 39, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.04.002.
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610377342.
Doyle, R. A., & Voyer, D. (2016). Stereotype manipulation effects on math and spatial test performance: A meta-analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 47, 103–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.12.018.
Eccles, J. (2011). Gendered educational and occupational choices: Applying the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35(3), 195–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025411398185.
Eccles, J. S., & Wang, M. (2016). What motivates females and males to pursue careers in mathematics and science? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 40(2), 100–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025415616201.
Eccles, J., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescents’ achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(3), 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167295213003.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153.
Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (2010). Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(1), 103–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018053.
Fox, J., & Bailenson, J. N. (2009). Virtual self-modeling: The effects of vicarious reinforcement and identification on exercise behaviors. Media Psychology, 12(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213260802669474.
Gilliam, M., Jagoda, P., Fabiyi, C., Lyman, P., Wilson, C., Hill, B., & Bouris, A. (2017). Alternate reality games as an informal learning tool for generating STEM engagement among underrepresented youth: A qualitative evaluation of the source. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(3), 295–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9679-4.
Green, C. S., Strobach, T., & Schubert, T. (2014). On methodological standards in training and transfer experiments. Psychological Research, 78(6), 756–772.
Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. an improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 197–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.197.
Guo, J., Parker, P. D., Marsh, H. W., & Morin, A. J. S. (2015). Achievement, motivation, and educational choices: A longitudinal study of expectancy and value using a multiplicative perspective. Developmental Psychology, 51(8), 1163–1176. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039440.
Haney, M. R. (2002). Name writing: A window into the emergent literacy skills of young children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 30(2), 101–105. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021249218339.
HTC Corporation. (2017). VIVE: Virtual reality beyond imagination. Retrieved on April 17, 2019, from https://www.vive.com/us/.
Jagieła, J., & Gębuś, D. (2015). What's in a name? Name giving, identity, and script formation. Transactional Analysis Journal, 45(3), 217–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/0362153715597721.
Leaper, C. (2015a). Do I belong?: Gender, peer groups, and STEM. International Journal of Gender, Science, and Technology, 7, 166–179.
Leaper, C. (2015b). Gender and social-cognitive development. In R. M. Lerner (series Ed.), L. S. Liben & U. Muller (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science (7th ed.), Vol. 2: Cognitive processes (pp. 806–853). New York: Wiley.
Loveday, P. M., Lovell, G. P., & Jones, C. M. (2018). The best possible selves intervention: A review of the literature to evaluate efficacy and guide future research. Journal of Happiness Studies, 19(2), 607–628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9824-z.
Marino, M. T., Israel, M., Beecher, C. C., & Basham, J. D. (2013). Students' and teachers’ perceptions of using video games to enhance science instruction. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(5), 667–680. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-012-9421-9.
Meevissen, Y. M., Peters, M. L., & Alberts, H. J. (2011). Become more optimistic by imagining a best possible self: Effects of a two week intervention. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 42(3), 371–378.
Miller, L. M., Chang, C., Wang, S., Beier, M. E., & Klisch, Y. (2011). Learning and motivational impacts of a multimedia science game. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1425–1433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.01.016.
National Science Foundation. (2015). Solving the equation: The variables for women’s success in engineering and computing. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. Retrieved on June 15, 2018, from www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/.
Nosek, B. A., & Smyth, F. L. (2011). Implicit social cognitions predict sex differences in math engagement and achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 48(5), 1125–1156. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831211410683.
Nosek, B. A., Smyth, F. L., Sriram, N., Lindner, N. M., Devos, T., Ayala, A., et al. (2009). National differences in gender–science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(26), 10593–10597. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0809921106.
Oyserman, D., Bybee, D., & Terry, K. (2006). Possible selves and academic outcomes: How and when possible selves impel action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(1), 188–204. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.1.188.
Peña, J., & Blackburn, K. (2013). The priming effects of virtual environments on interpersonal perceptions and behaviors. Journal of Communication, 63(4), 703–720. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12043.
Peters, M. L., Flink, I. K., Boersma, K., & Linton, S. J. (2010). Manipulating optimism: Can imagining a best possible self be used to increase positive future expectancies? The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(3), 204–211.
Röhner, J., Schröder-Abé, M., & Schütz, A. (2011). Exaggeration is harder than understatement, but practice makes perfect! Faking success in the IAT. Experimental Psychology, 58(6), 464–472. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000114.
Scherr, S., & Müller, P. (2017). How perceived persuasive intent and reactance contribute to third-person perceptions: Evidence from two experiments. Mass Communication & Society, 20(3), 315–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2016.1250911.
Schoon, I., & Eccles, J. S. (2014). Gender differences in aspirations and attainment: A life course perspective. In Cambridge University Press. Cambridge: U. K.
Singla, A., Fremerey, S., Robitza, W., & Raake, A. (2017). Measuring and comparing QoE and simulator sickness of omnidirectional videos in different head mounted displays. IEEE: Ninth International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience, 1–6.
Starr, C. R. (2018). “I’m not a science nerd!”: STEM stereotypes, identity, and motivation among undergraduate women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 42(4), 489–503. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684318793848.
Steele, C. M. (2010). Whistling Vivaldi: How stereotypes affect us and what we can do. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co.
Steele, J. R., & Ambady, N. (2006). “Math is hard!” the effect of gender priming on women’s attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(4), 428–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.06.003.
Unity Technologies. (2017). Unity—Game Engine. Retrieved on June 12, 2018, from https://unity3d.com.
Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2013). Five challenges for the future of media-effects research. Communication Research Paradigms, 7, 197–215.
Wang, M., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2013.08.001.
Wang, L., Bastiaansen, M., & Yang, Y. (2015). The influence of emotional salience on the integration of person names into context. Brain Research, 1609, 82–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2015.03.028.
Yee, N., Bailenson, J. N., & Ducheneaut, N. (2009). The Proteus effect: Implications of transformed digital self-representation on online and offline behavior. Communication Research, 36(2), 285–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650208330254.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank mentors Dr. Campbell Leaper, Dr. Travis Seymour, and Dr. Elizabeth Swensen, colleagues Abigail Walsh, Jennifer Day, Brenda Gutierrez, and Tess Haifley, and research assistants Katie Allen, Lynn Freimanis, Jacqueline Gao, Yanely Gregorio, Anyssa Leckbee, Ujjaini Mukhopadhyay, Nandini Sarkar, Madeline Shao, and Sumati Wadhwa.
Funding
This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program and the Science Internship Program.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Starr, C.R., Anderson, B.R. & Green, K.A. “I’m a Computer Scientist!”: Virtual Reality Experience Influences Stereotype Threat and STEM Motivation Among Undergraduate Women. J Sci Educ Technol 28, 493–507 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09781-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09781-z