↓ Skip to main content

Can I Work with and Help Others in This Field? How Communal Goals Influence Interest and Participation in STEM Fields

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
167 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Can I Work with and Help Others in This Field? How Communal Goals Influence Interest and Participation in STEM Fields
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00901
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kathryn L. Boucher, Melissa A. Fuesting, Amanda B. Diekman, Mary C. Murphy

Abstract

Although science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines as a whole have made advances in gender parity and greater inclusion for women, these increases have been smaller or nonexistent in computing and engineering compared to other fields. In this focused review, we discuss how stereotypic perceptions of computing and engineering influence who enters, stays, and excels in these fields. We focus on communal goal incongruity-the idea that some STEM disciplines like engineering and computing are perceived as less aligned with people's communal goals of collaboration and helping others. In Part 1, we review the empirical literature that demonstrates how perceptions that these disciplines are incongruent with communal goals can especially deter women and girls, who highly endorse communal goals. In Part 2, we extend this perspective by reviewing accumulating evidence that perceived communal goal incongruity can deter any individual who values communal goals. Communal opportunities within computing and engineering have the potential to benefit first generation college students, underrepresented minority students, and communally-oriented men (as well as communally-oriented women). We describe the implications of this body of literature: describing how opting out of STEM in order to pursue fields perceived to encourage the pursuit of communal goals leave the stereotypic (mis)perceptions of computing and engineering unchanged and exacerbate female underrepresentation. In Part 3, we close with recommendations for how communal opportunities in computing and engineering can be highlighted to increase interest and motivation. By better integrating and publically acknowledging communal opportunities, the stereotypic perceptions of these fields could gradually change, making computing and engineering more inclusive and welcoming to all.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 167 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 167 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 17%
Student > Master 21 13%
Researcher 20 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 10%
Other 9 5%
Other 33 20%
Unknown 39 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 32 19%
Psychology 32 19%
Engineering 12 7%
Computer Science 9 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 5%
Other 30 18%
Unknown 44 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 July 2022.
All research outputs
#1,796,165
of 23,870,007 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#3,622
of 32,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,704
of 319,294 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#112
of 607 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,870,007 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,040 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 319,294 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 607 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.