UC Santa Cruz

Considerable attention has been dedicated to addressing the lack of diversity in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields. Yet the way in which discussions about diversity are framed can implicitly signal who belongs or is included in these fields. For minoritized students in STEM (e.g., low income, first-generation, women, students of color), social psychological research has sought to develop strategies to promote identity safety, or the notion that their social identities are welcomed, valued, and respected (Davies et al., 2005; Markus et al., 2000; Murphy & Taylor, 2012).

The present research tested the impact of three diversity ideology cues on minoritized students’ identity safety and interest in social justice efforts in STEM. The color-evasive (CE) cue emphasized that demographic differences among people should be ignored to achieve group harmony. The multicultural (MC) cue recognized the importance of social group differences, and the critical multicultural (CMC) cue had added messages calling attention to the structural causes of social group differences (i.e., inequity).

Diversity cues were embedded in two common artifacts in STEM university settings: a recruitment email for a diversity scholarship program (Study 1) and a syllabus for a gateway course (Study 2). Study 1 aimed to recruit students from low-income backgrounds, yet challenges with recruitment led to broadening eligibility requirements so that adequately powered analyses could be conducted (n = 234). Study 2 included students of color (n = 172). Following exposure to the cue, participants completed measures assessing their expectations for encountering bias in the program or course, perceptions of how honest the diversity message felt, anticipated belonging in and attitudes about the program or course. To test whether CMC had differential benefits in developing students’ social justice orientations, these experiments also assessed participants’ perceptions that the program (or course instructor) was committed to social justice and their desire to learn about STEM inequities.

Both studies revealed that, relative to a CE cue, a CMC cue that both recognizes group differences and acknowledges the role of systemic oppression in reinforcing these differences reduced participants’ bias expectations (and not their perceptions of the diversity message as dishonest), which increased their anticipated belonging and attitudes. Relative to a CE cue, a CMC cue also increased participants’ perceptions that a program (or course instructor) was committed to social justice, which increased their desire to learn about STEM inequities. The studies also revealed some mixed findings with an MC message. Similar to a CMC cue, a MC cue tended to improve some outcomes compared to a CE cue. Yet in some cases, a CMC showed improved outcomes relative to a MC message. This suggest that CMC messages might function more consistently as effective ISCs.

The current studies are the first to experimentally test how relative to a CE cue, a CMC cue, and at times a MC cue, can foster students’ sense of identity safety and interest in learning. The work also identified the pathway by which this happens: by shaping expectations for bias and not perceptions of diversity dishonesty. These findings highlight the need for integrating critical cues about diversity that both affirm the importance of students’ social identities and call attention to the structural forces that shape their experiences in STEM. The present research offers practical implications for how STEM authority figures (e.g., program directors, faculty) might draw upon these findings to frame conversations about diversity and suggestions for future research to advance equity in STEM.