Search for: All records

Abstract Occupational choices at the early stage of one's career path are influenced by the real and imagined input of mentors. This research focuses on PhD advisors and the graduate students that they mentor. Each participant in that dyadic mentoring relationship holds assumptions about the beliefs of the other regarding the students' career preferences. We propose that, in the absence of discussions surrounding career goals in such relationships, pluralistic ignorance surrounding career norms may develop. PhD students may assume that their advisors prefer that students seek academic research positions; while advisors may assume students prefer academic research positions and may not bring up alternative careers. Three studies adopt a mixed‐method approach to investigate divergent experiences surrounding career discussions. Study 1A (N = 301 faculty members in STEM fields) features qualitative and quantitative data and found that PhD advisors have experience working with students whose career preferences did not align with their expectations, and report changing their mentorship approaches while maintaining rigorous training. Study 1B (N = 195 PhD students in STEM fields) features qualitative data and found that students, although generally comfortable discussing different career options with their advisors, report several concerns that deterred them from discussing nonacademic research positions. Study 2, an experiment designed to compare perceived with actual norms (N = 200 PhD students in STEM fields) revealed that such discomfort could be alleviated by making explicit advisors' support for diverse career options and actual career preferences. The present research provides insights about pluralistic ignorance with implications for having more holistic career discussions in dyadic mentor relationships. 

Differences in national responses to COVID-19 have been associated with the cultural value of collectivism. The present research builds on these findings by examining the relationship between collectivism at the individual level and adherence to public health recommendations to combat COVID-19 during the pre-vaccination stage of the pandemic, and examines different characteristics of collectivism (i.e., concern for community, trust in institutions, perceived social norms) as potential psychological mechanisms that could explain greater compliance. A study with a cross-section of American participants (N= 530) examined the relationship between collectivism and opting-in to digital contact tracing (DCT) and wearing face coverings in the general population. More collectivistic individuals were more likely to comply with public health interventions than less collectivistic individuals. While collectivism was positively associated with the three potential psychological mechanisms, only perceived social norms about the proportion of people performing the public health interventions explained the relationship between collectivism and compliance with both public health interventions. This research identifies specific pathways by which collectivism can lead to compliance with community-benefiting public health behaviors to combat contagious diseases and highlights the role of cultural orientation in shaping individuals’ decisions that involve a tension between individual cost and community benefit. 

The landscape of graduate science education is changing as efforts to diversify the professoriate have increased because academic faculty jobs at universities have grown scarce and more competitive. With this context as a backdrop, the present research examines the perceptions and career goals of advisors and advisees through surveys of PhD students (Study 1, N  = 195) and faculty mentors (Study 2, N  = 272) in science, technology, engineering, and math disciplines. Study 1 examined actual preferences and career goals of PhD students among three options: research careers, teaching careers, and non-academic careers in industry, and compared the actual preferences of students with what they perceived as being the normative preferences of faculty. Overall, students had mixed preferences but perceived that their advisors had a strong normative preference for research careers for them. Moreover, students who ranked research positions as most desirable felt the most belonging in their academic departments. Further analyses revealed no differences in career preferences as a function of underrepresented minority (URM) student status or first-generation (FG) status, but URM and FG students felt less belonging in their academic departments. Study 2 examined faculty preferences for different careers for their advisees, both in general and for current students in particular. While faculty advisors preferred students to go into research in general, when focusing on specific students, they saw their preferences as being closely aligned with the career preference of each PhD student. Faculty advisors did not perceive any difference in belonging between their students as a function of their URM status. Discrepancies between student and faculty perceptions may occur, in part, because faculty and students do not engage in sufficient discussions about the wider range of career options beyond academic research. Supporting this possibility, PhD students and faculty advisors reported feeling more comfortable discussing research careers with each other than either non-academic industry positions or teaching positions. Discussion centers on the implications of these findings for interpersonal and institutional efforts to foster diversity in the professoriate and to create open communication about career development.