The primary independent varying for our studies try a scale you to definitely grabs students’ counter-stereotypical opinions from the experts

The primary independent varying for our studies try a scale you to definitely grabs students’ counter-stereotypical opinions from the experts

Counter-stereotypical opinions about scientists

To measure adolescent students’ attitudes out of experts beyond bodily faculties, the research class modified five facts out-of early in the day associated training one to surveyed primary college students (DeWitt mais aussi al., 2011) and you can college students (Wyer mais aussi al., 2010). One or two activities find out about the type of really works you to definitely boffins carry out: “Researchers constantly work alone in laboratories” and “Boffins can perhaps work in groups otherwise groups”; if you find yourself around three points bring opinions about scientists’ welfare and personal properties: “Extremely scientists is geeks otherwise nerds,” “Individuals who are proficient at science can’t be great at other one thing, including recreations or artwork,” and you will “Researchers is interested and inventive anybody.” Every one of these things had response categories between 1 (Firmly Differ) to cuatro (Strongly Concur); issues that have a bad valence (age.grams., Really researchers try geeks otherwise nerds) was basically reverse-coded with the intention that for all items, increased get represented a very confident otherwise stop-stereotypical evaluate. Using the Skewness-Kurtosis decide to try to possess normality (through Stata analytical application), we determined that the new shipping of all the five things rather deviated in the typical delivery out of each other beliefs regarding skewness and you will kurtosis. Especially, in line with certain previous browse discussed over (Garriott mais aussi al., 2017; Nassar-McMillan et al., 2011) http://www.datingranking.net/canada-bbw-dating/, what exactly was all of the negatively skewed, in a manner that overall college students stored quite self-confident views regarding scientists. For this reason, we dichotomized for each goods, in a fashion that 1 represented strongly agreeing having a workbench-stereotypical statement on boffins (get of 4 otherwise strongly consent) and you may 0 illustrated a rating regarding 3 or below. Footnote step 3

Separate variables

To determine the factor structure underlying the five items related to counter-stereotypical beliefs about scientists and establish its validity, we randomly divided our sample into two separate and equal-sized groups to conduct exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (DeCoster, 1998; Fabrigar et al., 1999). The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using a principal factors extraction method was conducted with the first sub-set of data, representing half of our dataset (N = 554). This produced a one-factor solution, as indicated by the inspection of the scree plot test and eigenvalues (Costello Osborne, 2005), that explained about 41% of the variance. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of 0.72 indicated an acceptable sampling adequacy (Kaiser, 1974). Additionally, all items loaded onto the single factor, with factor loadings ranging from 0.58 to 0.71, and communalities ranging from 0.33 to 0.51. These moderate to strong factor loadings and our conceptualization of students’ counter-stereotypical beliefs about scientists suggest that all five items be retained (Costello Osborne, 2005). Subsequently, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to validate the structure of the factor with the second half of our sample (N = 554). The fit statistics indicated an adequate model fit, including a Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) of 0.08 (where values less than or equal to 0.08 indicate an acceptable fit, and 90% CI is [0.05,0.11]), a comparative fit index (CFI) of 0.94 (where values greater than 0.90 indicate an acceptable model fit) and a Standardized Root Mean Squared Residual (SRMR) of 0.04 (where values less than or equal to 0.08 indicate a good fit) (Hu Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2015). While the chi-squared statistic for the CFA model was significant (? 2 = , df = 5, p < 0.001), this statistic is known to be sensitive to large sample sizes such as ours (Hair et al., 2010). The standardized factor loadings ranged from 0.41 to 0.54, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.60, which is somewhat low but still within the acceptable range (Bagozzi Yi, 1988; Hair et al., 2010).

Ultimately, to produce the scale included in new analyses displayed here, students’ answers across the every facts was indeed averaged, in order that large results to your measure get holding alot more counter-stereotypic beliefs regarding boffins, if you’re down scores portray the alternative. Simply put, our very own size are a way of measuring strong counter-stereotypical thinking on scientists, because catches thinking which are not merely simple viewpoints regarding boffins, but alternatively viewpoints regarding experts which can be the brand new anti-thesis of generally slim and you may limiting stereotypical photographs (e.g., boffins was geeks otherwise nerds, and you can scientists functions by yourself when you look at the a research). We statement intercourse and you may racial/cultural variations in avoid-stereotypical beliefs from the overall performance section.