How Implicit Theories of Interest Regulation Shape College Major Recommendations Following Motivational Roadblocks

• In Event: Expanding the Role of Metamotivational Knowledge in Academic Self-Regulation

Abstract

Objectives
We examined whether undergraduate students rely on their beliefs about interest regulation when making recommendations about whether a female student struggling motivationally to complete a physics project should major in STEM or female-stereotyped fields, and whether information indicating previous interest matters.

Theoretical Framework
Metamotivational beliefs influence how students make sense of and respond to struggles (e.g., Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Miele & Scholer, 2018; Wolters, 1998). Some struggles relate to competence/performance, but others pertain to motivation, such as when students do not feel interested in an assignment. Previous work showed that when faced with a motivation problem, students who more strongly believed that interest could be regulated in a particular class were more likely to report using interest-enhancing strategies (Thoman et al., 2019). In the present study, we examined whether beliefs reflecting a more flexible view of interest shape students’ use of a past indicator of interest to guide future choices.

Methods
Participants were 528 undergraduates (56% women; 62% White, 18% Asian American; 17% Latinx; 5% Black) recruited from two state universities. In the context of providing advice to an ostensible female high school student experiencing a motivation problem in a STEM (physics) or non-STEM (history) class, participants were asked how likely they would be to recommend that the student major in STEM fields and in female-stereotyped fields (e.g., education, health). Half also received information that the student had previously demonstrated interest in physics [history] by having participated in a “Women in Physics [History]” summer event. In addition, participants completed questions about their implicit theories of interest regulation, as well as how many history and physics courses they had taken (included as covariates).

Results
Multiple regression analyses were performed, predicting the extent to which participants recommended that the ostensible student consider STEM majors and female-stereotyped majors. When the ostensible female student had a problem in physics class, participants were more likely to recommend STEM majors when she had shown previous interest in physics, relative to when no previous interest information was provided, regardless of interest regulation beliefs. However, these beliefs did influence recommendations about female-stereotyped majors. Undergraduates who believed that interest was relatively fixed were less likely to recommend the female-stereotyped majors under these same conditions, whereas undergraduates with more malleable beliefs were not. This pattern suggests that students who were less likely to believe that interest can be regulated were more likely to view the choice of majors as a zero-sum decision, with information about previous interest narrowing the potential choices.

Significance
Our findings suggest that when developing strategies to help undergraduates make sense of and respond to their own and others’ motivational struggles, considering meta-motivational beliefs about interest may be important. Further, activities that promote more flexible beliefs about interest regulation may have downstream consequences for students’ decision-making beyond immediate reactions to struggles in specific activities, particularly as they consider multiple options for future education choices.

Authors

• Dustin Thoman, San Diego State University

• Jasmine Norman, University of Utah

• Danielle Geerling, University of Utah

• Carol Sansone, University of Utah