Counter-stereotypical opinions throughout the experts
Determine adolescent students’ thinking off experts past physical qualities, the study cluster adapted four situations regarding earlier relevant degree you to surveyed primary children (DeWitt et al., 2011) and christian dating online Canada you may children (Wyer ainsi que al., 2010). A few situations find out about the sort of performs you to scientists perform: “Experts constantly performs alone inside the labs” and “Boffins can work in the organizations or communities”; when you are about three circumstances capture opinions regarding scientists’ hobbies and personal characteristics: “Extremely experts is geeks otherwise nerds,” “People who are effective in technology can not be proficient at almost every other things, particularly football otherwise artwork,” and you may “Experts is curious and inventive individuals.” Each of these points had impulse groups between 1 (Highly Differ) to help you 4 (Highly Concur); points which have a bad valence (elizabeth.grams., Very researchers are geeks otherwise nerds) was reverse-coded to ensure that for all items, a higher get illustrated an even more self-confident otherwise restrict-stereotypical see. Using the Skewness-Kurtosis shot to have normality (thru Stata statistical application), we determined that the fresh delivery of all five facts somewhat deviated from the normal delivery of both beliefs away from skewness and kurtosis. Specifically, in line with specific prior look talked about above (Garriott ainsi que al., 2017; Nassar-McMillan et al., 2011), the items had been most of the negatively skewed, in a fashion that overall students held a bit self-confident feedback on the experts. For this reason, i dichotomized for every single item, in a manner that 1 portrayed strongly agreeing having a table-stereotypical statement in the researchers (rating away from 4 otherwise highly agree) and you will 0 illustrated a score away from 3 otherwise below. Footnote 3
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).
Fundamentally, to create the scale included in new analyses showed here, students’ responses around the all activities have been averaged, in order for higher score with the scale take holding significantly more counter-stereotypic values about researchers, when you find yourself lower score show the exact opposite. To put it differently, all of our scale try a way of measuring strong stop-stereotypical opinions in the boffins, since it catches values which aren’t merely neutral feedback out of boffins, but alternatively opinions out-of boffins which can be the new anti-thesis regarding usually narrow and you may restrictive stereotypical pictures (elizabeth.g., researchers was geeks otherwise nerds, and boffins work by yourself in the a research). We statement gender and racial/cultural differences in restrict-stereotypical philosophy throughout the overall performance part.