The transformative challenges that European societies face through the ongoing energy and digital transition create a substantial demand for STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) professionals (Anger et al., 2022). This general shortage is accompanied by a persistent underrepresentation of women in domains like engineering and computer science (Cimpian et al., 2020). Research grounded in the Expectancy Value Theory (Eccles et al., 1983) has repeatedly highlighted the impact of students’ interest and their domain-specific utility value perception (e.g., Ozulku & Kloser, 2023), the latter of which can be catalysed by videos of STEM professionals (e.g., Pietri et al., 2021).

Additionally, Goal Congruity Theory asserts that personal goals must align with the perception of STEM characteristics to develop interest (Diekman et al., 2011). Goal Congruity Theory builds on Bakan’s (1966) distinction between Agency (e.g., dominance and status) and Communion (e.g., caring and cooperation) as fundamental dimensions of human personality. Even if STEM domains are mostly based on communal ideals (e.g., helping society) they are usually linked to and perceived as having agentic characteristics (e.g., working alone). Furthermore, STEM domains are often perceived as preventing the achievement of communal goals, leading people with strong communal goals to lose STEM interest (Diekman et al., 2011). At the same time, research has demonstrated gender differences favouring women compared to men in communal and men in agentic goals (Diekman et al., 2011; Su et al., 2009; Tellhed et al., 2018). Although these results have not been consistently replicated (e.g., Tellhed et al., 2018) it seems plausible that women, develop greater interest in STEM domains when communal (versus agentic) characteristics are emphasised. Analogously, men’s interest should be higher through agentic (versus communal) STEM descriptions.

Several experimental studies investigating the influences of STEM framings on students’ attitudes support these predictions. For example, Neuhaus and Borowski (2018) demonstrated that girls were more interested in a coding course when a framing highlighted communal goals, while boys were more interested when the course framing stressed agentic aspects. Diekman et al. (2011) found that a written collaborative (versus an independent) scenario of a typical workday in STEM resulted in a higher positivity toward science careers among women and those with strong communal goals, while both conditions did not affect men’s attitudes.

In two preregistered studies (Author & Author, 2023a; Author & Author, 2023b) we aimed to examine the effect of image videos and their framings. Guided by the need to differentiate between STEM domains precisely (McGuire, 2022), we selected two different engineering domains. As a seemingly more communal-connoted domain, we chose Biomedical Engineering (Study 1) which develops technologies that promote human health and healing. As a seemingly more agentic-connoted domain, we chose Geodesy (Study 2) which focuses on technologies that can be used to get accurate spatial data about the earth.

Our first goal was to examine the videos’ effects on participants’ interest in the domains and the utility values ascribed to them. Our second goal was to investigate the effect of communal or agentic text framings on interest and utility value. We expected that female students’ interest and utility value would be increased when the domain was described as affording communal (versus agentic or no specific/neutral) characteristics. For male students, we predicted that the agentic (versus a communal or neutral) framing would heighten interest and utility value. 

Study Design At the beginning of both Studies, a pretest assessed students' interest in and their utility value perception of Biomedical Engineering (Study 1) or Geodesy (Study 2). Then, students were randomly assigned to one of three conditions in which they watched a video (approx. 3 minutes) about a researcher of the respective domain. The conditions differed in terms of the framing (agentic, communal, and neutral), provided as a written domain introduction directly before the video. The neutral framing included general instructions, while the agentic framing contained additional information about the domain that underscored the importance of agentic characteristics (e.g., independent work). In the communal framing, communal characteristics (e.g., collaborative work) were emphasised. In the posttest, the focal variables, along with a manipulation check and collecting sociodemographic characteristics were rated again. Measurements To capture students’ domain-specific interest in the pre- and posttest, we adapted two items by Jansen et al. (2019). The perceived domain-specific utility value was measured with three adapted items of the subscale Task Value of the Motivation in Science Learning scale by Velayutham et al. (2011). Furthermore, domain-specific prior knowledge was ascertained with one self-developed item. Samples The sample sizes for both studies were calculated with different a priori power analyses. Detailed information on the calculations is provided in our preregistrations (Author & Author, 2023a; Author & Author, 2023b). Data collection took place online via Prolific (www.prolific.com) in 2023 with German-speaking students. Participation was voluntary, anonymous, and paid with £1.65. In Study 1, the sample comprised 292 students with an average age of 24.57 years (SD=4.37). 54.1% of the participants identified as female and 45.9% as male. In Study 2, the sample consisted of 307 students with an average age of 25.19 years (SD=5.28). 57% of the participants were female and 43% male. Data Analyses Data analyses were conducted using SPSS Statistics (Version 28). We performed independent t-tests for paired samples to compare pre- and posttest measures of interest and utility value. To investigate the assumed framing effects, we conducted a 2 (gender) x 3 (framing) ANCOVA with prior knowledge as the covariate and students’ interest or students’ utility value perception as the dependent variable respectively. Post hoc tests were conducted with Bonferroni.

Results Study 1: Biomedical Engineering The t-tests showed that students’ interest, t(291)=12.39, p<.001, d=0.725, and utility value, t(291)=14.51, p<.001, d=0.849, were significantly higher after watching the video than before. An ANCOVA demonstrated significant effects of the covariate, F(1,285)=61.934, p<.001, η2=0.179, and participants’ gender, F(1,285)=4.456, p=.036, η2=0.015, on students’ interest. Post hoc testing indicated higher interest among women than men. No main effects were observed for the framing or any gender x framing-interaction (all ps n.s.). An ANCOVA showed significant effects of the covariate F(1,285)=6.445, p=.012, η2=0.022, and participants’ gender, F(1,285)=5.607, p=.019, η2=.019, on utility value. Post hoc testing showed higher utility value perceptions of women than men. There was no effect of the framing nor any gender x framing-interaction (all ps n.s.). Study 2: Geodesy Students’ interest, t(306)=10.56, p<.001, d=0.603, and utility value, t(306)=10.515, p<.001, d=0.601, were significantly higher after watching the video than before. An ANCOVA showed significant effects of the covariate, F(1,300)=31.197, p<.001, η2=0.094, and participants’ gender, F(1,300)=8.225, p=.004, η2=0.027, on students’ interest. Post hoc testing revealed higher interest among men than women. There was no main effect of the framing nor any gender x framing-interaction (all ps n.s.). However, pairwise comparisons showed a significant difference favouring men compared to women in the agentic (p=.030), but not in the neutral or communal framing. An ANCOVA indicated no effects of the covariate, participants’ gender, the framing, and the gender x framing-interaction on utility value (all ps n.s.). Conclusion In summary, our results show that videos can effectively influence students’ interest in and utility value of STEM domains. Additionally, we demonstrated gender differences regarding students’ domain-specific interest. Hardly any framing effects were found in both studies. We discuss limitations of our study as well as implications of our findings when aiming to attract male and female students to STEM careers.

Author & Author (2023a). Preregistration Biomedical Engineering. Retrieved from https://osf.io/6xagt/?view_only=27ca93b1b57f4ad9841d3114b7e0bbf0 Author & Author (2023b). Preregistration Geodesy. Retrieved from https://osf.io/bfqar?view_only=a2dfbd0f1c7b41ea981410af2c40024f Anger, C., Betz, J., Kohlisch, E., & Plünnecke, A. (2022). MINT-Herbstreport 2022 [STEM Autumn Report 2022]. Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft Köln e. V. https://www.iwkoeln.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Studien/Gutachten/PDF/2022/MINT-Herbstreport_2022.pdf Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: An essay on psychology and Religion. Rand McNally. Cimpian, J., Kim, T., & McDermott, Z. (2020). Understanding persistent gender gaps in STEM. Science, 368(6497), 1317–1319. Diekman, A., Clark, E., Johnston, A., Brown, E., & Steinberg, M. (2011). Malleability in communal goals and beliefs influences attraction to STEM careers: Evidence for a goal congruity perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(5), 902–918. Eccles, J. S., Adler, T., Futterman, R., Goff, S., Kaczala, C., Meece, J., & Midgley, C. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives. (pp. 75–146). W. H. Freeman and Company. Jansen, M., Schroeders, U., Lüdtke, O., & Marsh, H. (2019). The dimensional structure of students’ self-concept and interest in science depends on course composition. Learning and Instruction, 60, 20–28. McGuire, L., Hoffman, A., Mulvey, K., Hartstone-Rose, A., Winterbottom, M., Joy, A., Law, F., Balkwill, F., Burns, K., Butler, L., Drews, M., Fields, G., Smith, H., & Rutland, A. (2022). Gender stereotypes and peer selection in STEM domains among children and adolescents. Sex Roles, 87, 455–470. Neuhaus, J., & Borowski, A. (2018). Self-to-prototype similarity as a mediator between gender and students’ interest in learning to code. International IJGST, 10(2), 233–252. Ozulku, E., & Kloser, M. (2023). Middle school students’ motivational dispositions and interest in STEM careers. IJSE, 1–21. Pietri, E., Moss-Racusin, C., Dovidio, J., Guha, D., Roussos, G., Brescoll, V., & Handelsman, J. (2017). Using video to increase gender bias literacy toward women in science. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 41(2), 175–196. Su, R., Rounds, J., & Armstrong, P. I. (2009). Men and things, women and people: A meta-analysis of sex differences in interests. Psychological Bulletin, 135(6), 859–884. Tellhed, U., Bäckström, M., & Björklund, F. (2018). The role of ability beliefs and agentic vs. communal career goals in adolescents’ first educational choice. what explains the degree of gender-balance? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 104, 1–13. Velayutham, S., Aldridge, J., & Fraser, B. (2011). Development and validation of an instrument to measure students’ motivation and self‐regulation in science learning. IJSE, 33(15), 2159–2179.