On the young child's comparison of sets

When asked to make comparisons between sets of objects, 4-year-old children succeed when the comparison questions are symmetrical with respect to the referential status of their terms. Thus questions that request the comparison of set with set, or subset with subset (both within and between sets), are answered correctly. However, when the comparison questions are referentially asymmetrical, calling for the comparison of set with subset, either within or between sets, young children typically fail to complete such tasks successfully. In such cases, what comparisons young children arrive at is established, how they arrive at them is described, and why they respond in the ways that they do is discussed.     

The relationship of sex and sex role to trait and situationally specific anxiety types

While considerable research has investigated the relationship of sex and/or sex role to general or trait anxiety, little is known about their relationship to more specific anxiety types. Based on the postulate that sex and sex-role differences may depend on the extent to which an anxiety-producing situation represents a sex-stereotypic domain, the present study compared their relationships to four measures of anxiety: Math anxiety, test anxiety, and two measures of trait anxiety. Subjects were 180 undergraduate students enrolled in introductory psychology courses. Although females reported higher levels of anxiety on all four scales than did males, a discriminant function analysis indicated that math anxiety was the strongest contributor to the separation of the sexes. Significant score differences as a function of sex role were found using the STAI A-Trait scale, and a significant sex × sex-role interaction was found for scores on the S-R Inventory of Anxiousness. Feminine-typed males and undifferentiated females reported highest anxiety levels in comparison to same-sex individuals. Implications for the understanding and treatment of both general and situationally specific anxiety are discussed.     

The relationship of mathematics self-efficacy expectations to the selection of science-based college majors

The major purpose of the present study was to investigate the relationship of mathematics self-efficacy expectations to the selection of science-based majors in college males and females. Based on results obtained from a pilot sample of college students, an instrument assessing mathematics self-efficacy expectations was developed. The items used in the mathematics self-efficacy scale included everyday math tasks, math problems, and math-based college courses. Subjects, 153 female and 109 male undergraduates, completed the mathematics self-efficacy scale, the Bem Sex Role Inventory, an adapted version of the Fennema-Sherman Mathematics Attitudes Scales, and a questionnaire concerning their college major choices. Results indicated that mathematics self-efficacy expectations were significantly related to the extent to which students selected science-based college majors, thus supporting the postulated role of cognitive mediational factors in educational and career choice behavior. In addition, the math-related self-efficacy expectations of college males were significantly stronger than were those of college females. Implications of the findings for the process of educational and career decision-making are discussed.     

On Online Practices of Hospitality in Higher Education

Studies in Philosophy and Education - This article contributes to conversations on hospitality in educational settings, with a focus on higher education and the online context. We integrate...     

Time travel and counterfactual asymmetry

Synthese - We standardly evaluate counterfactuals and abilities in temporally asymmetric terms—by keeping the past fixed and holding the future open. Only future events depend...     

An Intersectional Approach to the Glass Ceiling: Gender,Race and Share of Middle and Senior Management in U.S. Workplaces

A robust body of research examines factors affecting the likelihood that women experience increasing barriers to promotion in workplaces. However, limited research examines how racialized and gendered processes may intersect and work differently for racially and gender marginalized workers. Specifically, the processes relating to a worker’s ability to reach middle-level management positions (e.g., those managers who oversee a small group of employees) and senior-level management positions (e.g., CEOs and other executive positions) may vary based on workers’ race and gender. Using 2015 EEO-1 data collected by the U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC), we examine how the characteristics of a workplace affect Black men, Black women, White men, and White women’s share of middle- and senior-level management. We find Black women and Black men are strikingly under-represented in both middle and senior management in private-sector workplaces. Our results demonstrate that access to middle- and senior-management varies by the characteristics of the workplace and workers’ race and gender. Overall, our findings point to an important implication: Greater oversight of workplaces, including by the EEOC, is associated with marginalized race/gender groups having higher shares of management.

     

Quitters would not prosper: Examining the relationship between online assessment performance and assessment attrition behavior

Hiring managers are often hesitant to implement online assessments over concerns that higher‐quality candidates are more likely to quit lengthy assessment batteries than lower‐quality candidates. In this paper, we present the results of two studies that collectively challenge this assumption. In Study 1, data from 327,517 job‐seekers spanning eight hiring contexts showed that assessment performance was negatively associated with subsequent assessment attrition behavior. In Study 2, we replicated this pattern of effects in two additional samples comprising 1,844,604 applicants for hourly associate positions, and 18,937 applicants for nursing positions. Collectively, these findings suggest that some degree of attrition may ultimately benefit, rather than harm, organizations using prehire assessments.