Social cognitive models examining academic and career outcomes emphasize constructs such as attitude, interest, and self-efficacy as key factors affecting students' pursuit of STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) courses and careers. The current research examines another under-researched component of social cognitive models: social support, and the relationship between this component and attitude and self-efficacy in math and science. A large cross-sectional design was used gathering data from 1,552 participants in four adolescent school settings from 5th grade to early college (41 % female, 80 % white). Students completed measures of perceived social support from parents, teachers and friends as well as their perceived ability and attitudes toward math and science. Fifth grade and college students reported higher levels of support from teachers and friends when compared to students at other grade levels. In addition, students who perceived greater social support for math and science from parents, teachers, and friends reported better attitudes and had higher perceptions of their abilities in math and science. Lastly, structural equation modeling revealed that social support had both a direct effect on math and science perceived abilities and an indirect effect mediated through math and science attitudes. Findings suggest that students who perceive greater social support for math and science from parents, teachers, and friends have more positive attitudes toward math and science and a higher sense of their own competence in these subjects.

No abstract

Introduction. Most studies lump Black immigrants (BIs) and African Americans (AAs) as “Black/African American” during investigation. Such categorization assumes that the sociocultural determinants that influence BIs are the same as for AAs. This study attempts to disentangle the AA and BI subgroups to recognize the differences in cancer-related psychosocial characteristics and health behaviors. Methods. Merged data from the Health Information National Survey (2011–2017) were used. Two groups were created: those who identified as AA and those who identified as AA but were born outside the United States (BI). Between-group differences were assessed with Mann–Whitney U and chi-square tests. Results. Positive communication patterns with health care providers were significantly higher among AAs ( M [mean] = 3.41, SD [standard deviation] = 0.68) compared with BIs ( M = 3.28, SD = 0.71) ( p = .004). A greater proportion of BIs indicated that their health was excellent (14.2%), compared with AAs (7.9%). AAs reported higher cancer family history (75.1%) than BIs (46.5%). More AAs had smoked at least 100 cigarettes in their lifetime (41.5%) than BIs (16.7%). BIs consumed significantly more fruits each day ( M = 2.77, SD = 1.43) than AAs ( M = 2.40, SD = 1.44) ( p < .001). BIs also reported more physical activity ( M = 2.62, SD = 2.15) than AAs ( M = 2.37, SD = 2.18) ( p = .030). AA women were more likely to have had a pap smear test ( M = 2.07, SD = 1.44) compared with BI women ( M = 1.73, SD = 1.21) ( p = .002). Discussion. Evidence suggests the need to disentangle the “Black/African American” ethnic grouping. Lumping the BI populations together with the AAs, who have been in the United States for generations, may limit the ability to uncover and consequently address culturally driven disease prevention efforts and promote understanding of the biological, environmental, and psychosocial risk factors within Black heterogeneous populations.

Each year, millions of dollars are spent on research and public health interventions targeted toward reducing health disparities primarily among the “Black/African Americans” community, yet the progress made lags far behind the amount of money and effort spent. We hypothesize that part of the problem is that sociocultural factors play a significant role in disease prevention. Most studies and programs aggregate “Black immigrants” (BIs) and “African Americans” (AAs) as “Black/African American.” This categorization assumes that the sociocultural determinants that influence BIs are the same as for AAs. BIs have health and mortality profiles that vary from AAs. This commentary aims to (1) introduce this idea in more depth and provide a brief scope of the problem, (2) provide scientific evidence of noteworthy differences between AAs and BIs in areas of sociodemographics, health behaviors, and health outcomes, (3) discuss implications of considering the Black/AA group as homogeneous and provide recommendations for disaggregation.

No abstract