Although science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines as a whole have made advances in gender parity and greater inclusion for women, these increases have been smaller or nonexistent in computing and engineering compared to other fields. In this focused review, we discuss how stereotypic perceptions of computing and engineering influence who enters, stays, and excels in these fields. We focus on communal goal incongruity–the idea that some STEM disciplines like engineering and computing are perceived as less aligned with people's communal goals of collaboration and helping others. In Part 1, we review the empirical literature that demonstrates how perceptions that these disciplines are incongruent with communal goals can especially deter women and girls, who highly endorse communal goals. In Part 2, we extend this perspective by reviewing accumulating evidence that perceived communal goal incongruity can deter any individual who values communal goals. Communal opportunities within computing and engineering have the potential to benefit first generation college students, underrepresented minority students, and communally-oriented men (as well as communally-oriented women). We describe the implications of this body of literature: describing how opting out of STEM in order to pursue fields perceived to encourage the pursuit of communal goals leave the stereotypic (mis)perceptions of computing and engineering unchanged and exacerbate female underrepresentation. In Part 3, we close with recommendations for how communal opportunities in computing and engineering can be highlighted to increase interest and motivation. By better integrating and publically acknowledging communal opportunities, the stereotypic perceptions of these fields could gradually change, making computing and engineering more inclusive and welcoming to all.

A deterrent to recruiting students into STEM pathways is the stereotype that STEM fields do not afford communal goals to work with or help others. We investigate the challenges to cueing communal opportunities in science via brief exposure to scientist exemplars. Both male and female scientists depicted as engaged in communal work increased beliefs that science afforded communal goals and positivity toward science careers (Study 1). Without the direct performance of communal activities, communal affordances were cued only when a female scientist was prototypic of her gender category and respondents were highly communally oriented (Study 2). To change stereotypes that science does not involve communal goals, both female and male scientists can highlight communal aspects of their work.

A sense of belonging in a particular context is cued not only by the people in the role but by the affordances of the role—that is, the opportunities for goal pursuit. We investigate this role-based belonging in four studies documenting that the perceived affordances of social roles inform sense of belonging and convey known benefits of belonging. Perceiving more communal opportunities in naturalistic science, technology, engineering, and mathematic (STEM) settings was associated with heightened belonging in those roles (Studies 1–2). Experimentally manipulating collaborative activities in a science lab increased anticipated belonging in the lab and fostered interest, particularly among women (Study 3). Finally, mentally simulating communal affordances in a role promoted recovery from belonging threat: Considering communal opportunities in STEM facilitated recovery of STEM-specific belonging after recalling exclusion in STEM (Study 4). Investigations of role-based belonging offer the potential for both theoretical and practical advances.

As students explore science and engineering fields, they receive messages about what competencies are required in a particular field, as well as whether they can reach their goals by entering the field. Faculty members convey information both about whether students might have the ability to succeed in a particular field and also whether students might want to succeed in a particular field-is this career one that serves the values or goals of the student? We hypothesize a novel pathway through which growth versus fixed mindset messages communicated by faculty affect students. Specifically, we explore whether emphasizing the potential for growth, rather than emphasizing fixed abilities, can indicate to students that science, technology, engineering, or math (STEM) fields offer opportunities to fulfill their goals. Across 8 studies, we find that perceiving that faculty endorse growth versus fixed mindset beliefs increases beliefs that STEM contexts afford communal and agentic goals; perceived communal affordances more strongly predict people's interest in pursuing STEM education and careers.

Because of stereotypes that science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields do not fulfill communal goals, communally oriented individuals may select out of STEM. One potential route to engaging and promoting communally oriented individuals in STEM fields is through interactions with advisors or role models in STEM. We first demonstrate the perceived difficulty of finding role models who enact communal behaviors in STEM relative to other fields (Preliminary Study). Communally oriented students reported higher likelihood of observing admired others in math or science (i.e., investigative vicarious learning) over time (Study 1). Individuals preferred hypothetical STEM advisors who enacted communal workplace behaviors (Studies 2a-2b). Finally, individuals' communal orientation predicted how important they found the communal behaviors of actual role models (Studies 3a-3b). These findings provide further support for the goal congruity prediction that contexts-whether relational or occupational-that offer the pursuit of valued goals will be preferred.