The surprise of reaching out: Appreciated more than we think.

Liu, Peggy J.; Rim, SoYon; Min, Lauren; Min, Kate E.

doi:10.1037/pspi0000402

Cited by 13 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…She shared, “My advisor still randomly emails me, just having nothing to do with our work, just to see how I’m doing or when she reads an article that she thinks I might like, or something else.” Frequent check-ins and considerate attempts to connect with participants by incorporating aspects of their language/culture proved to be effective in cultivating an inclusive environment for women of color. The need for frequent check-ins was underscored by a recent publication by the American Psychological Association (Liu et al, 2022). Taken together, participants’ narratives indicated that graduate advisors’ supportive actions mitigated the toll that systemic barriers, such as racist remarks from professors, had on women of color in STEM.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining how graduate advisors mitigate or exacerbate the structural barriers Women of Color navigate in STEM doctoral programs.

Wilkins‐Yel¹,

Delaney²,

Cuervo³

et al. 2024

Journal of Diversity in Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Steeped in both critical race feminism (Wing, 1997) and social cognitive career theory (Lent et al., 2002), the present study intentionally centered the voices of 11 Women of Color graduate students and early career professionals to understand how graduate advisors mitigated or exacerbated the structural barriers Women of Color navigate during their science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) doctoral programs. Using thematic analysis grounded in the social constructivist paradigm, researchers identified four emergent themes: (a) unsupportive advising behaviors as a contextual barrier, (b) debilitating impact on mental health, (c) shared gender identity but mismatch racial/ethnic identity, and (d) advocacy-centered instrumental support and psychosocial support as key contextual supports. Results indicated that graduate advisors’ behaviors served as both contextual barriers that exacerbated the structural barriers Women of Color navigated in STEM, as well as contextual supports that enhanced the doctoral experience and mitigated the adverse toll of marginalizing encounters in STEM. Three recommendations that stem from this work include: (a) adopt an intersectional approach to advising that values students as whole beings, (b) commit to antioppressive advocacy as part of the advising role, and (c) recognize the toll that unsupportive advising behaviors have on Women of Color’s mental health.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining how graduate advisors mitigate or exacerbate the structural barriers Women of Color navigate in STEM doctoral programs.

Wilkins‐Yel¹,

Delaney²,

Cuervo³

et al. 2024

Journal of Diversity in Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our work offers novel contributions to the literature on self-other misprediction (e.g., Kumar & Epley, 2018; Liu et al, 2023), specifically the area involving requesters and requestees (e.g., Bohns, 2016; Lu et al, 2023). We provide three main contributions to this line of research.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Saying no: The negative ramifications from invitation declines are less severe than we think.

Givi,

Kirk

2024

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People are frequently invited to join others for fun social activities. They may be invited to lunch, to attend a sporting event, to watch the season finale of a television show, and so forth. Invitees-those who are on the receiving ends of invitations-sometimes accept invitations from inviters-those who extend invitationsbut other times, invitees decline. Unfortunately, saying no can be hard, leading invitees to accept invitations when they would rather not. The present work sheds light on one factor that makes it so hard to decline invitations. We demonstrate that invitees overestimate the negative ramifications that arise in the eyes of inviters following an invitation decline. Invitees have exaggerated concerns about how much the decline will anger the inviter, signal that the invitee does not care about the inviter, make the inviter unlikely to offer another invitation in the future, and so forth. We also demonstrate that this asymmetry emerges in part because invitees exaggerate the degree to which inviters focus on the decline itself, as opposed to the thoughts ran through the invitee's head before deciding. Indeed, across multiple studies, we find support for this process through mediation and moderation, while simultaneously finding evidence against multiple alternative accounts. We conclude with a discussion of the contributions and limitations of this research, along with directions for future work.

show abstract

“…Along similar lines, givers appear to believe that recipients will appreciate larger gift expenditures more than they appear to do (Flynn & Adams, 2009; Galak et al, 2016; Givi et al, 2021). As with other giver‐recipient discrepancies, this is generally viewed as a failure of perspective‐taking—givers fail to sufficiently put themselves in recipients' shoes (Epley & Caruso, 2012; Liu et al, 2023). This account, however, does not explain why recipients appear to place so little weight on gift expenditure, which is both an objective signal of givers' investment and directly tied to the value of the item recipients receive.…”

Section: Background and Conceptual Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Looking a gift horse in the mouth: Suspicion of large gift expenditures undermines gift appreciation

Mutluoglu,

Ashworth,

Robitaille

2024

Psychology and Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prior work shows that gift recipients are surprisingly insensitive to the amount of money givers spend, even though more expensive gifts represent a greater investment by givers and impart greater value to recipients. We suggest that recipients' apparent indifference may be explained by competing reactions to gift expenditure. Specifically, we propose that recipients are not unresponsive to gift expenditure, per se, but that money's association with instrumentality means that conspicuous monetary expenditures can cause recipients to contemplate givers' instrumental motives (i.e., become suspicious). Four studies show that large gift expenditures can cause recipients to become suspicious of givers' motives and that suspicion undermines recipients' otherwise positive reactions. We further show that expenditures that are less strongly associated with instrumentality (time and effort) and gifts that have a weaker association with money and instrumentality (experiential gifts) are less prone to suspicion and are appreciated more.

show abstract

The surprise of reaching out: Appreciated more than we think.

Cited by 13 publications

References 63 publications

Examining how graduate advisors mitigate or exacerbate the structural barriers Women of Color navigate in STEM doctoral programs.

Examining how graduate advisors mitigate or exacerbate the structural barriers Women of Color navigate in STEM doctoral programs.

Saying no: The negative ramifications from invitation declines are less severe than we think.

Looking a gift horse in the mouth: Suspicion of large gift expenditures undermines gift appreciation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About