Thesis (Ph.D.) - Indiana University, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, 2022Across three studies, I investigated 1) beliefs about the culture of objectivity in STEM and 2) the impact of STEM objectivity norms on people’s anticipated experiences in those contexts. In Study 1, people consensually perceived STEM professionals as more objective than subjective and having greater capacity for mental agency (e.g., planning and self-control) than human experience (e.g., emotions and sensations). Yet, neither subjectivity nor human experience were viewed as incompatible for STEM professionals. Thus, Study 1 demonstrated that although normative beliefs about people in STEM careers reflect a stereotypic image of STEM professionals as objective and mentally agentic, this image does not exclude subjectivity or human experience. In sum, these results suggest participants view objectivity and subjectivity as co-occurring rather than oppositional. These objectivity norms in the culture of science can influence people’s anticipated experiences of authenticity and belonging in STEM contexts: People anticipated more authenticity and belonging when they considered entering a physics department that explicitly valued integrating objectivity and subjectivity, rather than exclusively objectivity (Studies 2 and 3). This greater authenticity was due, in part, to beliefs that the integrated objectivity context would allow for a range of thought processes, both rational and experiential (Studies 2 and 3). Further, this norms-to-authenticity effect had consequences for anticipated belonging and well-being (Study 3). People expected to feel greater belonging and well-being in integrated objectivity (vs. exclusive objectivity) STEM contexts partly because of this increased sense of authenticity.