revise the hypothesis to be more specific: We predict that participants who do not self-identify as boys/men will experience a more significant increase in experienced fit and engineering identity in Girls+ camps compared to mixed-gender camps. Think about which fit will be influenced more by the environmentalgender decomposition? which aspect of identity will be influenced?

Reference:

Use Template ofAsPredicted

Data collection

NO

Will select the third option, as data collection will have started by the time preregistration goes fo

Hypothesis

: looks good; all done with this one

: needs revision

: i need to think more about this one; maybe leave it here for now

Primary Hypothesis 1: Experience of self-concept fit, goal fit, and/or social fit positively predict kids' science identity at the end of STEM summer camp. Specifically, in examining data collected at the end of the camp (T2), we expect that self-concept fit will predict self-recognition identity, goal fit will predict interest identity, and social fit will predict other recognition identity

Secondary Hypothesis 2: We expect that the pre-post camp change in the self-concept fit, goal fit, and/or social fit will predict kids' pre-post camp science identity change.

Secondary Hypothesis 3:There are gender differences in pre-camp science identity, post-camp science identity, and possibly the change in science identity from pre to post camp. Specifically, we predict that children identifying as boys/men will exhibit higher levels of science identity both before and after the camp compared to children identifying as girls/women.We don't have a specific directional prediction for gender differences in pre-post science identity change.

Exploratory Hypothesis 4:The relationship between gender and pre-post science identity change is mediated by changes in experienced self-concept fit, goal fit, and social fit, with gender stereotypes moderating the relationship between gender and changes in fit.

Primary Hypothesis 5: We predict that participants who do not self-identify as boys/men will experience a more significant increase in experienced fit and engineering identity in Girls+ camps compared to mixed-gender camps.

Exploratory Hypothesis 6: The higher increase in science identity for participants who do not self-identify as boys/men is mediated by the higher increase in self-concept fit and social fit (also possibly goal fit) in Girls+ comps (vs. mixed-gender comps).

Exploratory Hypothesis 7: We will examine H1-H7 for instructors as well.

Exploratory Hypothesis 8: We will explore the possible reciprocal and autoregressive effects of science identity and experience of three types of fit. Please see the plot below for details.

Primary Hypothesis 10: We plan to conduct qualitative analysis (e.g., thematic analysis) to identify 1) contextual features that cue different types of (mis)fit and identity; 2) other academic-related and/ internal emotional factors that contribute to science identity change.

Dependent Variable

1. Science identity - measured with Paul et al. (2020) scale
2. Three types of fit - measured with SAFE scale - Kids version (under validation)

Conditions

Not applicable. This is a correlational study without manipulations, but participants will be grouped based on their genders.

Analysis

We will perform linear regression analyses to predict post-camp science identity and its changes from pre- to post-camp, from three types of fit. We will also conduct the similar analyses with dummy-coded gender and/or dummy coded camp type (i.e., Girls+ or not) as the predictor. Mediation will be examined with path analysis. The reciprocal and autoregressive effects of three types of fit and science identity will be examined by a cross-lagged panel model (CLPM) using Lavaan package in R.

Outliers and Exclusions

We will compute the overall mean and standard deviation across all conditions and winsorize at 3 SD above/below the mean.

We will exclude

Exclusion?

Sample Size

Our targeted sample size is 120, which allows us to detect a standardized slope of 0.25 with 80% power.

Or 191 people for beta = 0.20?

Or 343 people for beta = 0.15?

Other things

Name

Type of Study

Survey

Data Source

Other - Field Survey