This week we read Aronson, Quinn, & Spencer's (1998) chapter on stereotype threat. I would like you to comment here. Don't go puny here, do a nice size post.
Relate and synthesize the article you read on your own with this chapter. Are there any theoretical, methodological or applied linkages that can be made? If so, describe and discuss.
If the article you read, has no link to this week's chapter, then do one of the following:
Provide an update on the literature. What's been done since 1998 in this area? In the style of this chapter, how would this updated literature be incorporated into this chapter should it be rewritten in 2010?
Provide information on applications of stereotype threat to the 'real world.' The chapter talks about some applied ideas, what has been done? To what level of success? Do they have data to back them up?
In their article "An Integrated Process Model of Stereotype Threat Effects on Performance" (Psychological Review, 2008), Schmader, Johns, and Forbes provide a model for the process of stereotype threat. In this model, stereotype threat is conceptualized as a threat to self-integrity, which comes from an imbalance between the self-concept (expectations of success)and the activation of social stereotypes that suggest poor performance in a specific domain. That is, in a situation that leads to stereotype threat, certain stimuli activate mental structures related to negative stereotypes, which conflict with positive self-concepts related to the specific task or domain. This conflict elicits several cognitive and affective responses (such as physiological stress and negative thoughts), which have a negative effect on working memory, thus hidering performance. Because people under this threat are motivated to perform well, they make efforts to supress these negative responses, and that also takes a toll on their cognitive resources available for the task.
This article provides a model of the cognitive-affective processes involved in stereotype threat that lead to underperformance.
The article I read this week isn't really related to stereotype threat, but the one I read last week has several implications. Biernat et al. (1998) looked at stereotypes in the military context. They found that women were consistently judged to be less competent in leadership ability compared to their male counterparts. This effect was exacerbated when they were the only woman in her peer group. Interestingly, this effect was found for self-perceptions as well.
As I was reading Aronson, Quinn, and Steele (1998), I kept thinking about how stereotype threat might be more harmful in situations where there was a single group member. Especially in rural schools where there is usually a higher White population, non-White students would be especially cognizant of their group membership and could experience ST more often. If this is indeed the case, it is even more important to use techniques such as the Jigsaw classroom to make sure these students feel they have the same chance of success.
Another interesting finding in Biernat et al. is that this effect was significant for women but not ethnic minorities. They suggested this may be due to the explicit double-standard in the military that has different requirements for women on physical tests. Though this isn't done in school explicitly (except maybe gym class in some cases) there are still cues (like the absence of a girls football team) that still create separate standards. It may even be possible that teachers unintentionally call on more boys in math creating subtle environmental influence. Therefore it is important to keep researching this phenomenon and making educators aware of its harms and ways it can be reduced.
The article I read this week doesn't have ANYTHING to do with this topic, which is too bad because stereotype threat is an interesting topic to begin with.
When it comes to testing, I feel like this topic has a strong connection with the fact that tests are standardized to the white male generally anyway. They make a small mention in the reading about this, but I feel like more could be said. Testing is already difficult for some groups because (like how we said in class) it may have examples that certain people can't relate to. Though this is unintentional, it still affects minorities and women alike. So not only are they being affected by the negative stereotype that may be present, they also have difficulty understanding the test and what the test may be asking.
The study that used white and asian males was interesting, because it was putting the threat onto a group that does not tend to experience this type of phenomenon. While this study is interesting, the stereotype that asians are good at math and testing in general makes this study somewhat confined to only this example. I think it would be interesting to see how white males would react if they were given a test that they were told black males did significantly better on.
Another thing I would like to see in relation to this is how someone who is part of a group affected by stereotype threat would react to this threat if they knew about it but did not really believe it. For example, a woman from a math background where all the women in her family are good at math may hear that there is a connection between females and being bad at math, but might not believe it because she has never seen this application in her real life. How would she fair in a test on math skills being told this threat, but believing that it is false?
In my testing career I have filled out many demographic and sex indicators at the beginning of the test. I can't say that I have really thought about it and really applied negative affects to my testing, but it could have happened without my knowing. While they talked in depth about things that could be done to lessen stereotype threat, I think small things can even be done. While it may still be important for a test to collect that kind of data, they could move that part of the test to the end to eliminate the actual testing period. They could also eliminate it altogether.
Stereotype threats may never be completely eliminated, but there are possible steps to take to lessen it. The steps in the article can make a change, but the steps actually need to be taken and not just necessarily discussed.
My article from this week doesn't have a lot to do with stereotype threat. My article dealt with the decision to shoot or not to shoot (relating to police practices), but one of the interesting findings from this study was that knowledge of the cultural stereotypes about African Americans caused more people to "shoot," and this was true even for African Americans. Of course, this is just one study, so the results should be interpreted with caution. But, the results do show that we are affected by stereotypes on a cultural level, and it is not just limited to personal biases.
So, I decided to take a look at some studies that have been done since 1998. I found one article in particular that caught my attention. Perry and Skitka (2009) examined stereotype threat in relation to defensive pessimism. Defensive pessimists are more likely to expect the worst in situations, and it was found that people who were high in defensive pessimism had better performance when under high stereotype threat as compared to low stereotype threat. I found this to be very interesting. So, if we have a more defensive coping strategy, this acts as somewhat of a buffer against stereotype threat. What implications does this study have for dealing with stereotype threat? I have also seen studies that show that when women interact with sexist men, that this causes them to perform worse on performance tests.
In updating the literature on this topic, I would include literature showing that individual differences in coping strategies can affect stereotype threat, such as the defensive pessimism study. Maybe earlier research has already touched on this issue, but I think it is an interesting study (or maybe it is because I have a slightly defensive coping style).
Finally, I think Dan brought up a good point about how stereotype threat could potentially be more harmful if there is a single group member. I would think that would cause more pressure for the person, and make he or she more susceptible to stereotype threat.
The articles I have read thus far have not dealt much with the notion of stereotype threat, so I am going to attempt to elaborate on one thing that was brought up as a key contributor of the phenomenon: Anxiety.
In the Aronson et al. (1998) article we read for class, they mention that anxiety is at least a partial mediator for the effect of stereotype threat on test performance. However, in this article they site a study (Spencer et al., 1997) that used only self-report measures as a way of measuring anxiety (I believe they were measuring evaluation apprehension and self-efficacy as well). I thought it was strange that the Aronson article didn't mention any studies using physiological measures of anxiety, so I was wondering if this had been done yet.
The earliest article I could find that used a true physiological methodology to measure anxiety was an Osborne (2007) article (surprisingly, it took this long for someone to focus more in on the anxiety aspect of stereotype threat). In this study, participants were broken up into high threat and low threat conditions. The s.t. manipulated was differences in math scores between men and women. Basically what they found was that women in the high stereotype threat condition performed significantly worse on the test and showed higher anxiety (via measures of heart rate, skin conductance, skin temperature, and blood pressure) than males in the high or low s.t. condition and females in the low s.t. condition. The conclusion was drawn that stereotype threat does indeed influence anxiety, and in turn this higher level of anxiety decreases test performance.
I think that explaining stereotype threat through higher levels of anxiety seems to make sense. A lot of intervention techniques applied in stereotype threat situations usually involved changing the way a test is presented, which would help alleviate the possible stereotype threat at the group level. However, if we know that anxiety plays as big of a role in test taking in general, maybe designing ways to decrease anxiety (whether it is related to stereotype threat directly or not) would be an effective way of boosting overall performance. Taking standardized tests can be a nerve racking thing for most people, so reducing the test-taker's anxiety might help not only those vulnerable to stereotype threats, but all students in general.
Schmader and Johns wrote a great article discussing three of their studies dealing with stereotype threat and its affect on working memory. This was the article I read this week which coincided very nicely with Aronson, Quinn, and Spencer's article. I actually selected to read the Shmader article because of my interest in what Aronson et al had to say. Though none of the same studies were mentioned between the two, they did both do awesome jobs at explaining exactly what stereotype threat is. In essence, that it is the presence of the extra stresses of a stereotype that can change behavior.
The biggest similarity between the two was actually mentioned in the Aronson article as an element of stereotype threat. That being the negative affect on academic performance. The article I read helps to prove this element. It describes this phenomena through three separate experiments, even accounting for variables such as race and gender. Including a test with all white females.
Another possibility related to this negative stereotype effect is that of self esteem. And that perhaps a poor self image can be related to whether stereotype threat negatively impacts performance.
The Aronson, Quinn, & Spencer’s (1998) are based on the notion of stereotype threat. From what I understood from it is that the feeling of not fitting in, or if you meet someone for the first time, or when taking an exam, test, or survey anxiety sets in before, during, and after the test. The understanding as a Hispanic male; the stereotypes do set in, but does vary from person to person and their experiences. Does this make me racist for having this thought, or bias? If someone is bi-racial how it does affect them, as well as the minority? In my own race that I can do it, I would defiantly say yes. During my whole academic experience, the ones that have had an impact on my life are non-minority, and a few Hispanics/Latinos who did succeed in obtaining a degree. But with that in mind, I cannot speak for every minority, male or female.
In comparison to Dovidio, Gaertner, & Kawakami (2002) article based on the Implicit & Explicit attitudes. You may be asking yourself how it relates to stereotype threat; it is a conscious and unconscious belief. Which is an automatic identification to one’s own race, rather than meeting someone of another race; the identification such as the cross race effect can play a significant part in your interaction while meeting someone of another race. In most cases the unconscious interaction shows the stereotype which some people may not recognize such as nonverbal cues or facial reactions. In the study it mentions that Caucasians reflect more negative nonverbal behaviors (subtle behaviors) and prejudice, while having interaction with African American rather, than while interacting with other Caucasians. African American our more sensitive to the nonverbal behaviors cues, while in the process of the interactions with non-minority. The question that arises is how does it related to all minorities?
My article related to the chapter we talked about in class in many ways. I read the article labled "The Social Psychology of Stigma." My article covered the effects that having a stigma put on someone by stereotypes. The article we discussed talked about how stereotypes affect academic underperformance for minorities and women.
The article that I read talked about the ways that stigma can affect a persons mental state and how that does relate to their health. Like in the article that I read, it discussed how stereotypes can have a self-fulfilling profecy for people and how that affects how that person acts, and they can act to the negative aspects of the stereotype they are labeled as.
The article mainly talks about three coping mechanisms; (a) attributing negative events to discrimination (versus to the self), (b) disengaging self-esteem and effort from identity-threatening domains (versus engaging and striving in these domains), and (c) increasing identification with one’s stigmatized group (versus distancing oneself from the group). These can also influence the interventions that are talked about in the article we went over in class.
Overall, when a person has a negative stereotype put on them, it affects the way that they act. Either it can make them act towards the stereotype which effects their academics, self-esteem, and health.
The article that I read last week alongside the Aronson, Quinn, and Spencer (1998) was actually from the same book. Major and Schmader (1998) had chapter about psychological disengagement as being a coping mechanism for those suffering from stigma. Under the umbrella they distinguished two processes, devaluing and discounting as the underpinnings of disengagement.
As part of their chapter, stereotype threat was touched on as overlapping psychological disengagement on several points. As it is conceived, stereotype threat exists when the task is in a self-relevant domain. Well according to the authors, psychological disengagement is the result of failure or mistrust of a task claiming to be unbiased, and quite possibly an effect of a stereotype threat experience. It could also be a proactive behavior (albeit maladaptive to an extent)to avoid stereotype threat situations by just not caring about the particular task.
This article goes a step further than the stereotype threat literature to explain the consequences of a stereotypically aptitude deficient domain on a particular group. Stereotype threat is like the last hurdle one must overcome should they want to succeed at a domain whereas psychological disengagement is the comfortable strategy that many run to when their pride and self-esteem is on the line. Finally, even when unbiased, tasks can be looked upon skeptically as being not indicative of the true aptitude of the domain by the target.
Generally this process of psychological disengagement can be seen as adaptive in many instances because it does protect self-esteem and can buffer depression and anxiety. The only issue, as explained by the authors, is that some domains that are highly valued by society and are necessary in which to excel, can take an adaptive strategy and make it extremely maladaptive. This is why stereotype threat is the tip of a cognitive iceberg.