Stereotype threat effects have been shown in many different
situations
involving a variety of stereotypes. Although
stereotype threat effects appear to be robust,
the specific mechanisms by which stereotype
threat harms performance is still not
entirely clear. This ambiguity likely reflects
that fact that stereotype threat probably
produces several different consequences, each of
which can contribute to decreased performance
(Steele, Spencer, & Aronson, 2002).
Steele and Aronson (1995),
for example, speculated that distraction,
narrowed attention,
anxiety, self-consciousness, withdrawal of
effort, or even overeffort might all play a
role. Research has provided support for the role
of some of these factors, at least in some
contexts.
It is quite likely that these factors
work together to undermine performance under
stereotype threat. Schmader, Johns, and Forbes
(2008), in fact, have proposed that
performance decrements under stereotype threat
result from three interconnected factors. All
three factors negatively affect the efficiency
of working memory, but they do so in different
ways. One factor involves physiological stress
that often arises following stereotype threat, a
second factor is performance monitoring that
occurs as individuals try to regulate their
behavior under stereotype threat, and the third
factor is attempted emotional regulation, as
individuals try to control the affective
responses that arise when threatened.
Each factor can limit the quantity and effective
allocation of cognitive resources that are
necessary for optimal performance. Thus,
affective and cognitive factors can work
together to affect the quality of performance on
tasks where maximal effort and focus are
required.
In addition, it is also important to note that
certain consequences are more likely in some
contexts (and among some groups) than in others.
As research progresses, it will be important to
understand the specific mechanisms that might
account for stereotype threat effects across
different situations.
Anxiety
Since the notion of stereotype threat was
first proposed, it has been speculated that the
emotional reactions it produces could directly
interfere with performance. Steele (1997; Steele
et al., 2002), for example, suggested that
stereotype threat effects reflect increased
anxiety about confirming a
negative stereotype about one’s group. Despite
the assumed centrality of emotions, the results
have often been mixed (e.g.,
Beilock, Rydell, & McConnell, 2007;
Gonzales et al.,
2002;
Harrison, Stevens, Monty, & Coakley, 2006;
Keller & Dauenheimer, 2003;
Stangor,
Carr, & Kiang, 1998;
Steele & Aronson, 1995;
see
Cadinu, Maass, Rosabianca, & Kiesner, 2005).
Some studies show that self-reported anxiety
does not mediate the relation between stereotype
threat and performance (Spencer, Steele, & Quinn,
1999)
while others demonstrate partial mediation (Osborne, 2001)
and yet others have shown that performance
decrements occur only in individuals who
are highly anxious in the domain (Delgado
& Prieto, 2008). Some of the inconsistencies in results may be
due to the timing of the measurement of emotions
(e.g., before versus after a test;
Stone et al.,
1999;
Marx & Stapel, 2006)
and the overreliance on verbal reports (Bosson,
Haymovitz, & Pinel, 2004). Recent research that takes
these factors into account suggests that
stereotype threat can produce anxiety in
stereotyped individuals prior to performance and
frustration following the completion of the task
(Marx
& Stapel, 2006),
and
Moreover, the presence of
anxiety might depend on negative intergroup
attitudes (Abrams,
Eller, & Bryant, 2006) and the
number of fellow group members present (
Negative cognitions
and dejection
Stereotype threat
can heighten stereotype–related thinking,
leading to
distraction and loss of motivation which, in
turn, can negatively affect
performance.
Cadinu, Maass, Rosabianca,
and Kiesner (2005)
examined women’s math performance when
gender differences in math problem solving were
either highlighted or explicitly refuted. Performance
not only was worse
when gender stereotypes were reinforced but also was mediated by the number of
domain-specific negative thoughts. That is, to the degree
that women under stereotype threat thought about
gender math stereotypes, their performance
tended to be worse.
Keller and Dauenheimer (2003)
similarly showed that girls' reports of
frustration, disappointment, and sadness
accounted for poor performance in math under
stereotype threat. In
addition to producing anxiety and motivation
loss, these negative cognitions and emotions might also
diminish the cognitive resources available that
are necessary for maximal performance or
distract from the task at hand.
Krendl, Richeson, Kelley, & Heatherton (2008)
examined brain activity during a math exercise in the presence or
absence of stereotype threat. Women in a control
condition showed activation in brain regions
associated with math learning during problem
solving. However, women who were reminded of
gender stereotypes in math showed heightened activation of the ventral anterior cingulate cortex (vACC)
and no evidence of heightened
levels of activation in the regions important
for successful math performance.
The vACC has been implicated in the processing
of negative information.
Lowered performance expectations
Related to negative
thoughts and emotions are low expectations.
If individuals expect to do poorly on a task,
they might not be able to perform as well as
when confidence is high. Stangor, Carr, and Kiang (1998)
showed that activating gender stereotypes
undermined performance expectations of women who
were asked to estimate their performance on an
upcoming task involving spatial perception.
Similarly,
Kray, Thompson, and Galinsky (2001)
showed that subtle manipulations linking
performance to gender stereotypes reduced
performance expectations in women prior to a
task involving negotiation.
Kellow and Jones (2007) also showed
lowered performance expectations among 9-th
grade African-American students under stereotype
threat, although performance deficits did not
emerge. Cadinu and her
colleagues (Cadinu, Maass, Frigerio, Impagliazzo, & Latinotti,
2003;
see also
Rosenthal, Crisp, & Suen, 2007) have
provided the most direct evidence that lowered
performance expectations can account for poorer
performance under stereotype threat, especially
among individuals highly identified with a
content domain.
Physiological arousal
Stereotype
threat has been shown to affect physiological
processes in several studies. Low heart rate
variability (HRV), an indicator of mental load,
appears to arise in conditions that produce
stereotype threat.
Croizet, Dépres, Gauzins, Huguet, Leyens, and
Méot (2004) showed that undergraduate students under
stereotype threat (specifically, psychology
majors with a reputation of lower intelligence
compared with science majors) performed more
poorly on a task that was described as a “valid
measure of general intellectual ability involved
in mathematical and logical reasoning” than when
it was described as “not diagnostic of any
ability.” In addition, this poorer
performance was associated with a decrease in HRV. Moreover, the changes in HRV mediated
the relation between stereotype threat and
performance. Thus, the increased mental
workload under stereotype threat (and indicated
by the decreased HRV) was responsible for the
poor performance of those individuals
susceptible to stereotype threat.
Other studies provide evidence of
different physiological consequences of heightened arousal under
stereotype threat. Osborne
(2006,
2007)
showed that students under stereotype
threat showed higher skin conductance and blood pressure and lowered skin
temperature, and
Blascovich, Spencer,
Quinn, and Steele (2001) found that the blood
pressure of African American test takers under stereotype threat rose faster and
remained higher
relative to the blood pressure of White participants or non-threatened African
American students. The
African American participants under threat also performed poorly on the test,
and increased physiological reactivity, like HRV, appeared to account for decreased
intellectual performance.
Vick, Seery,
Blascovich, and Weisbuch (2008) showed that stereotype threat can
produce physiological changes in groups that are both harmed by and benefit from
stereotypical expectations. Women who were told that a math test was
gender-biased exhibited responses typical under perceived threat (increased
systemic vascular resistance that arises when task demands are believed to
exceed available resources) but showed challenge responses (lower vascular
resistance and increased cardiac output) when the test was supposedly
gender-fair. For women, invoking gender stereotypes in mathematics made the test
appear to be overwhelming given their abilities. Men, in contrast, showed challenge responses when the test
supposedly favored their gender but threat responses when their presumed
advantage was negated. Invoking their supposed superiority in math helped men to
see their abilities as adequate to the task, but elimination of that advantage
produced threat.
If physiological arousal
occurs under stereotype threat, not all performance should be negatively
affected. Specifically, the effects of arousal have been shown to depend
on task difficulty, with arousal improving performance on simple tasks but
decreasing performance on difficult tasks.
O'Brien & Crandall
(2003) tested whether arousal might
account for stereotype threat effects by inducing stereotype threat in students
prior to their completing a challenging or easy task. Woman under
stereotype threat performed better on an easy math test but worse on a difficult
math test compared with women who were not exposed to stereotype threat. These results are consistent with the notion that arousal plays a central role
in accounting for stereotype threat effects.
Reduced effort
Stereotype threat can lead
individuals to reduce their effort, perhaps because of low expectations of
performance or perhaps to self-handicap. Stone
(2002;
see also
Schimel, Arndt,
Banko, & Cook, 2004)
provided evidence that individuals who experienced stereotype threat before
performing a task related to golf engaged in less voluntary practice
compared with individuals not operating under stereotype threat. Stereotype threat can reduce preparation and effort, and such
"self-handicapping" can offer psychological protection by providing an a priori
explanation for failure. Of course, underpreparation can also produce a
self-fulfilling prophecy, producing failure under the very conditions where
people fear doing poorly.
Reduced self-control
Inzlicht, McKay, and Aronson (2006)
showed that stereotype threat can diminish people's ability to direct
their attention and behavior in purposive ways. In this study, Blacks who reported anxious
expectations of encountering racial prejudice reported lower ability to regulate
their academic behavior and subsequent experiments demonstrated that imposition of stereotype
threat reduced their ability to effectively regulate attentional and behavioral
resources. Similarly,
Smith and White
(2002) produced evidence that individuals who were exposed to
stereotypes that were then nullified were better able to focus on the task than
were individuals operating under stereotype threat. These findings suggest that coping with stereotype threat can reduce
the ability to effectively regulate behavior in a variety of related and
unrelated domains.
Reduced working memory capacity
Recent research suggests that
stereotype threat can reduce working memory resources, undermining the ability
to meet the information-processing requirements of complex intellectual tasks. Croizet et al.
(2004) study used HRV, an indirect,
physiological indicator of mental load, to show that stereotype threat can
impose a cognitive burden. More direct evidence regarding the nature of
this burden was provided by
Schmader and Johns (2003;
see also
Osborne, 2006)
who showed that working
memory capacity (i.e., a short-term memory system involved in the controlling,
regulating, and maintaining of information relevant to the immediate task) is
affected by stereotype threat. Female students in the study performed a
math task after being told either that "women are poorer at math than men" or
were given no information about gender differences. Later, women’s performance
and their working memory capacity (defined as the ability to recall words that
had to be held in memory while participants solved math problems) were assessed. Women under stereotype threat showed poorer math performance and reduced working
memory capacity compared with the control group. Differences in working memory
capacity also mediated the link between stereotype threat and poorer math
performance. Beilock, Rydell,
and
McConnell (2007; see also
Rydell, McConnell, &
Beilock, in press) extended this work by showing that stereotype threat
appears to undermine phonological components of the working memory system
involved in inner speech and thinking. Pressure-related thought and
worries can reduce working memory resources, and tasks that require working
memory resources (such as novel or poorly practiced skills) are most likely to
reveal decrements under stereotype threat. Stereotype threat can increase
worries and concerns, and these thoughts can reduce the
working memory capacity necessary to effectively meet the information-processing
requirements of a task. The effects of reduced working memory can be task, or
even component, specific.
Stone and McWhinnie
(2008) showed, for example, that subtle stereotype threat seemed to
affect only task components that rely on concentration and focused attention.
Reduced creativity, flexibility, and speed
Some research suggests that
stereotype threat can produce a prevention focus (Higgins, 1998), a
regulatory state in which individuals become vigilance to prevent
failure. Under such conditions, people tend to use risk-averse means,
manifesting in
higher performance accuracy and enhanced analytic thinking. People in a state of
vigilance, however, tend to exhibit poorer performance on tasks that rely on
creativity, openness, flexibility, and speed (Seibt &
Förster, 2004).
Since most tasks require
both analytic thinking and a degree of openness and speed for successful
completion, a prevention focus induced by stereotype threat can hinder
performance on many tasks.
Excess effort or attention
Stereotype threat might actually
increase effort and attention allocated to a task (e.g.,
Oswald & Harvey,
2000/2001). However, increased effort does not
necessarily improve performance, and characteristics of the task can determine
the effects of increased motivation or attention. For example, performance on
highly proceduralized or well-practiced tasks can be harmed when people increase
the attention or memory resources allocated to such tasks. Beilock, Jellison,
Rydell, McConnell, & Carr (2006), for example, showed that stereotype
threat harmed performance of expert golfers on a putting task, but these
decrements were alleviated when individuals were under stereotype threat and attention was drawn away from the task. Jamieson & Harkins (2007),
utilizing a task that has been tied to the regulation of working memory, provided more direct evidence that stereotype threat
can increase motivation and effort. On a task of visual perception, individuals
under stereotype threat were more susceptible to being distracted by an
irrelevant stimulus but were also better able to overcome distraction. These
data suggest that stereotype threat increased motivation to perform well.
Back to top
|
