Stereotype Beliefs
Running head: STEREOTYPE BELIEFS
How Stereotype Beliefs may Influence Motivation, Self-Regulation, and Academic
Achievement: A Literature Review
Paper submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for EDEP 820 Teaching, Learning, and
Cognition
Faye Huie
December 4, 2008
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
George Mason University
Fairfax VA
Michelle M. Buehl., PhD, Instructor
Fall 2008
1
Stereotype Beliefs
2
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to examine the implications of the current literature on how racial
stereotype beliefs may influence motivation (e.g., goal-orientation and self-efficacy beliefs), selfregulation (learning strategies), and achievement. Specifically, previous research has focused on
understanding the impact of negative stereotypes (e.g., stereotype threat) as opposed to
understanding stereotypes as a whole. Understanding how “positive” stereotypes may influence
achievement may provide useful information for teachers and policy makers. Additionally, few
studies have examined stereotypes at the individual belief level. This paper will first review the
theory of stereotype threat and how it influences achievement. Second, a brief review of socialcognitive theory and its motivational and self-regulatory factors will be discussed in addition to a
rationale for studying stereotypes through the lens of social-cognitive theory. Finally, this paper
will address how individual beliefs about stereotypes may impact: a) goal orientations, b) selfefficacy, c) learning strategies and, ultimately, achievement. Conclusions, limitations, and
implications for future research are discussed.
Stereotype Beliefs
3
How Stereotype Beliefs may Influence Motivation, Self-Regulation, and Academic
Achievement: A Literature Review
Blacks are less intelligent that Whites, Asians are the best at math, women can’t do
math… These assumptions are all classified as stereotypes that are present within today’s diverse
society. Specifically, stereotypes are defined as gross overgeneralizations of groups of people
(Steel & Aronson, 1995) and function as a means through which people use to understand and
categorize people and society (Aronson & Steele, 2005). Additionally, stereotypes have a strong
influence on how people behave and can cause the stereotyped group to be treated and perceived
differently (Aronson & Steele, 2005) by teachers (Tyson, 2003), peers (Aronson & Good, 2002),
and even parents (Aronson & Steele, 2005). Essentially, stereotypes are social in nature and
create different expectations, whether negative or positive, that people have about other people in
their categorized groups (Aronson & Steele, 2005). Therefore, a reasonable question to ask is,
through which mechanisms do stereotypes influence achievement? Although many researchers
have attempted to answer this question, none have examined stereotypes holistically through a
social-cognitive approach.
Social-cognition is a theory developed by Bandura (1986) who suggests that individual
behaviors and cognitions are the result of the interaction between personal perceptions and the
social environment. Since stereotypes are social in nature, it is reasonable to question if socialcognitive variables such as self-regulation or motivation interacts with perceived stereotypes to
impact achievement. Although very little research has been done that examined these
relationships, few recent studies do suggest that there may be a link. Therefore, this literature
review seeks to examine the different implications that prior research has on examining social
cognitive processes as mediators of the relationship between stereotype beliefs and achievement.
Stereotype Beliefs
4
Before the literature is reviewed, it is important to discuss the methods that were used to
locate the articles. Computerized databases were used to locate almost all the articles
summarized in this literature review. The databases that were used include both PsychInfo and
ERIC. First, broad search terms were used such as “stereotype” followed by more specific search
terms such as “stereotyp$ and achievement and goal orientation.” All queries on the electronic
database search were set to list only the peer-reviewed sources. Handbooks and textbooks were
also used to help conceptualize and integrate ideas and theories.
The following sections will first discuss in detail the nature of stereotype threat and the
research that has examined the effects of negative stereotypes on achievement. Next, this review
will distinguish the differences between a stereotype belief versus stereotype threat and the
implications that literature may have on examining it at an individual belief level. Following, a
brief overview of social cognitive theory with the associated motivational and self-regulatory
factors will be presented. Finally, a review of literature in terms of stereotypes and: a) selfefficacy, b) goal-orientation, and c) learning strategies will be summarized followed by overall
conclusions, limitations, and implications.
Stereotype Threat
One of the most popularly researched topics in terms of stereotypes is a phenomenon
called stereotype threat. This term was coined after Steele and Aronson’s (1995) groundbreaking
study that found that achievement gaps emerged between Whites and Blacks when the students
were just asked to classify their race on a non diagnostic achievement test. Specifically,
stereotype threat refers to the anxiety that one feels about being judged or treated stereotypically
or the fear of conforming to a certain negative stereotype about his/her group (Steele & Aronson,
1995). Many researchers (Milner & Woolfolk Hoy, 2003; Steele, 1997; Steele & Aronson, 1995)
Stereotype Beliefs
5
have found that the anxiety or threat that one feels actually hinders performance and increases
conformity to the gender (Meece, Glienke, & Burg, 2006) as well as racial stereotypes (Aronson
& Inzlicht, 2004; Gonzales, Blanton, & Williams, 2002; Steele & Aronson, 1995).
For example, in this famous study, Steele and Aronson (1995) sought to examine why
Blacks continually and consistently perform lower than Whites on standardized tests, even when
ability and achievement levels are similar. Specifically, Steele and Aronson (1995) created four
experiments designed to address these research questions: 1) what are the achievement outcomes
of Black and White students when administered a diagnostic exam and a non-diagnostic exam; 2)
are achievement differences of Black and White students mediated by the level of anxiety; 3)
what processes (e.g., stereotype activation, self-doubts, and stereotype avoidance) do stereotype
threat induce; and 4) can the salience of a stereotype influence performance on a test? The
assumption was that the diagnostic nature of the achievement test would elicit stereotype threat
in Black students and even when the test was not diagnostic, by requesting that students identify
their racial background would induce stereotype threat. The findings were clear. Achievement
gaps existed when students were administered diagnostic tests while the gaps disappeared when
the test was non-diagnostic. Additionally, Black students were found to spend more time on the
items, left more items blank, and performed significantly lower than the White students, which
indicated that Black students experienced an affective component such as anxiety and
apprehension. Finally, results also revealed that Black students in the diagnostic stereotype threat
condition perception of stereotypes were more activated, had more self-doubts, and disassociated
themselves from Black stereotypes than Black students in the non-diagnostic condition.
This study by Steel and Aronson (1995) opened the door for other researchers to continue
dissecting the new idea of stereotype threat and the evidence that accumulated over the years
Stereotype Beliefs
6
confirms that this idea is real and happens naturally and daily (Aronson & Steele, 2005). For
example, Gonzales et al. (2003) explored how stereotype threat operated in individuals who were
a double minority (e.g., female and Latino). Specifically, Gonzales et al. (2003) were interested
in examining if being a member of one stigmatized group (Latino) would sensitize the
individual’s sense of threat of being part of an additional stigmatized group (females).
Specifically, the assumption was that being part of a negatively stereotyped group would
enhance ones awareness of the stereotypes of another group that one belonged to. To answer this
research question, Gonzales et al. (2003) created two conditions, a diagnostic test (mathematical
and spatial reasoning) versus non-diagnostic test with groupings by both gender and ethnicity
(Latino and White). The results revealed that stereotype threat exists both in terms of gender and
ethnicity, where achievement differences emerged in a diagnostic test condition but disappeared
in a non-diagnostic test condition. In terms of the double-minority group sensitization question,
the results revealed that being Latino sensitized women to the gender stereotypes but being
female does not sensitize the Latino stereotypes. This implies that there is an intricate
relationship between people who are identified as double-minorities.
Clearly, there is a negative relationship between stereotype threat and achievement,
where the perception of stereotypes negatively influence achievement. Many educational
researchers has speculated on why this is the case, whether by anxiety (Blascovich, Spencer,
Quinn, & Steele, 2001; Steele & Aronson, 1995) or cognitive load (Schumader & Johns, 2003),
or expectations (Stangor, Carr, & Kang, 1998). In terms of anxiety, Blascovich et al. (2001) used
measured 20 Black students and 19 White students’ blood pressure while taking a standardized
test under a diagnostic and a non-diagnostic condition. The results reported that Black students’
blood pressure had increased significantly in the diagnostic condition but not in the non-
Stereotype Beliefs
7
diagnostic condition while White students’ blood pressure stayed the same across the two
conditions. In terms of cognitive load, Schumader and Johns (2003) examined how the capacity
of the working memory of Latinos and women across stereotype threat and non-stereotype threat
conditions in 75 undergraduate students. Through the use of a working memory measure in the
context of mathematics, the results revealed that the working memory of Latinos and women was
depressed in a stereotype threat condition and that the depression of working memory mediated
the effect of stereotype threat on performance. In terms of expectations, Stangor et al. (1998)
examined how stereotype threat may influence the expectations of success in women.
Specifically, Stangor et al. (1998) designed a 2 x 2 experiment (e.g., stereotype threat and nonstereotype threat versus positive feedback and negative feedback (designed to increase or
decrease the individuals level of confidence)) and measured student’s expectancy for future
success on similar tasks as an outcome measure. The results revealed that students in the
stereotype threat condition had a significantly lowed sense of expectations for success than
students in the non-stereotype threat condition, regardless of the level of confidence individuals
have on their abilities.
Although these studies summarized above provide some evidence on how stereotype
threat manifests in achievement, no studies have approached the relationship between stereotype
threat and achievement through the lens of social-cognitive theory. Additionally, the findings in
the summarized studies above suggest that such a relationship may exist in terms of goal
orientations and self-efficacy (e.g., expectations, anxiety) as well as self-regulatory behaviors
(e.g., cognitive load, expectations, and anxiety).
Although many researchers have attempted to identify why stereotype threat may
negatively influence achievement, many questions still remain (Smith & Hung, 2008). Within
Stereotype Beliefs
8
the stereotype threat literature, some researchers question if the threat stems from a group or
individual level (Wout, Danso, Jackson, & Spencer, 2008). Specifically, Wout et al. (2008)
examined how the stereotype between gender and mathematics acts to influence achievement at
the self- and group-level. Self-threat was defined as the concern that one will be personally
stereotyped while group threat is defined as the concern to which their social group will be
stereotyped. To explore this premise, Wout et al. (2008) assigned 59 female students to one of
four conditions: diagnostic, non-diagnostic, self-threat, or group-threat. Specifically, the selfthreat condition attempted to provoke students to use the stereotype to interpret their own math
ability while the group-threat condition emphasized that the stereotypes could be used to
interpret their math ability according to their gender. This was accomplished by the researcher
explicitly stating to the individuals in the diagnostic, self-threat condition to grade their own test
and that their scores would be kept private. In the group-threat condition, the researcher
explicitly informed participants that their scores would be examined as the average of female
student scores versus the average of male student scores. The results of this study indicated that
students in the diagnostic, self-threat condition underperformed as compared to students in the
non-diagnostic condition. However, the achievement of students in the group-threat condition
was not impacted. Additionally, this study found that women who highly identified with their
gender had underperformed than women who identified less with their gender. This study
suggests that stereotype threat may operate at different levels of self-threat and group-threat.
The study by Wout et al. (2008) suggests that nature of the threat (e.g., self- or groupthreat) may mediate the differences in achievement. However, Wout et al. (2008) explain that
much of the research on stereotype threat has focused on creating conditions that examine the
threats as a whole such as diagnostic versus non-diagnostic conditions and stereotype saliency
Stereotype Beliefs
9
without making a distinction between the types of threat. Ultimately, Wout et al. (2008) argue
that the stereotype threat elicited in diagnostic conditions is different from the stereotype threat
elicited in the saliency studies. Although this argument is made apparent in their study,
stereotypes may be broken down to an even finer level.
Stereotype Beliefs versus Stereotype Threat
The very definition of stereotype threat focuses on the negative stigma attached to groups
and assumes that all persons who belong to that group experience the same type of stereotype
threat. That is, the current focus on stereotype threat assumes that: a) the degree to which
stereotypes influences groups of individuals’ achievement are the same; and b) the individuals’
perception of threat is all the same. However, it is safe to argue that not all members of a
stigmatized group perceive the same stereotypes and even if they do, the degree to which they
believe that they conform to the stereotype may be different. Additionally, with stereotype threat
focusing only on negative stereotypes, other minority groups such as Asian-Americans are
excluded and are assumed to not be negatively influenced by stereotypes. Specifically, this
literature review has found that little research has included Asian-Americans in the stereotype
threat literature and when it was, Asian-Americans were conceptualized as one ethnic group.
The conceptualization of Asian-Americans as a one-race group is problematic because
Asian-Americans can be considered as one of the most heterogeneous ethnic groups in terms of
SES, culture, achievement, as well as stereotypes (Ngo & Lee, 2007). Specifically, in terms of
stereotypes, Southeast-Asian students are typically stereotyped as low achievers characterized by
high drop out rates and involvement in gangs (Ngo & Lee, 2007). Therefore, if individual beliefs
of stereotypes were taken into consideration, the variance that may be present within groups
would be accounted for. In addition to this rationale for studying stereotype beliefs in general, it
Stereotype Beliefs
10
would also be important to understand how stereotypes influence White students as well and the
different implications that it may have for teaching and learning. Therefore, in order to
understand more fully the nature stereotypes, individual beliefs may need to be taken into
account. Doing so may be more inclusive for other racial minorities including Whites.
In terms of positive effects of stereotypes, recent research has coined a new term within
the stereotype literature called stereotype lift (Walton & Cohen, 2003). In fact, this term is so
new that a search on PsycInfo with “Stereotype Lift” as the search query, only six results appear.
Essentially, the definition of this term is the opposite of stereotype threat. That is, stereotype lift
refers to how a group of non-stigmatized individuals perform higher when compared to a
stigmatized group. Evidence suggests that this phenomenon works as a performance boost for
individuals experiencing stereotype lift (Walton & Cohen, 2003). For example, Walton and
Cohen (2003) conducted a meta-analytic review of 43 studies on stereotype threat and found that
non-stigmatized groups actually achieved higher when the test was explicitly said to be
diagnostic of intellectual ability than when it was a non-diagnostic test. Additionally, stereotype
lift disappeared only under the conditions when the participants were explicitly informed that the
racial gaps were invalidated.
Although the idea of stereotype lift explains how being compared to a stigmatized group
may influence the achievement of a non-stigmatized group, there is still a lack of understanding
of how stereotypes in general act to influence achievement. Specifically, stereotype lift still does
not explicitly try to understand the role of positive stereotypes. However, if stereotype lift is
opposite of stereotype threat, which focuses on negative stereotypes, can’t stereotype lift be a
product of positive stereotypes? Examining stereotypes more holistically may provide more
insight into the idea of stereotype lift. However, even if stereotype lift was to be examined in
Stereotype Beliefs
11
terms of positive stereotypes, researchers are still questioning how stereotypes are influencing
achievement. As a result, one question that this review seeks to explore is through what socialcognitive processes do stereotype threat influence that can cause such an impact on
performance? Specifically, the following sections will review the implications that the current
literature on stereotype threat has on academic motivation (e.g., goal orientation and selfefficacy) and self-regulation (e.g., use of learning strategies). A brief discussion of social
cognitive theory and the idea of motivation and self-regulation will be reviewed prior to
reviewing the literature on stereotypes.
Social Cognitive Theory
Social-cognitive theory, developed by Bandura (1986) asserts that the way people behave
the way they think, what they believe, and how they feel is socially influenced by the
environment that they are in and the observations that they make (Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece,
2008). Specifically, three organizational factors conceptualize this theory which are: personal
factors (e.g., self-efficacy), behaviors (e.g., task strategies, persistence), and environmental (e.g.,
feedback) influences called the Model of Triadic Reciprocality. These factors are not mutually
exclusive, but are all interrelated with reciprocal relations (Bandura, 1986). For example, a
student’s level of self-efficacy will be influenced by the type of feedback he/she receives, which
will also impact the persistence that she put into completing a task. Therefore, through the lens of
social-cognitive theory, achievement is the result of how the environment shapes the cognitions
(e.g, motivation) and behaviors (self-regulation) that students engage in while learning. In other
words, students achieve to the extent to how motivated and self-regulated they are to achieve and
learn. A key element in motivation is the idea of self-efficacy, defined as the degree of
Stereotype Beliefs
12
confidence that one has in his or her ability to accomplish a certain goal (Bandura, 1986) and
goal orientation, defined as the reasons for why students achieve (Ames, 1992).
Motivation: Self-efficacy and goal orientation. There is strong evidence that suggest that
self-efficacy influences a number of cognitive processes and is a significant factor in academic
performance (Chemers, Hu, & Garcia, 2001; Robbins et al., 2004) as well as goal orientations
(Wolters, 2004). Specifically, three types of goal orientations are commonly researched which
are: mastery (e.g., learning and understanding is the most important goal), performance-approach
(e.g., achieving high to show others their competence), and performance-avoidance (e.g., not
achieving to avoid being perceived as incompetent) (Ames, 1992). Prior research has confirmed
that the being mastery oriented is more adaptive than being performance-approach or avoidance
oriented, where students achieve higher, are more efficacious, and use more effective learning
strategies that students who are more performance oriented (VandeWalle, Cron, & Slocum,
2001; Wolters, 2004).
Self-regulation: Learning strategies. Learning strategies are the different behaviors that
students engage in when learning (Schunk et al., 2008). Specifically, learning strategies can be
categorized as either surface level processing (memorizing, rehearsing) or deep processing
strategies (metacognitive self-regulation, summarizing) (Nicholls, 1984). Surface level
processing strategies are typically not as effective as deep processing strategies. Prior research
has found that the type of strategy that students engage in is influenced by goal orientations and
competency beliefs (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990) as well as the social environment (Zimmerman,
2008).
It is important to note that motivation is linked to ones level of self-regulation and that
self-efficacy and goal-orientation (motivational factors) can be seen as antecedents of self-
Stereotype Beliefs
13
regulated learning (Zimmerman, 1989). For example, in order for a student to use effective
learning strategies, students must first be efficacious in her ability to accomplish the learning
task as well as have a goal of mastering the task. However, although motivation occurs before
the use of learning strategies, these factors relate to each other in a cyclical manner, where the
social environment constantly interacts with the personal factors to influence motivation, selfregulation, and ultimately achievement (Zimmerman, 1989). Overall, motivation and selfregulation are socio-cognitive processes that help students learn effectively. Therefore, if
motivation and self-regulation and products of the social environment, how do ones stereotype
beliefs, which are also social in nature, influence how motivation and self-regulation interact to
influence achievement? These next sections will discuss the implications of the stereotype
literature on the social-cognitive factors of learning and achievement.
Self-Efficacy and Stereotype Beliefs
Different stereotypes, especially negative stereotypes, may act to influence the level of
perceived self-efficacy. For example, a Black student who perceives that the stereotype against
his/her ethnic background is that they are not as capable of achieving well in school may
influence the competency beliefs that he/she may have on a certain task or even domain. HollinsSawyer and Sawyer (2008) argue that stereotype threat should take into consideration ones
confidence in their test taking ability and examine it in terms of self-efficacy. However, prior
research has found inconsistent results in terms of self-efficacy. For example, Spencer, Steele,
and Quinn (1999) examined how gender stereotypes influenced mathematics performance
through test anxiety, self-efficacy, and evaluation apprehension (e.g., the fear/anxiety that his/her
gender group will be stereotyped based on his/her performance) in 36 women and 31 men. In
terms of self-efficacy the results revealed that students’ level of self-efficacy did not mediate the
Stereotype Beliefs
14
differences in achievement across the threat groups. However, because of the small sample size,
the authors recommended that the findings should be interpreted with caution.
Additionally, Hollins-Sawyer and Sawyer (2008) examined how the self-efficacy of
students may differ under a certain stereotype threat condition (e.g., threat versus no threat) or a
certain face validity condition (belief that the test is measuring something relevant or irrelevant)
in 198 ethnically diverse college students. To examine this question, Hollins-Sawyer and Sawyer
(2008) designed a 2 x 2 experiment (threat, not threat versus high face validity, low face validity)
where participants were administered a non-verbal cognitive ability test, stereotype threat
measure, and test anxiety measure. The results revealed that a stereotype threat effect existed for
both Black and Hispanic students, but not for Asian students (suspected to be due to a low
sample size). Additionally, in terms of self-efficacy, the authors concluded that the data partially
supported the hypothesis that low stereotype threat may have caused an increase in self-efficacy.
However, there is one critical flaw to point out in this study which is that self-efficacy was never
actually measured. Self-efficacy was assumed to increase because of the increased achievement
on the cognitive test (e.g., prior experiences of mastery, as one of the four sources of efficacy
described by Bandura (1989)). Therefore, this research does not clearly confirm or reject that
self-efficacy may have played a role in influencing achievement under stereotype threat
conditions.
In another study that examined self-efficacy and stereotypes, Aronson and Inzlicht (2004)
examined how stereotype vulnerability (e.g., the degree to which an individual is bothered or is
influenced by the negative stereotypes of his/her group) may influence the academic self-efficacy
that one has about his/her abilities. A total of 43 Black and 42 White students were asked to
complete a stereotype vulnerability scale as well as self-efficacy measures twice a day for eight
Stereotype Beliefs
15
days. The results revealed that Blacks who were more vulnerable to stereotypes reported stronger
fluctuations of self-efficacy than Blacks who were less vulnerable to stereotypes as well as to
their White counterparts. This finding suggests that participants who are more likely to be
affected by stereotype threat experience a less stable sense of efficacy.
The study done by Aronson and Inzlicht (2004) has two main implications for research.
First, this study suggests that minorities are not affected by stereotypes in a systematic,
homogenous manner. Individuals within the same ethnic group can experience different levels of
stereotype threat and can be influenced by the stereotypes to an either stronger or lesser degree.
Second, the degree to which individuals are influenced by the negative stereotypes may influence
the degree to which they are self-efficacious in their academic ability. The research summarized
above all either have found significant differences in self-efficacy (Aronson & Inzlicht, 2004),
did not find any differences in self-efficacy (Spencer, Steele, & Quinn,1999) or was not
conclusive enough to either support or reject that stereotype threat influenced efficacy (HollinsSawyer & Sawyer, 2008). Taken all together, this prior research support the notion that
stereotypes should be examined as a whole.
Specifically, Bandura (1989) suggest that an individual’s sense of efficacy is influenced
by four sources. Bandura suggests that one out of the four sources, which is prior experiences of
mastery, is the strongest predictor of efficacy. However, if present research on stereotype threat
focuses on negative stereotypes, which has been found to be negatively related to achievement
(Steele & Aronson, 1995), a severe limit on self-efficacy is unintentionally set. Therefore,
studying stereotypes as a whole, including both positive and negative stereotypes as well as
individual beliefs on the degree to which to conform to the stereotype, may be more theoretically
appropriate as well as reveal more consistent results.
Stereotype Beliefs
16
There is evidence to suggest that theorists have begun to examine how stereotype threat
can be explained through a social-cognitive theoretical framework. Specifically, Ryan and Ryan
(2005) discuss how self-efficacy as well as goal orientation may be hindered in students who
experience stereotype threat. These researchers reason that stereotype threat provides a frame of
reference for individual’s evaluations of him/herself during the task which can depress both selfefficacy and performance. To provide a conceptual framework for understanding this
relationship Ryan and Ryan (2005) proposed a model of math performance in the context of
stereotype threat and how goal orientations may directly influence math self-efficacy, test
anxiety, and cognitive processing. Although this model has not been tested, it is important to
note that the conceptualization of stereotype threat through the lens of social cognitive theory has
begun. However, this model, again, only focuses on the negative stereotypes of Blacks and
female students and only on one goal orientation (performance-avoidance). Exploring
stereotypes holistically in the frame of social cognition may be more inclusive for other
minorities as well as understand the nature of stereotypes altogether.
Goal Orientations and Stereotypes
Since the literature suggests that there may be a link between self-efficacy and
stereotypes, a link between stereotypes and goal-orientations may exist as well. Specifically,
since self-efficacy and goal orientation are both interrelated and work together to influence
achievement, and since self-efficacy may be related to stereotypes, goal orientation may also be
directly or indirectly related to the stereotype beliefs individuals have. The literature on
stereotype threat suggests that a direct link may exist (Ryan & Ryan, 2005), however much of
the current research focus on examining how stereotype threat relate to regulatory focus.
Specifically, Regulatory Focus Theory (RFT), developed by Higgins (1998), suggests that there
Stereotype Beliefs
17
are two modes of regulatory focus: a) promotion and b) prevention. The promotion focus of
regulation refers to individuals who are not vulnerable to the negative outcomes of stereotype
threat due to their focus on positive outcomes and adaptive goals. Conversely, the prevention
focus of regulation refers to individuals who are vulnerable to the negative outcomes of
stereotype threat due to preventative goals. In other words, promotion focus students perceive
situations as gain or no gain while prevention students focus on loss or no loss (Keller, 2007).
Keller (2007) suggest that students who are more promotion focused tend to achieve higher than
students who are more prevention focused.
The regulatory focus hypothesis can be conceptualized as being similar to goal
orientations. Specifically, students who are considered as more promotion focused may also be
more mastery oriented. That is, the definition of mastery goals implies that students focus more
on learning and mastering the material, which is similar to the promotion regulation focus.
Conversely, students who are more performance-avoidance oriented may also imply that they are
more prevention focused. Other researchers (Seibt & Forster, 2004) suggest that the most valid
indicator of a prevention focus is the use of avoidance strategies while the most valid indicator of
a promotion focus is the use of approach strategies. This suggests that although researchers have
yet to directly link goal orientations with the effects of stereotype threat, the conceptualizations
of it are intimately related and may suggest a direct link. Researchers are just beginning to
introduce goal theory into understanding the performance effects of stereotype threat (Kellow &
Jones, 2008; Ryan & Ryan, 2005).
Ryan and Ryan (2005) suggest that the perception of negative stereotypes may increase
student adoption of performance-avoidance goal orientations. The reasoning is that individuals
who experience stereotype threat also have their self-worth threatened. In a sense, individuals
Stereotype Beliefs
18
who perceive that they are judged more negatively on their academic capabilities constantly try
to avoid those negative judgments (Steele, 1997) which Ryan and Ryan (2005) suggests that the
avoidance translates to adopting performance-avoidance goal orientations. As previously
mentioned Ryan and Ryan (2005) developed a model which suggest that stereotype threat
directly influences achievement through performance-avoidance goal orientation and selfefficacy. Although this model has not been validated or tested, it reveals that goal orientation is
hypothesized to be influential in the relationship between stereotype threat and performance.
However, the little research that has examined goal orientation in relation to stereotype threat has
found mixed results.
For example, Kellow and Jones (2008) examined how students in a stereotype threat
condition differed in achievement goal orientation (performance-approach and performance
avoidance) and performance. Specifically, Kellow and Jones (2008) administered a spatial ability
test to measure performance and adapted a goal orientation survey to measure the two types of
performance goals in 681 college students. Students were placed randomly into either an
evaluative condition (threat) or non-evaluative condition (no threat). The results revealed that
students in a stereotype threat condition were not more performance-avoidance or approach
oriented, however, there were signs that the stereotype threat effect had occurred. Black students
had achieved higher in the non-threat condition whereas White students did better than Blacks in
the threat condition. However, it is important to note that there were issues with the measure of
goal orientation where one item was used to measure each goal orientation. Using a more
comprehensive measure of goal orientation may have provided different results.
Seibt and Forster (2004) examined how stereotype threat induced students may recall
more avoidance type statements and how positive stereotype induced students may recall more
Stereotype Beliefs
19
approach related statements. Specifically Seibt and Forester (2004) hypothesized that students
who are negatively stereotyped would be more prevention focused than students who are more
positively stereotyped, and that the indicators of prevention or promotion focus would be the use
of avoidance or approach strategies, respectively. The study consisted of 32 German nonpsychology students who were randomly split into two groups (negative stereotype and positive
stereotype). The students in the positively stereotyped conditions were told that psychology
students usually do poorly on the test that they were about to take whereas students majoring in
other disciplines do very well. The opposite was said to the negatively stereotyped group.
Experimenters informed the students that they would be administered a test of verbal intelligence
when the test was actually meant to measure approach or avoidant strategies. Specifically, the
“test” consisted of a story that illustrated 20 life events of a character. The life events described
the characters involvement in either approach or avoidance activities. After the test, participants
took a filler task and then were unexpectedly asked to recall the events in the story. The results
revealed that students in the positively stereotyped condition recalled more approach related
events while the students in the negatively stereotyped condition recalled more avoidance related
events.
Although the research by Seibt and Forster (2004) does not directly link performanceapproach or performance-avoidance goal orientation, it has implications for the relationship
between goals and stereotypes. First, goal orientation is characterized as a motivational or
cognitive process that manifests itself in the different learning behaviors that students engage in
(Ames, 1992). That is, students who are more performance-approach oriented may study using
less effective strategies (behavior) just to show others that he/she the high mark on the exam
(cognitive) whereas performance-avoidance oriented students would not studying for the test
Stereotype Beliefs
20
(behavioral) to avoid being labeled as incompetent (cognitive). Thus, this can transfer to
stereotype threat through this scenario: students who want to avoid being stereotyped negative
will not study for the exam (behavioral) so he/she can attribute the poor performance to an
external source rather than an internal source (cognitive), which would confirm the stereotype.
The reverse would occur for students who are more performance-approach oriented.
Although the prior literature may suggest that goal orientations may mediate the effect of
stereotype threat on achievement, the literature focuses on only performance goals. No studies
were found that examined how mastery goal orientation operated in stereotype or non-stereotype
induced students. Additionally, limited research is available on how performance goal
orientations influence achievement, since this link is relatively new and is still being
disseminated among researchers (Ryan & Ryan, 2005).
However, in terms of social-cognitive theory, goal orientation is an important factor in
determining the types of strategies that students engage in (Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2005).
Specifically, more mastery oriented students would engage in more deep processing strategies
such as metacognition while more performance oriented students would engage in more surface
level strategies such as memorization and rehearsal. The next section will outline how the current
literature on stereotypes can carry implications for how stereotypes may impact students’ use of
learning strategies.
Stereotype Beliefs and Learning Strategies
Learning strategies are the different approaches that students apply when learning or
studying material (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990) which can be categorized as either surface level
processing or deep processing (Schunk et al, 2008). As previously discussed, surface level
processing strategies are not as strongly related to achievement as deep processing strategies.
Stereotype Beliefs
21
There is evidence to suggest that the use of effective, deeper process learning strategies is
influenced by ones level of self-regulation (Schunk et al., 2008). That is, the use of the learning
strategies depends on the individuals’ knowledge of what the different learning strategies are and
how to use them, as well as when and why they are used (Schunk et al., 2008). Therefore, being
able to effectively self-regulate the use learning strategies requires students to effectively plan
the strategies that they use, apply the strategies, and monitor their effectiveness. According to
Zimmerman (2008) and Zimmerman and Kitsantas (2005), the process of learning is cyclical,
where motivational aspects like self-efficacy and goal orientation highly influences how one selfregulates their learning. However, if stereotype beliefs can be both related to self-efficacy and
goal orientation, and self-efficacy and goal orientation are related to learning strategies, can
stereotype beliefs play a role in how these variables interact to influence achievement?
Prior research by Schmader, Johns, and Forbes (2008) as well as Inzlicht, McKay and
Aronson (2006) suggest that the cognitive processes of self-regulation are limited when one
perceives that he/she is negatively stigmatized. Specifically, both Schmader et al. (2008) and
Inzlicht et al. (2006) rationalized that since stereotype threat has been found to impair working
memory and if working memory consists of an attentional regulation component, then the
capacity to self-regulate would also be impaired as well. For example, a person who is worried
about the negative stereotypes against him/her would be too busy thinking about that anxiety
while also trying to complete an examine. The person would have to control both the negative
anxieties and their working memory in order to efficiently retrieve the learned material to
complete the test. This balancing act serves as a regulatory component.
Schmader et al. (2008) provides a model of understanding how self-regulation may
impact the processes in stereotype threat that hinder performance. Specifically, Schmader et al.
Stereotype Beliefs
22
(2008) argue that stereotype threat is directly related to the monitoring and suppression processes
of the stigmatized student which is also directly influences the working memory of the student.
This process then ultimately leads to underperformance (Schmader & Johns, 2003). In other
words, students who experience stereotype threat are constantly monitoring their environment
and situational cues to understand what is implied about the self and/group. If the student
perceives that negative stereotypes are being inflicted on him/herself, he/she will attempt to
suppress those stereotypes by pushing them out of ones thought processes, which inhibit the full
potential of the working memory, causing a decrease on performance. Additionally, Schmader et
al. (2008) suggest that working memory is required for one to effectively self-control or selfregulate their behaviors and cognitions. Therefore, if working memory is hindered, the ability to
self-regulate is also hindered.
Inzlicht et al. (2006) hypothesized that if stereotypes act to impair the capacity to selfregulate, then minorities who are more stereotype-vulnerable would be less able to self-regulate
their learning behaviors. To examine this hypothesis, the researchers administered a stereotype
vulnerability scale as well as a self-efficacy to self-regulate scale to a total of 38 Black students.
The results confirmed the hypothesis. The more stereotype vulnerable the students were the less
likely they felt confident that they would be able to successfully self-regulate their learning
behaviors.
These two studies provide insight on how self-regulatory cognitions and behaviors can be
inhibited by stereotype vulnerability and threat. However, much of the research has
conceptualized self-regulation as a sub-process of working memory and Inzlicht et al. (2006)
have been the only researchers who examined self-regulation as a collection of learning
strategies. However, there are issues with how self-regulation is conceptualized. Specifically,
Stereotype Beliefs
23
self-regulation refers to the collection of behaviors, namely, learning strategies, that students
engage in while learning and the different cognitions that either help or hinder the use of those
strategies (Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2005). However, Inzlicht et al. (2005) measured only the
belief that one can effectively apply the learning strategies, not the actual strategies themselves.
Nevertheless, the findings of Inzlicht et al. (2006) do suggest that there may be a direct link
between perceived stereotypes and the use of either surface or deep processing learning
strategies. For instance, would a student who perceives more positive stereotypes engage in more
surface or deep processing strategies? Or would the use of strategies be influenced indirectly
through goal-orientation and self-efficacy?
Overall, the research suggests that there may be a link between stereotypes and selfefficacy (Hollins-Sawyer and Sawyer, 2008; Spencer et al., 1999), goal orientations (Kellow &
Jones, 2008; Ryan & Ryan, 2005), and learning strategies (Inzlicht et al. 2006). However, no
research to date have examined these variables altogether to explain how stereotype threat may
impact achievement. Studying these variables as mediators of stereotype threat and achievement
may provide new insight on how stereotype influences achievement.
Conclusions: Stereotype Beliefs and Social Cognitive Theory
The literature on stereotype threat indicates that negative stereotypes that are socially
inflicted upon ones ability to achieve actually impede achievement (Aronson & Inzlicht, 2004;
Aronson & Steele, 2005; Steele & Aronson, 1995; Steele, 1997). Since the inception in 1995 by
Steele and Aronson, the theory of stereotype threat has been one of the most popularly studied
phenomenons in the field of social psychology (Schmader et al., 2008). However, the
mechanisms that mediate this relationship have yet to be clearly understood (Ryan & Ryan,
2005) and no research to date have examined this effect holistically through the lens of social
Stereotype Beliefs
24
cognitive theory. This may be due to the fact that the idea of stereotype threat was coined a little
over a decade ago and researchers are still trying to understand the nature of this social
occurrence.
There is also evidence within the current stereotype threat literature to suggest that socialcognitive factors of motivated and self-regulated learning may act as mediators of stereotypethreat and achievement. However, the current research on stereotypes tends to focus on
stereotype threat instead of stereotypes in general. Doing so creates a division in stereotypes,
where only the negative (and sometimes positive, i.e., stereotype lift) impacts of negative
stereotypes are examined. Positive stereotypes were virtually ignored. In order to understand the
holistic nature of stereotypes, researchers need to focus more on understanding both positive and
negative stereotypes together as one set of beliefs or perceptions and how it impacts different
gender or ethnic backgrounds. Doing so would be more inclusive for other ethnic backgrounds
such as Asian-Americans as well as take into account the variations of beliefs within group.
Specifically, all Asian-Americans may not perceive the same stereotypes, and even if they did
the degree to which they believe that they conform to the stereotype may differ.
Limitations. Several limitations exist within the current stereotype literature as well as
how researchers can approach stereotype threat with a social-cognitive perspective. In terms of
the current stereotype literature, most focus on inducing stereotype threat by putting students into
diagnostic and non-diagnostic conditions. Doing so removes students from their natural context
and the conclusions drawn from experimental settings may be different from the conclusions
draw from real world settings. By developing a survey that queries the degree to which
individual students believe that they conform to the certain stereotype may provide a more
realistic and complete view of stereotypes.
Stereotype Beliefs
25
Second, as described throughout this review, the current literature focuses mainly on the
negative impact of negative stereotypes. Doing so excludes other ethnic minorities who may
experience stereotype threat (e.g., East Asians versus Southeast Asians). Further, there is some
evidence to suggest that negative stereotypes may positively influence the achievement of nonstigmatized groups in terms of stereotype lift (Walton & Cohen, 2003); however, it may be
conceivable that stereotype lift is the result of positive stereotypes while stereotype threat is the
result of negative stereotypes. The current research should shift attention to both positive and
negative stereotypes in order to examine this question.
In terms of examining stereotypes through the lens of social-cognitive theory, the main
limitation is the lack of a valid measure. Specifically, because the research focuses more on
creating stereotype threat conditions, a scale that measures the degree to which individuals
believe they conform to a stereotype does not exist. Since social-cognitive theory is largely based
on how the environment interacts with the individual student, it would be important to develop a
model that measures individual beliefs in order to examine motivational and self-regulatory
factors and how it influences general achievement. However, there are also limitations to
examining domain-general stereotype beliefs. Specifically, Pseekos, Dahlen, and Levy (2008)
suggest that stereotypes are domain specific. However, it may be possible to develop a scale with
generic, domain-general stereotypes to examine how it influences domain general motivation and
self-regulatory factors and overall achievement.
Implications. The implications of this literature review, as previously discussed, are
creating a measure that assesses the degree to which one believes that he/she conforms to a
certain stereotype to understand stereotypes as a whole and to be more inclusive in terms of
ethnic background. Second, since the literature generally concludes that a relationship may exist
Stereotype Beliefs
26
between motivation and self-regulation and stereotype threat and achievement (Hollins-Sawyer
How stereotype beliefs may influence
1999), the following
conceptualization
of how all these
variables interact is presented
achievement
through
self-regulation
and in Figure
motivation: Putting it all together
1.
& Sawyer, 2008; Inzlicht et al. 2006; Kellow & Jones, 2008; Ryan & Ryan, 2005;Spencer et al.,
Self
Efficacy
Stereotype
Beliefs
Goal
Orientation
GPA
Learning
Strategies
Figure 1. Motivation and self-regulation as mediators of stereotype beliefs and achievement.
This model describes how stereotype beliefs can influence the cyclical nature of motivation and
self-regulation as well as achievement both directly and indirectly. Future research should first
develop a survey that measures the extent to which individuals believe they conform to the
stereotypes and then proceed to test the validity of this model. Understanding the interaction
between stereotype beliefs and social-cognition may not only advance the literature on
stereotypes, but may also provide useful insight on how race operates within the educational
system. Additionally, since motivation and self-regulation are both amendable through
intervention (Zimmerman, 2008), this research may provide researchers useful information on
how to design interventions more effectively to help students overcome the maladaptive effects
of stereotypes.
Stereotype Beliefs
27
References
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 84(3), 261–271.
Aronson, J., & Good, C. (2002). The development and consequences of stereotype vulnerability
in adolescents. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Adolescence and education. New York:
Information Age.
Aronson, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2004). The ups and downs of attributional ambiguity. Psychological
Science, 15(12), 829-836.
Aronson, J., & Steele, C. M. (2005). Stereotypes and the fragility of academic competence,
motivation, and self-concept. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of
competence and motivation. (pp. 436-456). New York: Guilford Press.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation of thought and action: A social-cognitive view.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Blascovich, J., Spencer, S. J., Quinn, D., & Steele, C. (2001). African Americans and high blood
pressure: The role of stereotype threat. Psychological Science, 12(3), 225-229.
Chemers, M., Hu, L., & Garcia, B.F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first-year
college student performance adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 5564.
Gonzales, P. M., Blanton, H., & Williams, K. J. (2002). The effects of stereotype threat and
double-minority status on the test performance of Latino women. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 28(5), 659-670.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280-1300.
Stereotype Beliefs
28
Hollis-Sawyer, L. A., & Sawyer, T. P. (2008). Potential stereotype threat and face validity effects
on cognitive-based test performance in the classroom. Educational Psychology, 28(3),
291-304.
Inzlicht, M., McKay, L., & Aronson, J. (2006). Stigma as ego depletion: How being the target of
prejudice affects self-control. Psychological Science, 17(3), 262-269.
Keller, J. (2007). When negative stereotypic expectancies turn into challenge or threat: The
moderating role of regulatory focus. Swiss Journal of Psychology/Schweizerische
Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Revue Suisse de Psychologie, 66(3), 163-168.
Kellow, T., & Jones, B. (2008). The effects of stereotypes on the achievement gap: Reexamining
the academic performance of african american high school students. Journal of Black
Psychology, 34(1), 94-120.
Meece, J. L., Glienke, B. B., & Burg, S. (2006). Gender and motivation. Journal of School
Psychology, 44(5), 351-373.
Milner, H. R., & Hoy, A. W. (2003). A case study of an African American teacher's selfefficacy, stereotype threat, and persistence. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(2), 263276.
Ngo, B., & JLee, S. (2007). Complicating the image of model minority success: A review of
southeast asian american education. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 415.
Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation, conceptions of ability, subjective experience,
task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328-346.
Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of
classroom academic performance, Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33-40.
Stereotype Beliefs
29
Pseekos, A. C., Dahlen, E. R., & Levy, J. J. (2008). Development of the academic stereotype
threat inventory. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 41(1), 212.
Robbins, S. B., Lauver K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do
psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 130(2), 261-288.
Ryan, K. E., & Ryan, A. M. (2005). Psychological processes underlying stereotype threat and
standardized math test performance. Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 53-63.
Schmader, T., & Johns, M. (2003). Converging Evidence that stereotype threat reduces working
memory capacity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 440-452.
Schmader, T., Johns, M., & Forbes, C. (2008). An integrated process model of stereotype threat
effects on performance. Psychological Review, 115(2), 336-356.
Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., Meece, J. L. (2008). Motivation in Education: Theory research,
and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson-Merrill Prentice Hall.
Seibt, B., & Förster, J. (2004). Stereotype threat and performance: How self-stereotypes
influence processing by inducing regulatory foci. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 87(1), 38-56.
Smith, C. S. & Hung, L. I. (2008). Stereotype threat: Effects on education. Social Psychology of
Education, 11(3), 243-257.
Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women's math
performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 4-28.
Stangor, C., Carr, C., & Kiang, L. (1998). Activating stereotypes undermines task performance
expectations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(5), 1191-1197.
Stereotype Beliefs
30
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of
African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5),
Steele, C. A. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African
Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797-811.
Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and
performance. American Psychologist, 52(6), 613-629.
Tyson, K. (2003). Notes from the back of the room: problems and paradoxes in the schooling of
young black students. Sociology of Education, 76(4), 326-343.
VandeWalle, D., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. W. J. (2001). The role of goal orientation following
performance feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 629-640.
Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2003). Stereotype Lift. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 39(5), 456-467.
Wolters, C. A. (2004). Advancing achievement goal theory: Using goal structures and goal
orientations to predict students' motivation, cognition, and achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 96(2), 236-250.
Wout, D., Danso, H., Jackson, J., & Spencer, S. (2008). The many faces of stereotype threat:
Group- and self-threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(3), 792-799.
Zimmerman, B. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 81(3), 329-339.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background,
methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research
Journal, 45(1), 166-183.
Stereotype Beliefs
Zimmerman, B., & Kitsantas, A. (2005). The hidden dimension of personal competence: Selfregulated learning and practice. In A. J. Elliot, & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of
Competence and Motivation (pp. 509-526). New York: Guilford Publications.
31