No Stigmatized Child Left Behind:
Understanding and Reducing the Effects
that Stereotypes have on Performance
Toni Schmader, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Psychology
University of Arizona
Explaining race and gender
differences in performance
►
Racial minorities:
►
 Higher dropout rate
 Lower GPA
 Lower test scores
 Less likely to pursue math
 Lower test scores
Verbal
Math
600
Women in math:
550
550
500
500
450
450
400
400
350
350
300
Verbal
Math
600
Whites
Blacks
Mexican American
American Indian
300
Males
Females
Minding the Gap
► Sociological
► Socialization
► Biological
►A
Explanations
Explanations
Explanations
Situational Explanation
Stereotype Threat
“A Threat in the Air”
Black
White
13
Test Performance
(controlling for SAT)
Steele (1997)
► When individuals feel
that they might be
judged in terms of a
negative stereotype or
that they might do
something that would
inadvertently confirm
that stereotype.
10
7
4
1
Diagnostic
Nondiagnostic
Steele & Aronson (1995)
4
Stereotype Threat can Occur for Many
Groups in many Domains
5
Contextual Cues that Trigger Threat
► Making
the grade – how a task is framed
 Steele & Aronson (1995); Johns, Schmader, & Martens (2005); Spencer,
Steele, & Quinn (1999)
► Reduced
to a stereotype – reminders of gender
 Shih, Pittinsky, & Ambady (1999); Inzlicht & Ben Zeev (2000); Davies et
al., (2003); Steele & Aronson (1995)
► Effects
shown in elementary & secondary school
 Ambady, Shih, Kim, & Pittinsky (2001)
► Replications
in naturalistic classroom environments
 Keller & Dauenheimer (2003), Danaher & Crandall (2008)
 Moving demographics to after the test reduces gender gap by 33%
Explaining the Process
Cues to Threat
Mediators?
Poor Performance
Explaining the Process
Math
Cues to Threat
Mediators?
Verbal
Spatial
Memory
Interaction
Does Stereotype Threat Reduce
Working Memory Capacity?
►
Working memory capacity
 The ability to focus attention on a task while
inhibiting irrelevant information. (Engle, 2001)
►
Measured using dual processing tasks
►
Working memory capacity = number of words
9
Results
Study 1: Men & Women
# of Words Recalled
72
Study 2: Whites & Latinos
Whites
Latinos
Men
Women
60
48
36
24
12
0
Control
Stereotype
Threat
Schmader & Johns (2003, JPSP)
Control
Stereotype
Threat
Does Working Memory Capacity Mediate
Test Performance?
-.52**
Stereotype
Threat
Working
Memory
Capacity
-.42*
Schmader & Johns (Study 3, 2003, JPSP)
.58***
Math Test
Performance
11
Does Working Memory Capacity Mediate
Test Performance?
-.52**
Stereotype
Threat
Working
Memory
Capacity
-.12 ns
Schmader & Johns (Study 3, 2003, JPSP)
.58***
Math Test
Performance
Sobel: z = 2.26*
12
A Stress-Induced Cognitive Deficit
Model of Stereotype Threat
Environmental
Trigger of
Stereotype Threat
Working
Memory
Capacity
Performance
on Cognitive
Task
A Stress-Induced Cognitive Deficit
Model of Stereotype Threat
Increased
Performance Monitoring
Environmental
Trigger of
Stereotype Threat
Physiological Stress
Response
Working
Memory
Capacity
Performance
on Cognitive
Task
A Stress-Induced Cognitive Deficit
Model of Stereotype Threat
Increased
Performance Monitoring
Appraisal
Processes
Environmental
Trigger of
Stereotype Threat
Physiological Stress
Response
Working
Memory
Capacity
Performance
on Cognitive
Task
A Stress-Induced Cognitive Deficit
Model of Stereotype Threat
Increased
Performance Monitoring
Appraisal
Processes
Environmental
Trigger of
Stereotype Threat
Negative
Cognitions
Negative
Emotions
Physiological Stress
Response
Working
Memory
Capacity
Performance
on Cognitive
Task
A Stress-Induced Cognitive Deficit
Model of Stereotype Threat
Increased
Performance Monitoring
Appraisal
Processes
Environmental
Trigger of
Stereotype Threat
Negative
Cognitions
Negative
Emotions
Physiological Stress
Response
Emotion
Regulation
Working
Memory
Capacity
Performance
on Cognitive
Task
Long Term Effects on
Motivation and Behavior
Cues to Threat
Career Choice
Manifestations of Threat:
Contexts that Cue Threat Lead to:
► Lower
test performance
 Johns et al. (2005); Schmader & Johns (2003); Steele & Aronson (1995)
► Lower
expectancies and self-confidence
 Schmader, Johns, & Barquissau (2004); Stangor et al., (1998)
Some Female Science & Math Majors
Buy into the Stereotype
e.g.,ENDORSE
“I don’t think that there are any real
gender
in math ability.”
SEX: 2differences
female
Women’s endorsement
correlates with:
30
- lower confidence
r = -.21, p < .05
20
- lower self-esteem
about performance
10
Std. Dev = 1.59
r = -.26, p < .05
Mean = 2.9
N = 86.00
0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
Strongly
ENDORSE
agree
6.0
7.0
Strongly
disagree
Endorsement
- less interest in
graduate school
r = -.26, p < .05
Schmader, Johns, Barquissau (2004) Journal of Sex Roles
Manifestations of Threat:
Contexts that Cue Threat Lead to:
► Lower
test performance
 Johns et al. (2005); Schmader & Johns (2003); Steele & Aronson (1995)
► Lower
expectancies and self-confidence
 Schmader, Johns, & Barquissau (2004); Stangor et al., (1998)
► Less
interest in math, science, and leadership
 Davies, Spencer, & Steele (2005)
Subtle Exposure to Gender Stereotypes
can Affect Women’s Preferences
Effects on Women’s
Career Preferences
Effects on Women’s
Leadership Preference
7
7
6
Role Preferences
Career Preferences
6
Language careers
Math careers
5
4
3
5
4
3
2
2
1
1
Neutral
Stereotypic
TV Commercials
Subordinate role
Leadership role
Neutral
Stereotypic
TV Commercials
Davies, Spencer, Quinn, & Gerhardstein (2002) Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Davies, Spencer, & Steele (2005) Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Closing the Gap by Inoculating
Women from Threat
Cues to Threat
Poor Performance
23
Closing the Gap
Solution 1: Creating a Threat Free Environment
Men
Women
20
15
10
5
0
The Presence of People like Me
Test Performance
corrected for SAT)
Test Performance
corrected for SAT)
The Benefits of Role Models
Men
Women
85
65
45
25
Study run by
competent male
Study run by
competent
female
Marx & Roman (2002)
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
In the minority
With same sex
others
Inzlicht & Ben-Zeev (2000)
Psychological Science
A Stress-Induced Cognitive Deficit
Model of Stereotype Threat
Increased
Performance Monitoring
Are group differences eliminated
when women are taught to
reappraise the situation?
Appraisal
Processes
Environmental
Trigger of
Stereotype Threat
Negative
Cognitions
Negative
Emotions
Physiological Stress
Response
Emotion
Regulation
Working
Memory
Capacity
Performance
on Cognitive
Task
Closing the Gap
Solution 2: Threat Inoculation through Education
► Fostering
a sense of belonging
 Everyone faces doubts about performance
 Walton & Cohen (2007)
► Emphasizing
skill over ability
 Learning is an incremental process
 Good, Aronson, & Inzlicht (2003)
Closing the Gap
Solution 1: Educating Students about Academic Experiences
100
95
90
85
Math Test
Performance 80
75
70
65
60
Males
Females
Anti-Drug
Control
Intelligence is
Incremental
Experiencing
Difficulty is
Normal
Type of Intervention
Good, Aronson, & Inzlicht (2003) Applied Developmental Psychology
Closing the Gap
Solution 2: Threat Inoculation through Education
► Fostering
a sense of belonging
 Everyone faces doubts about performance
 Walton & Cohen (2007)
► Emphasizing
skill over ability
 Learning is an incremental process
 Good, Aronson, & Inzlicht (2003)
► Unveiling
the effects of stereotype threat
 Stereotypes as an external explanation for anxiety
 Johns, Schmader, & Martens (2005)
What is the effect of learning
about stereotype threat?
Two Competing Hypotheses:
1. Ignorance is bliss
Knowing about threat could make stereotypes
come to mind more easily & erode self-efficacy
2. Knowledge is power
Stereotypes offer an external explanation for
anxiety that might reduce threat
Does Teaching Stereotype Threat
Inoculate Women Against its Effects?
Described stereotype threat & said:
“It’s important to keep in mind that if
you are feeling anxious while taking
this test, this anxiety could be the
result of these negative stereotypes
that are widely known in society and
have nothing to do with your actual
ability to do well on the test.”
Johns, Schmader, & Martens (2005) Psychological Science
Summary & Implications
► Stereotype
threat offers a situational account of
the performance gap
► Changing
the situation can reduce the threat
► Implications
for Affirmative Action
 Controls for gap in scores created by stereotypes
 Creates diverse and threat-free learning environment