|
Stereotype threat refers to being at risk of
confirming, as self-characteristic, a negative
stereotype about one's group (Steele
& Aronson, 1995). This term was first used by
Steele and Aronson (1995)
who
showed in several
experiments that Black college freshmen and sophomores
performed more poorly on standardized tests than White
students when their race was emphasized. When race was not
emphasized, however, Black students performed better and
equivalently with White students. The results
showed that performance in academic
contexts can be harmed by the awareness that
one's behavior might be viewed through the lens of
racial stereotypes.
Similar effects had been reported earlier by
Katz, Roberts, and Robinson (1965), but
Steele and Aronson's (1995)
paper prompted a renewed exploration of the causes and
consequences of stereotype threat. To date,
over
300
experiments on stereotype threat have been published in
peer-reviewed journals (see
Nguyen & Ryan, 2008
and
Walton & Cohen, 2003 for meta-analyses). The purpose of the website is to
provide a summary and overview of published research on this
topic in the hope that increasing understanding of the
phenomenon may reduce its occurrence and impact
(Johns,
Schmader, & Martens, 2005).
Since
Steele and Aronson's (1995) paper, research in
stereotype threat has broadened in several important
respects. First,
research has shown that the
consequences of stereotype threat
extend beyond underachievement on academic tasks. For
example, it can lead to self-handicapping strategies,
such as reduced practice time for a task (Stone,
2002), and to reduced sense of belonging to
the stereotyped domain (Good, Dweck, & Rattan, 2008). In
addition, consistent
exposure to stereotype threat (e.g., faced by some
ethnic minorities in academic environments and women in
math) can reduce the degree that individuals value the
domain in question (Aronson,
et al. 2002;
Osborne, 1995;
Steele, 1997). In education, it can also lead students
to choose not to pursue the domain of study and,
consequently, limit the range of professions that they
can pursue. Therefore, the long-term effects of
stereotype threat might contribute to educational and
social inequality (Good et al., 2008a;
Schmader, Johns, & Barquissau, 2004).
Furthermore, stereotype threat has been shown to affect
stereotyped individuals’ performance in a number of
domains beyond academics, such as white men in sports
(e.g.,
Stone,
Lynch, Sjomerling, & Darley, 1999),
women in negotiation (Kray,
Galinsky, & Thompson, 2002),
homosexual men in providing childcare (Bosson,
Haymovitz, & Pinel, 2004),
and women in driving (Yeung
& von Hippel, 2008). Second,
research has given us a better understanding of who is
most
vulnerable
to stereotype threat. Research has shown that
stereotype threat can harm the academic performance of
any
individual for whom the situation invokes a
stereotype-based expectation of poor performance. For
example, stereotype threat has been shown to harm the
academic performance of Hispanics (Gonzales,
Blanton, & Williams, 2002;
Schmader &
Johns, 2003),
students from low socioeconomic backgrounds (Croizet
& Claire, 1998),
females in math (Good,
Aronson, & Harder, 2008;
Inzlicht &
Ben-Zeev, 2000;
Spencer,
Steele, & Quinn, 1999),
and even white males when faced with the specter of
Asian superiority in math (Aronson,
Lustina, Good, Keogh, Steele, & Brown, 1999;
Stone,
Lynch, Sjomerling, & Darley, 1999).
In addition, research also demonstrates that within a
stereotyped group, some members may be more vulnerable
to its negative consequences than others; factors such
as the strength of one’s group identification or domain
identification have been shown to be related to ones’
subsequent vulnerability to stereotype threat. Third,
research has extended its reach to understanding the
situations
that are most likely to lead to stereotype threat. In
general, the conditions
that produce stereotype threat are ones
in which a highlighted stereotype implicates the self
though association with a relevant social category (Marx
& Stapel, 2006b;
).
When one views oneself in terms of a salient group
membership (e.g., "I am a woman, women are not expected
to be good at math, and this is a difficult math test"),
performance
can be undermined because of concerns about possibly confirming
negative stereotypes about one's group. Thus,
situations that increase the salience of the stereotyped
group identity can increase vulnerability to stereotype
threat.
Fourth, of particular interest to researchers and
practitioners are the
mechanisms
behind stereotype threat. How, specifically, do
negative stereotypes lead to the demonstrated
consequences? Although the research is not entirely
clear on this question, we are beginning to better
understand the moderators and mediators of stereotype
threat. For example, recent research has shown that
stereotype threat can reduce working memory resources,
ultimately undermining one’s ability to successfully
complete complex intellectual tasks (Schmader
& Johns, 2003). This and other mechanisms are discussed within the pages
of this site.
Fifth, because stereotype threat has proven to be such a
pernicious factor affecting stereotyped individuals’
achievement and identities, researchers have turned
their attention toward understanding methods of
reducing
its negative effects. Methods range from in-depth
interventions to teach students about the malleable
nature of intelligence (e.g.,
Aronson, Fried, & Good, 2002)
to simple changes in classroom practices that can be
easily implemented by the instructor, such as ensuring
gender-fair testing (Good,
Aronson, & Harder, 2008;
Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999).
As with any developing body of research, various issues
remain
unresolved
and
criticisms
have emerged. We also discuss these in detail within the
pages of this site.
Back to top
|