Search Results

The psychological experience of stereotype threat—a concern about being seen through the lens of a negative stereotype—can undermine motivation and performance in stereotype-relevant fields (Steele, Spencer, & Aronson, 2002). However, a key question remains: What exactly is stereotype threat a threat to, or a fear of? A close look at this important literature reveals that “stereotype threat” is often employed to describe and explain distinct processes and phenomena. The present chapter reviews a new approach to stereotype threat: the Multi-Threat Framework (Shapiro & Neuberg, 2007). In contrast to previous research, the Multi-Threat Framework articulates six qualitatively distinct stereotype threats that emerge from the intersection of two dimensions—the target of the stereotype threat (who will one’s stereotype-relevant actions reflect upon: the self or one’s group) and the source of the stereotype threat (who will judge these stereotype-relevant actions: the self, outgroup others, or ingroup others). Each of these stereotype threats have different eliciting conditions and moderators, are mediated by somewhat different processes, are experienced to different degrees by different negatively stereotyped groups, are coped with and compensated for in different ways, and require different interventions to overcome. The chapter focuses on the diversity of situational and individual difference factors that moderate an individual’s susceptibility to the different types of stereotype threats, as these factors shed light on when each of the stereotypes threats will emerge and how to best remediate the negative consequences of these stereotype threats.

It has been argued that merely priming negative stereotypic traits is sufficient to cause stereotype threat. This chapter discusses theory and research that challenges this assumption by highlighting how one’s stereotyped social identity and the concerns about confirming a negative self and/or group-relevant stereotype can help distinguish between stereotype threat and priming effects. Specifically, we discuss how stereotype threat is not the product of some automatic perception–behavior link, but is in fact a “hot” motivational phenomenon, which is based on the concern that targets of negative stereotypes have about confirming the group-relevant stereotype—what we refer to as the “knowing-and-being” account of stereotype threat. In the first part of this chapter, we outline the theoretical rationale for our knowing-and-being account and then detail research that supports this account. Following this, we discuss how typical priming procedures may be used to create a stereotype threat–like experience, provided that the priming procedure activates one’s stereotyped identity and not simply the stereotypes associated with that identity. In closing, we provide a brief summary of the policy implications for this research.

The theory of stereotype threat has captivated those who have long struggled to understand why some groups of people seem to systematically underperform in certain domains. But although early research on the theory provided dramatic examples that even very subtle reminders of being negatively stereotyped could impair performance, it has been only recently that research has identified the processes by which these performance impairments occur. In this chapter, we provide a summary of how situations of stereotype threat set in motion both automatic processes that activate a sense of uncertainty and cue increased vigilance toward the situation, one’s performance, and oneself; as well as controlled processes aimed at interpreting and regulating the resulting negative thoughts and feelings that the negative stereotype can induce. By articulating the integration of these component cognitive and emotional processes, we are then able to identify how policy changes and interventions can combat stereotype threat both by facilitating changes to people’s stereotypes and by providing individuals with the tools they need to better cope with the threat.

Stereotype boost theory (SBT) runs in parallel to stereotype threat theory (STT). Although the primary concern of STT is the pernicious effects of negative stereotypes on performance, SBT examines how positive stereotypes can improve performance. In this chapter, we review the research on stereotype boosts conducted to date. Specifically, we review the evidence for stereotype boost, and clarify the distinctions between stereotype boost and stereotype lift. Stereotype performance boosts result from exposure to positive stereotypes, whereas stereotype lift results from exposure to negative stereotypes about another group. We also outline the conditions under which the activation of positive stereotypes can boost performance. We examine the role that the method of stereotype activation and the characteristics of the individual play in determining whether or not activating a positive stereotype will lead to a performance boost. Finally, we investigate the potential mechanisms that could cause positive stereotypes to boost performance. We find evidence for many potential mechanisms that may underlie stereotype performance boosts, including reducing anxiety, increasing efficiency in neural processing, and activating ideomotor processes. It is possible that many of these mechanisms may be working together to boost performance. Finally, in reviewing the research, we find that although some findings from stereotype threat research can be applied or generalized to stereotype boosts, many of the findings from stereotype threat cannot be applied or generalized to stereotype boosts. This suggests that stereotype boost is a separate phenomenon from stereotype threat that may involve different underlying processes.

We propose that there might be important differences in people’s experience of stereotype threat depending on the group to which they belong, and on the nature of the stereotypes that apply to their group. In this chapter, we describe similarities and differences in the experience of threat that arises from two of the most commonly investigated stereotypes: those about gender and those about race. Although little research has examined women and racial minorities simultaneously, we draw on evidence from separate studies to make divergent predictions about the experience of stereotype threat among women and among non-Asian racial minorities. Proposing a modern version of W.E.B. Du Bois’ “double consciousness,” we suggest that the experience of stereotype threat may differ depending on how motivated group members are to avoid the stereotype, and how vigilant they are for signs that they may be judged in light of a negative stereotype.

This chapter explores stereotype threat in organizational contexts. Building on the understanding that stereotype threat involves concerns about confirming a negative stereotype about one’s group, we begin by elucidating the scope of potential stereotype threat effects in organizations. We first examine the ubiquity of evaluations in organizations, which are at the heart of stereotype threat. Next, we specify the potential psychological consequences of stereotype threat on targeted individuals within organizations, including weakening domain identification and engagement, reducing aspirations, increasing self-handicapping, and reducing openness to feedback. In the next section, we focus on specific performance consequences of stereotype threat in four domains: leadership, negotiations, entrepreneurship, and competitiveness. We follow by identifying the likely triggers of stereotype threat within organizations, including task difficulty, organizational structure, minority representation, and organizational culture. Finally, we identify three categories of strategies that organizations can implement to reduce stereotype threat: stereotype management, which includes acknowledging stereotypes, emphasizing positive stereotypes, and de-emphasizing negative stereotypes; hiring and training, which includes increasing minority representation and job training; and organizational culture, including both fostering identity safety and valuing effort.

Age stereotypes are widespread and, although they contain some positive elements, they are primarily negative. It is likely that age stereotypes become internalized at an early age, only to negatively impact individuals when they themselves grow old. Negative views of aging can operate either explicitly or implicitly, affecting both physical and cognitive health. Thus, it is not surprising that older adults, like many other negatively stereotyped groups, experience stereotype threat. In the case of age-related stereotype threat, consequences have been observed primarily in the domain of memory. Similar to stereotype threat effects among other groups, domain and group identification moderate age-based stereotype threat effects. In addition, task demands, memory self-efficacy, and age (young-old vs. old-old) also determine who is most affected by stereotype threat. In terms of mediators, a unique set of mechanisms including lowered performance expectations and disrupted strategy use help explain how stereotype threat decreases memory performance in older adults. Initial work on interventions to combat the negative effects of aging stereotypes has shown some promising results with respect to intergenerational contact and exposure to positive aspects of aging. Although we have learned much about the effects of negative aging stereotypes on older adults, further research is required to determine the breadth of stereotype threat effects across domains, pinpoint which mechanisms best account for these effects, and test the efficacy of a wider variety of interventions.

This chapter focuses on how stereotype threat is produced and sustained through threatening situational cues in an environment—such as its organization, features, and physical characteristics—that suggest the possible mistreatment or devaluation of stigmatized individuals. First, we illustrate how threatening situational cues engender a vigilance process whereby stigmatized individuals direct attention toward additional cues to determine the value and meaning of their social identity in a setting. We review how both explicit and subtle situational cues elicit stereotype threat, particularly among racial minorities in academic settings and women in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) domains. We propose that the meaning people assign to those cues ultimately affects whether they will become vulnerable to—or protected against—stereotype threat. Further, we suggest that situational cues are meaningful to the extent that they elicit identity-related concerns, such as concerns for belonging, institutional fairness, or of being marginalized in a setting. Finally, we explore how “identity-safe” cues in a setting can eliminate stereotype threat by reducing identity threat concerns and signaling to stigmatized individuals that their social identity will not be a liability to their outcomes. Understanding how situational cues trigger and diffuse identity threat offers hope for changing the dynamics of social identity threat and ultimately points toward a new wave of identity threat research—investigating the interactive and contextual nature of identity-safe cues to create environments that are welcoming and comfortable for all groups.

Hundreds of laboratory experiments have shown that stereotype threat can undermine intellectual performance in the laboratory. But do the same processes demonstrated in the laboratory operate in the real world? And, can they help us explain and remediate achievement gaps between blacks and whites, well to do and poor, and women and men? In this chapter, we take up this question, reviewing the most pertinent evidence and the best-known critiques of stereotype threat. Specifically, we argue that the confluence of evidence from meta-analyses of experiments, longitudinal studies, field experiments, natural experiments, and field interventions points strongly to the conclusion that stereotype threat is a very useful construct for understanding and improving real-world achievement.

This chapter examines the role of stereotype threat in creating racial and gender differences in sports performance. During the last decade, scholars, journalists, and athletes relied on bioevolutionary or sociological factors to explain racial and gender differences in athletic competition. The contemporary research in this review shows that negative stereotypes tied to race and gender can also produce differences in the way athletes prepare for and perform in sports. Carefully controlled studies reveal that people hold both positive and negative racial and gender stereotypes about athletes, and that when the negative stereotypes are brought to mind in a sports performance context, they create the burden of stereotype threat that robs athletes of their potential. Both blatant and subtle reminders of a negative stereotype can sabotage athletic performance, and ironically, the athletes most susceptible to the negative impact of stereotype threat are those who are the most psychologically invested in their sport. The available evidence suggests that the threat of confirming a negative stereotype in a sports context causes athletes to focus on avoiding failure, which weakens performance because it interrupts proceduralized sensorimotor responses and impairs working memory capacity. Finally, whereas in the long run it may be possible to reduce the prevalence of stereotyping in the institution of sport, the most effective short-term solution is to inoculate athletes against the debilitating influence of stereotype threat when it is brought to mind in a sports performance context.

In this chapter, we explore brain and body mechanisms that link the experience of stereotype threat to changes in cognitive and behavioral performance. We begin by identifying a model of causal sequences of stereotype threat: psychological states associated with stereotype threat, neurobiological responses triggered by these psychological states, and cognitive and behavioral outcomes that are influenced by the neurobiological states. We explore this theoretical path analysis throughout the chapter, focusing on two broad psychological states often implicated in stereotype-threat processes: stress arousal and vigilance. To explore stress arousal as an explanation for stereotype threat performance effects, we highlight the biology underlying stress systems, stress typologies, and temporal trajectories of stress responses. We highlight how these neurobiological changes can influence cognitive and behavioral outcomes, and review existing stereotype threat research that explores these neurobiological responses. We then examine the broad category of vigilance in stereotype threat processes, and again highlight extant stereotype threat literature exploring neurobiological changes associated with vigilance. The intent of the chapter is to provide a neurobiological framework to assist stereotype threat researchers in identifying possible brain and body mechanisms that may be directly or indirectly implicated in performance changes engendered by stereotype threat.

Experiencing prejudice has consequences. When people feel like they are being judged by a negative stereotype about their group, they perform poorly in the domain in which the stereotype applies—a phenomenon known as stereotype threat. Unfortunately, the effects of stereotype threat do not end in the threatening environment, but also spill over into other domains, where they can have further detrimental consequences. In this chapter, we present a model detailing the social-psychological processes whereby someone confronted with a negative stereotype comes to suffer effects in areas unrelated to the source of threat, an experience we call stereotype threat spillover. This model is based on identity-threat models of stigma, process models of stereotype threat, and theories of stress and coping. We first describe some of the short-term effects of spillover, including aggression, risky decision-making, and overeating. We then discuss long-term effects, including both physical health problems like obesity and hypertension, as well as mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety. We end on a positive note when we outline traits and offer strategies that allow individuals to overcome the negative outcomes set in motion by the powerful experience of prejudice.

The vast majority of stereotype threat research has been done in laboratory settings, and the focus of the chapter is on generalizing findings to the use of cognitive ability tests in high-stakes settings, such as personnel selection and admission for higher education. We first discuss some mischaracterization of the research findings on stereotype threat. Next, we discuss concerns regarding the generalizability of research findings to operational testing contexts, focusing on the degree to which boundary conditions for the experience of stereotype threat are met in high-stakes settings, and on the possibility of overcoming the inhibitory effects of experienced threat in high-stakes settings. We then review the limited existing research conducted in operational settings, including experimental, quasi-experimental, and observational studies. Our assessment is that research to date has not provided evidence of consistent and replicable threat effects in high-stakes settings, and that more research in operational testing settings is needed.

Stereotype threat is one of the most widely studied social psychological concepts of the past 20 years. In this introductory chapter, we provide a broad overview of the theory and introduce the goals of this volume. The significance of the theory lies in its ability to offer a more optimistic account of group differences in performance. By side-stepping the nature–nurture debate entirely, stereotype threat seeks to identify how factors in the immediate performance situation contribute to—if not create—the appearance of systematic differences in ability. Interest in these effects is not restricted to academic circles but has gained broad recognition in the popular press with applications beyond education to intergroup interactions, organizational behavior, and clinical diagnoses. We review the four main sections of the book: an examination of basic processes that trigger and mediate how negative stereotypes impair performance, a discussion of recent theoretical extensions to the original formulation of the theory, a review of the variety of groups in which stereotype threat has been documented, and a description of how the theory can be applied to alleviate the debilitating effects that negative stereotypes can have in academic contexts. The book is intended for anyone with an interest in the behavioral science of performance, whether from an academic, organizational, or social policy perspective. To facilitate application of basic theory to the field, each chapter provides policy recommendations stemming from the research reviewed. To inspire future research, we conclude the chapter with a review of unanswered questions that await further inquiry.

This chapter adopts a stereotype threat perspective to examine dynamics of interracial interactions. We first review relevant literature suggesting that both white and racial minority individuals are likely to experience stereotype threat during interracial interactions. We focus on the threat of being perceived as stereotypical of one’s racial/ethnic group as the primary trigger of such threat reactions. Next, we examine the cognitive consequences of harboring such prejudice concerns during interracial interactions and consider the relation between these outcomes and those found in work specifically designed to examine the cognitive component processes of stereotype threat. Later, we consider the potential consequences of stereotype threat during interracial interactions for individuals’ experiences during those interactions, as well as the experiences had by their interaction partners. We close the chapter with a brief discussion of the potential theoretical and practical implications of these dynamics.

This chapter reviews interesting and important research on self-fulfilling prophecies, expectancy biases, and accuracy that did not fit elsewhere in this book. With respect to self-fulfilling prophecies, this chapter reviews evidence on processes and moderators, stereotype threat, stereotype priming, and rejection sensitivity. With respect to bias, this chapter reviews recent research on race bias in jury selection and, more generally, implores my fellow social psychologists to begin developing some standards for evaluating the true power and extent of bias (e.g., by articulating a model of rationality and assessing both how much people deviate from it and how close they come to it). With respect to accuracy, research on empathic accuracy and accuracy from thin slices of behavior is reviewed.

An important consequence of negative stereotypes that impugn non-Asian ethnic minorities’ intellectual ability and women’s mathematical ability is to convey to the targets of these stereotypes that they are not seen as individuals, that they may not be fully valued or respected—that they may not belong—in academic settings. In this chapter, we review research demonstrating that people who contend with numeric under-representation and with negative stereotypes in mainstream academic and professional arenas are vigilant for cues that could communicate they do not belong or are not fully included in these settings. When encountered, such cues can undermine people’s sense of belonging, motivation, and achievement. Further, this chapter reviews effective remedies—strategies to buttress students’ sense of social belonging in academic environments. These strategies aim to forestall negative attributions for social events in school—to lead students to see social adversity as normal and nondiagnostic of a lack of belonging. As tested in randomized intervention field experiments, variants of this intervention have improved school outcomes among black college students, black middle school students, and female engineering students, even over long periods of time. A 1-hour-long social-belonging intervention delivered in students’ freshman year improved black students’ college grades from sophomore through senior year, and reduced the achievement gap between black and white students over this period by 52%. Implications for psychological process, for stereotype threat, and for efforts to ameliorate social inequality are discussed.

Each year, the profile report issued by the College Board systematically reveals that Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) scores are strongly related to parental annual income (College Entrance Examination Board, 2009). The very rich get the best scores, the very poor the lowest. This chapter focuses on the ways in which stereotypes that portray the poor as not intelligent impact test achievement. Compared to other literatures on gender or race, research on stereotype threat associated to social class remains largely underdeveloped, albeit consistent. First, we present research on the attitudes and stereotypes that people hold toward those who are poor. Poor people are the victims of a contemptuous stereotype that portray them as unintelligent and lazy. We then review the work that has studied the impact of such negative stereotypes on both achievement and ability testing. Borrowing from work on intersectionality and social reproduction (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1970), we next advocate for conceptualizing socioeconomic status, not as a personal variable, but more as a social process involving power asymmetry in the social structure. We then propose that stereotype threat is the psychological manifestation of a symbolic violence embedded in evaluative settings. We finally suggest that future research should investigate how ideology (stereotypes), institutional practices (evaluative settings), and behavior (performance) work together to recycle power and privilege into individual differences in intellectual merit.

This essay provides a capstone to this edited volume on stereotype threat by addressing three issues related to the original theory. First, stereotype threat arises when we could reasonably theorize that other people could see us stereotypically. But factors other than relevant stereotypes can make us feel this way. Thus, stereotype threat can be considered a specific instance of a more general “intersubjective” threat. The breadth of findings demonstrating stereotype threat effects reveal that this broader threat can play a bigger role in human social behavior than we have appreciated, and more basic theory and research on the role of intersubjectivity in psychological functioning is needed. Second, although critics have sometimes questioned the generalizability of stereotype threat beyond laboratory demonstrations, these questions of generalizability are better framed as a need to specify what moderates the effect. Because the experience of stereotype threat is conditional on a host of person and situation factors, it might not be meaningful to debate the generalizability of a unitary effect. Finally, policy questions regarding ways to reduce threat should be guided by answers about moderating variables. Situations in which threat is likely to be felt most strongly should be targeted for intervention, and successful intervention can be developed based on evidence of what alleviates threat.