Class 16: Stereotype Threat

Who Is That Silver Tongued Devil? [Ann Richards’ opponent] was eloquent. He spoke quickly and easily. He rattled off complicated sentences and thought them to the right grammatical conclusion. Who was this gifted speaker?

(= Identity Threat = Reputation Threat) Stereotype Threat (= Identity Threat = Reputation Threat) Aronson & McGlone, 2009 Stereotype Threat (ST) defined: A state of psychological discomfort that people experience when confronted by an unflattering group or individual reputation in situations where that reputation can be confirmed. Group Stereotype Threat African Americans Poor language skills Verbal skills test Women Poor quantitative skills Math skills test Engineering Majors Poor social skills Dinner Party Middle Class Whites Prejudiced toward Minorities Interracial Conversation

How Stereotype Threat Operates Person is member of group with stereotyped reputation (woman: women bad at math) Person is situation where stereotype applies (math exam) Person can confirm stereotype (do poorly on math test) Threat of confirming stereotype undermines performance Stereotype is confirmed Stereotype threat is related to “Self Fulfilling Prophesy” e.g., “Pygmalion in the Classroom” Robt. Rosenthal

Demonstrations of Stereotype Threat Steele & Aronson, 1995: * Black and White students given difficult GRE verbal problems * Told test is IQ diagnostic, or told test is not diagnostic * Black students’ performance declines in “diagnostic test” Steele & Aronson, 1995: * Black and White students given difficult GRE verbal problems * Asked / Not asked to indicate their race before taking test * Blacks students’ performance declines if asked to first indicate race Claude Steele Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999: * Female and male students given difficult GRE math problems * Told / Not told that “This test does not show gender differences * Female students’ performance poor in control condition, but perform as well as men when given “no gender diff” message. Joshua Aronson

Stereotype Threat Demonstrated with Wide Range of Populations * Latinos * Native Americans * Poor whites * Elderly (memory skills) * White males on math (when compared to Asians) * Psych students on science test compared to “hard science” students Nearly any group when placed in situation of negative comparison with other group.

Individual Differences in Vulnerability to Stereotype Threat High Low Sensitivity to prejudice, history of prejudice X Highly identified with performance domain (e.g., women science majors, Black lit majors) X Attribute performance to stereotype rather than to own ability. Self esteem if skill attributed to prejudice Self efficacy if skill attributed to prejudice X X X

Anxiety Mediates Stereotype Threat Self report data on anxiety and ST: Mixed results, not conclusive Blacovich et al., psychophysiological measures: BP rises for Blacks in ST condition Stereotype Threat  improved / worsened performance on simple tasks. Stereotype Threat  improved / worsened performance on complex tasks.

Cognitive Impairments and Stereotype Threat ST related to Wegner’s research on suppression (e.g. don’t think of a white bear) studies. How so? Under ST, people try to suppress thoughts about stereotype, and about confirming stereotype. Mental work of suppression  reduced attention for task at hand Reduced attention  weakened performance Weakened performance  increased efforts to suppress

Long Term Consequences of Stereotype Threat Avoidance of challenge: Why? Challenges can confirm stereotype, threaten self-esteem Effect of avoiding challenge on ST-relevant domain? ST domains not mastered, Stereotype reinforced Disidentification: Avoid domains where esteem is imperiled ST most acute for those identified with ST domains ST causes redefinition of self: “I’m not the math type”

Ascribed Identity vs. Achieved Identity and Stereotype Threat Ascribed identity = Identity you were “born with”: gender, race, religion, nationality Achieved identity = Identity you selected: grad student, socialist, vegan Which kind of identity would most affect Stereotype Threat: ascribed or achieved? McGlone and Aronson (2006) test moderating effect of ascribed vs. achieved ID Female Ss indicate either: Gender (ascribed, stereotype relevant) Being a private college student (achieved, ST irrelevant) Being a Northeasterner (ascribed, stereotype irrelevant) Ss complete difficult math test

How to Combat Stereotype Threat Forewarning: Telling ST targets about ST (Aronson & Williams, 2006) 1. Black students get pamphlet describing: ST, test anxiety, unrelated topic 2. Complete classic ST experiment Result: ST pamphlet and test anxiety pamphlet Ss show no ST effect; unrelated pamphlet Ss do show ST effect Reframing Ability: Tell students abilities are malleable rather than fixed * Aronson, Fried, & Good (2002): Black students do better on GRE verbal test if told test measures malleable ability rather than fixed ability. Also report less anxiety. * Good, Aronson, & Inzlicht (2003): Stereotype-vulnerable students told that: 1) Intelligence is malleable; 2) School difficulties are normal; 2) No info. Control group Results: Latino students in conds 1 & 2 do better on statewide reading test Female students in conds 1 & 2 = boys in math, but control < boys

How to Combat Stereotype Threat (continued) Role Models: Counter-stereotypical exemplars weaken stereotype  less ST * Marx & Roman (2002): Female experimenter, introduced as math expert,  improved math performance by female students. Self-Affirmation: Affirming self-concept bolsters resistance to ST MORE ON THIS IN “SELF AFFIRMATION” CLASS

Terror Management Theory Greenberg, Landau, Kosloff, & Solomon

Terror Management Theory: Basic Formulation Animals “wired” to avoid lethal threats Humans are animals, and share threat-avoidance instinct with other animals Humans, unlike other animals, know they are mortal Humans face existential threat dilemma; know they face inescapable lethal threat, yet wired to escape lethal threat. Humans seek “death transcendence” as defense against existential terror.

Mortality Salience Hypothesis: Connecting Existential Threat, Cultural Buffers, and Intergroup/Interpersonal Conflict Awareness of own mortality Seek death transcendence Embrace cultural Institutions Existential terror People who threaten our cultural buffers weaken our world views Efforts to defend/restore defenses Animosity, hostility to world view attackers Affection, loyalty to world view advocates

Priming Mortality Salience (MS) Mortality Salience Prime: Please describe the emotions that the thought of your own death arouses in you. AND Write down as specifically as you can what do you think will happen to you physically when you die. Control Condition Salience Prime: Please describe the emotions that the thought of [your next important exam] [painful dental exam] arouses in you. AND Write down as specifically as you can what do you think will happen to you physically as you [take your next important exam] [undergo your painful dental exam]. Note: Control conditions are designed to arouse negative images and anxiety, but not mortality-based anxiety.

TMT: Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination Anti-Semitism (Greenberg, et al. 1990): MS  Christians to favor fellow Christians, and to disfavor Jews. Also, Cohen, Jussim, Harber, & Bhasin, 2005. Nationalism: Castano et al., 2002: MS  Italians to favor other Italians and to disfavor Germans. Jonas et al., 2005: MS  Germans favor German-made products over foreign-made products. MS induced by standing near graveyard vs. shopping center. Florian & Mikulincer (1998): MS  Israeli kids favor native-born Israelis over Russian immigrants. Note: MS works on 11 yr. olds, not 7 yr olds. Why? Political Orientation: MS  Liberals and conservatives to serve more painful hot-sauce to person who criticized liberals/conservatives respectively (McGregor et al, 1998).

TMT and Stereotyping Following MS, which image of African Americans will Whites prefer? (Schimel et al., 1999) Control condition (No MS) MS condition Why does MS  favoring stereotypic minority? MS  reliance on traditional world view. Stereotypes part of world view. Stereotype consistent minority supports world view, buffers threat. Stereotype inconsistent minority challenges world view, amplifies threat.

TMT and Support for Demagogues Demagogue: A political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument MS  support for politician who promised to lead the people to greatness (Cohen et al, 2004) 2004 Presidential campaign, Bush vs. Kerry Control condition: Prefer Kerry TM condition/Terrorism condition: Prefer Bush

TMT and Response to Stereotyped In-Group MS will cause members of stereotyped groups to like or dislike members of their group? MS Women anticipating difficult math test to dis-identify with other women. MS + reading about Hispanic drug dealer  Hispanics to criticize paintings attributed to Hispanic artist but not White artist. MS may induce Stereotype Threat: MS  women to underperform on easy academic test