Pedagogical Hurdles: Implicit Bias & Stereotype threat Carole Lee Workshop on Teaching and Learning 05/28/2013

Bias research in social psychology Old model of discrimination focused on Explicit Discrimination, i.e., conscious actions directed against members of a group. New model: Implicit bias. Schemas: Non-conscious expectations or stereotypes associated with a group that guide expectations, perceptions, and behaviors. Action based on schemas is pervasive, valuable and inevitable. But schemas can be distorting and result in poor judgment. Valian (1998) Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women. Cambridge: MIT Press, p. 280

Schemas are widely shared Research shows that we all – regardless of gender or race – perceive and treat people based on schemas associated with social group membership. Even those who consciously reject the schemas may respond and act in ways that conform to them. In fact, many people who take themselves to be objective rely more heavily on schemas. People are typically not aware of them, but with effort can become aware of them and change them. Fiske (2002). Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 123-128.

Schemas and Evaluation Applicants with African American-sounding names had to send 15 resumes to get a callback, compared to 10 for applicants with white-sounding names. Jamal Greg White names counted as an additional 8 years of experience. Bertrand & Mullainathan (2004) Poverty Action Lab, 3, 1-27. When evaluating identical application packages, male and female university psychology professors preferred 2:1 to hire “Brian” over “Karen.” Steinpreis, Anders, & Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles, 41, 509.

Evaluation of Fellowship Applications “…the success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the [Swedish Medical Research Council] during the 1990s has been less than half that of male applicants.” Results of study: Women applying for a post- doctoral fellowship had to be 2.5 times more productive to receive the same reviewer rating as the average male applicant. Similar findings: USA/GAO report on Peer Review in Federal Agency Grant Selection (1994) European Molecular Biology Organization Reports (2001) NIH Pioneer Awards: Journal of Women’s Health (2005) & Nature (August 2006) Wenneras & Wold (1997) Nature, 387, 341.

Gender Schemas in Recommendations for Successful Medical School Faculty Applicants Letters for men: Longer More references to CV, Publications, Patients, Colleagues Letters for women: Shorter More references to personal life More “doubt raisers,” including hedges, faint praise, and irrelevancies (e.g., “It’s amazing how much she’s accomplished.” “It appears her health is stable.” “She is close to my wife.”) Trix & Psenka (2003) Discourse & Society, 14(2): 191-220, 2003.

More evidence of evaluation bias Race and gender stereotypes often lead to different standards of assessment. Women and minorities are more easily judged competent, but standards for excellence are set higher than for men and whites. (Biernat & Kobrynowicz 1997) High prestige jobs are coded masculine (requiring competence, ambition, competitiveness), but women who are “masculine” in this way are judged to be cold, aggressive, haughty, so not a good “fit” for the workplace. (Fine 2010, Ch. 5)

Accumulation of disadvantage feedback loop Lowered success in class/major Student comments and written work not taken as seriously or evaluated as being as insightful as others’. Lack of critical mass “Confirms” schema Talk about students being evaluated. Then talk about teachers being evaluated. Performance is underestimated for classroom discussion and written work Evaluation Bias

Thwarting implicit bias Schemas play a significant role when there is: Ambiguity, lack of information Stress from competing tasks, time pressure Under-representation of the group in question Lack of accountability Schemas can be overridden when: We are highly motivated to override them Are reminded of counter-stereotypic exemplars Form concrete intentions that help override bias (e.g., if I’m in this situation, I will do x).

Stereotype threat Stereotype threat occurs when your group is stereotyped as performing poorly in a domain and your performance may be perceived as confirming the negative stereotype. Performance decreases on computational and recall tasks. Conscious awareness of the threat is not necessary for the effects. Stereotype threat is situational: performance decreases only in settings where the stereotype is activated. Threat can be activated with little or no explicit mention of stereotyped group. If the stereotype is culturally ubiquitous. If there are implicit cues (e.g., micromessages). Solo status.

Micro-messaging Implicit attitudes (biases) are more often expressed in body language than in speech, even by those who do not consciously endorse the bias. Micro-messages can imply that “you don’t belong here.” Micro-inequities can be countered by micro-affirmations.

Solo Status Solo status occurs when one is the only member of one’s social group in a setting. Solo status increases the risk of stereotype threat; public settings also exacerbate the effects. Both stereotype threat and solo status are plausibly the result of intrusive metacognition. Addressing solo status can reduce stereotype threat – critical mass matters.

Stereotype threat: Who and When? Women → math tests Latinos → verbal tests Elderly → short-term memory tests Low SES → verbal tests White male engineers → test assessing why Asians are good at math When? When the material is especially challenging When students care deeply about performing well

Stereotype threat feedback loop decreased and more variable academic performance Higher anxiety. Less stable academic self-esteem. Lack of critical mass “Confirms” membership in stereotype Less stable self-assessments of academic efficacy. Miscalibrated self-knowledge. Triggered social identity and anxiety (Aronson & Inzlicht 2004)

Thwarting stereotype threat (for students) Remove cues that trigger worries about stereotypes Sexist men in engineering Demographic queries immediately before tests Ambient cues that equate a performance domain with one group Create fair tests and communicate that they are fair and serve a learning purpose Do not present tests--explicitly or implicitly--as measuring innate ability or as expected to reify stereotypes Convey that students are viewed as individuals, not as token members of a group Present positive role models from diverse groups

Thwarting stereotype threat can uncover latent ability Negatively stereotyped students have enormous, unrealized academic potential hidden by bias in common academic environments. Study found quantitative SAT scores improved for women and ethnic-minorities (non-Asian) when took test in “safe” environments where: validity of the stereotype was refuted test’s relevance to evaluating stereotyped ability was denied, or identity-relevant antidote to stereotype threat was provided (e.g., a value affirmation) (Walton & Spencer, 2009)

Thwarting stereotype threat (for teachers) Reframe the task Does the task have to be viewed as diagnostic of your abilities? Is it really a “test”? Explain your anxiety in ways that don’t validate the stereotype Attribute struggle to “an external, temporary cause.” Treat anxiety as a potential performance enhancer. Interact regularly with counter-stereotypical exemplars Develop a homophilous network of friends and mentors (divided by race/ethnicity/gender). USE GO-MAP!!! http://www.reducingstereotypethreat.org/reduce.html

Thank you! Thanks also to Sally Haslanger.