WHAT IS STEREOTYPE THREAT?

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; Marx,
Stapel, & Muller, 2005). 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).

WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF STEREOTYPE THREAT?

Stereotype threat produces numerous consequences, most of which are negative

in nature. Many studies have replicated and extended the finding first reported
by Steele and Aronson (1995) that invoking group memberships associated with
stereotypes can harm performance on tasks where poor performance might
confirm stereotypes. Subsequent work has broadened to examine performance
on many different tasks and a variety of consequences. Here we review the major
consequences of stereotype threat that have been identified in research to date.

Decreased performance
Perhaps the most widely known consequence of stereotype threat is reduced
achievement on tests in situations in which the stereotype is relevant. Most
studies have focused on poorer performance on tests in academic environments,
and such effects have been demonstrated in laboratory studies (Steele &
Aronson, 1995) in real classrooms (Cole, Matheson, & Anisman, 2007; Good,
Aronson, & Harder, 2008; Keller, 2007a; Neuville & Croizet, 2007), and on state-
wide standardized tests (Good, Aronson, & Inzlicht, 2003). Stereotype threat also
harms performance on tasks that have previously been suggested to be "culture
free" and relatively "pure" measures of cognitive ability and reasoning (Brown &
Day, 2006; Klein, Pohl, & Ndagijimana, 2007), suggesting that bias in
standardized tests cannot account for these effects.

In addition to affecting test performance, stereotype threat has been shown to

decrease performance on other kinds of tasks. Stereotype threat effects have
been shown on tasks involving groups and domains as diverse as Whites and
women in athletics (Stone, Lynch, Sjomerling, & Darley, 1999; Stone &
McWhinnie, 2008, respectively), women in negotiation (Kray, Galinsky, &
Thompson, 2002), gay men in childcare (Bosson, Haymovitz, & Pinel, 2004), the
elderly in memory performance (Levy, 1996) and women in driving (Yeung & von
Hippel, 2008). Stereotype threat, it appears, can harm performance on any task
where a stereotype is invoked suggesting that members of some groups will
perform more poorly than others.

The reason that performance suffers under stereotype threat is still a matter of
some debate. Research has shown that factors such as anxiety (e.g., Marx &
Stapel, 2006), physiological arousal (e.g., Blascovich et al., 2001), and reduced
cognitive capacity (e.g., Schmader & Johns, 2003) can all occur under stereotype
threat, and each factor might contribute to lowered performance.

Internal Attributions for Failure

Individuals often attempt to identify what factors are responsible when they fail
to achieve a desired outcome. In doing so, factors pertaining to the individual
(i.e., internal factors) or factors related to the situation (i.e., external factors) can
be invoked. Koch, Müller, and Sieverding (2008) showed that women under
stereotype threat were more likely than men to attribute their failure on a
computer task to internal characteristics. To the degree that failure in a domain
is explained by internal rather than external factors, stereotypes are reinforced.

Reactance

Stereotype threat can produce the opposite effects, actually increasing quality of
performance, in some circumstances. This can occur when stereotypes are
strongly and explicitly instantiated and is especially likely when individuals are
already high achieving and capable (Kray, Reb, Galinsky, & Thompson, 2004;
Kray, Thompson & Galinsky, 2001). These findings and some others (Oswald &
Harvey, 2000/2001) show that poorer Performance under stereotype threat is not
inevitable.

Ironic effects

Stereotype threat can cause behavioral consequences that are opposite to the
intention of the individual. Frantz, Cuddy, Burnett, Ray, and Hart (2004)
demonstrated that Whites performance on an implicit measure of racial
associations was worse (indicating stronger race-based beliefs) when they were
told that the test assessed racial bias (raising the specter of confirming White
racism). However, allowing individuals to self-affirm as being non-racist before
taking the test eliminated this effect. Goff, Steel, and Davies (2008) also showed
that Whites who thought they were to discuss a racially-sensitive topic with other
Black students choose to sit further away from their interaction partners. Both
studies demonstrate that threat of confirming the stereotype of White racism
tended to ironically increase behavior consistent with that stereotype.

Self-handicapping

Self-handicapping is a defensive strategy by which individuals erect barriers to

performance to provide attributions for failure. If barriers indeed undermine
performance, individuals can point to the barriers rather than deficiencies in
ability or effort. If performance is successful despite the presence of barriers,
estimates of performance can be augmented because the individual was able to
overcome obstacles to performance. Research suggests that stereotype threat
may lead individuals to in more self-handicapping behavior. For example, Stone
(2002) showed that White students highly identified with sports who completed a
task described as reflecting "natural athletic ability" practiced the task less than
when under no threat and also when compared with individuals not identified
with sports. Keller (2002) showed that girls who performed poorly on a math test
under stereotype threat were more likely to invoke stress they had been
experiencing before the taking test, and Steele and Aronson (1995) showed that
African-American students under stereotype threat also tended to produce a
priori excuses for possible failure (see also Schimel, Arndt, Banko, & Cook, 2004).
Brown and Josephs (1999) also showed that providing a priori external excuses
for failure eliminated stereotype threat effects. These results show that
individuals under stereotype threat might reduce preparation, exhibit less effort,
or invoke factors to create attributional ambiguity for potential failure. To the
degree that individuals engage in self-handicapping, however, actual
performance can suffer.

Task discounting

One means for self-handicapping or for responding to poorer performance under

stereotype threat is to question the validity of the task or even the importance of
the trait being tested. One might view a task as biased or as being undiagnostic
of one's abilities if one expects to struggle on the task or has in the past. Such
effects are reported by Lesko and Corpus (2006) who showed that highly math-
identified women operating under stereotype threat were more likely to agree
with the statements such as "this test is not an accurate measurement of my
math ability," and "I feel that I am better at math outside of this test." Keller
(2002) also showed that girls who performed poorly on a math test after being
told of gender differences were more likely to agree that the test was "tricky" or
"unfair." In another domain, Klein, Pohl, and Ndagijimana (2007) showed that
Belgians with sub-Saharan origins were more likely to assert that an intelligence
test commonly used in job selection was inappropriate given their nationality
when they had been placed under stereotype threat and performed poorly.
Although task discounting might help protect the self from the consequences of
poor performance, it can also undermine motivation and lead a person to devalue
the domain if used to excess.

Distancing the self from the stereotyped group

Stereotype threat can also affect the degree that people enjoy and identify with
activities associated with their social group. In Steele and Aronson (1995),
African-Americans who experienced stereotype threat performed less well than
their White counterparts and also expressed weaker preferences for
stereotypically African-American activities such as jazz, hip-hop, and basketball.
As Steele and Aronson reasoned, this identity distancing reflected a desire not to
be seen through the lens of a racial stereotype.

Another way to distance oneself from the stereotyped group is to emphasize an

unthreatened identity over a threatened one, a process termed "identity
bifurcation." In one study, women under stereotype threat disavowed feminine
characteristics that were strongly associated with the stereotype of women’s
math potential but not feminine characteristics that were weakly associated with
the stereotype (Pronin, Steele, & Ross, 2004). Moreover, only the women who
were strongly identified with mathematics bifurcated their identity in response to
stereotype threat. Distancing can also occur when one experiences collective
threat, threat that arises when one observes another group member who might
confirm a group stereotype. Collective threat can produce lowered self-esteem
and greater distancing (both physically and psychologically) from in-group
members who might confirm a stereotype that applies to the self through shared
group membership (Cohen & Garcia, 2005).

These studies illustrate that to preserve their identity as a competent person in a

domain, stereotyped individuals sometimes distance themselves from an aspect
of their social identity that bears the burden of the negative stereotype.

Disengagement and disidentification

Another consequence is what Crocker and Major and their colleagues (Crocker,
Major, & Steele, 1998; Major, Spencer, Schmader, Wolfe, & Crocker, 1998) call
"disengagement." Disengagement occurs when stereotype threat leads
individuals to distance themselves from a threatening domain or suggest that
performance in a domain is unrelated to self-worth. When they do, self-views
become disconnected from their performance in that domain. Mild forms of
disengagement can occur when individuals expect to complete a task under
stereotype threat. von Hippel et al. (2005), for example, showed that White
students tend to claim that intelligence is relatively unimportant to them if they
think they will take an IQ test after being reminded of the stereotype that Asians
are intelligent. Smith, Sansone, and White (2007) also showed that stereotype
threat can produce performance-avoidance goals in high achieving individuals,
reducing interest in a task. Limited or context-specific disengagement can be
healthy and protective. For example, Major et al. (1998) found that Black
participants were less affected by the negative feedback they received after
performing a difficult intelligence test after the possibility of racial bias was
invoked, and Nussbaum and Steele (2007) showed that short-term
disengagement allowed Black students under stereotype threat to maintain their
motivation on a task. These findings suggest a that disengagement can represent
an adaptive response that allows individuals to maintain positive self-views or to
maintain motivation and persistence.

However, disengagement can produce "disidentification" if an individual copes

with long-term threat by avoiding the domain or detaching one's identity from a
domain (Steele, et al. 2002). If, for example, a female math student ceases to
think of herself as "a math person" in response to a series of less-than-desirable
performances on math tests, she has disengaged her social identity from
mathematics. A person firmly disidentified from math might discount low math
achievement, but a consequence of this discounting is that the person will likely
have little desire to change this self-view. Therefore, disidentified individuals
maintain self-esteem in the face of an immediate failure, but they also tend not
to value their achievement in the domain or incorporate the domain in their
identity. Long-term stereotype threat can produce disidentification as a coping
strategy. Osborne (1997), for example, found that the correlation between
academic performance and self-esteem was significant for both Black and White
students in 8th grade, but African-American boys showed a weakening
correlation over time so that by 12th grade, academic performance and self-
esteem were unrelated. In addition, disidentification might also account for the
extraordinary finding that among students of color, those who most identified
with academics (and would be therefore, most susceptible to stereotype threat in
academic domains) were most likely later to withdraw from school (Osborne &
Walker, 2006). This finding is consistent with evidence that high-achieving Blacks
who do not disidentify from academics are more likely to face peer-group
ostracism compared with high-achieving White students (Fryer, 2006; Zirkel,
2004).

Altered professional identities and aspirations

Recent research has shown that stereotype threat can alter stereotyped
students’ professional identities by redirecting their aspirations and career paths.
Steele, James, and Barnett (2002), for example, showed that women
undergraduates in male-dominated disciplines reported higher levels of sex
discrimination and stereotype threat, and these women were also more likely to
report that they were thinking of changing their major compared with women in
fields that were not dominated by men. Similarly, women math and science
majors who viewed a discussion of math and science topics where males were
numerically dominant showed lowered interest in participating in such a
discussion in the future (Murphy, Steele, & Gross, 2007). Gupta and Bhawe
(2007) also demonstrated that the degree that male characteristics were
emphasized as important in a field reduced women's expressed interest in
entering that field. Good, Dweck, and Rattan's (2008a) work suggests that an
emphasis of stereotypical attributes in a classroom environment can affect the
perceived sense of belonging in a field; to the degree that women perceived that
their college calculus classes conveyed negative stereotypes about women’s
math abilities, they reported feeling less like accepted members of the math
community. Moreover, this threat to their identity as a future mathematician (or
scientist) had real consequences for their achievement and career aspirations.
When women’s sense of belonging was reduced by their perceptions of a
stereotypical environment, they earned lower grades in the course and were less
likely to express interest in taking more math classes in the future.

Of course, stereotypes can be communicated in various ways, and Davies,

Spencer, Quinn, & Gerhardstein (2002) showed that exposing women to
television advertisements endorsing stereotypes of women decreased the
interest they expressed in pursuing majors and careers involving quantitative
skills and reduced interest in leadership roles (see also Davies, Spencer, & Steele,
2005; but see also Oswald & Harvey, 2000/2001). Thus, stereotypes can cause
individuals enough discomfort to lead them to drop out of the domain and
redefine their professional identities. When the domain is something as
fundamental as mathematics, domain avoidance essentially precludes careers in
science, engineering, and technology. Moreover, stereotypes can affect career
choices early in schooling, as stereotype threat has been shown to undermine
sense of belonging for girls in math as early as middle school (Good, Rattan, &
Dweck, 2008b). This has important consequences for girls’ identities as future
mathematicians and scientists, because it is precisely the middle school years
when girls’ confidence in and liking of mathematics begins to wane.

WHO IS VULNERABLE TO STEREOTYPE THREAT?

Since the publication of Steele and Aronson's (1995) study, researchers have
identified risk factors that increase one’s vulnerability to stereotype threat—one's
“stereotype vulnerability” (Aronson, 2002). Although these factors might be less
influential than the situational factors, there are some chronic differences in
individuals and groups that might increase susceptibility to stereotype threat.

Group membership

In some respects, everyone is vulnerable to stereotype threat, at least in some

circumstances. Everyone belongs to at least one group that is characterized by
some sort of stereotype, and any salient social identity can affect performance on
a task that offers the possibility that a stereotype might be confirmed. Stereotype
threat effects have been shown with diverse groups and stereotypes such as
women in math (e.g., Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999; Walsh, Hickey, & Duffy,
1999), Whites with regard to appearing racist (Frantz, Cuddy, Burnett, Ray, &
Hart, 2004), students from low compared with high socioeconomic backgrounds
on intellectual tasks (e.g., Croizet & Claire, 1998; Harrison, Stevens, Monty, &
Coakley, 2006), men compared with women on social sensitivity (Koenig & Eagly,
2005), Whites compared with Asian men in mathematics (e.g., Aronson, Lustina,
Good, Keogh, Steele, & Brown, 1999), Whites compared with Blacks and
Hispanics on tasks assumed to reflect natural sports ability (e.g., Stone, 2002),
and young girls whose gender has been highlighted before completing a math
task (Ambady, Shih, Kim, & Pittinsky, 2001). High ability does not eliminate the
possibility of stereotype threat, and, indeed, high ability individuals can be most
susceptible to stereotype threat. For example, women who are at the upper ends
of the ability distribution—those who are in the pipeline to science and
mathematics professions—can experience underperformance on math tests due
to stereotype threat (Good, Aronson, & Harder, 2008).

Stereotype threat can be experienced by anyone in a domain in which one

encounters stereotype-based expectations of poor performance. Of course, some
groups must confront more stereotypes and more domains in which stereotypes
exist than other groups. In addition, individuals who have multiple identities
suggesting poor performance might experience stereotype threat in more
contexts or to a greater degree than others (e.g., Gonzalez, Blanton, & Williams,
2002). Moreover, when a context highlights one of several stereotype-linked
social identities, behavior will tend to confirm the highlighted stereotype (Shih,
Pittinsky, & Ambady, 1999). In sum, these results show that membership in a
minority or low-status group is not a prerequisite for experiencing stereotype
threat. However, being a member of such a group does expose an individual to
stereotype threat more regularly.

Most studies of stereotype threat focus on membership in groups that can be

easily detected by others, such as race and ethnicity. However, membership in
concealable groups can also produce stereotype threat effects when that
membership is revealed to others. Quinn, Kahng, and Crocker (2004) showed that
prompting individuals with a history of mental illness to reveal this information
harmed performance on a subsequent task. Revealing the group membership to
others highlighted stereotypes associated with mental incompetence and harmed
performance for a previously "invisible" group.

Even though stereotypes of poor performance have been most closely tied to
stereotype threat, stereotypes of superiority can at times undermine
performance. Some studies show that stereotype threat can benefit performance
of the group not under stereotype-based scrutiny (termed stereotype lift; Walton
& Cohen, 2002). However, when attention is explicitly drawn to a social identity
associated with positive expectations of performance, the ability to concentrate
can be reduced and performance negatively affected (Cheryan & Bodenhausen,
2000). Only when positive stereotypes are subtly, and not blatantly, highlighted
do they appear to produce benefits for stereotype-associated group members
(Shih, Ambady, Richeson, Fujita, & Gray, 2002). These data show that group
membership can reduce performance even when positive stereotypes are
implicated.

Domain identification

Another factor that increases stereotype vulnerability is "domain identification,"

the degree to which one personally values achievement in a given domain. The
higher the domain identification, the more one is bothered by implications of
inferiority in that domain. Therefore, underperformance due to stereotype-related
stress is most pronounced for those who value and care about doing well in the
stereotyped domain (Aronson et al., 1999; Cadinu, Maass, Frigerio, Impagliazzo,
& Latinotti, 2003; Hess, Auman, Colcombe, & Rahhal, 2003; Keller, 2007a; Levy,
1996; Leyens, Desert, Croizet, & Darcis, 2000; Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999;
Stone, Lynch, Sjomeling, & Darley, 1999). Consistent with this notion, there is
evidence that racial minority students who most strongly value academics are
those who are most likely to withdraw from school (Osborne & Walker, 2006).
This is not to suggest, of course, that educators should encourage students to
care less about the domain. Rather, this research highlights the need to be
mindful of the potential risk of stereotype-based underperformance and
disidentification among even the most highly motivated students.

Group identification

Some individuals appear to be more chronically vulnerable to stereotype threat

because the identities tied to negative stereotypes are highly salient to them in
almost any situation. Some people feel deeply attached to their gender group, for
example, and strongly identify themselves with their gender across contexts.
Research has found that the more investment in one’s gender identity, the more
one will be susceptible to negative stereotypes suggesting limited mathematical
ability for women (Marx, Stapel, & Muller, 2005; Schmader, 2002; but see
McFarland, Lev-Arey, & Ziegert, 2003). Group identity strength appears most
important when the context brings into question the ability of one's group and
not one's individual abilities. When one's own abilities rather than one's group's
abilities are brought into question, performance can also be harmed, but group
identity strength does not appear to influence susceptibility to this form of
stereotype threat (Wout, Danso, Jackson, & Spencer, 2008).

The strength of ethnic and racial identification also has been shown to moderate
performance on a broad variety of tasks. Higher ethnic identification predicts
greater psychological distress and poorer performance for minority students
during their first year in college (Cole, Matheson, & Anisman, 2007), and the
degree of racial identification affects whether stereotype threat arises when one
is being considered for a job (Ployhart, Ziegert, & McFarland, 2003).

Cultural variables play a role in determining how group identification affects

stereotype threat. Deaux et al. (2007), for example, showed that second- but not
first-generation West Indian immigrants in the United States showed poorer
performance under stereotype threat. In fact, first-generation immigrants showed
some evidence of improved performance under threat, or stereotype lift.
Stereotype threat effects emerged in the second-generation as their African-
American identity was more strongly emphasized and stereotypical expectations
of poor performance were more likely applied to the self. Conversely, stereotype
threat based on gender differences in math did not emerge in a study conducted
in Sweden, a country that strongly emphasizes gender equality (Eriksson &
Lindholm, 2007).

Even within a culture, the way that one conceptualizes the self can also
determine whether an individual experiences stereotype threat. To the degree
that an individual is low in self-complexity (i.e., thinks of himself or herself in
terms of a limited number of identities), his or her vulnerability to stereotype
threat on any one dimension is increased (Gresky, Ten Eyck, Lord, & McIntrye,
2005). In another line of work, Davis, Aronson, and Salinas (2006) showed that
African-Americans who conceptualize their race in terms of Internalization, a
status of racial identity that involves racial pride but not denigration of Whites,
were more likely to do well under low levels of stereotype threat compared with
individuals low in Internalization. These results suggest that the nature of one's
group identification might be as important as the degree of group identification in
predicting vulnerability to stereotype threat.

Stigma consciousness and group-based rejection sensitivity

A related vulnerability factor appears to be what Pinel (1999) calls "stigma

consciousness," the chronic awareness and expectation of one's stigmatized
status. For some individuals, past experience with prejudice can breed a
persistent vigilance, a cross-situational tendency to be on the lookout for bias
(e.g., Hughes & Chen, 1999). Such individuals are more likely to underperform in
stereotype threat situations, when their stigmatized status is activated (see
Brown & Lee, 2005; Brown & Pinel, 2003). A related notion is group-based
rejection sensitivity (Mendoza-Denton, Purdie, Downey, & Davis, 2002) reflecting
differences in the belief that one will be perceived in line with and judged based
on stereotypes. Both of these differences, either separately or in conjunction, can
intensify the experience of stereotype threat.

Expectations that one will be perceived in line with and influenced by stereotypes
can also affect judgments of one's knowledge and abilities. When individuals
have inaccurate or unstable judgments of one's abilities, it can lead to poor
preparation, setting of inappropriate goals, and embarrassment following failure.
Aronson and Inzlicht (2004) showed that Blacks who expected to be stereotyped
were less accurate when estimating their abilities and the quality of their
performance on intellectual tasks. Such misperceptions can interfere with proper
preparation for academic tasks and thereby undermine academic self-confidence
and performance. Repeated struggles in a stereotypical domain consequently
can make a person particularly susceptible to stereotype threat.

Internal Locus of Control/Proactive Personality

Individuals differ in the degree that they attribute their performance and
outcomes to internal versus external causes. Individuals with an Internal Locus of
Control tend to attribute their experiences to their own actions, whereas
individuals with an External Locus of Control tend to assume that events are
caused by external forces. Internal Locus of Control typically produces high
motivation and achievement. However, recent work suggests that an Internal
Locus of Control can make an individual more susceptible to stereotype threat.
Manipulations designed to increase stereotype threat tended to reduce
performance in individuals with an Internal Locus of Control, but these
manipulations had no effect on individuals with an External Locus of Control
(Cadinu, Maass, Lombardo, & Frigerio, 2006).

A concept similar to locus of control is proactive personality. Individuals who are

proactive are more likely to act, rather than be passive, to change their
situations. Perhaps ironically, women who are proactive have been shown to be
more sensitive to stereotype threat, indicating less interest in pursuing a career
in a field when success supposedly required stereotypical masculine attributes
(Gupta & Bhawe, 2007).

Low coping sense of humor

One's sense of humor can also affect how one views and interacts with the world.
Humor appears to buffer individuals against the negative effects of stressful
events, producing less reported anxiety, physiological arousal, depression, and
mood disturbances in response to negative events. Sense of humor appears to
buffer negative experiences by creating more positive or benign appraisals in
typically stressful situations. Correlational research shows that women exhibit
fewer performance deficits on math tests under stereotype threat if they are high
in coping sense of humor. Conversely, women low in sense of humor showed
higher levels of anxiety and greater decrements in performance under stereotype
threat (Ford, Ferguson, Brooks, & Hagadone, 2004).

Low impression management motivation

Humor is just one means by which individuals cope and hopefully avoid
stereotype threat. Another series of studies(von Hippel, von Hipple, Conway,
Preacher, Schooler, & Radvansky, 2005) shows that individuals high in impression
management motivation — those individuals who chronically deny negative, but
claim positive, self-attributes in a given context — are better able to cope with
stereotype threat through denying stereotype accuracy or self-relevance. Within
various groups who faced different stereotype threats, those who were high in
impression management consistently denied incompetence in the threatened
domain or, if they had to actually perform in that domain, denied its importance.
Conversely, individuals low in impression management was less likely to believe
that they were incompetent in a threatened domain and to emphasize its
importance. This approach tends to make one particularly impacted by poor
performance in a domain.

Low self-monitoring

Individuals also differ in the degree they self-monitor by attending to their

environment and regulating their behavior to create a desired impression.
Because of their habitual tendency to manage their impressions across social
situations, individuals high in self-monitoring might have the ability to respond
more effectively in situations that might otherwise produce stereotype threat.
Inzlicht, Aronson, Good, and McKay (2006), in fact, showed that high self-
monitors do not tend to show performance decrements that typically occur when
individuals are in minority-status situations. Although stereotype-related
thoughts become more accessible in all individuals, the consequences of those
thoughts appear to depend on one's degree of self-monitoring. Increased
stereotype accessibility increased performance of high self-monitors, but tended
to decrease performance of low self-monitors, in minority status situations.

Low education level

Andreoletti & Lachman (2004) provided some evidence that more highly
educated individuals are less susceptible to stereotype threat effects. Low-
educated individuals showed lower memory performance following any mention
of age effects on memory (regardless of whether those stereotypes were
supported or invalidated). In contrast, more highly educated individuals showed
better performance when elderly memory stereotypes were invalidated but no
worse performance when they were endorsed, relative to a control condition. The
specific reasons why education reversed the effects of stereotype invalidation is
not entirely clear, although it is possible that reactance might emerge when
highly-educated individuals contest stereotype endorsement (see Kray et al.,
2001).

Stereotype knowledge and belief

Threats based on social identity might be experienced more easily and in more
contexts if individuals targeted by a stereotype are aware of or ascribe to the
stereotype in question. Although adults are usually very aware of broadly held
cultural stereotypes, children vary in this knowledge, and their awareness of
stereotypes increases with age. McKown and Weinstein (2003) showed that
awareness of cultural stereotypes increases dramatically between the ages of 6
and 11. In addition, they showed that only children who were aware of cultural
stereotypes showed performance decrements in conditions that have been
shown to produce stereotype threat effects in adults. Similarly, Muzzatti and
Agnoli (2007) showed that girls generally are more likely to agree with gender
stereotype regarding math performance as they age. Moreover, decrements in
math performance under stereotype threat are also increasingly likely as children
age.
Although all adults tend to be aware of cultural stereotypes, they can differ in the
degree that they agree with or endorse those beliefs. Schmader, Johns, and
Barquissau (2004) showed that women who were more likely to endorse gender
stereotypes about women’s math ability tended to perform worse on a
stereotype-relevant test under stereotype threat. In addition, these beliefs need
not be held consciously to affect performance. Keifer & Sekaqueptewa (2007)
showed that women who have stronger implicit or unconscious stereotypes
linking men and mathematics also are more likely to perform poorly in math, but
this occurs even when they are not in conditions that produce stereotype threat.
When stereotype threat was imposed, however, women generally performed
more poorly, even those women who have weak implicit gender-math
stereotypes. These findings suggest that having strong implicit associations
linking one's social identity to poor performance can harm performance even in
ambiguous situations where stereotype threat is weak.

Status concerns

Some have argued that stereotype threat effects occur because of concerns
about social status. The specific consequences of those concerns, however,
depend on the specific stereotype that is implicated. When stereotypes are
negative, individuals most concerned about status are most likely to show
performance decrements. When stereotypes allow the possibility of social
enhancement, however, status concerns should produce improved performance.
Josephs, Newman, Brown, and Beer (2003) provided evidence that individuals
high in status- or dominance-concerns (as reflected in high baseline levels of
testosterone) are especially susceptible to stereotype threat.

WHAT ARE THE SITUATIONS THAT LEAD TO STEROETYPE THREAT?

Although some individuals are more susceptible to stereotype threat than others,
stereotype threat is also more common in some situations than others. Research
suggests that stereotype threat is more likely to occur in the following contexts.

Group identity salience

When one’s stereotyped group status is made relevant or conspicuous by

situational features, stereotype threat and performance decrements are more
likely. Because stereotype threat arises from negative performance expectations
in a specific domain, any group can show evidence of underperformance if the
situation brings attention to the threatened identity. In other words, although
stereotype threat tends to be experienced by members of some groups more
than others, it would be inappropriate to conclude that it is only experienced by
members of traditionally stigmatized or stereotyped groups. Stereotype threat
effects have been shown by women in math (e.g., Spencer, Steele, & Quinn,
1999; Steele, Reisz, Williams, & Kawakami, 2007; Walsh, Hickey, & Duffy, 1999),
Whites when they fear appearing racist (Frantz, Cuddy, Burnett, Ray, & Hart,
2004), men compared with women on social sensitivity (Koenig & Eagly, 2005;
Marx & Stapel, 2006b), Whites compared with Asian men in mathematics (e.g.,
Aronson et al. 1999), and Whites compared with Blacks and Hispanics on tasks
assumed to reflect natural sports ability (e.g., Stone, 2002).

A stereotyped social identity can be highlighted in several ways in social

situations. Steele and Aronson (1995) simply had African-American college
students indicate their race on a test-booklet prior to taking a test. They found
that merely asking participants to indicate their race caused Black students’
anxiety to increase and their test scores to drop, even though the test had been
described as non-diagnostic of ability. Highlighting stereotyped social identities
by soliciting identity-relevant information before test taking has been used in
several studies (Ambady, Shih, Kim, & Pittinsky, 2001; McGlone & Aronson, 2006;
Shih, Pittinsky, & Ambady, 1999; Shih, Pittinsky, & Trahan, 2006; Yopyk &
Prentice, 2005) and the results consistently show performance decrements for
the stereotyped group when identity information is gathered before rather than
after test completion. These effects are particularly worrisome since it is standard
practice to ask questions about test-takers' group memberships including gender
and race before students complete high-stakes exams such as the SAT and GRE.
Data provided by Stricker and Ward (2004; see Danaher & Crandall, 2008)
suggest that merely moving the standard demographic inquiry from the
beginning to the end of the test would improve performance of women on the AP
Calculus Test. By instituting this procedural change, it is estimated that an
additional 4700 female students would receive AP Calculus credit annually.

A more subtle form of group identity salience occurs when an individual interacts
with an outgroup member. Marx and Goff (2005) had Black and White
undergraduates complete a challenging verbal test in the presence of a Black or
White test administrator. Blacks reported feeling more threat and performed
worse when the test administrator was White rather than Black. When the
experimenter was Black, Black students performed as well as White students,
and White students were unaffected by the administrator's race. Stone and
McWhinnie (2008) used a similar manipulation by having females perform a golf
task in the presence of a male or female experimenter. When the experimenter
was male, women tended to make more errors indicating poor focus and
concentration. Both studies suggest that group identity tends to be more salient
when an individual interacts with an outgroup member, and in such situations the
performance of group members associated with a negative stereotype tends to
be harmed.

Minority status

Situations where one is (Sekaquaptewa, Waldman, & Thompson, 2007) or even

just expects to be (Murphy, Steele, & Gross, 2007) the single representative of a
stereotyped group (i.e., solo status) or a numerical minority can create
heightened group identity and stereotype threat. Inzlicht and Ben-Zeev (2000)
describe studies in which individuals performed tests in groups where the gender
composition was varied. Women showed performance decrements on math tests
(where there exists a stereotype of female inferiority) but only when they took
the test in the presence of other men, and performance decreased in proportion
to the number of fellow male test-takers. Beaton, Tougas, Rinfret, Huard, and
Delisle (2007) also provided some evidence of lowered math performance in
conditions involving solo status, and also showed that these decrements are
likely caused by the increased feelings of performance anxiety that arise under
solo status. Solo status does not affect intellectual performance generally,
however, and women's performance on verbal tests (where there are no strong
gender stereotypes) tends not to be affected by the gender composition of the
group (Inzlicht & Ben-Zeev, 2000). Although these data suggest that stereotype
threat arises from minority status, Sekaquaptewa and Thompson (2003) showed
that minority status can also add to performance decrements in conditions that
already produce stereotype threat. Women's performance was poorest when
stereotype threat had been instantiated through a manipulation and when
women had numerical minority status. The results of Huguet and Régner (2007)
indicate that minority status also can interact with task description. Elementary
school girls in mixed-sex groups performed worse than boys in when a task was
described as reflecting geometry rather than drawing ability. Varying the task
description produced no performance differences when the girls were in single-
sex groups. These laboratory demonstrations also extend to real world
environments involving adults. Roberson, Deitch, Brief, and Block (2003) showed
that individuals who were the sole minority in their workplace department
experienced a greater degree of stereotype threat, affecting how workers
interpreted feedback from colleagues and supervisors.

Stereotype Salience

Identities can become threatened when stereotypes are invoked, either blatantly
or subtly, in the performance environment. In many studies, individuals have
been told explicitly that performance differences exist between members of
different social groups (e.g., Aronson, Lustina, Good, Keough, Steele, & Brown,
1999; Smith & White, 2002; Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999; Yeung & von Hippel,
2008), and other studies endorse stereotypes more subtly by suggesting that the
study is focused on examining the reasons for differential performance between
groups (e.g., Beilock, Rydell, & McConnell, 2007; Brown & Pinel, 2003). Task
performance also has been shown to be harmed when women must complete a
task in the presence of an instructor who supposedly has sexist attitudes (Adams,
Garcia, Purdie-Vaughns, & Steele, 2006). These various means for endorsing
stereotypes consistently reduce the quality of performance in individuals who are
members of the supposedly lower-performing group. Stereotype endorsement is
not necessary to produce stereotype threat effects. Studies that have simply
exposed individuals to group stereotypes without endorsing them (Ambady, Paik,
Steele, Owen-Smith, & Mitchell, 2004; Bergeron, Block, & Echtenkamp, 2006;
Levy, 1996) or have directed individuals to think about the ways they are
affected by stereotypes of their group (Josephs, Newman, Brown, & Beer, 2003)
have also produced performance decrements.

The way a task is described can also affect which stereotypes are highlighted in a
given situation (e.g., Brown & Day, 2006; Huguet & Régner, 2007). Stone, Lynch,
Sjomeling, & Darley (1999) showed this quite dramatically by varying the
description of a task involving golf putting that was to be performed by Black and
White individuals. When the researchers suggested that task performance relied
on natural sports ability (invoking the stereotypical superiority of Blacks), Whites
performed significantly worse than Blacks on the task. When researchers
described the task as reflecting athletic intelligence (invoking the stereotypical
superiority of Whites), Whites performed better than Blacks. Similarly, Frantz,
Cuddy, Burnett, Ray, and Hart (2004) suggested to White individuals either that
performance on a computer-administered test reflected "racial bias" (highlighting
the stereotype that Whites are racist) or "knowledge of [but not belief in] cultural
stereotypes." Performance was worse in the former condition, ironically
producing scores on the test consistent with White racial bias. Finally, Yopyk and
Prentice (2005) showed that asking student-athletes to complete either a
measure of academic self-regard or a difficult math test tended to highlight one
of the two identities. Individuals who were prompted to think about their
academic confidence and success produced evidence that their identities as
athletes had been highlighted, but individuals who faced a math test showed
seemed to think of themselves as students. These studies show that the
description of the task itself can alter the stereotypes that are invoked in a
situation, with activation of threatening stereotypes harming performance.

Evaluative scrutiny

Situations in which an individual believes that his or her ability in a stereotypic

domain will be evaluated can create a strong sense of group identity and
stereotype threat. When a test is described as being able to provide reliable and
valid information about one's ability in a stereotyped domain, feelings of anxiety
and intrusive thoughts of failure can arise, harming performance (e.g., Frantz,
Cuddy, Burnett, Ray, & Hart, 2004; Kray, Thompson, & Galinsky, 2001; Marx,
Stapel, & Muller, 2005). Steele and Aronson (1995) showed that varying the
presumed diagnosticity of a test in a threatened domain can affect the quality of
performance. African American and White college students took a difficult verbal
test resembling the GRE after being told either that the test measured their
intellectual abilities, or alternatively, that the test measured psychological
processes involved in problem solving. When the tests were supposedly
diagnostic of intelligence, White students outscored Black students. However, in
the condition in which the test was described as diagnostic of problem solving
(for which there exists little or no racial stereotype), the racial gap in
performance was eliminated. Although most people strive to do well on a
diagnostic test, stereotyped individuals may become hyper-motivated to perform
well in order to disprove the stereotype. This highly motivated state can create
an added level of stress, anxiety, and intrusive thoughts that undermine the
relaxed concentration that is optimal for performance on complex cognitive tasks
(see Beilock, Rydell, & McConnell, 2007; Osborne, 2007; Schmader & Johns,
2003). Tests that are supposedly diagnostic of intelligence are particularly a
source of concern, since poor performance can imply limited ability and can
affect life aspirations and goals.

Evaluative scrutiny is also increased when a situation tests the limits of one's
abilities. When confronting a frustratingly hard test, for example, an individual
may grow increasingly concerned about the implications of possible failure for
interpretations of their own or their group's abilities, again increasing anxiety or
intrusive thoughts. Several studies have shown that stereotype threat effects are
more likely on difficult tests and difficult items, particularly for people who are
highly-identified with a domain (but see Stricker & Bejar, 2004). Spencer, Steele,
& Quinn (1999, Experiment 1), for example, gave an easy or difficult math test to
women and men had a history of successful performance and who valued
performance in math. Performance was equivalent when the test was relatively
easy, but men outperformed women when the test was difficult. O'Brien and
Crandall (2003; see also Wicherts, Dolan, & Hessen, 2005) asked men and
women to complete an easy or difficult math test under stereotype threat or
standard (no stereotype threat) conditions. Stereotype threat improved
performance of women on the easy set of problems but harmed performance on
the difficult problem set, but men were unaffected by the stereotype threat
manipulation. Similar effects have been shown in children. Third-grade girls
performed more poorly on difficult items after their gender had been highlighted,
but their performance on easy items was equivalent across conditions (Neuville &
Croizet, 2007). These results suggest that stereotype threat will more likely arise
when individuals confront difficult tasks involving the stereotype and, once it
arises, will more likely harm performance on difficult compared with simple tasks.

WHAT ARE THE MECHANISMS BEHIND STEROETYPE THREAT?

Stereotype threat effects have been shown in many different situations involving
a variety of stereotypes. Although stereotype threat effects appear to be robust,
the specific mechanisms by which stereotype threat harms performance is still
not entirely clear. This ambiguity likely reflects that fact that stereotype threat
probably produces several different consequences, each of which can contribute
to decreased performance (Steele, Spencer, & Aronson, 2002). Steele and
Aronson (1995), for example, speculated that distraction, narrowed attention,
anxiety, self-consciousness, withdrawal of effort, or even overeffort might all play
a role. Research has provided support for the role of some of these factors, at
least in some contexts.

It is quite likely that these factors work together to undermine performance

under stereotype threat. Schmader, Johns, and Forbes (2008), in fact, have
proposed that performance decrements under stereotype threat result from
three interconnected factors. All three factors negatively affect the efficiency of
working memory, but they do so in different ways. One factor involves
physiological stress that often arises following stereotype threat, a second factor
is performance monitoring that occurs as individuals try to regulate their
behavior under stereotype threat, and the third factor is attempted emotional
regulation, as individuals try to control the affective responses that arise when
threatened. Each factor can limit the quantity and effective allocation of cognitive
resources that are necessary for optimal performance. Thus, affective and
cognitive factors can work together to affect the quality of performance on tasks
where maximal effort and focus are required.
In addition, it is also important to note that certain consequences are more likely
in some contexts (and among some groups) than in others. As research
progresses, it will be important to understand the specific mechanisms that
might account for stereotype threat effects across different situations.

Anxiety

Since the notion of stereotype threat was first proposed, it has been speculated
that the emotional reactions it produces could directly interfere with
performance. Steele (1997; Steele et al., 2002), for example, suggested that
stereotype threat effects reflect increased anxiety about confirming a negative
stereotype about one’s group. Despite the assumed centrality of emotions, the
results have often been mixed (e.g., Beilock, Rydell, & McConnell, 2007; Gonzales
et al., 2002; Harrison, Stevens, Monty, & Coakley, 2006; Keller & Dauenheimer,
2003; Stangor, Carr, & Kiang, 1998; Steele & Aronson, 1995; see Cadinu, Maass,
Rosabianca, & Kiesner, 2005). Some studies show that self-reported anxiety does
not mediate the relation between stereotype threat and performance (Spencer,
Steele, & Quinn, 1999) while others demonstrate partial mediation (Osborne,
2001) and yet others have shown that performance decrements occur only in
individuals who are highly anxious in the domain (Delgado & Prieto, 2008). Some
of the inconsistencies in results may be due to the timing of the measurement of
emotions (e.g., before versus after a test; Stone et al., 1999; Marx & Stapel,
2006) and the overreliance on verbal reports (Bosson, Haymovitz, & Pinel, 2004).
Recent research that takes these factors into account suggests that stereotype
threat can produce anxiety in stereotyped individuals prior to performance and
frustration following the completion of the task (Marx & Stapel, 2006), and

Moreover, the presence of anxiety might depend on negative intergroup attitudes

(Abrams, Eller, & Bryant, 2006) and the number of fellow group members present
(Beaton, Tougas, Rinfret, Huard, & Delisle, 2007). A second complexity is that
recent studies show that individuals under stereotype threat often try to regulate
their emotions by actively reducing the anxiety that typically arises (Johns,
Inzlicht, & Schmader, 2008). These attempts at emotional regulation ironically
undermine the ability to perform well on tasks that demand a high degree of
cognitive resources.

Negative cognitions and dejection

Stereotype threat can heighten stereotype–related thinking, leading to distraction

and loss of motivation which, in turn, can negatively affect performance. Cadinu,
Maass, Rosabianca, and Kiesner (2005) examined women’s math performance
when gender differences in math problem solving were either highlighted or
explicitly refuted. Performance not only was worse when gender stereotypes
were reinforced but also was mediated by the number of domain-specific
negative thoughts. That is, to the degree that women under stereotype threat
thought about gender math stereotypes, their performance tended to be worse.
Keller and Dauenheimer (2003) similarly showed that girls' reports of frustration,
disappointment, and sadness accounted for poor performance in math under
stereotype threat. In addition to producing anxiety and motivation loss, these
negative cognitions and emotions might also diminish the cognitive resources
available that are necessary for maximal performance or distract from the task at
hand. Krendl, Richeson, Kelley, & Heatherton (2008) examined brain activity
during a math exercise in the presence or absence of stereotype threat. Women
in a control condition showed activation in brain regions associated with math
learning during problem solving. However, women who were reminded of gender
stereotypes in math showed heightened activation of the ventral anterior
cingulate cortex (vACC) and no evidence of heightened levels of activation in the
regions important for successful math performance. The vACC has been
implicated in the processing of negative information.

Lowered performance expectations

Related to negative thoughts and emotions are low expectations. If individuals

expect to do poorly on a task, they might not be able to perform as well as when
confidence is high. Stangor, Carr, and Kiang (1998) showed that activating
gender stereotypes undermined performance expectations of women who were
asked to estimate their performance on an upcoming task involving spatial
perception. Similarly, Kray, Thompson, and Galinsky (2001) showed that subtle
manipulations linking performance to gender stereotypes reduced performance
expectations in women prior to a task involving negotiation. Kellow and Jones
(2007) also showed lowered performance expectations among 9-th grade African-
American students under stereotype threat, although performance deficits did
not emerge. Cadinu and her colleagues (Cadinu, Maass, Frigerio, Impagliazzo, &
Latinotti, 2003; see also Rosenthal, Crisp, & Suen, 2007) have provided the most
direct evidence that lowered performance expectations can account for poorer
performance under stereotype threat, especially among individuals highly
identified with a content domain.

Physiological arousal

Stereotype threat has been shown to affect physiological processes in several

studies. Low heart rate variability (HRV), an indicator of mental load, appears to
arise in conditions that produce stereotype threat. Croizet, Dépres, Gauzins,
Huguet, Leyens, and Méot (2004) showed that undergraduate students under
stereotype threat (specifically, psychology majors with a reputation of lower
intelligence compared with science majors) performed more poorly on a task that
was described as a “valid measure of general intellectual ability involved in
mathematical and logical reasoning” than when it was described as “not
diagnostic of any ability.” In addition, this poorer performance was associated
with a decrease in HRV. Moreover, the changes in HRV mediated the relation
between stereotype threat and performance. Thus, the increased mental
workload under stereotype threat (and indicated by the decreased HRV) was
responsible for the poor performance of those individuals susceptible to
stereotype threat.

Other studies provide evidence of different physiological consequences of

heightened arousal under stereotype threat. Osborne (2006, 2007) showed that
students under stereotype threat showed higher skin conductance and blood
pressure and lowered skin temperature, and Blascovich, Spencer, Quinn, and
Steele (2001) found that the blood pressure of African American test takers under
stereotype threat rose faster and remained higher relative to the blood pressure
of White participants or non-threatened African American students. The African
American participants under threat also performed poorly on the test, and
increased physiological reactivity, like HRV, appeared to account for decreased
intellectual performance. Vick, Seery, Blascovich, and Weisbuch (2008) showed
that stereotype threat can produce physiological changes in groups that are both
harmed by and benefit from stereotypical expectations. Women who were told
that a math test was gender-biased exhibited responses typical under perceived
threat (increased systemic vascular resistance that arises when task demands
are believed to exceed available resources) but showed challenge responses
(lower vascular resistance and increased cardiac output) when the test was
supposedly gender-fair. For women, invoking gender stereotypes in mathematics
made the test appear to be overwhelming given their abilities. Men, in contrast,
showed challenge responses when the test supposedly favored their gender but
threat responses when their presumed advantage was negated. Invoking their
supposed superiority in math helped men to see their abilities as adequate to the
task, but elimination of that advantage produced threat.

If physiological arousal occurs under stereotype threat, not all performance

should be negatively affected. Specifically, the effects of arousal have been
shown to depend on task difficulty, with arousal improving performance on
simple tasks but decreasing performance on difficult tasks. O'Brien & Crandall
(2003) tested whether arousal might account for stereotype threat effects by
inducing stereotype threat in students prior to their completing a challenging or
easy task. Woman under stereotype threat performed better on an easy math
test but worse on a difficult math test compared with women who were not
exposed to stereotype threat. These results are consistent with the notion that
arousal plays a central role in accounting for stereotype threat effects.

Reduced effort

Stereotype threat can lead individuals to reduce their effort, perhaps because of
low expectations of performance or perhaps to self-handicap. Stone (2002; see
also Schimel, Arndt, Banko, & Cook, 2004) provided evidence that individuals
who experienced stereotype threat before performing a task related to golf
engaged in less voluntary practice compared with individuals not operating under
stereotype threat. Stereotype threat can reduce preparation and effort, and such
"self-handicapping" can offer psychological protection by providing an a priori
explanation for failure. Of course, under preparation can also produce a self-
fulfilling prophecy, producing failure under the very conditions where people fear
doing poorly.

Reduced self-control

Inzlicht, McKay, and Aronson (2006) showed that stereotype threat can diminish
people's ability to direct their attention and behavior in purposive ways. In this
study, Blacks who reported anxious expectations of encountering racial prejudice
reported lower ability to regulate their academic behavior and subsequent
experiments demonstrated that imposition of stereotype threat reduced their
ability to effectively regulate attentional and behavioral resources. Similarly,
Smith and White (2002) produced evidence that individuals who were exposed to
stereotypes that were then nullified were better able to focus on the task than
were individuals operating under stereotype threat. These findings suggest that
coping with stereotype threat can reduce the ability to effectively regulate
behavior in a variety of related and unrelated domains.

Reduced working memory capacity

Recent research suggests that stereotype threat can reduce working memory
resources, undermining the ability to meet the information-processing
requirements of complex intellectual tasks. Croizet et al. (2004) study used HRV,
an indirect, physiological indicator of mental load, to show that stereotype threat
can impose a cognitive burden. More direct evidence regarding the nature of this
burden was provided by Schmader and Johns (2003; see also Osborne, 2006) who
showed that working memory capacity (i.e., a short-term memory system
involved in the controlling, regulating, and maintaining of information relevant to
the immediate task) is affected by stereotype threat. Female students in the
study performed a math task after being told either that "women are poorer at
math than men" or were given no information about gender differences. Later,
women’s performance and their working memory capacity (defined as the ability
to recall words that had to be held in memory while participants solved math
problems) were assessed. Women under stereotype threat showed poorer math
performance and reduced working memory capacity compared with the control
group. Differences in working memory capacity also mediated the link between
stereotype threat and poorer math performance. Beilock, Rydell, and McConnell
(2007; see also Rydell, McConnell, & Beilock, in press) extended this work by
showing that stereotype threat appears to undermine phonological components
of the working memory system involved in inner speech and thinking. Pressure-
related thought and worries can reduce working memory resources, and tasks
that require working memory resources (such as novel or poorly practiced skills)
are most likely to reveal decrements under stereotype threat. Stereotype threat
can increase worries and concerns, and these thoughts can reduce the working
memory capacity necessary to effectively meet the information-processing
requirements of a task. The effects of reduced working memory can be task, or
even component, specific. Stone and McWhinnie (2008) showed, for example,
that subtle stereotype threat seemed to affect only task components that rely on
concentration and focused attention.

Reduced creativity, flexibility, and speed

Some research suggests that stereotype threat can produce a prevention focus
(Higgins, 1998), a regulatory state in which individuals become vigilance to
prevent failure. Under such conditions, people tend to use risk-averse means,
manifesting in higher performance accuracy and enhanced analytic thinking.
People in a state of vigilance, however, tend to exhibit poorer performance on
tasks that rely on creativity, openness, flexibility, and speed (Seibt & Förster,
2004). Since most tasks require both analytic thinking and a degree of openness
and speed for successful completion, a prevention focus induced by stereotype
threat can hinder performance on many tasks.

Excess effort or attention

Stereotype threat might actually increase effort and attention allocated to a task
(e.g., Oswald & Harvey, 2000/2001). However, increased effort does not
necessarily improve performance, and characteristics of the task can determine
the effects of increased motivation or attention. For example, performance on
highly proceduralized or well-practiced tasks can be harmed when people
increase the attention or memory resources allocated to such tasks. Beilock,
Jellison, Rydell, McConnell, & Carr (2006), for example, showed that stereotype
threat harmed performance of expert golfers on a putting task, but these
decrements were alleviated when individuals were under stereotype threat and
attention was drawn away from the task. Jamieson & Harkins (2007), utilizing a
task that has been tied to the regulation of working memory, provided more
direct evidence that stereotype threat can increase motivation and effort. On a
task of visual perception, individuals under stereotype threat were more
susceptible to being distracted by an irrelevant stimulus but were also better
able to overcome distraction. These data suggest that stereotype threat
increased motivation to perform well.

WHAT CAN BE DONE TO REDUCE STEREOTYPE THREAT?

Stereotype threat effects have been demonstrated in many studies using

different tests and tasks. However, research has also shown that performance
deficits can be reduced or eliminated by several means.

Reframing the task

One method that has been shown to reduce stereotype threat is to "reframe" or
use different language to describe the task or test being used. Stereotype threat
arises in situations where task descriptions highlight social identities
stereotypically associated with poor performance. Modifying task descriptions so
that such stereotypes are not invoked or are disarmed can eliminate stereotype
threat. Stereotype threat based on gender, for example, can be reduced either
by ensuring females that a test is gender-fair (e.g., Quinn & Spencer, 2001;
Spencer, Steele, and Quinn, 1999) or by explicitly nullifying the assumed
diagnosticity of the test (Steele & Aronson, 1995). Of course, removing the
diagnostic nature of a test is unrealistic in regular course examinations or in
standardized math testing situations. In such cases, stereotype threat can be
reduced by directly addressing the specter of gender-based performance
differences within the context of an explicitly diagnostic examination (Good,
Aronson & Harder, 2008). Simply addressing the fairness of the test while
retaining its diagnostic nature can alleviate stereotype threat in any testing
situation. Specifically, testing procedures could include a brief statement that the
test, although diagnostic of underlying mathematics ability, is sex-fair (or race-
fair).

Deemphasizing threatened social identities

Another method for reducing stereotype threat is to modify procedures that

heighten the salience of stereotyped group memberships. Stricker and Ward
(2004), for example, conducting a study for the Educational Testing Service (ETS)
provide evidence that simply moving standard demographic inquiries about
ethnicity and gender to the end of the test resulted in significantly higher
performance for women taking the AP calculus test (see Danaher & Crandall,
2008). Though these effects were statistically modest, these effects could be
substantial and significant when generalized to the population of test-takers. If
the ETS were to implement this simple change in testing procedures, it is
estimated that an additional 4,700 female students annually would receive
Advanced Placement credit in calculus (see Danaher & Crandall, 2008).

Encouraging individuals to think of themselves in ways that reduce the salience

of a threatened identity can also attenuate stereotype threat effects. Ambady,
Paik, Steele, Owen-Smith, and Mitchell (2004), for example, showed that women
encouraged to think of themselves in terms of their valued and unique
characteristics were less likely to experience stereotype threat in mathematics.
Rydell, McConnell, & Beilock (in press) showed that contextual cues reminding
female undergraduates of their status as college students (a group that is
expected to do well at math) eliminates gender-based stereotype threat.
Encouraging individuals to think of characteristics that are shared by ingroup and
outgoup members, particularly characteristics in the threatened domain
(Rosenthal, Crisp, & Suen, 2007), also appears to preclude the development of
stereotype threat in conditions that normally produce it (Rosenthal & Crisp,
2006). Gresky, Ten Eyck, Lord, and McIntyre (2005) used a method that
increased the sense of self-complexity by prompting women to make self-concept
maps that either had few nodes (reflecting the person's "most basic or
fundamentally important characteristic") or many nodes (reflecting "a complete
description" of the person). Compared with individuals who did not make self-
concept maps or those who made simple maps, only women who made complex
self-concept maps were unaffected by a stereotype threat manipulation involving
math. Moreover, women who were highly identified with math performed as well
as men if they had asserted complex self-representations. So, it appears that
interventions that encourage individuals to consider themselves as complex and
multi-faceted can reduce vulnerability to stereotype threat.

Of course, all people have multiple identities, and the degree that a social
identity is highlighted for which there exists a stereotype in a domain, the higher
the vulnerability to stereotype threat. To demonstrate how to combat this,
McGlone and Aronson (2006) varied social identity salience by having students
complete questionnaires that focused on different social identities. Differences in
men's and women's performance on a gender-linked task were greatest when the
questionnaires focused on their sex and smaller when they inquired about other
social identities. Therefore, highlighting social identities that are not linked to
underperformance in a domain can attenuate stereotype threat. Another
interesting example of this phenomenon comes from recent research involving
individuals with biracial identities (Shih, Bonam, Sanchez, & Peck, 2007). This
work shows that individuals with biracial identities are more likely to believe that
race is socially constructed, and these individuals are also less likely to show
performance decrements under conditions that usually produce stereotype
threat. Moreover, individuals who were induced to disagree with the notion that
race is socially constructed (and more likely to agree that race is rooted in
biology) were most likely to show stereotype threat effects in performance.

Though using different specific techniques, these studies all use methods that
reduce the salience of identities that are tied to poor performance in a domain.
Emphasizing the idiosyncratic valued characteristics, characteristics shared with
other groups, other identities, or complex identities all appear to reduce the
salience of a threatened identity. Reducing the salience of a threatened identity
appears to serve a protective function, supporting continued high performance
for those individuals already identify with the domain in question.

Encouraging self-affirmation

A general means for protecting the self from perceived threats and the
consequences of failure is to allow people to affirm their self-worth. This can be
done by encouraging people to think about their characteristics, skills, values, or
roles that they value or view as important (Schimel, Arndt, Banko, & Cook, 2004).
Frantz, Cuddy, Burnett, Ray, and Hart (2004), for example, showed that Whites
who were given the opportunity to affirm their commitment to being nonracist
were less likely to respond in a stereotypic fashion to an implicit measure of
racial associations that had been described as indicative of racial bias. Martens,
Johns, Greenberg, and Schimel (2006) provided evidence that encouraging
women to self-affirm eliminated performance decrements that typically arise
when stereotypes about gender differences in mathematics and spatial ability are
invoked. Moreover, these effects are not limited to the laboratory. Cohen, Garcia,
Apfel, and Master (2006) described two field studies in which seventh grade
students at racially-diverse schools were randomly assigned to self-affirm or not
to self-affirm as part of a regular classroom exercise. For students who self-
affirmed, they were asked to indicate values that were important to them and to
write a brief essay indicating why those values were important. For students who
did not self-affirm, they indicated their least important values and wrote an essay
why those values might be important to others. Although the intervention took
only 15 minutes, the effects on academic performance during the semester were
dramatic. As reflected in their end-of-semester GPAs, African-American students
who had been led to self-affirm performed .3 grade points better during the
semester than those who had not. Moreover, African-Americans who self-affirmed
showed lower accessibility of racial stereotypes on a word fragment completion
task. These results cannot be explained in terms of teacher expectancies since
self-affirmation was manipulated within classes (i.e., some students affirmed
whereas others did not in the same class) and teachers were unaware which
students had affirmed. European-American students showed no effects of
affirmation. The salutatory consequences of self-affirmation appears to arise
because self-affirmation alleviates psychological threat imposed by fear of
confirming stereotypes of poor performance.

Emphasizing high standards with assurances about capability for meeting them

In situations involving teaching and mentoring, the nature of the feedback

provided regarding performance has been shown to affect perceived bias,
student motivation, and domain identification. The effectiveness of critical
feedback, particularly on tasks that involve potential confirmation of group
stereotypes (e.g., when an outgroup member provides an evaluation involving a
stereotype-relevant task), varies as a function of the signals that are sent in the
framing of the feedback. Constructive feedback appears most effective when it
communicates high standards for performance but also assurances that the
student is capable of meeting those high standards (Cohen, Steele, & Ross,
1999). Such feedback reduces perceived evaluator bias, increases motivation,
and preserves domain-identification. High standards and assurances of capability
appear to signal that students will not be judged stereotypically and that their
abilities and “belonging” are assumed rather than questioned.

Providing role models

Thoughts about out-group members whose performance is superior in a domain

can interfere with performance. Huguet & Régner (2007), for example, showed
that girls' performance on a math test in a mixed-sex environment was
negatively related to their thoughts about specific men who perform well in
mathematics. However, providing role models demonstrating proficiency in a
domain can reduce or even eliminate stereotype threat effects (Blanton, Crocker,
& Miller, 2000). Marx & Roman (2002; see also Marx, Stapel, & Muller, 2005)
showed that women performed more poorly than men (and showed lower state
self-esteem) when a math test was administered by a man but equivalently when
the test was administered by a woman with high competence in math. They also
showed that these effects were due to the perceived competence, and not just
the gender, of the experimenter. Marx and Goff (2005) varied the race of a test
administrator and showed that Black individuals were less aware of stereotype
threat and less affected by it in terms of their test performance when the
administrator was also Black. Moreover, McIntyre and his colleagues (McIntyre,
Lord, Gresky, Ten Eyck, Frye, & Bond Jr., 2005; McIntyre, Paulson, & Lord, 2003)
showed that even reading essays about successful women can alleviate
performance deficits under stereotype threat. Some intriguing evidence shows
that a focus on Barack Obama can eliminated typical stereotype threat effects,
although these results occurred only at times when Obama's successes were
particularly obvious and received positive media attention (Aronson, Jannone,
McGlone, & Johnson-Campbell, in press; Marx, Ko, & Friedman, in press).

Their evidence suggests that providing even a single role model that challenges
stereotypic assumptions can eliminate performance decrements under
stereotype threat.

Providing external attributions for difficulty

One reason that stereotype threat harms performance is because anxiety and
associated thoughts distract threatened individuals from focusing on the task at
hand. Several studies have shown that stereotype threat can be diminished by
providing individuals with explanations regarding why anxiety and distraction are
occurring that do not implicate the self or validate the stereotype. Ben-Zeev,
Fein, and Inzlicht (2005) provided proof of this principle by telling some women
who were to take a math test in the presence of men that they would be exposed
to a "subliminal noise generator" that might increase arousal, nervousness, and
heart rate. Women who were given this means to explain the arousal produced
by stereotype threat performed as well as men, in contrast to women who were
not provided with an external attribution to account for their anxiety. A more
practical example illustrating benefits of external attribution is offered by Good,
Aronson, and Inzlicht (2003). These researchers had mentors emphasize to young
students that the transition to middle school is often quite difficult and that
challenges can typically be overcome with time. Encouraging students to
attribute struggle to an external, temporary cause eliminated typical gender
differences in math performance. Finally, some research has examined the
effects of blatantly identifying and disarming the anxiety that arises from
stereotype threat. Johns, Schmader, and Martens (2005), for example, taught
students about the possible effects of stereotype threat before they took a math
test. Students were told, "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." This instruction eliminated stereotype threat
effects in women's math performance. Another study (Johns, Inzlict, & Schmader,
2008) showed that telling individuals under stereotype threat that their
performance will not be hindered and might even be improved by the anxious
feelings they might be experiencing eliminated the performance decrements
associated with stereotype threat. These studies indicate that providing
individuals with an external attributions or effective strategies for regulating
anxiety and arousal can disarm stereotype threat.

Emphasizing an incremental view of intelligence

Beliefs about the nature of ability influences a host of variables including

motivation and achievement in the face of challenge or difficulty. Some
individuals tend to believe that intelligence is fixed, not changing over time or
across contexts (an “entity theory”). Because they believe that ability is fixed,
entity theorists are highly concerned with messages and outcomes that
supposedly reflect their "true" abilities (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Dweck & Sorich,
1999). When facing challenges, entity theorists tend to demonstrate lowered
focus and task avoidance. Others tend to view intelligence as a quality that can
be developed and that it changes across contexts or over time (an “incremental
theory”). Incremental theorists tend to be more focused on improving rather than
proving ability to themselves or others (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). When facing
challenge, incremental theorists are likely to increase effort to further learning
and to overcome obstacles (Dweck & Sorich, 1999; Mueller & Dweck 1998).
Although many studies have treated implicit theories of ability as individual
difference variables, studies have shown that these beliefs themselves can be
altered (at least on a short-term basis) by modifying how abilities are described
and the specific nature of praise (e.g., by praising effort rather than ability).

Research has shown that individuals with an entity orientation (either temporarily
or chronically) are more likely to experience (Sawyer & Hollis-Sawyer, 2005) and
to be affected behaviorally by stereotype threat (Goff, Steele, & Davies, 2008),
but that, conversely, an incremental view can reduce stereotype threat. Aronson,
Fried, and Good (2002) had undergraduates write a letter of encouragement to a
younger student who was experiencing academic struggles. Black students who
were encouraged to view intelligence as malleable, "like a muscle" that can grow
with work and effort, were more likely to indicate greater enjoyment and valuing
of education, and they received higher grades that semester. Good, Aronson, and
Inzlicht (2003) showed similar effects with 7th grade students who received
mentoring from college students. Mentoring emphasizing expandable intelligence
and external attributions for difficulty produced higher reading scores and
eliminated gender differences in mathematics performance. In addition, a recent
study that experimentally manipulated the entity and incremental messages in
the learning environment showed similar findings (Good, Rattan, & Dweck,
2007b). In this study, students were randomly assigned to one of two learning
environments in which they watched an educational video that taught new math
concepts from either an entity or an incremental perspective. They then solved
math problems under either stereotype threat or non-threat conditions. Results
showed that when females learned the new math concepts with an entity
perspective, they performed less well on the math test in the stereotype threat
condition than in the non-threat condition. However, when they learned the new
math concepts portrayed from an incremental perspective, there were no
differences between the stereotype threat and the non-threat conditions on the
math test.

Moreover, encouraging an entity theory even appears to harm performance. For

instance, attributing gender differences in mathematics to genetics reduced
performance of women on a math test compared with conditions in which
differences were explained in terms of experience (Dar-Nimrod & Heine, 2006;
see also Shih, Bonam, Sanchez, & Peck, 2007) or effort (Thoman, White,
Yamawaki, & Koishi, 2008). In other words, the concern with confirming abilities
believed to be fixed or biologically-determined can interfere with one's capability
to perform well.
These studies suggest that stereotype threat can be reduced or even eliminated
if an incremental view of ability is emphasized. Doing so involves emphasizing
the importance of effort and motivation in performance and de-emphasizing
inherent "talent" or "genius." Individuals who are encouraged to think in
incremental terms will tend to react more effectively to challenge and are less
likely to fear confirming negative stereotypes of their group.

WHAT ARE THE CRITICISMS OF STEREOTYPE THREAT?

Several issues surrounding stereotype threat have been critiqued.

Overreliance on college student samples

Many of the first studies on stereotype threat were conducted with college
students, and Whaley (1998) suggested that "research on college populations
may be too narrow a base on which to rest social psychological theories of
human behavior" (p. 679). However, the literature on stereotype threat is now
replete with studies that have drawn from broader and more diverse populations
and from many different settings. Stereotype threat effects have been found in
samples ranging from children (e.g., Ambady, Shih, Kim, & Pittinsky, 2001;
McKown & Weinstein, 2003; Neuville & Croizet, 2007) to the elderly (e.g., Rahhal,
Hasher, & Colcombe, 2001) and from students in school classrooms (e.g., Huguet
& Régner, 2007; Neuville & Croizet, 2007) to adults in the workplace (e.g.,
Bergeron, Block, & Echtenkamp, 2006; Roberson, Deitch, Brief, & Block, 2003;
von Hippel et al., 2007). Although it is certainly possible that college students
might not represent people who differ in age, experience, or other factors, the
research on stereotype threat has proved to be highly consistent across
populations and contexts.

Stereotype threat vs. real discrimination

Whaley (1998) also suggested that stereotype threat research fails to distinguish
between perceived threat and experienced discrimination. In response, Steele
(1998) emphasized that stereotype threat does not preclude the possibility that
expectations of being stereotyped might be rooted in reality. Indeed, a sufficient
factor for producing vulnerability to stereotype threat is a history of experiences
with being stereotyped and discriminated against so that one might expect unfair
treatment when a stereotype is invoked alongside a valued social identity.
However, such a history might produce threat even in contexts where risks of
discrimination are quite small or even non-existent. What is crucial is whether
the individual believes that his or her actions might be viewed through the lens of
a stereotype. In such case, individuals fear that they might be viewed and
treated differently because of stereotypical expectations and that their actions
might potentially confirm stereotypical beliefs.

Failure to fully account for performance differences

Sackett, Hardison, & Cullen (2004) suggested that some claims about stereotype
threat are inaccurate and misleading. In particular, they point to media accounts
implying that stereotype threat can fully account for the persistent gap in
performance between minorities and majorities on standardized tests. Stereotype
threat cannot account for differences in performance in such tasks, they argue,
since the research supporting stereotype threat typically controls for differences
in standardized test performance. In Steele and Aronson (1995), for example,
stereotype threat effects occurred after statistically equating black and white
students' SAT scores. In other words, stereotype threat cannot account for
persistent differences on standardized tests since it appears to introduce
performance gaps that go beyond existing differences.

It is correct that SAT scores were statistically equated in the Steele and Aronson
(1995) paper and several others in which stereotype threat effects have been
reported. Thus, stereotype threat appears to represent performance decrements
above and beyond what is typically referred to as the "performance gap." Steele
and Aronson (2004), however, acknowledge that persistent racial differences on
standardized tests are multiply caused and that stereotype threat is not a "silver-
bullet cure for the race gap" (p. 47). It is important to note that many other
studies (including Steele & Aronson, Study 2, 1995; see also Blascovich, Spencer,
Quinn, & Steele, 2001; Croizet & Claire, 1998; Good, Aronson, & Inzlicht, 2003;
McFarland, Lev-Arey, & Ziegert, 2003) have not controlled for pre-existing
differences in test scores yet still produce performance decrements when
stereotyped identities are made salient. Therefore, current research suggests
that stereotype threat may be one of many factors that contribute to
performance differences on standardized tests.

Failure to generalize to real-world settings

A second criticism of stereotype threat focuses on the generality of the findings:

do stereotype threat effects occur in "real-world" situations? Cullen, Hardison,
and Sackett (2004) report some evidence using archival data showing that
performance gaps do not occur simply among the highest performers (and
presumably the most strongly identified) in gender and race groups. A second
paper produced similar findings with a different and more direct measure of
domain identification (Cullen, Waters, & Sackett, 2006). These authors suggests
two reasons why effects consistent with stereotype threat failed to emerge in
their data. First, they suggest that stereotype threat is more likely to arise in
laboratory settings when minority status or gender is made particularly salient
through experimental manipulations and less likely in the absence of such
explicit manipulations. Second, they speculate that stereotype threat effects
might be overcome in real-world environments with additional effort and
motivation. These claims are advanced by Stricker and Ward (2004) who argued
that having women report their gender before taking a real, high-stakes AP
Calculus exam produced no decrement in performance compared with women
who did not report their gender until the end of the test. However, Danaher and
Crandall's (2008) re-analysis of these data showed that stereotype threat effects
do exist in Stricker and Ward's (2004) data and calculated that collecting identity
at the end of testing in one study shrunk sex differences in performance by 33%.

A study by Good, Aronson, and Harder (2008) provides evidence showing that
stereotype threat can occur among the highest performers in realistic
environments. Women enrolled in college advanced math classes (typical
entryway courses for careers in mathematics and science) showed decrements in
performance on a calculus test when the test was described as diagnostic of
ability. However, assuring women that the same diagnostic test was free of
gender-bias reduced stereotype threat. In fact, the women in the non-threat
condition outperformed women in the stereotype threat condition and also the
men in either testing condition. Interestingly, women and men did not differ in
the course grades they earned in the class. Indeed, the lack of sex differences in
course grades mirrors the lack of sex differences in test performance in the
stereotype threat condition. Moreover, in the non-threat condition course grades
significantly underpredicted women's performance on the test. Unfortunately, the
stereotype threat condition mirrored the regular test-taking procedures and
circumstances of their calculus course. If stereotype threat had been removed
from the classroom culture, these women very likely would have earned higher
grades, perhaps even higher than their male counterparts.

Although these data indicate that stereotype threat can occur in real-world
settings, it is also true that several studies in which external monetary incentives
were offered for excellent performance produced less consistent stereotype
threat effects (McFarland, Lev-Arey, & Ziegert, 2003; Nguyen, O'Neal, & Ryan,
2003; Ployhart, Ziegert, & McFarland, 2003). However, we are unaware of any
experiments that manipulated the presence or size of external incentives in a
single study, making the speculation that external incentives cause a reduction in
stereotype threat effects tentative.

In addition, more recent research provides clearer evidence that stereotype

threat effects can and do occur in real-world environments (e.g., Cole, Matheson,
& Anisman, 2007; Good, Aronson, & Inzlicht, 2003; Good, Rattan, & Dweck,
2007b; Huguet, & Régner, 2007; Keller, 2002; Keller & Dauenheimer, 2003;
Kellow & Jones, 2005; Roberson, Deitch, Brief, & Block, 2003) and that those
effects can be attenuated in real-world contexts with various interventions
(Cohen, Garcia, Apfel, & Master, 2006; Good, Aronson, & Inzlicht, 2003; Walton &
Cohen, 2007).

WHAT ARE UNRESOLVED ISSUES OF STEREOTYPE THREAT?

There are several issues that are currently unresolved that would appear to
benefit from additional theoretical refinement or empirical attention.

What exactly is stereotype threat?

Although people reliably perform more poorly under stereotype threat, there is a
surprising degree of variability in defining exactly what stereotype threat
represents. Steele and Aronson (1995) originally defined stereotype threat as
"being at risk of confirming, as self-characteristic, a negative stereotype about
one's group" (p. 797). This definition emphasizes the central role of the self, and
this element is also emphasized in some other definitions. Kray, Thompson, and
Galinsky (2001), for instance, defined stereotype threat as "concern and anxiety
over confirming, as a self-characteristic, a negative stereotype about one's
group" (p. 943), and Croizet and Claire (1998) suggested that stereotype threat
"arises whenever individuals' behavior could be interpreted in terms of a
stereotype, that is, whenever group members run the risk of substantiating the
stereotype" (p. 589).

Other definitions de-emphasize the role of the self and highlight the possibility of
one's group being judged in stereotypic terms. Schmader and Johns (2003)
suggested that stereotype threat occurs when "one could be seen as confirming
a negative social stereotype about their ingroup" (p. 440), and Bosson,
Haymovitz, and Pinel (2004) claim it arises when "performance on a particular
task might confirm a negative stereotype about one's group" (p. 247).

A third set of definitions emphasize the central role of emotions and responses to
threat. Stereotype threat, according to Aronson and Inzlicht (2004) is "the
apprehension people feel when performing in a domain in which their group is
stereotyped to lack ability" (p. 830). Similarly, Steele and his colleagues (2002)
argue that stereotype threat is "the concrete real-time threat of being judged and
treated poorly in settings where a negative stereotype about one's group applies"
(p. 385).

These subtle differences in emphasis might not ultimately prove to be

fundamentally important. After all, any definition of a multi-faceted phenomenon
well tend to emphasize some aspects of that phenomenon over others,
depending on the immediate context in which the term is used. Shapiro and
Neuberg (2007) suggest, however, that these definitional variations might be
highlighting meaningful differences in the nature of stereotype threat that group
members experience in different situations, a speculation consistent with a
recent paper by Wout, Danso, Jackson and Spencer (2008). Moreover, the specific
nature of the stereotype threat experience could determine the subsequent
consequences for reactions, judgments, and behavior.

What mediates stereotype threat?

From the beginning of research in this area, several different factors have been
invoked as responsible for creating performance decrements under stereotype
threat. Steele and Aronson (1995) suggested that stereotype threat might
interfere with performance by increasing arousal, diverting attention, increasing
self-focus, engendering overcautiousness, prompting low expectations, or
reducing effort. In fact, the accumulated research evidence implicates all of these
factors and several others.
Many papers have provided evidence that single factors mediate the relation
between stereotype threat and performance. To infer from such evidence that
these single factors alone account for the effects of stereotype threat is
problematic, however, for several reasons. First, it is difficult to measure all
potential mediators in a single experiment given the diverse procedures that
would be required, the time it would take to collect all the data, the fact that
responding to multiple measures might increase demand characteristics, and the
possibility of cross-measure contamination that can occur when multiple
measures are completed in sequence. Therefore, researchers tend to select
candidates for mediation based on the specific research context or the
theoretical underpinnings or focus of the particular set of studies. However, this
means that evidence of mediation by one measured factor does not preclude
mediation by other, unmeasured factors. Second, this problem is particularly
pronounced if stereotype threat produces multiple consequences that co-occur
and correlate. Consistent with this notion, Steele and Aronson (1995) suggested
that "depending on the situation, several of these processes may be involved
simultaneously or in alteration" (p. 799). If multiple processes arise under
stereotype threat, then it might be important to identify which are most likely to
co-occur and which are most likely to account for stereotype threat effects in
different contexts. Recently, Schmader, Johns, and Forbes (2008) have argued
that stereotype threat affects behavior through multiple mechanisms including
physiological responses to stress, the tendency to actively monitor one's
performance under stereotype threat, and the attempt to control one's emotions
and thoughts under stereotype threat. Combined together, these factors
undermine cognitive capacity required for effective performance, although any
subset of factors might directly account for poorer performance, depending on
the specific features of a task.

Different operationalizations, same processes?

Many different means have been used to induce and to attenuate stereotype
threat. In some studies, participants are told that a given test did or did not
produce group differences in performance (e.g., Johns, Schmader, & Martens,
2005; Keller & Dauenheimer, 2003; O’Brien & Crandall, 2003; Quinn & Spencer,
2001; Sekaquaptewa & Thompson, 2003; Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999). Other
studies produce threat by soliciting information about social group memberships
prior to test-taking (e.g., Steele & Aronson, 1995; Stricker & Ward, 2004) or by
reminding participants of typical group differences in performance on the task
(e.g., Aronson, Lustina, Good, Keough, Steele, & Brown, 1999; Beilock, Rydell, &
McConnell, 2007; Yeung & von Hippel, 2008). Sometimes, tests are described
either as diagnostic or non-diagnostic of ability (e.g., Kray, Thompson, &
Galinsky, 2001; Marx, Stapel, & Muller, 2005; Steele & Aronson, 1995). Other
studies manipulate stereotype threat by changing the numerical representation
of groups in the testing situation (Ben-Zeev, Fein, & Inzlicht, 2005; Inzlicht & Ben-
Zeev, 2000) and yet others induce threat by exposing participants to media
materials that reflect stereotypes (e.g., Davies, Spencer, Quinn, & Gerhardstein,
2002; Davies, Spencer, & Steele, 2005; Oswald & Harvey, 2000-2001).
In addition, there are differences across studies regarding the nature of control
groups against which the performance of individuals under stereotype threat is
compared. Steele and Davies (2003) suggest that control conditions are those in
which threat is removed by describing a test as "fair" or non-diagnostic of ability,
and that has been done in numerous studies (e.g., Croizet, Després, Gauzins,
Huguet, Leyens, & Méot, 2004; Jamieson & Harkins, 2007; Kiefer &
Sekaquaptewa, 2007). Other studies, however, include control conditions in
which test diagnosticity is simply not mentioned (e.g., Gonzales, Blanton, &
Williams, 2002; Harrison, Stevens, Monty, & Coakley, 2006) or is retained (Good,
Aronson, & Harder, 2008). Yet other studies never mention the diagnosticity of
the test at all and instead have conditions that simply do or do not invoke
stereotypes (e.g., Ambady, Paik, Steele, Owen-Smith, & Mitchell, 2004; Keller,
2002), conditions that invoke stereotypes that are then either refuted or
endorsed (e.g., Smith & White, 2002), or use manipulations to make race or
gender salient or not (e.g., Cheryan & Bodenhausen, 2000; Inzlicht & Ben-Zeev,
2001; Steele & Aronson, 1995).

Although it is comforting that stereotype threat effects appear to be robust

despite these different operationalizations, it is also quite possible that these
different manipulations and comparisons differ in the nature, the focus, or the
intensity of the threat they produce. If so, the specific processes that occur under
stereotype threat might differ as well. This might help explain why the specific
pattern of stereotype threat effects often vary across studies. Some studies show
only performance decrements under threat, whereas others show stereotype lift
in one group and performance decrements in the threat group. Others produce a
crossover interaction where one group's performance is superior in the control
condition but the other group's performance is better in the threat condition.

Meta-analytic procedures might be useful for identifying whether differences in

findings are tied to the different operationalizations that have been used. But it is
also possible that designing studies that systematically vary and compare
findings with different manipulations of stereotype threat and differing control
groups might also be of value.

Are there different types of stereotype threat?

Additional theoretical refinement could also disambiguate some of the causes

and consequences of stereotype threat. One such attempt is represented by a
recent theoretical piece by Shapiro and Neuberg (2007). In this article, the
authors propose that there might be different types of stereotype threat that can
be distinguished by considering who is threatened (one's self vs. one's group)
and who is the source of the threat (the self, ingroup members, outgroup
members). Although extant work has tended to focus on certain combinations
(e.g., when an individual becomes concerned that he or she might be viewed as
having a stereotypical characteristic by an outgroup member), each combination
is possible. More important, these authors suggest that the different
target/source combinations produce qualitatively different types of stereotype
threat that are moderated and mediated by different variables. Consistent with
this notion is work by Wout, Danso, Jackson, and Spencer (2008) who showed
that stereotype threat that focused on the individual or that focused on the
individual's group both produced performance decrements. However, only the
latter type of threat was moderated by the strength of group identification.
Although this paper did not examine this issue, it is also possible that different
interventions might be required to ameliorate each type of stereotype threat.
Theoretical models such as the one offered by Shapiro and Neuberg (2007)
should prove invaluable in guiding research on stereotype threat in the coming
years.

http://www.reducingstereotypethreat.org/