No Stigmatized Child Left Behind: Understanding and Reducing the Effects that Stereotypes have on Performance

1. No Stigmatized Child Left Behind:Understanding and Reducing the Effects that Stereotypes have on Performance Toni Schmader, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Psychology University of Arizona

2. Explaining race and gender differences in performance • Racial minorities: • Higher dropout rate • Lower GPA • Lower test scores • Women in math: • Less likely to pursue math • Lower test scores

3. Minding the Gap • Sociological Explanations • Socialization Explanations • Biological Explanations • A Situational Explanation

4. Stereotype Threat“A Threat in the Air” Steele (1997) • When individuals feel that they might be judged in terms of a negative stereotype or that they might do something that would inadvertently confirm that stereotype. Steele & Aronson (1995)

5. Stereotype Threat can Occur for Many Groups in many Domains

6. Contextual Cues that Trigger Threat • Making the grade – how a task is framed • Steele & Aronson (1995); Johns, Schmader, & Martens (2005); Spencer, Steele, & Quinn (1999) • Reduced to a stereotype – reminders of gender • Shih, Pittinsky, & Ambady (1999); Inzlicht & Ben Zeev (2000); Davies et al., (2003); Steele & Aronson (1995) • Effects shown in elementary & secondary school • Ambady, Shih, Kim, & Pittinsky (2001) • Replications in naturalistic classroom environments • Keller & Dauenheimer (2003), Danaher & Crandall (2008) • Moving demographics to after the test reduces gender gap by 33%

7. Explaining the Process Mediators? Poor Performance Cues to Threat

8. Explaining the Process Math Mediators? Cues to Threat Verbal Spatial Memory Interaction

9. Does Stereotype Threat Reduce Working Memory Capacity? • Working memory capacity • The ability to focus attention on a task while inhibiting irrelevant information. (Engle, 2001) • Measured using dual processing tasks • Working memory capacity = number of words

10. Results Study 1: Men & Women Study 2: Whites & Latinos # of Words Recalled Schmader & Johns (2003, JPSP)

11. Does Working Memory Capacity Mediate Test Performance? Working Memory Capacity .58*** -.52** Stereotype Threat Math Test Performance -.42* Schmader & Johns (Study 3, 2003, JPSP)

12. Does Working Memory Capacity Mediate Test Performance? Working Memory Capacity .58*** -.52** Stereotype Threat Math Test Performance -.12 ns Sobel:z = 2.26* Schmader & Johns (Study 3, 2003, JPSP)

13. A Stress-Induced Cognitive Deficit Model of Stereotype Threat Working Memory Capacity Performance on Cognitive Task Environmental Trigger of Stereotype Threat

14. A Stress-Induced Cognitive Deficit Model of Stereotype Threat Increased Performance Monitoring Working Memory Capacity Performance on Cognitive Task Environmental Trigger of Stereotype Threat Physiological Stress Response

15. A Stress-Induced Cognitive Deficit Model of Stereotype Threat Increased Performance Monitoring Appraisal Processes Working Memory Capacity Performance on Cognitive Task Environmental Trigger of Stereotype Threat Physiological Stress Response

16. A Stress-Induced Cognitive Deficit Model of Stereotype Threat Increased Performance Monitoring Appraisal Processes Working Memory Capacity Performance on Cognitive Task Environmental Trigger of Stereotype Threat Negative Cognitions Negative Emotions Physiological Stress Response

17. A Stress-Induced Cognitive Deficit Model of Stereotype Threat Increased Performance Monitoring Appraisal Processes Emotion Regulation Working Memory Capacity Performance on Cognitive Task Environmental Trigger of Stereotype Threat Negative Cognitions Negative Emotions Physiological Stress Response

18. Long Term Effects on Motivation and Behavior Cues to Threat Career Choice

19. Manifestations of Threat:Contexts that Cue Threat Lead to: • Lower test performance • Johns et al. (2005); Schmader & Johns (2003); Steele & Aronson (1995) • Lower expectancies and self-confidence • Schmader, Johns, & Barquissau (2004); Stangor et al., (1998)

20. Some Female Science & Math Majors Buy into the Stereotype Women’s endorsement correlates with: - lower confidence r = -.21, p < .05 - lower self-esteem about performance r = -.26, p < .05 - less interest in graduate school r = -.26, p < .05 e.g., “I don’t think that there are any real gender differences in math ability.” Strongly Strongly agree disagree Endorsement Schmader, Johns, Barquissau (2004) Journal of Sex Roles

21. Manifestations of Threat:Contexts that Cue Threat Lead to: • Lower test performance • Johns et al. (2005); Schmader & Johns (2003); Steele & Aronson (1995) • Lower expectancies and self-confidence • Schmader, Johns, & Barquissau (2004); Stangor et al., (1998) • Less interest in math, science, and leadership • Davies, Spencer, & Steele (2005)

22. Subtle Exposure to Gender Stereotypes can Affect Women’s Preferences Effects on Women’s Career Preferences Effects on Women’s Leadership Preference TV Commercials TV Commercials Davies, Spencer, Quinn, & Gerhardstein (2002) Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Davies, Spencer, & Steele (2005) Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

23. Closing the Gap by Inoculating Women from Threat Poor Performance Cues to Threat

24. Closing the GapSolution 1: Creating a Threat Free Environment The Benefits of Role Models The Presence of People like Me Marx & Roman (2002) Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Inzlicht & Ben-Zeev (2000) Psychological Science

25. A Stress-Induced Cognitive Deficit Model of Stereotype Threat Increased Performance Monitoring Are group differences eliminated when women are taught to reappraise the situation? Appraisal Processes Emotion Regulation Working Memory Capacity Performance on Cognitive Task Environmental Trigger of Stereotype Threat Negative Cognitions Negative Emotions Physiological Stress Response

26. Closing the GapSolution 2: Threat Inoculation through Education • Fostering a sense of belonging • Everyone faces doubts about performance • Walton & Cohen (2007) • Emphasizing skill over ability • Learning is an incremental process • Good, Aronson, & Inzlicht (2003)

27. Closing the GapSolution 1: Educating Students about Academic Experiences Good, Aronson, & Inzlicht (2003) Applied Developmental Psychology

28. Closing the GapSolution 2: Threat Inoculation through Education • Fostering a sense of belonging • Everyone faces doubts about performance • Walton & Cohen (2007) • Emphasizing skill over ability • Learning is an incremental process • Good, Aronson, & Inzlicht (2003) • Unveiling the effects of stereotype threat • Stereotypes as an external explanation for anxiety • Johns, Schmader, & Martens (2005)

29. What is the effect of learning about stereotype threat? Two Competing Hypotheses: • Ignorance is bliss Knowing about threat could make stereotypes come to mind more easily & erode self-efficacy • Knowledge is power Stereotypes offer an external explanation for anxiety that might reduce threat

30. Does Teaching Stereotype Threat Inoculate Women Against its Effects? Described stereotype threat & said: “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.” Johns, Schmader, & Martens (2005) Psychological Science

31. Summary & Implications • Stereotype threat offers a situational account of the performance gap • Changing the situation can reduce the threat • Implications for Affirmative Action • Controls for gap in scores created by stereotypes • Creates diverse and threat-free learning environment