Stereotype Threat

What is Stereotype Threat

In any social situation, stereotypes actively affect the way in which individuals view themselves and others. Stereotypes can alter behaviors, success/failure, and even simple social definitions. These alterations lead to an effect called stereotype threat in which negative stereotypes create an expectation about a certain group, and if this group is afraid to confirm the stereotype, then they will do less well in a certain situation such as women with mathematics (Fiske, 2014). In studies on stereotype threat, it was found that individuals from a stigmatized group underperform in situations where their group membership is made salient. These situations include instances where group members must list their race at the beginning of a test, when the test is described as a diagnostic of ability, or by being the only member of the group present in the situation (Fiske, 2014).

Stereotype threat is, however, more than just a self-fulfilling prophecy (Fiske, 2014). Evidence suggests that motivation and cognition play some part in the existence of stereotype threat. Examples of these effects include anxiety, stereotype activation, expectations of lower performance, and ironically, the attempt to suppress the stereotype, which keeps it activated (Fiske, 2014). These effects usually target “low ability” groups, that is groups who are seen as stereotypically low in ability, and these groups feel threatened by stereotypes. If they fail, their failure reflects negatively on the whole group (Fiske, 2014). This anxiety fuels the individual’s performance, and thus results in lower than expected performance scores.

Stereotype Threat in the Media

The stereotype threat present in the study relates to skin color and children’s’ perceptions of skin color related to attributes such as stupidity, beauty, etc. (AC360, 2010). Results of the media showed that individuals would identify their skin color as more desirable (smarter, prettier, etc.) versus colors not their own (AC360, 2010). Kids who were white pointed out that black children were negative, and black children pointed out that white children were negative. This creates an example of stereotype threat related to skin color and social interaction. If a certain skin color is seen as “ugly”, as it is depicted in the media example, then kids of that particular skin color will attempt to disprove it, however, they will also feel anxiety about their actions so that they don’t prove the stereotype right (AC360, 2010). This same anxiety effect goes for stupidity and bad behavior. The media represented black children as bad, stupid, ugly, etc. and this stereotype might cause anxiety in these kids causing their behaviors to change, their grades to drops, etc. (AC360, 2010; Fiske, 2014). In the media, stereotype threat impacted the way kids answered the questions posed to them. For example, white kids answered the questions by pointing to the black models, and black children responded by pointing to the white models for negative attributes (AC360, 2010). However, children were asked which skin color all kids see as negative, and a majority identified black skin (of varying shades) as the answer.

This stereotype threat, that darker skin equals negative attributes such as stupidity and ugliness, is a major stereotype threat that can affect performance in social and intellectual situations, to name only a couple (Steele, 1997). For the children in the media, academic outcomes are a major issue when “being stupid” based on skin color is a salient stereotype. According to Steele (1997), this type of threat brings on a spotlight anxiety, and thus causes an underperformance in the situation based on identification with the stereotyped group. For Steele (1997), stereotype threat is another pressure that interferes with performance much like test anxiety, self-consciousness, etc. In the doll study from the media, it was found that all children, regardless of racial/ethnic background, preferred the white doll over the black doll. This may arise from the stereotype that black individuals are lower in intelligence, higher in delinquent behavior, and generally less attractive than their white counterparts. Stereotype threat in this situation may have cause black children, who want to pick the black doll, to act in accordance with common stereotypes of “white being better” and “black is bad”. This threat impact identity in social situations and can lead to underperformance in academics as well as identity crises (Steele, 1997). The media showed that negative stereotypes, such as that based on racial or ethnic background, can lead to different affects related to social identity, academic performance, and social behavior (such as choosing a more socially acceptable doll over the doll you desire).

Strategies to Mitigate Stereotype Threat

When attempting to determine different remedies to this stereotype threat issue, Rydell, McConnell, and Beilock (2009) found that activating a different type of social identity (such as identity as a college student) can increase performance on a task that was affected negatively by a stereotyped identity (such as women). In this way, the salient stereotype is replaced by a more positive stereotype. Rydell, McConnell, and Beilock (2009) demonstrated that women (who are stereotyped as bad at math) saw improved math scores when the salient stereotype of gender identity was replaced with the “college students are good at math” stereotype. This strategy worked through negating the deficit ion working memory that the negative stereotype created.

Further evidence from Rydell, McConnell, and Beilock (2009) showed that altering the questions on the demographic portion of a test can lead to an increase in performance. For example, stereotype threat creates a deficit in performance when a stereotyped identity is salient (such as after you answer questions about race and gender), however, altering thee questions can improve the scores on the tests by eliminating this primer for stereotype threat.

When applying these remedies to stereotype threat, one must take into consideration the identities of the individual, the stereotypes associated with the threatened identity, and the stereotypes associated with the other identities. For example, if academic performance is suffering, then replacing the stereotype associated with black individuals and academics with another identity is a valid approach (as evidenced in Rydell, McConnell, & Beilock, 2009). However, if the academic underperformance is in mathematics, and you attempt to replace the threatened identity with that of gender identity, women may then have another stereotyped identity to worry about, causing more anxiety from further stereotype threat. Thus, ensuring that replacing identities with valid alternates considers not only the stereotypes of the current identity, but also the stereotypes of the target alternative, and the situation.

Altering question on the demographic portion of a test or survey is also a valid method of addressing stereotype threat. According to Rydell, McConnell, and Beilock (2009), the demographic questionnaire on a test or survey is a primer for stereotype threat, essentially activating the anxiety associated with certain stereotypes. Replacing these questions, altering these questions, or moving them from the beginning to the end of the survey are all valid options when addressing this method of remedying stereotype threat.

No matter what form the intervention takes, one consideration must always be addressed. According to Nelson (2016), stereotype threat is a situational threat that really has nothing to do with someone’s true ability or skill. Any successful intervention of stereotype threat must address the situation in some way such as altering the salient identity, changing the form of the questionnaire, or utilizing role models to alter perceptions of the group (Nelson, 2016).

References

Fiske, S. T. (2014). Social beings: core motives in social psychology (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Hogg, M. A., & Cooper, J. M. (2007). The Sage handbook of social psychology: concise student edition. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Inside the AC360 Doll Study PT1. (2010). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cWgV5sigbQ.

Nelson, T. D. (2016). Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (2nd ed.). Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis Group.

Rydell, R. J., McConnell, A. R., & Beilock, S. L. (2009). Multiple social identities and stereotype threat: Imbalance, accessibility, and working memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 949–966. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1037/a0014846

Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52(6), 613–629.