Stereotype Threat

Stereotype threat is a feeling of discomfort (psychologically speaking) in which a person is afraid that their actions will be viewed through or confirm a negative stereotype that is associated with their group memberships (Nelson, 2016). According to research in the field, stereotype threat can occur in individuals who not only belong to the stereotyped group, but also to individuals who might belong to the group, may have very little identification with the group, identify with groups that have very little identity strength, and who may be afraid that society will view them as a part of the stereotyped group when in fact they are not (Schmader, 2002; Bosson, Haymovitz, & Pinel, 2004; Major, Hunger, Bunyan, & Miller, 2014; as cited in Nelson, 2016).

Accompanying stereotype threat, there are six forms of stereotype threat that are defined by major researchers. These six dimensions are self-concept threat, group-concept threat, Own-reputation threat with the ingroup, own-reputation threat with the outgroup, Group-reputation threat with the ingroup, and group-reputation threat with the outgroup (Nelson, 2016).

First, we have self-concept threat. Self-concept threat occurs when you yourself are the source of the stereotype and the target of the stereotype (Nelson, 2016). For example, a straight, white male in the United States has many stereotypes associated with his self-concept. There is the racial stereotype that all white people are racist. There is the gender stereotype that as a male you are sexist. There is the sexuality stereotype that as a straight (heterosexual) individual, you hate people of other sexualities. These stereotypes within your own mind make you afraid that you might accidentally commit an action that somehow confirms one of these stereotypes (e.g., saying you aren’t attracted to other men, saying that men and women are different in certain ways, saying that certain political leanings match your own).

Next, we have group concept threat. Group concept threat, according to Nelson (2016), is the fear of seeing one’s group as having a certain negative stereotypic trait. In this instance, the stereotype originates within the self (yourself is the source) and the target of the stereotype is the group (Nelson, 2016). One example of this type of stereotype threat can be seen in politics. For instance, a Republican might know that they themselves are not racist, and they don’t see their group as racist either. However, certain actions by individual members of the party may “confirm” that negative stereotypic trait. On the flip side, many Democrats may feel they are not against taking away people’s rights, however, certain actions by individuals in the group threaten that perception and “confirm” their fear.

Then we have own-reputation threat with both the ingroup and the outgroup. This dimension is actually two dimensions, the ingroup being one and the outgroup being another (Nelson, 2016). This dimension is the fear that others (whether they are the outgroup or the ingroup) will look at you, the individual, through a stereotypic lens and treat you differently based on your membership to a certain group (Nelson, 2016). This stereotype threat dimension focuses on the self (or individual) as the target of the stereotype and the stereotype originates elsewhere (Nelson, 2016). One example of ingroup stereotype threat is when your ingroup (say for instance your ingroup is a group of computer gamers) and they look at you through the negative lens of being a mobile gamer and being to identify you as a member of that group. An example of outgroup stereotype is when members of your outgroup (for instance console gamers) look at you and being to identify you with membership of a negative stereotype group (that is mobile gamers).

The final dimension is group-reputation threat, again for both the ingroup and outgroup (which again creates two dimensions total). Group-reputation threat is the fear of being a bad representation of one’s group (for the outgroup example) or reinforcing negative stereotypes about ones group (for the ingroup example) in the minds of others (Nelson, 2016). One example of outgroup reputation threat would be being a bad ambassador of computer gaming to mobile gamers, reinforcing the negative stereotypes mobile gamer shave about computer gamers. For ingroup reputation threat, and example would be committing actions that would reinforce a negative stereotype about computer gamers in others minds (Nelson, 2016).

Compared with these different dimensions of stereotype threat, there are two specific contexts that are important in stereotype threat. First, we have self-perception, that is how we perceive ourselves (Nelson, 2016). Through this context and individual will engage in stereotype endorsement which increases the risk of stereotype threat where the self is the source of the stereotype, as in the example self-concept threat mentioned before (Nelson, 2016). The higher an individual’s stereotype endorsement (that is the extent to which they believe that self-stereotype) then the more likely that the individual will believe that certain actions or events will “confirm” that stereotype threat (Nelson, 2016).

On the opposite side of this, we have group identification which increases the likelihood of group as target stereotypes or ingroup as source stereotypes (Nelson, 2016). In this context, the higher an individual’s identification with a certain group, then the more likely that they will care about how their performance affects perceptions of their group (for example a woman who is bad at math may be afraid that people will think women are bad at math), and they will be more likely to believe that an ingroup might view her performance (Nelson, 2016). Research has shown that these contexts differ across time, across groups, and across group content (e.g., mental health groups, weight groups, religion groups, etc.) and thus have differing effect strengths (Corrigan, 2004; Corrigan & Watson, 2002; Crandall & Biernat, 1990; Crocker & Major, 1989, Quinn & Crocker, 1999; Sellers, Smith, Shelton Rowley, & Chavous, 1998; Teachman, Wilson, & Komarovskaya, 2006, as cited in Nelson, 2016).

When it comes to these two contexts, it is important to note that they can either be an issue separately as individual contexts, or they can be combined together to affect one another in novel ways (Nelson, 2016). For instance, an individual may identify with both gamers and sports nuts, and the individual may have some form of stereotype endorsement for each of these identities. However, they may also have differing group identification levels in which they identify with one group more than the other which may affect the way they cognitively process the multiple stereotype threats (Nelson, 2016).

According to Nelson (2016), most of existing stereotype threat research focuses on its affects on intellectual performance such as women’s mathematical ability or black student IQ. However, this is not the only major effect. Overall, stereotype threat attacks working memory and thus undermines learning in all forms, not just intellectual ability (Taylor & Walton, 2011). This affect on learning can undermine attempts to intervene in these stereotype threats and prevent learning new constructs and concepts in the classroom and outside of it (Nelson, 2016).

Another major affect that stereotype threat can have is on defensive strategies. Stereotype threat can cause an increase in self-handicapping behaviors. For example, a student who feels underprepared for a test may stay out super late the night before they take the test, thus attributing any failure to lack of sleep and not poor study habits or performance (Inzlicht & Kang, 2010). While these strategies are defensive in nature (that is, they arise to create a positive impact), if left unaddressed they can become chronic and lead to a disabling effect within motivation and performance (Nelson, 2016).

When attempting to curtail stereotype threat, there are several main ways in which to approach any stereotype threat intervention. First, we have the interventions that directly target the cognitive challenges that stereotype threat brings (Nelson, 2016). Within this method, interventions target the cognitive processes that underlie the stereotype threat assessment. One method of doing this is through training individuals to associate positive stimuli with whatever identity or domain is being stereotyped (Forbes & Schmader, 2010, as cited in, Nelson, 2016). One example of this from popular media is the “Love My Body” campaign in which individuals try to associate positivity with their identification with heavier weight classes and bigger clothing sizes. There is also a reappraisal intervention in which stereotyped individuals reevaluate their stereotype threat and instead of putting internal attributions of the stereotype (such as not being smart enough) the individual creates an outside attribution (e.g. I am afraid because of other peoples unimportant opinions) thus negating the negative connotations (Nelson, 2016).

Next, we have interventions that specifically target the group and individuals within those groups. One example of this type of intervention is a role model intervention in which a role model within a group significantly reduces the negative effects of stereotype threat by increasing the positivity around representing the group (Nelson, 2016). An example of this type of intervention can be found in recent video games discussions about representations and minorities (e.g. women, black, latinx, and others) within games. By reducing the negative effects of stereotype threat (e.g. gamers are straight, white, male teenagers) the positive effects of seeing yourself or your group represented increases positive associations of representing your group.

Finally, we have interventions that target the self, which target the self in various ways (Nelson, 2016). One example of a self-intervention is self-affirmation (or values affirmation) in which individuals focus on a part of their life that is not overlapped with whatever domain the stereotype threat is focusing on. According to Nelson (2016), stereotype threat works by increasing an individual’s cognitive focus on the domain area of the stereotype, which in turn increases the cognitive burden on success or failure in that domain. Self-affirmation works by taking the focus away from that stereotyped domain and reinforcing your positive associations through focusing on a different area (Nelson, 2016). An example of this type of intervention would be a female student taking a math test who can focus on her abilities in sports, language, or history to mitigate the negative effects of the math stereotype.

To conclude, stereotype threat focuses on taxing an individual’s cognitive processes by forcing them to focus on the negative associations of a stereotype when they fail or reinforce the stereotype (Nelson, 2016). This can occur completely within the self, completely within a group setting, or in a combination of both. However, there are many ways to mitigate the effects of stereotype threat. Individuals experiencing stereotype threat can utilize techniques such as self-affirmation, role-model representation, or reappraisal, all of which refocus the cognitive processes from the negative associations of a stereotype to the more positive associations of a stereotype or to the more positive aspects of a group identity altogether.

References

Inzlicht, M., & Kang, S. K. (2010). Stereotyping threat spillover: How coping with threats to social identity affects aggression, eating, decision making, and attention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 99(3), 467-481.

Nelson, T. D. (Ed.). (2016). Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Psychology Press

Taylor, V. J. & Walton, G. M. (2011). Stereotype threat undermines academic learning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(8), 1055-1067.