Definition and components

4 The theory of stereotype threat

4.1 Introduction

In the last chapter we concluded that the stereotype that women are poor at mathematics is largely self-reinforced. Steele and Aronson formulated one of the theories explaining how the self-reinforcement works, in 1995. To date, their theory of stereotype threat has become a widely cited theory in recent psychology with over 5000 references just to its first publication. In this chapter we will get a deeper understanding of the stereotype threat theory by looking at its different components, the supposed mechanisms behind it and the consequences. We will close by looking at the different moderators of stereotype threat and how we can use these moderators to reduce the effects of stereotype threat.

4.2 Definition and components

In the last chapter we looked at the lack of women in mathematical careers and came to the conclusion that external forces, such as negative stereotypes about women’s ability in mathematics, play an important role in the phenomenon why there are fewer women than men in the domain. The theory of stereotype threat takes a step back and describes how such a stereotype can impact performance and attitudes and in turn lead to female disengagement within the domain. The disengagement from the domain and the resulting lack of women in return reinforces the stereotypes; firstly, because the reason for the unequal distribution of genders within the mathematics domain is unclear to the outside world and secondly, because being a female mathematician is seen as two distinct events.

Let us introduce the theory of stereotype threat with an example of a group other than women. Traditionally there have been a lot of negative stereotypes about African Americans, many of them revolving around their intellectual abilities (Steele, Spencer

& Aronson, 2002). Along those lines, Steele (1992) showed significant gaps in school achievement between European and African Americans at all levels of schooling.

However, this gap, similar to the ones females experience in mathematics in comparison to males, is not due to differences in intellect as Jensen (1980) was able to demonstrate.

Jensen (1980) showed that European and African Americans with identical Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores at the beginning of university showed differences in subsequent achievement. This difference went in favor of European Americans who outperformed African Americans (Jensen, 1980). In 1995 Steele and Aronson explained this phenomenon of the emerging gap by taking social psychological factors into account. They blame threats arising in situations where a negative stereotype about one’s group can be confirmed or disconfirmed as the cause of the performance gap.

Their resulting theory of stereotype threat can be defined as follows:

“When a negative stereotype about a group that one is part of becomes personally relevant, usually as an interpretation of one’s behavior or an experience one is having, stereotype threat is the resulting sense that one can be judged or treated in terms of the

stereotype or that one might do something that would inadvertently confirm it.“ (Steele, Spencer, & Aronson, 2002, p. 389)

The theory explains why people belonging to negatively stereotyped groups underperform in specific situations, such as academic tests for African Americans or mathematics tests for women. Aronson and Steele (1995) clarify that the extra burden

added by the threat interferes with performance, predicting lower performance in comparison to what the individual could have achieved and students who do not have to deal with threat.

Before coming to explain the mechanism behind the threat effects, we need to look at three conditions necessary for people to experience stereotype threat. Firstly, people need to be aware of different social categories and have developed the ability to differentiate between these. This point ties in nicely with the second, as it is not solely the awareness of different social categories that is necessary for stereotype threat situations to occur but one also needs to be able to categorize oneself as part of one of the categories. As Martin and Ruble (2010) point out, these conditions help us understand why we usually do not find threat effects in children younger than 4. The last condition, stereotype awareness, develops even later between the ages of 5 and 7 (Galdi, Cadinu, & Tomasetto, 2014). Stereotype awareness is the knowledge that one’s own group is negatively viewed in relation to a certain ability. Personal beliefs about the association of social categories and certain abilities and behaviors do not play a role here. So stereotype awareness stands for knowing that others hold these beliefs. This differentiation makes sense when we reflect on the original definition of stereotype threat where threat denotes the fear of being judged by others.

The sole presence of these three conditions does not automatically elicit stereotype threat effects either. Therefore we will now look at what factors need to be present in the situation in order for threat effects to occur. Taken from the definition, the most important factor is the stereotype salience. One does not simply need to know the stereotype but one needs to be aware that it is applicable to the current situation. In short, the stereotype is a possible interpretation of one’s behavior. However, again it is not necessary for the individual to believe or even endorse the stereotype him or herself

(Steele, 2002). This awareness of the applicability of the negative stereotype is often introduced into the situation in an unconscious, subtle manner. It can be done, for example, by solely stating the nature of the task (Steele & Aronson, 1995). Females knowing they are going to do a mathematics task or African Americans taking a test diagnostic of their abilities may be affected by stereotype threat if they do not possess any characteristics to buffer the effect.

Knowing the stereotype is one factor that can elicit stereotype threat. Situations that render one’s own group identity salient can also cause threat effects to occur. The activation of one’s group membership could in turn then activate stereotypes about one’s group and thus hinder performance. Making group membership salient is actually a frequent occurrence in test situations as it is done by solely asking individuals to indicate their race or gender.

These two factors, salience of stereotype applicability and salience of group membership, are the basis for manipulations generally used to induce stereotype threat effects which we dedicate a chapter to later on. But it is important to note that most studies about stereotype threat make comparisons between participants and not within participants, meaning that part of the sample is put in a threat situation while the other half of the sample does not experience threat effects.

There are two more factors we need to talk about that do not elicit stereotype threat but are important once the negative stereotype has been made salient.

Identification with the stereotyped domain and thus being motivated to eliminate the stereotype (Smith, 2004) is one of those factors. Individuals who value the domain and use it to measure their own self-worth are susceptible while individuals who do not care about the domain are not, as they do not need to perform well to feel positively about themselves. Lastly, group identification is often named as an important factor for threat

effects to occur (Shapiro & Neuberg, 2007). However, the necessity of this condition seems to not always hold true as people belonging to groups they are unlikely to identify with have also exhibited stereotype threat effects. It is for this reason that Shapiro and Neuberg (2007) proposed to distinguish between different kinds of threats to solve the conundrum. They differentiate between six different types of threat dependent on the source and target of the threat. The source of the threat can come from oneself, one’s own ingroup or the outgroup. The target of the threat can also be the self or one’s own ingroup. To return to the question of the necessity of group identification, according to Shapiro and Neuberg, identification with the group is only important if the group is the target of the threat, not if it is the self. Thus in comparison to Steele and Aronson (1995) who describe stereotype threat as the fear of being judged by others, Shapiro and Neuberg (2007) say threat can also come from within the individuals themselves.

Until now we have only spoken of threat effects on academic performance.

However, the scope of the theory goes much further and predicts performance decrements for all individuals who find themselves in a threatening situation, such as athletes. Stone, Lynch, Sjomeling and Darley (1999) for example showed that African and European Americans differed in their golf ability when the task was framed as showing natural athletic ability, a feature African Americans are stereotyped to possess.

We now know the conditions that produce stereotype threat. Let us now look at the mechanisms behind it before looking at the research on moderators of stereotype threat that can alleviate the effect.