3.1 P11: School Adjustment
Appel: The influence of stereotype threat on immigrants – review & analysis
Introduction
- Stereotype & social identity threat: negative stereotypes can undermine performance
of negatively stereotyped group members due to extra pressure to not fail
- Most experimental evidence on stereotype threat is based on women (stereotype: low
ability in numerical domains) and African Americans (stereotype: low intellectual
ability)
Immigration, Achievement and Stereotype Threat
- Stereotype threat = state of psychological discomfort that arises when individuals
are confronted w/negative stereotype about their group in situation where negative
stereotype could be confirmed
- Integrative model of stereotype threat: physiological stress response, increased
monitoring of performance situation, regulation of negative thoughts/emotions. These
processes consume working memory capacity, which is unavailable for task at hand,
so underperformance in cognitive tasks
- Stereotype test theory puts little emphasis on distinction of stereotyped groups
The Special(?) Case of Immigrants
- Stereotypic expectations differ across immigrants, e.g. Hispanic Americans
stereotyped to be less academically successful, but Asians stereotyped to be more so
- Due to this heterogeneity in stereotype valence & content, it’s hard to figure out the
influence of stereotype threat on immigrants in general
- Immigration status becoming ‘fuzzier’, e.g. acculturation
- Being an immigrant = a subjective state of ethnic identification
- Bicultural identity integration = for some, both identities are overlapping &
compatible, for others, both identities are different and cause conflict
- Group identification: ethnic identification can buffer the negative effects of societal
devaluation & rejection of immigrants
- Stereotype threat occurs when individuals identify w/group & identify w/ability
domain, while negative stereotype suggests negative connection between one’s group
& domain at hand. Negative effects of stereotype more pronounced when individuals
identify positively w/domain in question, either bc it is part of their self-concept or
due to situational prime of ego-involvement
Rationale & Overview
- Stereotype activating cues:
1. Blatant = explicit statement about inferiority of one group, e.g. ‘women score
lower in maths’
2. Moderately explicit = statement about subgroup differences in performance, but
direction of differences is left open, e.g. ‘the test has shown gender differences in
the past’
3. Indirect & subtle = no statement about subgroup differences, but contextual
expectation imposed on group that influences their performance (stereotype
threat?), e.g. test is diagnostic vs. not diagnostic
, Methods
- Study stereotype threats experienced by Latinos in US & Arab immigrants in Europe
Results
- Performance is worse when there is a stereotype imposed on the group – confirms
hypothesis
- Identity strength increases threat, reduces cognitive performance
- There were moderators that also influence result such as gender differences
- Stereotype has greater influence on cognitive abilities compared to general knowledge
Discussion
- Effects found for adults were larger than for children/adolescents
- All treatment types (blatant, moderately explicit and subtle) were effectively altering
immigrants’ performance
- Research didn’t account for bad preparation/prior knowledge before taking the test
(doesn’t measure the process)
- Funnel plot shows asymmetry: studies w/smaller samples showed larger effect sizes
in support of stereotype threat than studies w/larger samples – could be due to
publication bias. Studies w/the largest samples had least support for stereotype threat
- Method with which immigrant status was assessed was influential factor regarding
studies’ results
Dimitrova: Adjustment Outcomes of Immigrant Children & Youth in Europe
Two Perspectives on Adjustment of Immigrant Populations
Internalising outcomes = psychological distress, etc.
Externalising outcomes = behaviour; drug abuse, etc.
Academic adjustment outcomes = academic attitudes, achievement, etc.
1. Migration morbidity = immigrants display less adjustment than natives (lower
academic achievement, social functioning, etc.)
2. Immigrant paradox = immigrants display more favourable outcomes
Moderators of Adjustment of Immigrant Populations
- Sociodemographic = gender, socioeconomic status, geographic area, etc.
- Context variables = policy & intergroup attitudes toward immigrant groups
Well-being of immigrant youth related to acculturation orientations: adherence to both
cultures results in better developmental outcomes & well-being, effective policies for
immigrants’ integration can also help, societal attitudes of receiving country,
discrimination
Present Investigation
Research Questions:
1. What is the strength of the relationship between immigration & adjustment outcomes
in children & youth in Europe?
2. Does the relationship vary for the different adjustment domains of internalising,
externalising and academic outcomes?
Appel: The influence of stereotype threat on immigrants – review & analysis
Introduction
- Stereotype & social identity threat: negative stereotypes can undermine performance
of negatively stereotyped group members due to extra pressure to not fail
- Most experimental evidence on stereotype threat is based on women (stereotype: low
ability in numerical domains) and African Americans (stereotype: low intellectual
ability)
Immigration, Achievement and Stereotype Threat
- Stereotype threat = state of psychological discomfort that arises when individuals
are confronted w/negative stereotype about their group in situation where negative
stereotype could be confirmed
- Integrative model of stereotype threat: physiological stress response, increased
monitoring of performance situation, regulation of negative thoughts/emotions. These
processes consume working memory capacity, which is unavailable for task at hand,
so underperformance in cognitive tasks
- Stereotype test theory puts little emphasis on distinction of stereotyped groups
The Special(?) Case of Immigrants
- Stereotypic expectations differ across immigrants, e.g. Hispanic Americans
stereotyped to be less academically successful, but Asians stereotyped to be more so
- Due to this heterogeneity in stereotype valence & content, it’s hard to figure out the
influence of stereotype threat on immigrants in general
- Immigration status becoming ‘fuzzier’, e.g. acculturation
- Being an immigrant = a subjective state of ethnic identification
- Bicultural identity integration = for some, both identities are overlapping &
compatible, for others, both identities are different and cause conflict
- Group identification: ethnic identification can buffer the negative effects of societal
devaluation & rejection of immigrants
- Stereotype threat occurs when individuals identify w/group & identify w/ability
domain, while negative stereotype suggests negative connection between one’s group
& domain at hand. Negative effects of stereotype more pronounced when individuals
identify positively w/domain in question, either bc it is part of their self-concept or
due to situational prime of ego-involvement
Rationale & Overview
- Stereotype activating cues:
1. Blatant = explicit statement about inferiority of one group, e.g. ‘women score
lower in maths’
2. Moderately explicit = statement about subgroup differences in performance, but
direction of differences is left open, e.g. ‘the test has shown gender differences in
the past’
3. Indirect & subtle = no statement about subgroup differences, but contextual
expectation imposed on group that influences their performance (stereotype
threat?), e.g. test is diagnostic vs. not diagnostic
, Methods
- Study stereotype threats experienced by Latinos in US & Arab immigrants in Europe
Results
- Performance is worse when there is a stereotype imposed on the group – confirms
hypothesis
- Identity strength increases threat, reduces cognitive performance
- There were moderators that also influence result such as gender differences
- Stereotype has greater influence on cognitive abilities compared to general knowledge
Discussion
- Effects found for adults were larger than for children/adolescents
- All treatment types (blatant, moderately explicit and subtle) were effectively altering
immigrants’ performance
- Research didn’t account for bad preparation/prior knowledge before taking the test
(doesn’t measure the process)
- Funnel plot shows asymmetry: studies w/smaller samples showed larger effect sizes
in support of stereotype threat than studies w/larger samples – could be due to
publication bias. Studies w/the largest samples had least support for stereotype threat
- Method with which immigrant status was assessed was influential factor regarding
studies’ results
Dimitrova: Adjustment Outcomes of Immigrant Children & Youth in Europe
Two Perspectives on Adjustment of Immigrant Populations
Internalising outcomes = psychological distress, etc.
Externalising outcomes = behaviour; drug abuse, etc.
Academic adjustment outcomes = academic attitudes, achievement, etc.
1. Migration morbidity = immigrants display less adjustment than natives (lower
academic achievement, social functioning, etc.)
2. Immigrant paradox = immigrants display more favourable outcomes
Moderators of Adjustment of Immigrant Populations
- Sociodemographic = gender, socioeconomic status, geographic area, etc.
- Context variables = policy & intergroup attitudes toward immigrant groups
Well-being of immigrant youth related to acculturation orientations: adherence to both
cultures results in better developmental outcomes & well-being, effective policies for
immigrants’ integration can also help, societal attitudes of receiving country,
discrimination
Present Investigation
Research Questions:
1. What is the strength of the relationship between immigration & adjustment outcomes
in children & youth in Europe?
2. Does the relationship vary for the different adjustment domains of internalising,
externalising and academic outcomes?
