Independent reading – social, personality and abnormal psychology – lecture 4 pages: 392-
394/402-408
Stereotype threat
Because stigmatised groups know the negative stereotypes that others have of them, they experience
what Claude Steele and Joshua Aronson (1995; Steele, Spencer, & Aronson, 2002) call stereotype threat
(also see Inzlicht & Schmader, 2011; Maass & Cadinu, 2003; Schmader, Johns, & Forbes, 2008; Shapiro &
Neuberg, 2007). People who are stigmatised are aware that others may judge and treat them
stereotypically. So, on tasks that really mat- ter to them, and particularly when they feel the context is
dominated by a cultural world view that differs from that of their own group, they worry that through
their behaviour they may confirm the stereotypes – that their behaviour will become a self-fulfilling
prophecy (see the ‘Self-fulfilling prophecies’ section later in this chapter). These concerns increase
anxiety and negative thoughts (Cadinu, Maass, Rosabianca, & Kiesner, 2005), and limit working memory
(Van Loo & Rydell, 2013). They can also impair task performance. For example, an academically ambitious
West Indian Briton, aware of stereotypes of intellectual inferiority, may be extremely anxious when
answering a question in class. She would worry that the slightest mistake would be interpreted
stereotypically. This anxiety would distract her and quite probably impair her answer to the question.
To test the stereotype threat hypothesis, Steele and Aronson had black and white students anticipate
taking a ‘very difficult’ test (items from the verbal Graduate Record Exam) that was defined as being
‘diagnostic of intellectual ability’ or as ‘just a laboratory exercise’. They then completed a number of
measures designed to assess awareness of racial stereo- types: for example, they completed ambiguous
sentence fragments such as _____CE or _____ERIOR. As predicted, black students who were anticipating
the very difficult test of intellectual ability were more likely than other participants to complete the
fragments with race-related words (e.g. race, inferior). Steele and Aronson also found that black students
actually performed worse on these tests than white students of equivalent scholastic aptitude.
Stereotype threat has been found in many different contexts (see Wright & Taylor, 2003): for example,
women and mathematics, low socio-economic status and intelligence, the elderly and memory, women
and negotiation skills, and black and white men and athletic performance. It has even been found among
men who find themselves in female-dominated communal roles and are aware of the stereotype that
men are poor communicators who find it difficult to express emotion and relate to others (Croft,
Schmader, & Block, 2015). One intriguing study by Phillip Goff and his colleagues found that stereotype
threat even caused people in inter-racial encounters to position themselves further apart from one
another (Goff, Steele, & Davies, 2008; also see social distance in Chapter 15, Table 15.3). There is also
evidence for the opposite of stereotype threat, called stereotype lift, among members of groups that
attract favourable societal stereotypes (Walton & Cohen, 2003).
Research has identified ways to combat the negative impact of stereotype threat (Maass & Cadinu, 2003;
Shapiro & Neuberg, 2007):
know about stereotype threat (Schmader & Martens, 2005);
reduce the degree to which one’s identity is tied to a performance that may attract negative
feedback (Major & Schmader, 1998);
reduce the extent to which one’s self-esteem is tied to such a performance (Pronin, Steele, &
Ross, 2004);
identify strongly with one’s stigmatised group (e.g., Schmader, 2002);
have extensive favourable intergroup contact with the anxiety-provoking outgroup (Crisp &
Abrams, 2008).
, Feeling powerful can also combat stereotype threat. Women performing a maths test who were primed
to feel powerful experienced less stereotype threat and constraints on working memory and performed
better on the test (Van Loo & Rydell, 2013).
Failure and disadvantage
Victims of prejudice belong to groups that have restricted access to many resources that society makes
available for people to thrive and succeed, such as good education, health, housing and employment.
Discrimination therefore creates visible evidence of real disadvantage and of manifest failure to achieve
society’s high standards. This sense of failure can be internalised by victims of prejudice so that they
become chronically apathetic and un-motivated: they simply give up trying because of the obvious
impossibility of succeeding.
There is some evidence that in certain circumstances, women tend to anticipate failure more than men
and thus lose motivation (e.g. Smith, 1985). As we saw earlier, when they do succeed, they may attribute
their success externally to factors such as luck or the ease of the task.
Later (in Chapter 11), we discuss deprivation and disadvantage more fully. One observation to make here
is that although stigmatised groups are clearly disadvantaged, members of those groups often deny any
personal experience of discrimination. For example, Faye Crosby and her colleagues found that employed
women who were discriminated against with respect to pay rarely indicated that they had personally
experienced any sex discrimination (Crosby, 1982). Further, the denial of personal discrimination was
remarkably high (Crosby, 1984; Crosby, Cordova & Jaskar, 1993; Crosby, Pufall, Snyder, O’Connell, &
Whalen, 1989) and has been found among members of other stigmatised groups (Guimond & Dubé-
Simard, 1983; Major, 1994; Taylor, Wright, & Porter, 1994).
Attributional ambiguity
Attribution processes can impact stigmatised people in a rather unusual way, via attributional ambiguity.
People who are stigmatised can be very sensitive to the causes of others’ treatment of them (Crocker &
Major, 1989). Did she fail to serve me at the bar because I am black, or simply because someone else
shouted louder? Did she serve me ahead of all others because I am black and she is trying to conceal her
racism? Was I promoted quickly to com- ply with an affirmative action policy or because of my intrinsic
ability? Attributional ambiguity can quite obviously lead to suspicion and mistrust in social interactions.
Attributional ambiguity also does no favours to stigmatised individuals’ self-esteem. Stigmatised people
often fail to take personal credit for positive outcomes – they attribute them to affirmative action,
tokenism or reverse discrimination. They may also under- attribute negative reactions from others to
prejudice. For example, Karen Ruggiero and Don Taylor (1995) had women receive negative evaluations
from a male evaluator. The likelihood that the evaluator was prejudiced was varied experimentally. The
women attributed the negative evaluation to prejudice only when the evaluator was almost 100 per cent
likely to be prejudiced. Otherwise, they attributed all of the more ambiguous evaluations to the
inadequacy of their own work.
Self-fulfilling prophecies
Prejudiced attitudes lead to overt or covert discriminatory behaviour, and in time this can create
disadvantage. In this way, a stereotypical belief can create a material reality that con- firms the belief: it is
a self-fulfilling prophecy (see reviews by Jussim, Eccles, & Madon, 1996; Jussim & Fleming, 1996). For
example, Dov Eden (1990) primed platoon leaders in the Israeli Defence Force to have high expectations
for the performance of members of their platoon. Behold – after an eleven-week training programme,
platoons with high-expectation leaders outperformed platoons with ‘no-expectation’ leaders. Perhaps
the most famous study of self- fulfilling prophecy was conducted by Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968).
394/402-408
Stereotype threat
Because stigmatised groups know the negative stereotypes that others have of them, they experience
what Claude Steele and Joshua Aronson (1995; Steele, Spencer, & Aronson, 2002) call stereotype threat
(also see Inzlicht & Schmader, 2011; Maass & Cadinu, 2003; Schmader, Johns, & Forbes, 2008; Shapiro &
Neuberg, 2007). People who are stigmatised are aware that others may judge and treat them
stereotypically. So, on tasks that really mat- ter to them, and particularly when they feel the context is
dominated by a cultural world view that differs from that of their own group, they worry that through
their behaviour they may confirm the stereotypes – that their behaviour will become a self-fulfilling
prophecy (see the ‘Self-fulfilling prophecies’ section later in this chapter). These concerns increase
anxiety and negative thoughts (Cadinu, Maass, Rosabianca, & Kiesner, 2005), and limit working memory
(Van Loo & Rydell, 2013). They can also impair task performance. For example, an academically ambitious
West Indian Briton, aware of stereotypes of intellectual inferiority, may be extremely anxious when
answering a question in class. She would worry that the slightest mistake would be interpreted
stereotypically. This anxiety would distract her and quite probably impair her answer to the question.
To test the stereotype threat hypothesis, Steele and Aronson had black and white students anticipate
taking a ‘very difficult’ test (items from the verbal Graduate Record Exam) that was defined as being
‘diagnostic of intellectual ability’ or as ‘just a laboratory exercise’. They then completed a number of
measures designed to assess awareness of racial stereo- types: for example, they completed ambiguous
sentence fragments such as _____CE or _____ERIOR. As predicted, black students who were anticipating
the very difficult test of intellectual ability were more likely than other participants to complete the
fragments with race-related words (e.g. race, inferior). Steele and Aronson also found that black students
actually performed worse on these tests than white students of equivalent scholastic aptitude.
Stereotype threat has been found in many different contexts (see Wright & Taylor, 2003): for example,
women and mathematics, low socio-economic status and intelligence, the elderly and memory, women
and negotiation skills, and black and white men and athletic performance. It has even been found among
men who find themselves in female-dominated communal roles and are aware of the stereotype that
men are poor communicators who find it difficult to express emotion and relate to others (Croft,
Schmader, & Block, 2015). One intriguing study by Phillip Goff and his colleagues found that stereotype
threat even caused people in inter-racial encounters to position themselves further apart from one
another (Goff, Steele, & Davies, 2008; also see social distance in Chapter 15, Table 15.3). There is also
evidence for the opposite of stereotype threat, called stereotype lift, among members of groups that
attract favourable societal stereotypes (Walton & Cohen, 2003).
Research has identified ways to combat the negative impact of stereotype threat (Maass & Cadinu, 2003;
Shapiro & Neuberg, 2007):
know about stereotype threat (Schmader & Martens, 2005);
reduce the degree to which one’s identity is tied to a performance that may attract negative
feedback (Major & Schmader, 1998);
reduce the extent to which one’s self-esteem is tied to such a performance (Pronin, Steele, &
Ross, 2004);
identify strongly with one’s stigmatised group (e.g., Schmader, 2002);
have extensive favourable intergroup contact with the anxiety-provoking outgroup (Crisp &
Abrams, 2008).
, Feeling powerful can also combat stereotype threat. Women performing a maths test who were primed
to feel powerful experienced less stereotype threat and constraints on working memory and performed
better on the test (Van Loo & Rydell, 2013).
Failure and disadvantage
Victims of prejudice belong to groups that have restricted access to many resources that society makes
available for people to thrive and succeed, such as good education, health, housing and employment.
Discrimination therefore creates visible evidence of real disadvantage and of manifest failure to achieve
society’s high standards. This sense of failure can be internalised by victims of prejudice so that they
become chronically apathetic and un-motivated: they simply give up trying because of the obvious
impossibility of succeeding.
There is some evidence that in certain circumstances, women tend to anticipate failure more than men
and thus lose motivation (e.g. Smith, 1985). As we saw earlier, when they do succeed, they may attribute
their success externally to factors such as luck or the ease of the task.
Later (in Chapter 11), we discuss deprivation and disadvantage more fully. One observation to make here
is that although stigmatised groups are clearly disadvantaged, members of those groups often deny any
personal experience of discrimination. For example, Faye Crosby and her colleagues found that employed
women who were discriminated against with respect to pay rarely indicated that they had personally
experienced any sex discrimination (Crosby, 1982). Further, the denial of personal discrimination was
remarkably high (Crosby, 1984; Crosby, Cordova & Jaskar, 1993; Crosby, Pufall, Snyder, O’Connell, &
Whalen, 1989) and has been found among members of other stigmatised groups (Guimond & Dubé-
Simard, 1983; Major, 1994; Taylor, Wright, & Porter, 1994).
Attributional ambiguity
Attribution processes can impact stigmatised people in a rather unusual way, via attributional ambiguity.
People who are stigmatised can be very sensitive to the causes of others’ treatment of them (Crocker &
Major, 1989). Did she fail to serve me at the bar because I am black, or simply because someone else
shouted louder? Did she serve me ahead of all others because I am black and she is trying to conceal her
racism? Was I promoted quickly to com- ply with an affirmative action policy or because of my intrinsic
ability? Attributional ambiguity can quite obviously lead to suspicion and mistrust in social interactions.
Attributional ambiguity also does no favours to stigmatised individuals’ self-esteem. Stigmatised people
often fail to take personal credit for positive outcomes – they attribute them to affirmative action,
tokenism or reverse discrimination. They may also under- attribute negative reactions from others to
prejudice. For example, Karen Ruggiero and Don Taylor (1995) had women receive negative evaluations
from a male evaluator. The likelihood that the evaluator was prejudiced was varied experimentally. The
women attributed the negative evaluation to prejudice only when the evaluator was almost 100 per cent
likely to be prejudiced. Otherwise, they attributed all of the more ambiguous evaluations to the
inadequacy of their own work.
Self-fulfilling prophecies
Prejudiced attitudes lead to overt or covert discriminatory behaviour, and in time this can create
disadvantage. In this way, a stereotypical belief can create a material reality that con- firms the belief: it is
a self-fulfilling prophecy (see reviews by Jussim, Eccles, & Madon, 1996; Jussim & Fleming, 1996). For
example, Dov Eden (1990) primed platoon leaders in the Israeli Defence Force to have high expectations
for the performance of members of their platoon. Behold – after an eleven-week training programme,
platoons with high-expectation leaders outperformed platoons with ‘no-expectation’ leaders. Perhaps
the most famous study of self- fulfilling prophecy was conducted by Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968).
