Stereotype Threat Might Explain the Black-White Test-Score Difference.

Comments on an article by Paul Sackett, Chaitra Hardison and Michael Cullen entitled On Interpreting Stereotype Threat as Accounting for African American-White Differences on Cognitive Tests (see record 2004-10043-001). In their correction of the ostensibly widespread misinterpretation of Steele and Aronson's (see record 2000-16592-021) seminal study of the effects of stereotype threat on intellectual test scores, Sackett, Hardison, and Cullen expressed dismay and puzzlement that so many erudite people consistently have gone so far astray in their understanding of this matter. The gist of Sackett et al.'s correction was that interpreters of Steele and Aronson's results have ignored the researchers' statistical adjustment of their dependent measure for SAT scores and, consequently, have wrongly concluded that racial-group (i.e., Black-White) differences in test scores disappear when stereotype threat is removed. In their justification for this much needed clarification, Sackett et al. (2004) implied that the interpretation that stereotype threat explains the Black-White test score disparity is not plausible. Yet whether or not the construct of stereotype threat generally can account for the Black-White test-score disparity was not the question that was directly addressed by either Steele and Aronson's (1995) original study or Sackett et al.'s (2004) critique of it. It appears that Sackett et al. (2004), as well as the many people responsible for the allegedly faulty interpretation, essentially want an answer to the question, What causes or explains racial-group difference(s) in Black-White test scores? This question logically flows from (a) reviews demonstrating the chronic resistance of these differences to psychoeducational interventions, (b) general recognition that racial-group membership cannot cause behavior (e.g., differences in test scores), as well as (c) acknowledgment that use of test scores for high-stakes decision making under prevailing circumstances amounts to "racial profiling" condoned by society and the law. Therefore, if stereotype threat or analogous race or culture-related psychological constructs could be shown to account for the Black-White testscore disparity, then society would be relieved of the burden of unfair testing practices, and Sackett et al. would be relieved of the burden of "heading off future interpretive errors" (p. 11) regarding Steele and Aronson's results. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Stereotype Threat and the Social and Scientific Contexts of the Race Achievement Gap.

Comments on an article by Paul Sackett, Chaitra Hardison and Michael Cullen entitled On Interpreting Stereotype Threat as Accounting for African American-White Differences on Cognitive Tests (see record 2004-10043-001). In their article, Sackett, Hardison, and Cullen (see record 2000-16592-021) critiqued misrepresentations of the original stereotype threat findings presented by Steele and Aronson. They criticized representations of the research that suggest that stereotype threat explains all the racial achievement gap in academic performance when, in fact, the original studies statistically equated the ability of Black students and White students by using SAT scores as a covariate. As Sackett et al. acknowledged, Steele and Aronson did not claim that stereotype threat explains all the racial achievement gap, though as they suggested in their critique, it may have been a claim made implicitly and even explicitly in some media and textbook coverage of the work. The authors of this comment wish to make three points that Sackett and colleagues did not make. These points highlight the social and scientific contexts in which Sackett et al.'s critical commentary, and stereotype threat research in general, can be interpreted. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Stereotype Threat Does Not Live by Steele and Aronson (1995) Alone.

This comment notes that P. R. Sackett et al (see record 2004-10043-001) have raised a concern: that 29 mischaracterizations of an experiment from C. M. Steele and J. Aronson (see record 1996-12938-001) spread over 8 years of media reports, journal articles, and textbooks could mislead teachers, students, researchers, policymakers, and parents into believing that the African American-White test-score gap is entirely caused by stereotype and not at all by group differences in opportunities and test-related knowledge, and that this belief could undermine efforts to improve African American students' academic skills. Sackett et al focus on the reporting of only a single experiment from the first published article on stereotype threat. It is argued that this extremely narrow focus greatly exaggerates three issues. These issues are addressed in turn. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

On the Value of Correcting Mischaracterizations of Stereotype Threat Research.

Replies to comments by C. M. Steele and J. Aronson (see record 2004-10043-009) on the mischaracterizations alleged by P. R. Sackett et al (see record 2004-10043-001) in the 1995 experiment by Steele and Aronson (see record 1996-12938-001) on the intellectual test performance of African Americans. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Responses to issues raised about validity, bias, and fairness in high-stakes testing.

We are pleased that our article (see record 2008-05553-001) prompted this series of four commentaries and that we have this opportunity to respond. We address each in turn. Duckworth (see record 2009-06923-012) and Kaufman and Agars (see record 2009-06923-013) discussed, respectively, two broad issues concerning the validity of selection systems, namely, the expansion of the predictor domain to include noncognitive predictors of performance and the expansion of the criterion domain to include additional criteria (e.g., creativity). We agree with these arguments, noting that they expand on points made in our original article. Wicherts and Millsap (see record 2009-06923-014) rightly noted the distinction between measurement bias and predictive bias and the fact that a finding of no predictive bias does not rule out the possibility that measurement bias still exists. They took issue with a statement we cited from Cullen, Hardison, and Sackett (2004) that if motivational mechanisms, such as stereotype threat, result in minority group members obtaining lower observed scores than true scores (i.e., a form of measurement bias), then the performance of minority group members should be under predicted. Our characterization of Cullen et al.’s (2004) statement was too cryptic; what was intended was a statement to the effect that if the regression lines for majority and minority groups are identical at the level of true predictor scores, then a biasing factor resulting in lower observed scores than true scores for minority group members would shift the minority group regression line to result in under prediction for that group. We do agree with Helms’s (see record 2009-06923-015) call for studying the reasons why racial- group differences are found and encourage this line of research; however, we view the study of racial-group differences and the study of determinants of those differences as complementary. We thank the authors for contributing these commentaries and for stimulating this discussion. Duckworth (2009) and Kaufman and Agars (2009) discussed important issues regarding expanding the predictor and criterion domains. Wicherts and Millsap (2009) correctly noted distinctions between predictive and measurement bias and used stereotype threat as a mechanism to discuss these issues. Helms (2009) raised several issues regarding the validity and fairness of standardized tests. In all cases, we welcomed the opportunity to discuss these topics and provide more detail on issues relating to high-stakes standardized testing. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

High stakes are an opportunity.

Comments on the article by P. R. Sackett et al (see record 2001-00625-002) which examines the use of cognitive testing in employment, credentialing, and higher education post-affirmative action. The current author states that Sackett et al made 2 badly flawed assumptions in their discussion. These assumptions are addressed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Stereotype threat and working memory: Mechanisms, alleviation, and spillover.

Stereotype threat (ST) occurs when the awareness of a negative stereotype about a social group in a particular domain produces suboptimal performance by members of that group. Although ST has been repeatedly demonstrated, far less is known about how its effects are realized. Using mathematical problem solving as a test bed, the authors demonstrate in 5 experiments that ST harms math problems that rely heavily on working memory resources--especially phonological aspects of this system. Moreover, by capitalizing on an understanding of the cognitive mechanisms by which ST exerts its impact, the authors show (a) how ST can be alleviated (e.g., by heavily practicing once-susceptible math problems such that they are retrieved directly from long-term memory rather than computed via a working-memory-intensive algorithm) and (b) when it will spill over onto subsequent tasks unrelated to the stereotype in question but dependent on the same cognitive resources that stereotype threat also uses. The current work extends the knowledge of the causal mechanisms of stereotype threat and demonstrates how its effects can be attenuated and propagated. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Stereotyping and its threat are real.

Replies to comments by A. L. Whaley (see record 1998-02607-012) regarding C. M. Steele's (see record 1997-04591-001) discussion of stereotype threat theory and domain identification as extra pressures that affect the test performance and academic identities of African Americans and women in math. Steele describes and responds to Whaley's 3 major critiques: first, that the concept of stereotype threat does not include the possibility of being threatened by real discrimination; second, that tests of stereotype threat theory with African American students do not take into account the possibility that these student may perform less well on standardized testes because they do not trust these tests or are less culturally motivated to perform; and third, that stereotype threat-disidentification theory may not generalize to the experience of lower-class, urban African American students. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

An Alternative Perspective on von Winterfeldt et al.'s (1997) Test of Consequence Monotonicity.

D. von Winterfeldt, N.-K. Chung, R. D. Luce, and Y. Cho (see record 1997-03378-008) provided several tests for consequence monotonicity of choice or judgment, using certainty equivalents of gambles. The authors reaxiomatized consequence monotonicity in a probabilistic framework and reanalyzed von Winterfeldt et al.'s main experiment via a bootstrap method. Their application offers new insights into consequence monotonicity as well as into von Winterfeldt et al.'s 3 experimental paradigms: judged certainty equivalents (JCE), QUICKINDIFF, and parameter estimation by sequential testing (PEST). For QUICKINDIFF, the authors found no indication of violations of "random consequence monotonicity." This sharply contrasts the findings of von Winterfeldt et al., who concluded that axiom violations were the most pronounced under that procedure. The authors found potential evidence for violations in JCE and certainty equivalents derived from PEST. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Issues of validity in empirical tests of stereotype threat theory.

Comments on an article by C. M. Steele ( 1997-04591-001) that presented a theory to account for the lower intelligence test performance of Black students and poorer math and science performance of women. This comment focuses on the intelligence test performance of African Americans. In particular, the author argues that issues of internal and external validity must be addressed to increase the explanatory power of stereotype threat theory. Moreover, there are conceptual models that were not represented, and they offer competing hypotheses that, if supported, could threaten the validity of Steele's theory. These alternative perspectives and their implications for stereotype threat theory are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Targets as perceivers: How people determine when they will be negatively stereotyped.

Research on stereotype threat has demonstrated that when targets are forced to contend with the threat of being negatively stereotyped, their academic performance suffers (C. M. Steele & J. Aronson, 1995). The present research explored how the targets of negative stereotypes determine when they must contend with this threat. Across 5 experiments, the authors manipulated both the possibility and probability that Black and female students would be stereotyped as unintelligent prior to taking an analytical test. Collectively, these experiments showed that these students contended with stereotype threat only when they perceived that it was both possible and probable that they would be negatively stereotyped. The authors discuss the implications of these findings on the experience of being the target of negative stereotypes and on the academic achievement of Blacks and women. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

On Interpreting Research on Stereotype Threat and Test Performance.

The authors comment on the comments (see records 2005-03019-016; 2005-03019-017; 2005-03019-018) made on their original article entitled On Interpreting Stereotype Threat as Accounting for African American-White Differences on Cognitive Tests (see record 2004-10043-001). The authors welcome the thoughtful insights of Wicherts, Helms, and Cohen and Sherman, and they hope that these comments stimulate further critical analysis of methodological issues associated with stereotype threat research. The authors do not dispute that stereotype threat is a real phenomenon or that it remains a potentially important contributor to the racial achievement gap. They encourage researchers to continue their efforts to determine what role stereotype threat plays in contributing to that gap, especially in real-world testing situations. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Further consideration of the power to detect nonzero validity coefficients under range restriction.

Extended the research of F. L. Schmidt et al (see record 1976-29035-001) and P. R. Sackett and B. E. Wade (see record 1983-31752-001), who examined the n-size requirements for validity studies to reach a specified level of power under 2 forms of restriction of range to include 2 different types of range restriction (bidimensional direct truncation and combined indirect and direct truncation). Results indicate that sample size requirements are more stringent under these 2 paradigms than under unidimensional direct truncation as applied by Schmidt et al or unidimensional indirect truncation as applied by Sackett and Wade. (21 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The effect of negative performance stereotypes on learning.

[Correction Notice: An erratum for this article was reported in Vol 100(4) of Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (see record 2011-05716-002). There is an error in the first paragraph of the Results section on page 886. The third sentence in this paragraph reads “As predicted, the stereotype threat manipulation did not affect women's learning of mathematical rules presented before the instructions, F (1, 57) = 0.68, p = .41, ηp2 = .01; however, women in the stereotype threat condition learned fewer mathematical rules presented after the instructions than did women in the control condition, F (1, 57) = 3.96, p = .05, ηp2 = .07.” Given the data, the second part of the sentence should have read “however, women in the stereotype threat condition showed a non-significant trend towards learning fewer mathematical rules presented after the instructions than did women in the control condition, F (1, 57) = 3.56, p = .064, ηp2 = .06.”] Stereotype threat (ST) research has focused exclusively on how negative group stereotypes reduce performance. The present work examines if pejorative stereotypes about women in math inhibit their ability to learn the mathematical rules and operations necessary to solve math problems. In Experiment 1, women experiencing ST had difficulty encoding math-related information into memory and, therefore, learned fewer mathematical rules and showed poorer math performance than did controls. In Experiment 2, women experiencing ST while learning modular arithmetic (MA) performed more poorly than did controls on easy MA problems; this effect was due to reduced learning of the mathematical operations underlying MA. In Experiment 3, ST reduced women's, but not men's, ability to learn abstract mathematical rules and to transfer these rules to a second, isomorphic task. This work provides the first evidence that negative stereotypes about women in math reduce their level of mathematical learning and demonstrates that reduced learning due to stereotype threat can lead to poorer performance in negatively stereotyped domains. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Stereotype threat effects on Black and White athletic performance.

Two experiments showed that framing an athletic task as diagnostic of negative racial stereotypes about Black or White athletes can impede their performance in sports. In Experiment 1, Black participants performed significantly worse than did control participants when performance on a golf task was framed as diagnostic of "sports intelligence." In comparison, White participants performed worse than did control participants when the golf task was framed as diagnostic of 'natural athletic ability." Experiment 2 observed the effect of stereotype threat on the athletic performance of White participants for whom performance in sports represented a significant measure of their self-worth. The implications of the findings for the theory of stereotype threat (C. M. Steele, 1997) and for participation in sports are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Defense of tests prevents objective consideration of validity and fairness.

In defending tests of cognitive abilities, knowledge, or skills (CAKS) from the skepticism of their “family members, friends, and neighbors” and aiding psychologists forced to defend tests from “myth and hearsay” in their own skeptical social networks (p. 215), Sackett, Borneman, and Connelly (see record 2008-05553-001) focused on evaluating validity coefficients, racial or gender group differences, and fair assessment research. In doing so, they concluded that CAKS tests generally yield valid and fair test scores for their intended purposes, but because the authors did not adequately attend to (a) research design issues (e.g., inclusion of independent or predictor variables [IPV] and dependent variables or criteria), (b) statistical assumptions underlying interpretation of their analyses (e.g., bivariate normality of distributions of test scores and criteria), and (c) conceptual concerns (e.g., whether racial categories should be used as explanatory constructs), alternative conclusions about CAKS test score validity and fairness are plausible. Although all of the foregoing areas of concern are germane to each of the assertions addressed by Sackett et al. (2008), the focus here is on Assertions 6 through 8 (p. 216; hereinafter called the fairness assertions [FA]) because making accurate inferences about fairness requires measurement experts to engage in a paradigmatic shift where sociodemographic groups (e.g., Blacks, Latinos/Latinas) are concerned, whereas, for the most part, addressing the other assertions merely requires a reminder of which standard psychometric principles have not been followed (American Educational Research Association [AERA], American Psychological Association [APA], & National Council on Measurement in Education [NCME], 1999). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Claude M. Steele: Award for Distinguished Senior Career Contributions to the Public Interest.

Provides the biography of Claude M. Steele and announces that he has won the Award for Distinguished Senior Career Contributions to the Public Interest for his influential and groundbreaking work on stereotype threat that has been critical in defining and documenting psychologists' understanding of how societal messages about identity and competency affect the performance and life decisions of racial/ethnic minority-group members and of girls and women. A selected bibliography is also provided. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Correction to Rydell et al. (2010).

Reports an error in "The effect of negative performance stereotypes on learning" by Robert J. Rydell, Michael T. Rydell and Kathryn L. Boucher (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2010[Dec], Vol 99[6], 883-896). There is an error in the first paragraph of the Results section on page 886. The third sentence in this paragraph reads “As predicted, the stereotype threat manipulation did not affect women's learning of mathematical rules presented before the instructions, F (1, 57) = 0.68, p = .41, ηp2 = .01; however, women in the stereotype threat condition learned fewer mathematical rules presented after the instructions than did women in the control condition, F (1, 57) = 3.96, p = .05, ηp2 = .07.” Given the data, the second part of the sentence should have read “however, women in the stereotype threat condition showed a non-significant trend towards learning fewer mathematical rules presented after the instructions than did women in the control condition, F (1, 57) = 3.56, p = .064, ηp2 = .06.” (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2010-20715-001.) Stereotype threat (ST) research has focused exclusively on how negative group stereotypes reduce performance. The present work examines if pejorative stereotypes about women in math inhibit their ability to learn the mathematical rules and operations necessary to solve math problems. In Experiment 1, women experiencing ST had difficulty encoding math-related information into memory and, therefore, learned fewer mathematical rules and showed poorer math performance than did controls. In Experiment 2, women experiencing ST while learning modular arithmetic (MA) performed more poorly than did controls on easy MA problems; this effect was due to reduced learning of the mathematical operations underlying MA. In Experiment 3, ST reduced women's, but not men's, ability to learn abstract mathematical rules and to transfer these rules to a second, isomorphic task. This work provides the first evidence that negative stereotypes about women in math reduce their level of mathematical learning and demonstrates that reduced learning due to stereotype threat can lead to poorer performance in negatively stereotyped domains. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)