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)     

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)     

Stereotype Threat Research and the Assumptions Underlying Analysis of Covariance.

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). Sackett, Hardison, and Cullen discussed the role of covariates in Steele and Aronson's (see record 2000-16592-021) seminal research on the effects of stereotype threat on scores of African American test takers. Besides highlighting some common misinterpretations that stem from the use of covariance-adjusted means in reporting Steele and Aronson's (Study 2) experimental results, Sackett et al. argued that these results indicate that Black-White testscore difference within the no-stereotype threat (i.e., nondiagnostic) condition actually reflects the test score difference on the SAT (i.e., the covariate). This implies that stereotype threat effects add to the often found Black-White test score gap instead of partly accounting for it (Sackett et al., 2004). Here the author comments on the use of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) in stereotype threat (ST) experiments, because ST theory implies violations of the assumptions underlying ANCOVA. Such violations could result in incorrect Type I error rates and distortions in the adjustment of means. Because of this, ANCOVA appears inappropriate for analyzing (quasi-) experimental results of ST research. In addition, the interpretation proposed by Sackett et al. of Steele and Aronson's results may be due to distortions of mean adjustments caused by violations of model assumptions. While avoiding technical detail, the author provides the assumptions underlying ANCOVA and discuss why these assumptions do not sit well with several aspects of ST theory. (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)     

Coping With Threat and Memory for Ambiguous Information: Testing the Repressive Discontinuity Hypothesis.

Two studies examined the influence of coping dispositions (repression, sensitization, and nondefensiveness) and anxiety on the encoding and memory representation of ambiguous threat-related stimuli. In Study 1, memory was tested shortly after encoding. Study 2 contrasted immediate and delayed testing. Repressers showed evidence of "mixed" affective reactions to ambiguous stimuli at encoding, accompanied by weak memory representation of potentially threatening implications of these stimuli. In contrast, sensitizers and anxious individuals manifested a processing bias in favor of threatening implications of ambiguous stimuli. Influences of coping on memory were most pronounced for delayed testing. Anxiety influences on memory were weak. An expectancy-based account of individual differences in processing ambiguous stimuli is discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Age-Related Differences Among Adults Coping With Pain: Evaluation of a Developmental Life-Context Model.

The pain and coping literature is limited because of its almost exclusive focus on young adults. Our goal was to develop and evaluate a theoretically sound model of age-related differences in coping. Age-related increases in emotion-focused and avoidance-oriented coping and decreases in problem-focused coping were expected to arise from age-related differences in life-context (e.g., health status, stress levels) and in the pain experience. Questionnaire data were collected from 280 older and younger adults with pain. Increasing age was associated with lower pain severity/interference and greater perceived control over pain. Life-context partially mediated this relationship. As hypothesized, there were age-related declines in problem-focused coping. Contrary to expectations, however, older adults also used fewer emotion-focused coping strategies. The implications of these findings are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)