Stereotype threat revised

Meeting Expectations: Manipulating Stereotype Threat

Emily FengAmity Regional Senior High School

• Stereotype threat: when performance is affected (usually negatively) according to a relevant stereotype

(Cheryan & Bodenhausen, 2000).

• Fear of confirming a negative stereotype leads to increased stress (Cohen & Garcia, 2008)

BACKGROUND ◆ PURPOSE ◆ METHODS ◆ RESULTS ◆ CONCLUSIONS & DISCUSSION

• Social Identity Theory:

multiple identities (Stets &

Burke, 2000)

• Minimal groups:

creating identities? (Hertel & Kerr, 2001)

• Ability to manipulate to

nonexistent identities?


Does recognition of a set of salient expectations produce the expected performance?


Day 1 Day 2


Consent

Day 1 Day 2


Consent

Day 1 Day 2


Consent

Diagnostic

Day 1 Day 2


Consent

Diagnostic

Day 1 Day 2


Consent

Diagnostic

Word

Day 1 Day 2


Consent

Diagnostic

Word Shape

Day 1 Day 2


Consent

Diagnostic

Word Shape

Day 1 Day 2


Consent

Diagnostic

Word Shape

Questionnaire

Day 1 Day 2


Consent

Diagnostic

Word Shape

Questionnaire

Day 1 Day 2

Diagnostic Results


Consent

Diagnostic

Word Shape

Questionnaire

Day 1 Day 2

Diagnostic Results


Consent

Diagnostic

Word Shape

Questionnaire

Day 1 Day 2

Diagnostic Results

Questionnaire


Consent

Diagnostic

Word Shape

Questionnaire

Day 1 Day 2

Diagnostic Results

Questionnaire


Consent

Diagnostic

Word Shape

Questionnaire

Day 1 Day 2

Word

Diagnostic Results

Questionnaire


Consent

Diagnostic

Word Shape

Questionnaire

Day 1 Day 2

Word Shape

Diagnostic Results

Questionnaire


Consent

Diagnostic

Word Shape

Questionnaire

Day 1 Day 2

Word Shape

Diagnostic Results

Questionnaire


Consent

Diagnostic

Word Shape

Questionnaire

Day 1 Day 2

Word Shape

Questionnaire

Diagnostic Results

Questionnaire


Word Task


Shape Task


All Participants

Linguistic Visual

A B A B

Testing Order


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Control Trial Manipulated Trial

Word Task Performance

Linguistic Visual

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Control Trial Manipulated Trial

Shape Task Performance

General Results#

Wor

ds M

emor

ized

# P

airs

of S

hape

s M

atch

ed


General Results

Mean Sig. (2-tailed)Shape1 - Shape2 0.847 0.042

Word1 - Word2 -0.359 0.231


Group Shape Task Word Task

Word Pearson Correlation 0.374 -0.245

Shape Pearson Correlation 0.129 0.073

Accuracy v. Retention Task Score Correlation

4.96

Accuracy of Results

1 7


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Shape Task Word Task

Versions A and B Performances

A Takers B Takers

Order Effects

Sco

re


Order Effects

Order Mean Sig. (2-tailed)

A: ShapeA- ShapeB 1.870 0.001

WordA - WordB -1.283 0.007

B: ShapeB - ShapeA -0.174 0.775

WordB - WordA 0.565 0.080

Word Task: A is easier, B is harderShape task: A is harder, B is easier

What does this mean?

Order effects didn’t cancel each other out because mean increase/decrease are not the

same.





same.


Decrease




same.


IncreaseDecrease

Interaction Effects

Source Sig.Order 0.008VL 0.126Order * VL 0.877

Shape Task

Source Sig.Order 0.001VL 0.785Order * VL 0.190

Word Task

Signifiant order effects; no interaction effects

Shape Task Word Task

• High perception of relation between two studies.

• Ideal conditions?

6.1957

Perceived Degree of Relation

Control Word Task Scores

Sex N Mean Sig. (2-tailed)

Word 1M 20 4.2750

0.034F 26 5.3077

Gender Differences

Sex N Mean Sig. (2-tailed)

Shape 1-2Male 20 0.0000

0.065Female 26 1.5000

Mean Improvement on Shape Task


Results do not support hypothesis.



Order Effects



Order EffectsAdapt to realistic setting

(Schmader, 2006)



Order Effects

Reactance? ( Kray, Thompson, & Galinsky, 2001)

Adapt to realistic setting (Schmader, 2006)



Order Effects

Reactance? ( Kray, Thompson, & Galinsky, 2001)

What mechanisms/circumstances prompt reactance?

Adapt to realistic setting (Schmader, 2006)

Acknowledgements

Mark Sheskin, mentor

Jennifer Dalecki

Scott Demeo, statistics

Deborah Day, teacher

Documents

Stereotype threat revised