Does stereotype threat affect test performance of minorities and women? A meta-analysis of experimental evidence.

Abstract

A meta-analysis of stereotype threat effects was conducted and an overall mean effect size of |.26| was found, but true moderator effects existed. A series of hierarchical moderator analyses evidenced differential effects of race- versus gender-based stereotypes. Women experienced smaller performance decrements than did minorities when tests were difficult: mean ds = |.36| and |.43|, respectively. For women, subtle threat-activating cues produced the largest effect, followed by blatant and moderately explicit cues: ds = |.24|, |.18|, and |.17|, respectively; explicit threat-removal strategies were more effective in reducing stereotype threat effects than subtle ones: ds = |.14| and |.33|, respectively. For minorities, moderately explicit stereotype threat-activating cues produced the largest effect, followed by blatant and subtle cues: ds = |.64|, |.41|, and |.22|, respectively; explicit removal strategies enhanced stereotype threat effects compared with subtle strategies: ds = |.80| and |.34|, respectively. In addition, stereotype threat affected moderately math-identified women more severely than highly math-identified women: ds = |.52| and |.29|, respectively; low math-identified women suffered the least from stereotype threat: d= |.11|. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

Opening up in the classroom: Effects of expressive writing on graduate school entrance exam performance.

“…On average, neutral writers taking the MCAT or LSAT scored in the 46th and 23rd percentile, respectively, whereas expressive writers taking these exams scored in the 58th and 43th percentile; a difference of this magnitude is similar to raising one's MCAT score from 25 to 27 and one's LSAT score from 144 to 149. The effect size associated with these test score differences (r ϭ .24) is not dissimilar to those found in some stereotype threat experiments, in which lab-based test performance is assessed after emotions/anxiety levels are manipulated (average rs range from .05 to .37, depending on the subgroup/ specific methodology; Nguyen & Ryan, 2008).…”

An examination of stereotype threat effects on girls’ mathematics performance.

“…Mathematics identification involves two components: feeling that you are good at mathematics and feeling that it is important to you to be good at mathematics (Smith & White, 2001). Research with high school and college students shows that women who are at least moderately identified with mathematics are more susceptible to stereotype threat effects than those who are not mathematics identified (Keller, 2007;Nguyen & Ryan, 2008;Smith & White, 2001).…”

“…Much research has been conducted investigating stereotype threat in samples of college women (see Nguyen & Ryan, 2008). Although researchers often consider stereotype threat to be a well-established phenomenon in college women, a recent review and meta-analysis calls the strength of this phenomenon into question, suggesting that claims that stereotype threat is a robust phenomenon are exaggerated (Stoet & Geary, 2012).…”

“…Second, the testing situations were designed both to make gender salient and to be evaluative (Aronson & Steele, 2005;Good & Aronson, 2008;Steele, 1997). Third, in each study we used fairly difficult mathematics assessments (Neuville & Croizet, 2007;Nguyen & Ryan, 2008;O'Brien & Crandall, 2003;Spencer et al, 1999;Steele, 1997).…”

Why Creativity Isn’t in IQ Tests, Why it Matters, and Why it Won’t Change Anytime Soon Probably

“…A multitude of studies (see, e.g., [55]) have found that individuals feel stress when placed in a situation where they run the risk of confirming a negative stereotype about their group (e.g., ethnicity). This stress can then cause poor performance [56,57].…”