Intelligence and the Stereotype Threat

One interesting implication of this work (obvious caveats [1]), those who are more likely to suffer from stereotype thread will underperform those who don't. Thus, even if one measures equal ability among applicants, he should prefer those from a group which is stereotypically superior [2].

An interesting question this raises is how much collectivist attitudes play a role in this effect. For example - consider two hypothetical individuals from a stereotypically underperforming group. Individual A is a collectivist and strongly cares about the perception and welfare of his group. Individual B is an individualist and holds no special affection for his group relative to any other.

Will A be more vulnerable to stereotype thread than B? It's reasonable to hypothesize that individual B might care about stereotypes less than A, and therefore might be less affected.

A fairly straightforward way to test this would be to repeat stereotype threat experiments using dimensions on which people are not typically collectivist (e.g., blood type rather than tribal affiliation).

[1] Assuming the effect survives outside the laboratory, wouldn't necessarily apply in a hypothetical world with different stereotypes, etc.

[2] I'm focusing solely on maximizing group performance, ignoring legal risks, moral issues, etc.

Though it's not yet published (and still under review), Wicherts and de Haan have a paper titled "A meta-analysis of the effects of stereotype threat on the cognitive test performance of African Americans"[1] which compares all published and unpublished studies on the stereotype threat. After examining the studies' methodologies, sample sizes, and other quality indicators, they found that the only variable correlated with publication is whether the study supported the existence of a significant stereotype threat.

In other words, the studies are suffering from massive publication bias, which is leading some researchers to question the very existence of the stereotype threat.

[1] The paper is referenced on Wicherts' CV: http://wicherts.socsci.uva.nl/CVJMW.pdf

Anecdotally, this seems to be a serious hinderance in the American primary and secondary systems: student sees a setback and deduces he simply isn't "smart enough to study math" and this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy through the mechanisms described in this article. Obviously mathematics and heavily mathematical sciences _are_ very much cognitively demanding, but the students arriving to this conclusion aren't usually studying the kind of math that's beyond the limits of an average college bound students: in other words, "not being good at math" is valid reason to drop abstract algebra or complex analysis during the junior year of college, but it's not a reason to accept a C in high school[1] algebra, declare yourself "bad at math", and then choose a major that involves very little math (even if excludes subject fields they're truly passionate about and excel at).

AP Calculus and AP Physics were the most dreaded classes in high school and students were discouraged to take them. I did take AP Calculus (for obvious reasons I was already familiar with functions that take other functions as parameters and return yet other functions) but I followed conventional wisdom and held-off on AP Physics.

Oddly, however, when I got to college I got better grades in _more difficult_ calculus classes (multivariate, vector calculus, differential equations) in college and did well in Physics (which was meant to serve as a "weed-out" class, i.e., forced-curved such that at least 25-50% would fail). I think the psychology had much to do with this: this is a freshman class full of people, why _shouldn't_ I master this material?

I wonder what would happen if instead high school students were told "these are the very basics of modern physics and mathematics and every technical major or minor -- at colleges that are far less selective than where many of you are headed -- is expected to pass them."

[1] When I came to the US in seventh grade from former USSR (where I was already studying algebra, geometry, physics and chemistry at the time) I had a math "placement test" tossed me the first day without any warning and scored two points below the threshold to place me into a "pre-Algebra class" that would merely qualify me for the privilege of studying algebra in 8th grade! I had to take a course at a local community college and pass two additional placement tests over the summer vacation to place into 8th grade algebra. It's no wonder that students assume they're "bad at math" given such an environment.

There is a psychological test sometimes alleged to detect hidden stereotyping called the 'Implicit Association Test' (IAT):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_Association_Test

The usual interpretation of the IAT is that delays or errors in associating certain categories with positive/negative traits indicates hidden bias. But if a stereotype threat effect is also present when taking the IAT, then delays/errors may be arising from a (self-fulfilling) fear of confirming negative stereotypes about bias, moreso than any actual bias.

Since the IAT is often introduced as a way to detect subtle and stigmatized biases, test-takers are explicitly primed to worry about stereotypes-about-stereotyping. In this kind of use, the IAT might thus be more like a "push poll" (or a Scientologist's 'E-meter'), designed to create effects in the test-taker, than an objective measure of unprimed attitudes.

So it's a social problem. And it should be solved with telling kids this: Quote: " And we should ensure that the social climate at our children’s schools is one of warmth and trust, not competition and exclusion."

That'll work. sure. Getting your papers graded above average is competition and with competition comes fierceness and willingness to learn and fight. How about a nice debate? Oh we can't because that would make two viewpoints compete against one another.

This phenomenon sounds like a combination of a negative placebo effect and learned helplessness.

So the basic conclusion seems to be "anxiety makes people perform worse". Hardly a new finding.

I personally take stereotypes as a challenge to prove someone wrong.

I guess it is just how you respond to the stressors of a possible static constraint implied upon you. Do you accept their conclusion or decide to find your own?

thanks for sharing this article, i cosntantly felt threatened and suffered lack of condifence growing up and my performances were often affected by "conditional stupidity"

So if you want a fair test, and some people are going to feel threatened no matter what... how about the solution of trying to rattle everybody? :)