Action identification as a mediator of underperformance 2 MIND OVER MATTER: ACTION IDENTIFICATION AS A MEDIATOR OF UNDERPERFORMANCE IN STEREOTYPE THREAT

Although several factors have been suggested as potential mediators of stereotype threat-related underperformance, a precise mediator remains elusive. In the current study, I tested the hypothesis, based on action identification theory (Vallacher & Wegner, 1986), that stereotype threat would alter the level at which threatened individuals identified a relevant task, such that they would not attend to the basic actions required to successfully complete it. Math-identified women and men completed a difficult test of math ability, described as either having previously produced gender differences or not. Results showed that, contrary to previous research, women in the threat condition did not underperform relative to other participants. In addition, level of action identification did not significantly correlate with task performance. Possible explanations for these findings are discussed. Action identification as a mediator of underperformance 4 Mind Over Matter: Action Identification as a Mediator of Underperformance in Stereotype Threat Relative to men, women do very poorly in math and the quantitative sciences (Brown & Josephs, 1999). Academic records, the sheer disparity in the number of women and men in math and science classes, and the gender gap evident on nearly every standardized test all point to the simple inability of women to perform in these domains. Female students have scored as many as 50 points lower than male students on the quantitative section of the SAT, and an astonishing 80 points lower on the same section of the Graduate Record Exam (Sadker & Sadker, 1993). It has been widely speculated that these gaps in test scores, as well as the relative absence of women in math and the quantitative sciences, is due to women’s natural lack of ability in these domains, or to an internalization of this stigma (Brown & Josephs, 1999; Steele & Aronson, 1995). However, recent investigations of the underperformance of women in math and the quantitative sciences have revealed an alternative explanation that focuses not on some innate inferiority of women in these domains, but on situational factors that interfere with their performance. The goal of the present study is to investigate how these situationally induced factors hinder the performance of even the most talented women in math-oriented domains. What is Stereotype Threat? Stereotype threat is the situational threat experienced when a negative stereotype about one’s group exists in a valued domain (Steele & Aronson, 1995). Generally, it is unconsciously experienced as a self-evaluative threat, such that any action in the domain may be interpreted as indicating the validity of the stereotype in relation to the self (Steele, 1997, 1999; Steele & Aronson, 1995). For instance, the possibility that answering a question incorrectly or performing poorly on a quiz might lead others to believe that their math ability is inferior leaves women in Action identification as a mediator of underperformance 5 math classes vulnerable to stereotype threat. The vast majority of research focuses on groups considered the most susceptible to stereotype threat, including women in math-intensive domains and African American students in general (Aronson, Quinn, & Spencer, 1998; Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999; Steele & Aronson, 1995). Typically, stereotype threatened individuals perform significantly worse in the threatened domain relative to their own potential ability, as predicted by standardized test scores and past domain performance, as well as relative to their non-threatened peers, and individuals to whom the stereotype does not apply, an effect known as underperformance (Spencer et al., 1999; Steele, 1997; Steele & Aronson, 1995). Steele and Aronson (1995) found that making race salient before a test or describing a test as diagnostic of ability led African American students to perform significantly worse than both their White counterparts and other African American students not told the test was diagnostic of ability. Similarly, Spencer, Steele, and Quinn (1999) found that when a difficult math test was presented as having previously produced gender differences, women underperformed relative to men of equal skill, as well as relative to women who were not told the test had previously produced gender differences. Other studies of stereotype threat have replicated these results. Inducing threat by making a negative stereotype salient has consistently led stigmatized participants under threat conditions to underperform in comparison to participants in control conditions (Aronson, Lustina, Good, Keough, Steele, & Brown, 1999; Croziet & Claire, 1998; Stone, Lynch, Sjomeling, & Darley, 1999; Walsh, Hickey, & Duffy, 1999). One major goal of stereotype threat research has been to explain how the feelings of evaluative threat and pressure stemming from the stereotype lead to underperformance in critical domains. Action identification as a mediator of underperformance 6 Steele (1997) has identified four general features of stereotype threat that are useful in the investigation of underperformance. First, although the research focuses on the most noticeably affected groups, women and minorities, the effects of stereotype threat are not limited to individuals stigmatized on the basis of their race or gender. Steele (1997) describes stereotype threat as a general threat that may affect the performance of a member of any group about whom a negative stereotype exists. Empirical evidence supports this point. Croizet and Claire (1998) have found that students stigmatized on the basis of their socioeconomic status experience a form of stereotype threat similar to the threat experienced by African American students. In addition, the findings that athletes and even White men may experience some form of stereotype threat support the general nature of threat (Aronson et al., 1999; Spencer et al., 1999; Stone et al., 1999). Second, because the content of the stereotypes about each group is unique, different groups experience stereotype threat in different forms and to varying degrees (Steele, 1997). For instance, although African American and White athletes are both stigmatized in the domain of sports performance, they experience stereotype threat in this domain differently because a distinct stereotype exists for each group (Stone et al., 1999). In one study (Stone et al., 1999), White participants experienced threat and underperformed on a golf task only when negative stereotypes about their lack of natural athletic ability were primed, whereas African American participants experienced threat and underperformed only when negative stereotypes about their sports intelligence were primed. Third, one need not believe the relevant stereotype, or have prolonged exposure to it, to be vulnerable to stereotype threat (Steele, 1997). Aronson et al. (1999) induced stereotype threat in White men, a group for which no established negative stereotype exists. In this study, White Action identification as a mediator of underperformance 7 men took a very challenging math test while either primed to believe that Asian men usually outperformed White men on the test, or not. As in previous stereotype threat studies, participants in the threat condition underperformed significantly compared to participants in the control condition. Although the stereotype used was relatively uncommon, the implication that the task might show a race-related discrepancy in ability was enough to trigger stereotype threat. Finally, the domain in which the stereotype exists must be self-relevant and important to the individual’s self-identity; that is, the individual must be identified with the domain (Steele, 1997). Domain-identified individuals care deeply about their performance in the given domain, expect to do well on domain-related tasks, and perceive strong potential to succeed in the domain (Aronson et al., 1998; Steele, 1997). Their self-investment, strong ability, and high prospects in the domain leave domain-identified individuals extremely vulnerable to stereotype threat and, consequently, underperformance (Aronson et al., 1998, 1999; Spencer et al., 1999; Steele & Aronson, 1995). Underperformance is one of the most apparent and detrimental effects of stereotype threat (Aronson et al., 1998), especially for domain-identified individuals. The self-threatening nature of the stereotype leads domain-identified individuals to question whether the stereotype accurately describes their own ability and performance (Aronson et al., 1998). Because of their strong ability, these individuals expect to do well. As a result, any stereotype that implies a lack of ability in the relevant domain is particularly distressing to them. Such stereotypes often lead domain-identified individuals to attempt to avoid poor performance, and thereby confirmation of the stereotype. This attempt to avert poor performance often has the opposite effect, serving only to depress performance even further (Aronson et al., 1998). Action identification as a mediator of underperformance 8 Potential Mediators of Stereotype Threat-Related Underperformance How do the elements of stereotype threat lead to underperformance? That is, what specifically does stereotype threat do that results in underperformance? Several factors have been suggested as mediators of the underperformance associated with stereotype threat. However, two factors frequently emerge from the literature as having the strongest effects on underperformance: anxiety and cognitive distraction (Aronson et al., 1998; Aronson, Quinn, & Spencer, 1998; Spencer et al., 1999; Steele & Aronson, 1995; Stone et al., 1999). Anxiety is a response to a perceived danger or challenge and the inability to handle it in a satisfactory way. Generally, in order to arouse feelings of anxiety, a situation must be viewed as threatening and difficult, and must lead to thoughts of inadequacy and concern about the undesirab