Age Differences in the Underlying Mechanisms of Stereotype Threat Effects

Studies of aging that have examined stereotype threat have primarily proceeded with the goal of demonstrating that age differences in certain aspects of cognitive performance or behavior may be attributable to negative aging stereotypes associated with ability (for reviews, see Chasteen, Kang, & Remedios, 2012; Hess, 2006). There has been no research, however, directly comparing the mechanisms underlying stereotype threat effects across age groups within the same study. Aging studies typically focus on the disproportionate effects of negative stereotypes of old age on older versus younger adults, with the goal of identifying specific mechanisms that affect older adults’ behavior. The fact that threat effects are not induced in the younger adults in these studies precludes direct comparisons of the mechanisms underlying and moderating threat effects across age groups. The goal of the present study was to make such comparisons. Social psychological research has focused predominantly on the impact of stereotype threat on the availability of cognitive resources. For example, younger adults exposed to threat performed worse on a working memory task than those individuals in a control group (Schmader & Johns, 2003). Schmader and colleagues (Johns, Inzlicht, & Schmader, 2008; Schmader & Johns, 2003; Schmader, Johns, & Forbes, 2008) have hypothesized that when individuals are faced with negative stereotypes regarding their abilities, they devote resources to processes such as self-monitoring and emotion regulation, thereby limiting the resources needed to perform difficult cognitive tasks. For example, Cadinu, Maass, Rosabianca, and Kiesner (2005) found that young adults under threat indicate worrisome task-related thoughts, and worry has been found to mediate threat-based effects in young adults (Brodish & Devine, 2009). In addition, stereotype threat has been found to increase physiological arousal (Blascovich, Spencer, Quinn, & Steele, 2001) and reduce heart rate variability, which some consider an indirect indicator of increased cognitive load (Croizet et al., 2004). Thus, it appears that the diversion of cognitive resources to nontask-related processes is one of the primary means through which negative stereotypes operate to degrade performance in young adults. In contrast to this work with young adults, however, studies with older adults have not obtained strong or consistent evidence for the same types of mechanisms underlying threat effects on performance. For example, using a procedure that was very similar to that of Schmader and Johns (2003), Hess, Hinson, and Hodges (2009b) found no evidence that stereotype threat had a negative effect on working memory, assessed using an operation span task. A more recent study by Mazerolle, Regner, Morisset, Rigalleau, and Huguet (2012) reported contrary results, with threat negatively affecting performance on a reading span task. A potential issue in this latter study, however, relates to the fact that the working memory task was characterized as assessing memory. Hess and colleagues (2009b) argued that labeling working memory tasks in this fashion is problematic in studies of aging in that the assessment of the impact of threat on working memory is potentially confounded by threat effects associated with the actual stereotyped ability. Other studies with older adults also provide inconsistent support for the Schmader and colleagues (2008) perspective. For example, situation-based perceptions of threat do not seem to affect older adults’ cognitive resource-consuming responses (Chasteen, Bhattacharyya, Horhota, Tam, & Hasher, 2005; Chasteen et al., 2012). Similarly, threat has been shown to be inconsistently related to state anxiety, with some studies finding null effects (e.g., Chasteen et al., 2005, Experiment 2; Hess & Hinson, 2006; Hess, Hinson, & Statham, 2004), whereas others have found elevated levels of anxiety or negative affect associated with experimental inductions of threat (e.g., Abrams et al., 2008; Abrams, Eller, & Bryant, 2006; Chasteen et al., 2005, Experiment 3; Horton, Baker, Pearce, & Deakin, 2010; Swift, Abrams, & Marques, 2013). Importantly, little evidence has been found for anxiety mediating the effects of situational threat on performance. One possible explanation for the apparent discrepancy in findings across age groups is that young and older adults may respond differently when exposed to threat. For example, there is some evidence that age is associated with enhanced emotion regulatory abilities (Phillips, Henry, Hosie, & Milne, 2008; Scheibe & Blanchard-Fields, 2009). This may result in older adults being better able than younger adults to adaptively respond to threat, perhaps accounting for the weak associations between situation-based threat and affective responses in older adults. Additionally, although reduced working memory capacity has been used as a primary explanation of threat effects in younger individuals, alternative perspectives have been proposed, which may help shed some light on older adults’ responses to threat. One such perspective is based in regulatory focus, a motivational framework that distinguishes between prevention and promotion orientations (Higgins, 1997). Seibt and Forster (2004) suggest that when one is confronted with a negative self-relevant stereotype, it sets up a negative reference point for which the best outcome is one that involves nonloss as opposed to gain. This prevention focus increases vigilance in an attempt to avoid making errors. Positive stereotypes, on the other hand, set up a positive reference point for which the desired end state reflects gain and achievement (i.e., promotion focus) as opposed to loss. In terms of performance, individuals in a prevention focus are more cautious, resulting in more deliberate, less error-prone behavior. A promotion focus, by contrast, is associated with eagerness, leading to faster performance but relatively more mistakes. Seibt and Forster found evidence that negative stereotypes induce a prevention focus, as indexed by reduced speed but increased accuracy, compared with those in the positive stereotype condition whose performance reflected a promotion focus with increased speed but reduced accuracy. It is possible that a regulatory focus perspective might prove more useful than a working memory perspective in characterizing older adults’ responses to threat. This could be due in part to age differences in emotion regulation abilities, with threat resulting in a strategic adjustment on the part of older adults as opposed to the general degradation in performance that might be characterized by working memory disruptions. There is some evidence consistent with such an explanation. For example, Hess, Emery, and Queen (2009a) found that when time was unlimited and thus speed was not a factor, older adults exposed to negative stereotypes performed equally well as their positively stereotyped peers on a memory task. (For a related finding, see Fritzsche, DeRouin, & Salas, 2009.) In contrast, when participants had to make a memory judgment under time constraints, older adults in the negative stereotype condition exhibited poorer overall performance and exhibited a higher ratio of “know” to “remember” responses. This latter pattern has been interpreted as being consistent with an adjustment in response criteria, with more stringent criteria being set for making a positive memory response (Dunn, 2004). This suggests a more cautious approach to the task. In the present study, we tested the hypothesis that the dominant underlying mechanisms associated with stereotype threat effects vary with age. Older and younger adults were exposed to either positive or negative self-stereotypes and then were tested on tasks designed to directly assess mechanisms hypothesized to reflect shifts in regulatory focus versus disruptions of working memory. To measure regulatory focus, speed and accuracy were assessed using a task similar to that used by Seibt and Forster (2004). Participants also completed an operation span test to examine working memory. We expected that older adults’ performance would be influenced primarily by adjustments in situational regulatory foci, with performance in the negative stereotype condition being slower and more accurate than performance in the positive stereotype condition. Consistent with our previous work (Hess et al., 2009b), we did not expect working memory performance to vary across conditions in the older adults. In contrast, we predicted that threat effects in younger adults’ performance would be based primarily in a reduction in processing resources, as indexed by worse performance on the working memory task in the negative stereotype condition. We anticipated threat would not have as strong of an impact on speed and inaccuracy in young adults as observed in the older adults. We also examined the role of emotion regulation abilities in moderating threat effects. If such effects in young adults primarily reflect diversion of working memory resources by engaging in counterproductive behaviors (e.g., worry; Cadinu et al., 2005), then those individuals with better emotion regulation abilities than their peers may be able to mitigate threat-induced negative thoughts and feelings and subsequently regain their focus for the task at hand. In contrast, if enhanced regulation abilities in later life minimize the negative consequences of affective responses, then older adults’ performance may be less likely to be moderated by regulation abilities. Thus, we also tested the hypothesis that emotion regulation abilities would buffer young adults against threat effects, as reflected in working memory efficiency.