Emerging Trends in The Social and Behavioral Sciences

Stereotype Threat

Media

Part of Stereotype Threat

Title

Stereotype Threat

extracted text

Stereotype Threat
TONI SCHMADER and WILLIAM M. HALL

Abstract
Research has documented that subtle reminders of negative stereotypes can reduce
performance for those who are targeted by them. This phenomenon has been labeled
stereotype threat and was originally proposed as a novel explanation for racial and
gender gaps in certain types of intellectual performance. Two decades of research on
stereotype threat has expanded to explain performance differences for a number of
different groups across a variety of domains. The most recent research on stereotype
threat has both mapped out the sequence of cognitive and affective mechanisms that
underlie the phenomena and tested the effectiveness of various interventions that
allow people to perform up to their potential. Future work is needed to examine possible cultural variation in stereotype threat, study the dynamic processes of how the
phenomenon unfolds over time, and move to inform public policies in workplaces
and schools.

Stereotype threat is the fear that one might confirm, in one’s own eyes or the
eyes of someone else, a negative stereotype about a valued social identity.
Two decades of research has revealed that stereotype threat can lead to
performance impairments that can, somewhat ironically, perpetuate the
appearance of group differences in ability. In this article, we summarize the
foundational research on this phenomenon, describe some of the emerging
trends in the most cutting-edge research, and point to new directions for
theoretical and practical advances.
FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH
The earliest studies of stereotype threat were conducted in an effort to
understand longstanding and persistent racial and gender gaps in academic
achievement. Conducted under controlled laboratory settings, this research
replicated racial differences on intellectual tasks and gender differences on
quantitative tasks when students believed that they were taking a diagnostic
test of their ability. However, when the same task was described as a mere
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

laboratory exercise or as being a “gender fair” test, African American and
female students performed much better and not significantly different from
their White or male peers, at least after controlling for prior performance
(Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999; Steele & Aronson, 1995). Meta-analyses of
the literature since these early influential studies suggest that stereotype
threat can lead some women and minorities to perform up to one half a
standard deviation lower than their nonstereotyped peers (Nguyen & Ryan,
2008; Walton & Spencer, 2009). Given the millions of students who could be
affected by this phenomenon each year, the practical appeal of stereotype
threat theory lies in its potential to level the playing field by creating more
threat-free educational environments for all students.
Theoretically, however, stereotype threat is not an experience that is limited
to traditionally stigmatized groups. The situational nature of the phenomena
means that anyone, given the right circumstances, can underperform when
they fear they might be negatively stereotyped. For instance, even White men
sometimes underperform on a math test when they are reminded about a
negative stereotype about their math ability compared to Asian men (Aronson, Lustina, Good, Keough, & Steele, 1999). Outside of academic environments, stereotypes about the natural athletic ability of Black athletes or sports
intelligence of White athletes can help create a corresponding racial difference in athletic performance (Stone, Chalabaev, & Harrison, 2012). In organizational settings, stereotypes can influence how women negotiate with men
(Kray & Shirako, 2012). And in neurological testing, there is concern that
stereotypes about how memory declines with age can magnify age-based
gaps in memory performance (Levy & Leifheit-Limson, 2009).
Although stereotype threat can be experienced by a broad array of groups
performing in a variety of domains, there are also a number of theoretically meaningful preconditions that need to be met to elicit stereotype
threat (Steele, 1997). First, people cannot be concerned about confirming a
stereotype if they do not know that the stereotype exists. This assumption
means that recent immigrants, young children, or those who have only
experienced stereotype free environments in the past can be protected
from experiencing stereotype threat, at least until those stereotypes are
learned. Furthermore, although believing in the stereotype can exacerbate
effects, people do not need to endorse the stereotype in order to experience
stereotype threat, particularly if there is reason to believe that others believe
it to be true (see Shapiro & Neuberg, 2007 for a review). In addition, perhaps
the most pernicious aspect of the theory is that those students who most
want to excel in a given domain are the very ones who are most at risk
of experiencing stereotype threat. To be threatened by the possibility of
confirming a stereotype requires some investment in breaking through those
social barriers.

Stereotype Threat

3

CUTTING-EDGE RESEARCH
Two decades of research has established stereotype threat as a meaningful
phenomenon that creates group differences in performance. Two main
issues have defined more cutting-edge research on stereotype threat. At the
micro-level, social cognitive research has revealed the underlying processes
by which stereotype threat can impair performance. At the macro-level,
researchers have begun developing and testing interventions that alleviate
stereotype threat, not just in the laboratory but also in the field.
REVEALING THE MECHANISMS
The integrated process model of stereotype threat provides a comprehensive account of the key psychological processes that explain how subtle
reminders of negative stereotypes can lead to poor performance across a
variety of domains (Schmader, Johns, & Forbes, 2008). This model begins
by positing that people experience stereotype threat in situations where
they are, (i) reminded of their membership in a given group, (ii) reminded
that their group is thought to lack ability in a given domain, and (iii)
personally invested in demonstrating their ability in that domain. There is
a logical inconsistency to these three propositions, which creates a sense of
uncertainty about oneself and one’s performance, cuing one question, “Will
I do well, as I have done in the past? Or will I do poorly, consistent with
these beliefs about my group?” Performance is impaired as a result of a host
of processes activated in effort to resolve this uncertainty.
First, much like any evaluative performance situation where the possibility of failure seems plausible, stereotype threat activates an elevated physiological stress response. For example, situations of stereotype threat have
been linked to elevated blood pressure, cardiovascular threat reactivity, and
increases in sympathetic arousal (see Mendes & Jamieson, 2012, for a review).
However, because research has not revealed a direct link between these physiological effects and lower performance, these physiological changes alone
do not seem to account for performance impairments observed under stereotype threat.
The second process activated by stereotype threat is greater meta-cognitive
monitoring of oneself and one’s performance. As people try to resolve their
uncertainty and avoid confirming the stereotype, they become vigilant to
any evidence of poor performance. As a result, they become more prevention focused in their mindset and show attentional salience for errors as well
as their own anxiety (Forbes, Schmader, & Allen, 2008; Johns, Inzlicht, &
Schmader, 2008; Seibt & Forster, 2004). In tasks that rely on automated skills
(such as many athletic or sensorimotor tasks), this more conscious focus on

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

oneself and one’s actions directly impairs one’s ability to access proceduralized memory (Beilock, Jellison, Rydell, McConnell, & Carr, 2006). But even
in academic settings, social neuroscience evidence reveals that the activation
of systems involved in monitoring for errors and emotion occurs alongside
weaker activation in neural systems needed for successful performance on
the task at hand and promotes subsequent avoidance of learning opportunities (e.g., Krendl, Richeson, Kelley, & Heatherton, 2008; Mangels, Good,
Whiteman, Maniscalco, & Dweck, 2012).
Elevated stress and increased meta-monitoring of performance are part of
the story of how stereotype threat can impair performance. But it is also
important to recognize that the outcome of these two processes is often a
conscious experience of anxiety and self-doubt that people then try to suppress (e.g., Johns et al., 2008). The problem is that the act of trying to push
negative thoughts and feelings out of mind is cognitively effortful and can
hijack the same executive resources needed for successful performance on
tasks that rely on abstract reasoning or complex problem solving.
What this cocktail of physiological, affective, and cognitive processes
does is make people expend cognitive effort on something other than the
task at hand. In fact, people experiencing stereotype threat show evidence
of reduced working memory capacity—the ability to keep task-relevant
information in mind, while inhibiting irrelevant information (Schmader &
Johns, 2003). These impairments to basic processes involved in regulating
attention are thought to be the proximal mechanism by which performance
is impaired on any task that involves sustained attention and the active
manipulation of complex or abstract information. But the cognitive fatigue
that results from these processes can also leave one less able to regulate their
behavior on subsequent tasks (Inzlicht, Tullett, & Gutsell, 2012).
IDENTIFYING EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS
In addition to research aimed at unpacking the sequence of processes that
fully define the phenomena, cutting-edge research has also sought to use
this understanding of underlying mechanisms to develop a guidebook for
remedying stereotype threat. Using both laboratory and field-based studies,
research has now documented several effective interventions ranging from
methods that work to change underlying stereotypes, interventions that help
buffer people from the threat to their identities, and strategies that might
enable people to more successfully cope with the threat of negative stereotypes.

Stereotype Threat

5

Changing the Stereotypes. Because knowledge of the stereotype is a precondition to experiencing stereotype threat, one of the most effective ways to
reduce stereotype threat is to change the underlying stereotypes people have.
One way to do this is through exposure to successful role models that contradict traditional stereotypes. For example, women who are exposed to other
women who have been successful in math and science are not only buffered
from experiencing stereotype threat but also develop more positive implicit
associations of women with math (e.g., Marx & Roman, 2002; Stout, Dasgupta, Hunsinger, & McManus, 2011). Other research in the laboratory shows
more directly that using repeated exposure to retrain a more positive implicit
association between women and math can elevate women’s performance on
a math test (Forbes & Schmader, 2010). Research in this vein offers some
promise that as barriers to success are increasingly dismantled, changing
stereotypes will be accompanied by diminished stereotype threat.
Buffering the Threat to Identity. Despite the promise of interventions that seek
to weaken stereotyped associations, it is unrealistic to imagine that stereotypes would be completely eradicated. Because stereotype threat is at its most
basic level a threat to identity, a second group of interventions are aimed at
providing a means of buffering one’s identity from the threat of a negative
stereotype. One successful means of doing this is to remind people of other
more positively stereotyped identities that they also possess (e.g., Rydell,
McConnell, & Beilock, 2009). Because most people belong to multiple groups,
shifting attention to a subgroup identity that is expected to do well can easily
combat stereotype threat.
In addition, rather than refocusing on a different group identity, people
can also be prompted to affirm deeply held values, such as religion or
relationships, which make up another important part of identity. Such
self-affirmation manipulations have been effectively used to buffer people
against a large array of identity threats including stereotype threat (Cohen,
Purdie-Vaughns, & Garcia, 2012). For example, when seventh grade students
were asked to spend 15 min reflecting on their most important values, the
racial gap in academic performance was decreased over 2 years (Cohen, Garcia, Purdie-Vaughns, Apfel, & Brzustoski, 2009). Similar benefits have been
found for female physics undergraduates (Miyake et al., 2010). Recent work
shows that these manipulations work by changing students’ day-to-day
construal of threatening situations such that they no longer impact feelings
of belonging and motivation (Sherman et al., 2013).
Reappraisal Strategies. A third class of interventions have been found to
effectively reduce stereotype threat by helping people reframe performance

6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

situations or their own experience of them in a less threatening way. For
example, because stereotypes often focus people on ideas about inherent
and fixed ability differences, stereotype threat can be reduced by shifting
people’s mindset to having a more incremental, mastery orientation within a
domain (Good, Aronson, & Inzlicht, 2003). For example, Black students who
are told that a test is an opportunity for learning performed better than those
instructed to see the test as an evaluation (Alter, Aronson, Darley, Rodriguez,
& Ruble, 2010). Similarly, learning that gender differences in math are the
result of biological sex differences leads women to underperform on a
math test, whereas learning that such differences result from socialization
processes does not (Dar-Nimrod & Heine, 2006).
Even if a given performance situation is necessarily evaluative, stereotype
threat can also be reduced by changing the way people construe the stress
and anxiety that results from stereotype threat. For example, students
instructed to refrain from seeing anxiety as a sign of poor performance
show less of a tendency to suppress their anxious feelings, exhibit better
working memory capacity, and perform better on stereotype relevant
tests even two months after the manipulation (e.g., Jamieson, Mendes,
Blackstock, & Schmader, 2010). In more naturalistic contexts, peers might
play an important role in helping people reappraise their experiences in
threatening environments. For example, when first-year college students
heard older students talk about how normal it was to experience stress
during the first year, African-American students in particular benefited from
this information and showed an elevation in their GPA over the next 4 years
compared to other Black students who did not receive this intervention
(Walton & Cohen, 2011).
KEY ISSUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Since the original demonstration of stereotype threat as a phenomenon,
research has made great strides specifying aspects of the theory and parameters of the effect. These theoretical advances have happened in tandem with
important practical applications to educational contexts. We next outline
several important questions that remain to be examined in future research.
IS STEREOTYPE THREAT A UNIVERSAL PHENOMENON?
As defined at the outset, stereotype threat has been described as a phenomenon that anyone might experience in the right set of circumstances.
However, it is notable that almost all of the research on stereotype threat
has been carried out in what have been termed WEIRD samples, that is,
among samples that are Westernized, educated, industrialized, rich, and

Stereotype Threat

7

democratic (Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010). Future research is needed
to assess whether stereotype threat is experienced similarly by stigmatized
groups from other cultural contexts. By understanding how groups might
experience stereotype threat differently we can better design interventions
that target different groups (Shapiro, Williams, & Hambarchyan, 2013).
For a variety of reasons, one might not expect to find strong evidence of
stereotype threat among individuals from more collectivist cultures such as
those found in East Asia. First, because dialectical thinking and acceptance of
contradictions is more common in collectivist cultures (Hamamura, Heine, &
Paulhus, 2008), the cognitive imbalance inherent in stereotype threat might
not be so threatening. In addition, because those from collectivists cultures
can be more skilled at navigating social expectations and regulating their
emotions in the interest of maintaining social harmony (Markus & Kitayama,
1991), the same process of meta-cognitive monitoring and emotional suppression that is cognitively depleting for Western samples might not be as
debilitating for Eastern samples. Finally, because those from more collectivist
cultures have a more contextualized and malleable view of oneself and one’s
skills (Heine et al., 2001), performance situations are less likely to be construed in terms of diagnosing a fixed ability. As a result, subtle reminders
of negative stereotypes might instead elicit a challenge rather than a threat
response for individuals from collectivist backgrounds.
It is worth noting that some prior research has suggested that Asian American women, for example, can experience stereotype threat when primed with
their gender identity (Shih, Pittinsky, & Trahan, 2006), which might seem to
speak against the points raised earlier. But this work on bicultural individuals should be considered quite distinct from attempts to study stereotype
threat in collectivist cultures. Regardless of one’s cultural background, working to excel within a democratic society that explicitly values both meritocratic principles and social equality could set the stage for stereotype threat.
It is within this cultural context that disadvantaged groups develop the aspirations to perform on par with their more advantaged peers but also see
no explicit or institutionalized forms of discrimination that might explain
their struggle. Such circumstances should particularly fuel uncertainty when
stereotypes are brought to mind.
WHAT IS THE DYNAMIC ROLE OF MOTIVATION IN STEREOTYPE THREAT?
By definition, stereotype threat is thought to increase one’s motivation to disconfirm a negative stereotype about his/her group. Indeed, people under
stereotype threat expend greater effort at a task and perform better if the
task is easy (e.g., Jamieson & Harkins, 2009). On the other hand, repeated

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

experiences of stereotype threat result in eventual disidentification or withdrawing from the domain (Steele, 1997). It is unknown when the experience
of stereotype threat results in persistence and at what point people instead
disidentify. More research is needed to examine the dynamic nature of people’s experience over time both during a given performance situation and
across successive experiences of stereotype threat.
Examining how exactly stereotype threat undermines working memory
might provide some insight into the dynamics of motivation during performance. Recent work has found that stereotype threat can specifically
undermine one’s ability to maintain a goal in working memory (Hutchison,
Smith, & Ferris, 2013; Rydell, Van Loo, & Bouch, 2014). In other research,
manipulations designed to increase women’s approach motivation or liking
for math also increase the number of math problems they solve (especially
under stereotype threat) but have no effect on actual performance (e.g.,
Forbes & Schmader, 2010). Such findings point to the need for a more
complex view of motivation and its relationship to performance.
At a more macro-level, research is needed to understand the necessary and
sufficient conditions for someone to disidentify with the domain. On the one
hand, the mere existence of negative stereotypes can affect patterns of socialization that preclude some individuals from ever identifying with a domain
in the first place. For example, the stereotype of the nerdy programmer repels
many women from ever considering computer science as a career (Cheryan,
Plaut, Davies, & Steele, 2009). But others who attempt to excel in programming might later disidentify after repeated exposure to stereotype threat. At
what point does one redefine oneself out of a domain that was once highly
valued? Perhaps, more importantly, what are the characteristics of those who
remain identified and successful despite the experience of stereotype threat?
Parallel research on belongingness threat might offer some clues to disidentification (Good, Rattan, & Dweck, 2012). According to this research, those
who are negatively stereotyped and in a numerical minority are especially
vulnerable to feeling as if they do not belong (Walton & Carr, 2012). Although
it might be practically difficult to tease the two apart, threats to one’s sense
of competence and to one’s sense of belonging should be conceptually distinct. Is one a more powerful motivator of disidentification? For example, one
can imagine working for a company where everyone is perfectly accepting of
and friendly toward the few racial minorities who work there, but still expect
them to perform less well than their White peers. One can also imagine a situation where there is no stereotyped expectation of lower performance, but
members of a minority are still socially ostracized. It is an open question as
to whether each situation is equally likely to cue disidentification both from
that organization and the larger domain.

Stereotype Threat

9

HOW SHOULD STEREOTYPE THREAT RESEARCH INFORM PUBLIC POLICY?
From its original inception, the theory of stereotype threat developed as an
alternative account of a very real social problem: How do we narrow group
differences in performance in an effort to maximize human potential? Two
decades later, findings gleaned from both the laboratory and the field are
now beginning to inform public policy. One important consideration for policy makers is to identify and regulate the cultural cues that both perpetuate
stereotypes and trigger stereotype threat. Research demonstrating the positive effects of role models bolsters the argument for affirmative action programs that increase the recruitment and retention of highly qualified women
and minorities in domains where they are underrepresented. But, in addition,
regulation of overly stereotypic portrayals of groups in the media might also
be an important means of curtailing the development of stereotypic associations in the next generation.
Administrators of schools and organizations also need to be educated about
these effects and how to identify elements in the environment that might cue
stereotype threat for their students and/or employees. Without intent, the
mere presence of these items can theoretically cue stereotype threat even in
an otherwise accepting environment. For example, conscious efforts might be
made to frame tests and performance evaluations not as diagnosing ability
but as measuring steps toward mastery.
Developing identity safe environments for learning and work can also
mean setting a broader cultural value system the embraces inclusivity and
diversity over hierarchy and homogeneity. Recent research suggests that
conversations between individuals of different groups can themselves elicit
stereotype threat for both majority and minority individuals (Richeson &
Shelton, 2012). Thus, programs that work to create positive intergroup
contact might also be effective in alleviating stereotype threat. Although the
evidence for the benefits of diversity training is mixed at best (Dobbin &
Kalev, 2013), more research is needed on naturalistic interventions designed
to alleviate interpersonal experiences of stereotype threat. Such work could
have broad applications not just to educational environments, but also in
workplaces and health care.
CONCLUSIONS
We have reviewed evidence that simple reminders of negative stereotypes
can undermine performance across a variety of domains. The theory of
stereotype threat was originally proposed as an explanation for differences
in academic performance between White and African American college
students. It has since been expanded to explain performance differences
for a number of different groups across a variety of domains. We now

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

understand a great deal about the processes that underlie the phenomena
and the interventions that can alleviate stereotype threat. Future work is
needed to understand cultural differences in stereotype threat, dynamic
processes in how stereotype threat is experienced over time, and to translate
basic knowledge into broader public policy. As we move forward in the
twenty-first century, it is increasingly clear that we cannot ignore factors
that undermine human capital. By changing aspects of the situation, we can
allow all groups to perform at their true potential and enter into domains
where they have typically been underrepresented. This movement in itself
will help breakdown stereotypes that are the foundation of many prejudices.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported in part by a Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council Grant (435-2013-1587) awarded to Toni Schmader.

REFERENCES
Alter, A. L., Aronson, J., Darley, J. M., Rodriguez, C., & Ruble, D. N. (2010). Rising
to the threat: Reducing stereotype threat by reframing the threat as a challenge.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 166–171.
Aronson, J., Lustina, M. J., Good, C., Keough, K., & Steele, C. M. (1999). When white
men can’t do math: Necessary and sufficient factors in stereotype threat. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 29–46.
Beilock, S. L., Jellison, W. A., Rydell, R. J., McConnell, A. R., & Carr, T. H. (2006). On
the causal mechanisms of stereotype threat: Can skills that don’t rely heavily on
working memory still be threatened? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32,
1059–1071.
Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Davies, P. G., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Ambient belonging:
How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 1045–1060.
Cohen, G. L., Garcia, J., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Apfel, N., & Brzustoski, P. (2009). Recursive processes in self-affirmation: Intervening to close the minority achievement
gap. Science, 324, 400–403.
Cohen, G. L., Purdie-Vaughns, V., & Garcia, J. (2012). An identity threat perspective on intervention. In M. Inzlicht & T. Schmader (Eds.), Stereotype threat: Theory,
process, and application (pp. 280–296). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Dar-Nimrod, I., & Heine, S. J. (2006). Exposure to scientific theories affects women’s
math performance. Science, 314, 435.
Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2013). The origins and effects of corporate diversity programs. In Q. M. Roberson (Ed.), Oxford handbook of diversity and work (pp. 253–281).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Stereotype Threat

11

Forbes, C. E., & Schmader, T. (2010). Retraining attitudes and stereotypes to affect
motivation and cognitive capacity under stereotype threat. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 99, 740–754.
Forbes, C. E., Schmader, T., & Allen, J. (2008). The role of devaluing and discounting in performance monitoring: A neurophysiological study of minorities under
threat. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 3, 253–261.
Good, C., Aronson, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2003). Improving adolescents’ standardized test
performance: An intervention to reduce the effects of stereotype threat. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 24, 645–662.
Good, C., Rattan, A., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Why do women opt out? Sense of belonging and women’s representation in mathematics. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 102, 700–717.
Hamamura, T., Heine, S. J., & Paulhus, D. L. (2008). Cultural differences in response
styles: The role of dialectical thinking. Personality and Individual Differences, 44,
932–942.
Heine, S. J., Kitayama, S., Lehman, D. R., Takata, T., Ide, E., Leung, C., & Matsumoto,
H. (2001). Divergent consequences of success and failure in Japan and North
America: An investigation of self-improving motivations and malleable selves.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 599–615.
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83.
Hutchison, K. A., Smith, J. L., & Ferris, A. (2013). Goals can be threatened to extinction: Using the stroop task to clarify working memory depletion under stereotype
threat. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 74–81.
Inzlicht, M., Tullett, A. M., & Gutsell, J. N. (2012). Stereotype threat spillover: The
short- and long-term effects of coping with threats to social identity. In M. Inzlicht
& T. Schmader (Eds.), Stereotype threat: Theory, process, and application (pp. 107–123).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Johns, M., Inzlicht, M., & Schmader, T. (2008). Stereotype threat and executive
resource depletion: Examining the influence of emotion regulation. Journal of
Experimental Psychology-General, 137, 691–705.
Krendl, A., Richeson, J., Kelley, W., & Heatherton, T. (2008). The negative consequences of threat: An fMRI investigation of the neural mechanisms underlying
women’s underperformance in math. Psychological Science, 19, 168–175.
Kray, L. J., & Shirako, A. (2012). Stereotype threat in organizations: An examination of its scope, triggers, and possible interventions. In M. Inzlicht & T. Schmader
(Eds.), Stereotype threat: Theory, process, and application (pp. 173–187). New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Jamieson, J. P., & Harkins, S. G. (2009). The effect of stereotype threat on the solving
of quantitative GRE problems: A mere effort interpretation. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1301–1314.
Jamieson, J. P., Mendes, W., Blackstock, E., & Schmader, T. (2010). Turning the knots
in your stomach into bows: Reappraising arousal improves performance on the
GRE. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 208–212.

12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Levy, B. R., & Leifheit-Limson, E. (2009). The stereotype-matching effect: Greater
influence on functioning when age stereotypes correspond to outcomes. Psychology and Aging, 24, 230–233.
Mangels, J. A., Good, C., Whiteman, R. C., Maniscalco, B., & Dweck, C. S. (2012).
Emotion blocks the path to learning under stereotype threat. Social Cognitive and
Affective Neuroscience, 7, 230–241.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,
emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.
Marx, D. M., & Roman, J. S. (2002). Female role models: Protecting women’s math
test performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1183–1193.
Mendes, W. B., & Jamieson, J. (2012). Embodied stereotype threat: Exploring brain
and body mechanisms underlying performance impairment. In M. Inzlicht & T.
Schmader (Eds.), Stereotype threat: Theory, process, and application (pp. 51–68). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Miyake, A., Kost-Smith, L. E., Finkelstein, N. D., Pollock, S. J., Cohen, G., & Ito, T.
A. (2010). Reducing the gender achievement gap in college science: A classroom
study of values affirmation. Science, 330, 1234–1237.
Nguyen, H., & Ryan, A. (2008). Does stereotype threat affect test performance of
minorities and women? A meta-analysis of experimental evidence. The Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93, 1314–1334.
Richeson, J. A., & Shelton, J. N. (2012). Stereotype threat in interracial interactions. In
M. Inzlicht & T. Schmader (Eds.), Stereotype threat: Theory, process, and application
(pp. 231–245). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Rydell, R. J., McConnell, A. R., & Beilock, S. L. (2009). Multiple social identities and
stereotype threat: Imbalance, accessibility, and working memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 949–966.
Rydell, R. J., Van Loo, K. J., & Boucher, K. L. (2014). Stereotype threat and executive
functions: Which functions mediate different threat-related outcomes? Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 377–390.
Schmader, T., & Johns, M. (2003). Converging evidence that stereotype threat reduces
working memory capacity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 440–452.
Schmader, T., Johns, M., & Forbes, C. E. (2008). An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance. Psychological Review, 115, 336–356.
Seibt, B., & Förster, J. (2004). Stereotype threat and performance: How selfstereotypes influence processing by inducing regulatory foci. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 87, 38–56.
Shapiro, J. R., & Neuberg, S. L. (2007). From stereotype threat to stereotype threats:
Implications of a multi-threat framework for causes, moderators, mediators, consequences, and interventions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 107–130.
Shapiro, J. R., Williams, A. M., & Hambarchyan, M. (2013). Are all interventions created equal? A multi-threat approach to tailoring stereotype threat interventions.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 277–288.
Sherman, D. K., Hartson, K. A., Binning, K. R., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Garcia, J.,
Taborsky-Barba, S., … , Cohen, G. L. (2013). Deflecting the trajectory and changing

Stereotype Threat

13

the narrative: How self-affirmation affects academic performance and motivation
under identity threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 591–618.
Shih, M., Pittinsky, T. L., & Trahan, A. (2006). Domain-specific effects of stereotypes
on performance. Self and Identity, 5, 1–14.
Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s
math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4–28.
Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity
and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613–629.
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69,
797–811.
Stone, J., Chalabaev, A., & Harrison, C. (2012). The impact of stereotype threat on
performance in sports. In M. Inzlicht & T. Schmader (Eds.), Stereotype threat: Theory,
process, and application (pp. 217–230). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Stout, J. G., Dasgupta, N., Hunsinger, M., & McManus, M. A. (2011). STEMing the
tide: Using ingroup experts to inoculate women’s self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 100, 255–270.
Walton, G. M., & Carr, P. B. (2012). Social belonging and the motivation and intellectual achievement of negatively stereotyped students. In M. Inzlicht & T. Schmader
(Eds.), Stereotype threat: Theory, process, and application (pp. 89–106). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2011). A brief social-belonging intervention improves
academic and health outcomes of minority students. Science, 331, 1447–1451.
Walton, G. M., & Spencer, S. J. (2009). Latent ability: Grades and test scores systematically underestimate the intellectual ability of negatively stereotyped students.
Psychological Science, 20, 1132–1139.

TONI SCHMADER SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Toni Schmader is a Canada Research Chair in Social Psychology at the University of British Columbia. She received her PhD from the University of California, Santa Barbara. Her research examines how individuals are affected
by and cope with tarnished group identities and negative stereotypes. She
has published work on topics of social identity threat, group-based emotion,
and gender roles.
WILLIAM M. HALL SHORT BIOGRAPHY
William M. Hall is a PhD student at the University of British Columbia
(UBC). He is interested in understanding social psychological factors that
contribute to group differences in academic achievement. His primary line
of research examines how stereotype threat is experienced in cross-sex
conversations that take place in workplace settings.

14

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

RELATED ESSAYS
Empathy Gaps between Helpers and Help-Seekers: Implications for Cooperation (Psychology), Vanessa K. Bohns and Francis J. Flynn
Mental Models (Psychology), Ruth M.J. Byrne
Gender Segregation in Higher Education (Sociology), Alexandra Hendley
and Maria Charles
Misinformation and How to Correct It (Psychology), John Cook et al.
Self-Fulfilling Prophesies, Placebo Effects, and the Social-Psychological
Creation of Reality (Sociology), Alia Crum and Damon J. Phillips
Resilience (Psychology), Erica D. Diminich and George A. Bonanno
Cognitive Processes Involved in Stereotyping (Psychology), Susan T. Fiske
and Cydney H. Dupree
Controlling the Influence of Stereotypes on One’s Thoughts (Psychology),
Patrick S. Forscher and Patricia G. Devine
Ambivalence and Inbetweeness (Sociology), Bernhard Giesen
Cultural Neuroscience: Connecting Culture, Brain, and Genes (Psychology),
Shinobu Kitayama and Sarah Huff
Capital Punishment (Sociology), Mona Lynch
Gender Inequality in Educational Attainment (Sociology), Anne McDaniel
and Claudia Buchmann
The Role of School-Related Peers and Social Networks in Human Development (Psychology), Chandra Muller
Born This Way: Thinking Sociologically about Essentialism (Sociology),
Kristen Schilt
Regulation of Emotions Under Stress (Psychology), Amanda J. Shallcross
et al.
Gender and Work (Sociology), Christine L. Williams and Megan Tobias Neely



Stereotype Threat
TONI SCHMADER and WILLIAM M. HALL

Abstract
Research has documented that subtle reminders of negative stereotypes can reduce
performance for those who are targeted by them. This phenomenon has been labeled
stereotype threat and was originally proposed as a novel explanation for racial and
gender gaps in certain types of intellectual performance. Two decades of research on
stereotype threat has expanded to explain performance differences for a number of
different groups across a variety of domains. The most recent research on stereotype
threat has both mapped out the sequence of cognitive and affective mechanisms that
underlie the phenomena and tested the effectiveness of various interventions that
allow people to perform up to their potential. Future work is needed to examine possible cultural variation in stereotype threat, study the dynamic processes of how the
phenomenon unfolds over time, and move to inform public policies in workplaces
and schools.

Stereotype threat is the fear that one might confirm, in one’s own eyes or the
eyes of someone else, a negative stereotype about a valued social identity.
Two decades of research has revealed that stereotype threat can lead to
performance impairments that can, somewhat ironically, perpetuate the
appearance of group differences in ability. In this article, we summarize the
foundational research on this phenomenon, describe some of the emerging
trends in the most cutting-edge research, and point to new directions for
theoretical and practical advances.
FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH
The earliest studies of stereotype threat were conducted in an effort to
understand longstanding and persistent racial and gender gaps in academic
achievement. Conducted under controlled laboratory settings, this research
replicated racial differences on intellectual tasks and gender differences on
quantitative tasks when students believed that they were taking a diagnostic
test of their ability. However, when the same task was described as a mere
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

laboratory exercise or as being a “gender fair” test, African American and
female students performed much better and not significantly different from
their White or male peers, at least after controlling for prior performance
(Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999; Steele & Aronson, 1995). Meta-analyses of
the literature since these early influential studies suggest that stereotype
threat can lead some women and minorities to perform up to one half a
standard deviation lower than their nonstereotyped peers (Nguyen & Ryan,
2008; Walton & Spencer, 2009). Given the millions of students who could be
affected by this phenomenon each year, the practical appeal of stereotype
threat theory lies in its potential to level the playing field by creating more
threat-free educational environments for all students.
Theoretically, however, stereotype threat is not an experience that is limited
to traditionally stigmatized groups. The situational nature of the phenomena
means that anyone, given the right circumstances, can underperform when
they fear they might be negatively stereotyped. For instance, even White men
sometimes underperform on a math test when they are reminded about a
negative stereotype about their math ability compared to Asian men (Aronson, Lustina, Good, Keough, & Steele, 1999). Outside of academic environments, stereotypes about the natural athletic ability of Black athletes or sports
intelligence of White athletes can help create a corresponding racial difference in athletic performance (Stone, Chalabaev, & Harrison, 2012). In organizational settings, stereotypes can influence how women negotiate with men
(Kray & Shirako, 2012). And in neurological testing, there is concern that
stereotypes about how memory declines with age can magnify age-based
gaps in memory performance (Levy & Leifheit-Limson, 2009).
Although stereotype threat can be experienced by a broad array of groups
performing in a variety of domains, there are also a number of theoretically meaningful preconditions that need to be met to elicit stereotype
threat (Steele, 1997). First, people cannot be concerned about confirming a
stereotype if they do not know that the stereotype exists. This assumption
means that recent immigrants, young children, or those who have only
experienced stereotype free environments in the past can be protected
from experiencing stereotype threat, at least until those stereotypes are
learned. Furthermore, although believing in the stereotype can exacerbate
effects, people do not need to endorse the stereotype in order to experience
stereotype threat, particularly if there is reason to believe that others believe
it to be true (see Shapiro & Neuberg, 2007 for a review). In addition, perhaps
the most pernicious aspect of the theory is that those students who most
want to excel in a given domain are the very ones who are most at risk
of experiencing stereotype threat. To be threatened by the possibility of
confirming a stereotype requires some investment in breaking through those
social barriers.

Stereotype Threat

3

CUTTING-EDGE RESEARCH
Two decades of research has established stereotype threat as a meaningful
phenomenon that creates group differences in performance. Two main
issues have defined more cutting-edge research on stereotype threat. At the
micro-level, social cognitive research has revealed the underlying processes
by which stereotype threat can impair performance. At the macro-level,
researchers have begun developing and testing interventions that alleviate
stereotype threat, not just in the laboratory but also in the field.
REVEALING THE MECHANISMS
The integrated process model of stereotype threat provides a comprehensive account of the key psychological processes that explain how subtle
reminders of negative stereotypes can lead to poor performance across a
variety of domains (Schmader, Johns, & Forbes, 2008). This model begins
by positing that people experience stereotype threat in situations where
they are, (i) reminded of their membership in a given group, (ii) reminded
that their group is thought to lack ability in a given domain, and (iii)
personally invested in demonstrating their ability in that domain. There is
a logical inconsistency to these three propositions, which creates a sense of
uncertainty about oneself and one’s performance, cuing one question, “Will
I do well, as I have done in the past? Or will I do poorly, consistent with
these beliefs about my group?” Performance is impaired as a result of a host
of processes activated in effort to resolve this uncertainty.
First, much like any evaluative performance situation where the possibility of failure seems plausible, stereotype threat activates an elevated physiological stress response. For example, situations of stereotype threat have
been linked to elevated blood pressure, cardiovascular threat reactivity, and
increases in sympathetic arousal (see Mendes & Jamieson, 2012, for a review).
However, because research has not revealed a direct link between these physiological effects and lower performance, these physiological changes alone
do not seem to account for performance impairments observed under stereotype threat.
The second process activated by stereotype threat is greater meta-cognitive
monitoring of oneself and one’s performance. As people try to resolve their
uncertainty and avoid confirming the stereotype, they become vigilant to
any evidence of poor performance. As a result, they become more prevention focused in their mindset and show attentional salience for errors as well
as their own anxiety (Forbes, Schmader, & Allen, 2008; Johns, Inzlicht, &
Schmader, 2008; Seibt & Forster, 2004). In tasks that rely on automated skills
(such as many athletic or sensorimotor tasks), this more conscious focus on

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

oneself and one’s actions directly impairs one’s ability to access proceduralized memory (Beilock, Jellison, Rydell, McConnell, & Carr, 2006). But even
in academic settings, social neuroscience evidence reveals that the activation
of systems involved in monitoring for errors and emotion occurs alongside
weaker activation in neural systems needed for successful performance on
the task at hand and promotes subsequent avoidance of learning opportunities (e.g., Krendl, Richeson, Kelley, & Heatherton, 2008; Mangels, Good,
Whiteman, Maniscalco, & Dweck, 2012).
Elevated stress and increased meta-monitoring of performance are part of
the story of how stereotype threat can impair performance. But it is also
important to recognize that the outcome of these two processes is often a
conscious experience of anxiety and self-doubt that people then try to suppress (e.g., Johns et al., 2008). The problem is that the act of trying to push
negative thoughts and feelings out of mind is cognitively effortful and can
hijack the same executive resources needed for successful performance on
tasks that rely on abstract reasoning or complex problem solving.
What this cocktail of physiological, affective, and cognitive processes
does is make people expend cognitive effort on something other than the
task at hand. In fact, people experiencing stereotype threat show evidence
of reduced working memory capacity—the ability to keep task-relevant
information in mind, while inhibiting irrelevant information (Schmader &
Johns, 2003). These impairments to basic processes involved in regulating
attention are thought to be the proximal mechanism by which performance
is impaired on any task that involves sustained attention and the active
manipulation of complex or abstract information. But the cognitive fatigue
that results from these processes can also leave one less able to regulate their
behavior on subsequent tasks (Inzlicht, Tullett, & Gutsell, 2012).
IDENTIFYING EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS
In addition to research aimed at unpacking the sequence of processes that
fully define the phenomena, cutting-edge research has also sought to use
this understanding of underlying mechanisms to develop a guidebook for
remedying stereotype threat. Using both laboratory and field-based studies,
research has now documented several effective interventions ranging from
methods that work to change underlying stereotypes, interventions that help
buffer people from the threat to their identities, and strategies that might
enable people to more successfully cope with the threat of negative stereotypes.

Stereotype Threat

5

Changing the Stereotypes. Because knowledge of the stereotype is a precondition to experiencing stereotype threat, one of the most effective ways to
reduce stereotype threat is to change the underlying stereotypes people have.
One way to do this is through exposure to successful role models that contradict traditional stereotypes. For example, women who are exposed to other
women who have been successful in math and science are not only buffered
from experiencing stereotype threat but also develop more positive implicit
associations of women with math (e.g., Marx & Roman, 2002; Stout, Dasgupta, Hunsinger, & McManus, 2011). Other research in the laboratory shows
more directly that using repeated exposure to retrain a more positive implicit
association between women and math can elevate women’s performance on
a math test (Forbes & Schmader, 2010). Research in this vein offers some
promise that as barriers to success are increasingly dismantled, changing
stereotypes will be accompanied by diminished stereotype threat.
Buffering the Threat to Identity. Despite the promise of interventions that seek
to weaken stereotyped associations, it is unrealistic to imagine that stereotypes would be completely eradicated. Because stereotype threat is at its most
basic level a threat to identity, a second group of interventions are aimed at
providing a means of buffering one’s identity from the threat of a negative
stereotype. One successful means of doing this is to remind people of other
more positively stereotyped identities that they also possess (e.g., Rydell,
McConnell, & Beilock, 2009). Because most people belong to multiple groups,
shifting attention to a subgroup identity that is expected to do well can easily
combat stereotype threat.
In addition, rather than refocusing on a different group identity, people
can also be prompted to affirm deeply held values, such as religion or
relationships, which make up another important part of identity. Such
self-affirmation manipulations have been effectively used to buffer people
against a large array of identity threats including stereotype threat (Cohen,
Purdie-Vaughns, & Garcia, 2012). For example, when seventh grade students
were asked to spend 15 min reflecting on their most important values, the
racial gap in academic performance was decreased over 2 years (Cohen, Garcia, Purdie-Vaughns, Apfel, & Brzustoski, 2009). Similar benefits have been
found for female physics undergraduates (Miyake et al., 2010). Recent work
shows that these manipulations work by changing students’ day-to-day
construal of threatening situations such that they no longer impact feelings
of belonging and motivation (Sherman et al., 2013).
Reappraisal Strategies. A third class of interventions have been found to
effectively reduce stereotype threat by helping people reframe performance

6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

situations or their own experience of them in a less threatening way. For
example, because stereotypes often focus people on ideas about inherent
and fixed ability differences, stereotype threat can be reduced by shifting
people’s mindset to having a more incremental, mastery orientation within a
domain (Good, Aronson, & Inzlicht, 2003). For example, Black students who
are told that a test is an opportunity for learning performed better than those
instructed to see the test as an evaluation (Alter, Aronson, Darley, Rodriguez,
& Ruble, 2010). Similarly, learning that gender differences in math are the
result of biological sex differences leads women to underperform on a
math test, whereas learning that such differences result from socialization
processes does not (Dar-Nimrod & Heine, 2006).
Even if a given performance situation is necessarily evaluative, stereotype
threat can also be reduced by changing the way people construe the stress
and anxiety that results from stereotype threat. For example, students
instructed to refrain from seeing anxiety as a sign of poor performance
show less of a tendency to suppress their anxious feelings, exhibit better
working memory capacity, and perform better on stereotype relevant
tests even two months after the manipulation (e.g., Jamieson, Mendes,
Blackstock, & Schmader, 2010). In more naturalistic contexts, peers might
play an important role in helping people reappraise their experiences in
threatening environments. For example, when first-year college students
heard older students talk about how normal it was to experience stress
during the first year, African-American students in particular benefited from
this information and showed an elevation in their GPA over the next 4 years
compared to other Black students who did not receive this intervention
(Walton & Cohen, 2011).
KEY ISSUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Since the original demonstration of stereotype threat as a phenomenon,
research has made great strides specifying aspects of the theory and parameters of the effect. These theoretical advances have happened in tandem with
important practical applications to educational contexts. We next outline
several important questions that remain to be examined in future research.
IS STEREOTYPE THREAT A UNIVERSAL PHENOMENON?
As defined at the outset, stereotype threat has been described as a phenomenon that anyone might experience in the right set of circumstances.
However, it is notable that almost all of the research on stereotype threat
has been carried out in what have been termed WEIRD samples, that is,
among samples that are Westernized, educated, industrialized, rich, and

Stereotype Threat

7

democratic (Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010). Future research is needed
to assess whether stereotype threat is experienced similarly by stigmatized
groups from other cultural contexts. By understanding how groups might
experience stereotype threat differently we can better design interventions
that target different groups (Shapiro, Williams, & Hambarchyan, 2013).
For a variety of reasons, one might not expect to find strong evidence of
stereotype threat among individuals from more collectivist cultures such as
those found in East Asia. First, because dialectical thinking and acceptance of
contradictions is more common in collectivist cultures (Hamamura, Heine, &
Paulhus, 2008), the cognitive imbalance inherent in stereotype threat might
not be so threatening. In addition, because those from collectivists cultures
can be more skilled at navigating social expectations and regulating their
emotions in the interest of maintaining social harmony (Markus & Kitayama,
1991), the same process of meta-cognitive monitoring and emotional suppression that is cognitively depleting for Western samples might not be as
debilitating for Eastern samples. Finally, because those from more collectivist
cultures have a more contextualized and malleable view of oneself and one’s
skills (Heine et al., 2001), performance situations are less likely to be construed in terms of diagnosing a fixed ability. As a result, subtle reminders
of negative stereotypes might instead elicit a challenge rather than a threat
response for individuals from collectivist backgrounds.
It is worth noting that some prior research has suggested that Asian American women, for example, can experience stereotype threat when primed with
their gender identity (Shih, Pittinsky, & Trahan, 2006), which might seem to
speak against the points raised earlier. But this work on bicultural individuals should be considered quite distinct from attempts to study stereotype
threat in collectivist cultures. Regardless of one’s cultural background, working to excel within a democratic society that explicitly values both meritocratic principles and social equality could set the stage for stereotype threat.
It is within this cultural context that disadvantaged groups develop the aspirations to perform on par with their more advantaged peers but also see
no explicit or institutionalized forms of discrimination that might explain
their struggle. Such circumstances should particularly fuel uncertainty when
stereotypes are brought to mind.
WHAT IS THE DYNAMIC ROLE OF MOTIVATION IN STEREOTYPE THREAT?
By definition, stereotype threat is thought to increase one’s motivation to disconfirm a negative stereotype about his/her group. Indeed, people under
stereotype threat expend greater effort at a task and perform better if the
task is easy (e.g., Jamieson & Harkins, 2009). On the other hand, repeated

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

experiences of stereotype threat result in eventual disidentification or withdrawing from the domain (Steele, 1997). It is unknown when the experience
of stereotype threat results in persistence and at what point people instead
disidentify. More research is needed to examine the dynamic nature of people’s experience over time both during a given performance situation and
across successive experiences of stereotype threat.
Examining how exactly stereotype threat undermines working memory
might provide some insight into the dynamics of motivation during performance. Recent work has found that stereotype threat can specifically
undermine one’s ability to maintain a goal in working memory (Hutchison,
Smith, & Ferris, 2013; Rydell, Van Loo, & Bouch, 2014). In other research,
manipulations designed to increase women’s approach motivation or liking
for math also increase the number of math problems they solve (especially
under stereotype threat) but have no effect on actual performance (e.g.,
Forbes & Schmader, 2010). Such findings point to the need for a more
complex view of motivation and its relationship to performance.
At a more macro-level, research is needed to understand the necessary and
sufficient conditions for someone to disidentify with the domain. On the one
hand, the mere existence of negative stereotypes can affect patterns of socialization that preclude some individuals from ever identifying with a domain
in the first place. For example, the stereotype of the nerdy programmer repels
many women from ever considering computer science as a career (Cheryan,
Plaut, Davies, & Steele, 2009). But others who attempt to excel in programming might later disidentify after repeated exposure to stereotype threat. At
what point does one redefine oneself out of a domain that was once highly
valued? Perhaps, more importantly, what are the characteristics of those who
remain identified and successful despite the experience of stereotype threat?
Parallel research on belongingness threat might offer some clues to disidentification (Good, Rattan, & Dweck, 2012). According to this research, those
who are negatively stereotyped and in a numerical minority are especially
vulnerable to feeling as if they do not belong (Walton & Carr, 2012). Although
it might be practically difficult to tease the two apart, threats to one’s sense
of competence and to one’s sense of belonging should be conceptually distinct. Is one a more powerful motivator of disidentification? For example, one
can imagine working for a company where everyone is perfectly accepting of
and friendly toward the few racial minorities who work there, but still expect
them to perform less well than their White peers. One can also imagine a situation where there is no stereotyped expectation of lower performance, but
members of a minority are still socially ostracized. It is an open question as
to whether each situation is equally likely to cue disidentification both from
that organization and the larger domain.

Stereotype Threat

9

HOW SHOULD STEREOTYPE THREAT RESEARCH INFORM PUBLIC POLICY?
From its original inception, the theory of stereotype threat developed as an
alternative account of a very real social problem: How do we narrow group
differences in performance in an effort to maximize human potential? Two
decades later, findings gleaned from both the laboratory and the field are
now beginning to inform public policy. One important consideration for policy makers is to identify and regulate the cultural cues that both perpetuate
stereotypes and trigger stereotype threat. Research demonstrating the positive effects of role models bolsters the argument for affirmative action programs that increase the recruitment and retention of highly qualified women
and minorities in domains where they are underrepresented. But, in addition,
regulation of overly stereotypic portrayals of groups in the media might also
be an important means of curtailing the development of stereotypic associations in the next generation.
Administrators of schools and organizations also need to be educated about
these effects and how to identify elements in the environment that might cue
stereotype threat for their students and/or employees. Without intent, the
mere presence of these items can theoretically cue stereotype threat even in
an otherwise accepting environment. For example, conscious efforts might be
made to frame tests and performance evaluations not as diagnosing ability
but as measuring steps toward mastery.
Developing identity safe environments for learning and work can also
mean setting a broader cultural value system the embraces inclusivity and
diversity over hierarchy and homogeneity. Recent research suggests that
conversations between individuals of different groups can themselves elicit
stereotype threat for both majority and minority individuals (Richeson &
Shelton, 2012). Thus, programs that work to create positive intergroup
contact might also be effective in alleviating stereotype threat. Although the
evidence for the benefits of diversity training is mixed at best (Dobbin &
Kalev, 2013), more research is needed on naturalistic interventions designed
to alleviate interpersonal experiences of stereotype threat. Such work could
have broad applications not just to educational environments, but also in
workplaces and health care.
CONCLUSIONS
We have reviewed evidence that simple reminders of negative stereotypes
can undermine performance across a variety of domains. The theory of
stereotype threat was originally proposed as an explanation for differences
in academic performance between White and African American college
students. It has since been expanded to explain performance differences
for a number of different groups across a variety of domains. We now

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

understand a great deal about the processes that underlie the phenomena
and the interventions that can alleviate stereotype threat. Future work is
needed to understand cultural differences in stereotype threat, dynamic
processes in how stereotype threat is experienced over time, and to translate
basic knowledge into broader public policy. As we move forward in the
twenty-first century, it is increasingly clear that we cannot ignore factors
that undermine human capital. By changing aspects of the situation, we can
allow all groups to perform at their true potential and enter into domains
where they have typically been underrepresented. This movement in itself
will help breakdown stereotypes that are the foundation of many prejudices.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported in part by a Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council Grant (435-2013-1587) awarded to Toni Schmader.

REFERENCES
Alter, A. L., Aronson, J., Darley, J. M., Rodriguez, C., & Ruble, D. N. (2010). Rising
to the threat: Reducing stereotype threat by reframing the threat as a challenge.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 166–171.
Aronson, J., Lustina, M. J., Good, C., Keough, K., & Steele, C. M. (1999). When white
men can’t do math: Necessary and sufficient factors in stereotype threat. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 29–46.
Beilock, S. L., Jellison, W. A., Rydell, R. J., McConnell, A. R., & Carr, T. H. (2006). On
the causal mechanisms of stereotype threat: Can skills that don’t rely heavily on
working memory still be threatened? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32,
1059–1071.
Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Davies, P. G., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Ambient belonging:
How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 1045–1060.
Cohen, G. L., Garcia, J., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Apfel, N., & Brzustoski, P. (2009). Recursive processes in self-affirmation: Intervening to close the minority achievement
gap. Science, 324, 400–403.
Cohen, G. L., Purdie-Vaughns, V., & Garcia, J. (2012). An identity threat perspective on intervention. In M. Inzlicht & T. Schmader (Eds.), Stereotype threat: Theory,
process, and application (pp. 280–296). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Dar-Nimrod, I., & Heine, S. J. (2006). Exposure to scientific theories affects women’s
math performance. Science, 314, 435.
Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2013). The origins and effects of corporate diversity programs. In Q. M. Roberson (Ed.), Oxford handbook of diversity and work (pp. 253–281).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Stereotype Threat

11

Forbes, C. E., & Schmader, T. (2010). Retraining attitudes and stereotypes to affect
motivation and cognitive capacity under stereotype threat. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 99, 740–754.
Forbes, C. E., Schmader, T., & Allen, J. (2008). The role of devaluing and discounting in performance monitoring: A neurophysiological study of minorities under
threat. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 3, 253–261.
Good, C., Aronson, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2003). Improving adolescents’ standardized test
performance: An intervention to reduce the effects of stereotype threat. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 24, 645–662.
Good, C., Rattan, A., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Why do women opt out? Sense of belonging and women’s representation in mathematics. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 102, 700–717.
Hamamura, T., Heine, S. J., & Paulhus, D. L. (2008). Cultural differences in response
styles: The role of dialectical thinking. Personality and Individual Differences, 44,
932–942.
Heine, S. J., Kitayama, S., Lehman, D. R., Takata, T., Ide, E., Leung, C., & Matsumoto,
H. (2001). Divergent consequences of success and failure in Japan and North
America: An investigation of self-improving motivations and malleable selves.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 599–615.
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83.
Hutchison, K. A., Smith, J. L., & Ferris, A. (2013). Goals can be threatened to extinction: Using the stroop task to clarify working memory depletion under stereotype
threat. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 74–81.
Inzlicht, M., Tullett, A. M., & Gutsell, J. N. (2012). Stereotype threat spillover: The
short- and long-term effects of coping with threats to social identity. In M. Inzlicht
& T. Schmader (Eds.), Stereotype threat: Theory, process, and application (pp. 107–123).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Johns, M., Inzlicht, M., & Schmader, T. (2008). Stereotype threat and executive
resource depletion: Examining the influence of emotion regulation. Journal of
Experimental Psychology-General, 137, 691–705.
Krendl, A., Richeson, J., Kelley, W., & Heatherton, T. (2008). The negative consequences of threat: An fMRI investigation of the neural mechanisms underlying
women’s underperformance in math. Psychological Science, 19, 168–175.
Kray, L. J., & Shirako, A. (2012). Stereotype threat in organizations: An examination of its scope, triggers, and possible interventions. In M. Inzlicht & T. Schmader
(Eds.), Stereotype threat: Theory, process, and application (pp. 173–187). New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Jamieson, J. P., & Harkins, S. G. (2009). The effect of stereotype threat on the solving
of quantitative GRE problems: A mere effort interpretation. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1301–1314.
Jamieson, J. P., Mendes, W., Blackstock, E., & Schmader, T. (2010). Turning the knots
in your stomach into bows: Reappraising arousal improves performance on the
GRE. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 208–212.

12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Levy, B. R., & Leifheit-Limson, E. (2009). The stereotype-matching effect: Greater
influence on functioning when age stereotypes correspond to outcomes. Psychology and Aging, 24, 230–233.
Mangels, J. A., Good, C., Whiteman, R. C., Maniscalco, B., & Dweck, C. S. (2012).
Emotion blocks the path to learning under stereotype threat. Social Cognitive and
Affective Neuroscience, 7, 230–241.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,
emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.
Marx, D. M., & Roman, J. S. (2002). Female role models: Protecting women’s math
test performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1183–1193.
Mendes, W. B., & Jamieson, J. (2012). Embodied stereotype threat: Exploring brain
and body mechanisms underlying performance impairment. In M. Inzlicht & T.
Schmader (Eds.), Stereotype threat: Theory, process, and application (pp. 51–68). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Miyake, A., Kost-Smith, L. E., Finkelstein, N. D., Pollock, S. J., Cohen, G., & Ito, T.
A. (2010). Reducing the gender achievement gap in college science: A classroom
study of values affirmation. Science, 330, 1234–1237.
Nguyen, H., & Ryan, A. (2008). Does stereotype threat affect test performance of
minorities and women? A meta-analysis of experimental evidence. The Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93, 1314–1334.
Richeson, J. A., & Shelton, J. N. (2012). Stereotype threat in interracial interactions. In
M. Inzlicht & T. Schmader (Eds.), Stereotype threat: Theory, process, and application
(pp. 231–245). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Rydell, R. J., McConnell, A. R., & Beilock, S. L. (2009). Multiple social identities and
stereotype threat: Imbalance, accessibility, and working memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 949–966.
Rydell, R. J., Van Loo, K. J., & Boucher, K. L. (2014). Stereotype threat and executive
functions: Which functions mediate different threat-related outcomes? Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 377–390.
Schmader, T., & Johns, M. (2003). Converging evidence that stereotype threat reduces
working memory capacity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 440–452.
Schmader, T., Johns, M., & Forbes, C. E. (2008). An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance. Psychological Review, 115, 336–356.
Seibt, B., & Förster, J. (2004). Stereotype threat and performance: How selfstereotypes influence processing by inducing regulatory foci. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 87, 38–56.
Shapiro, J. R., & Neuberg, S. L. (2007). From stereotype threat to stereotype threats:
Implications of a multi-threat framework for causes, moderators, mediators, consequences, and interventions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 107–130.
Shapiro, J. R., Williams, A. M., & Hambarchyan, M. (2013). Are all interventions created equal? A multi-threat approach to tailoring stereotype threat interventions.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 277–288.
Sherman, D. K., Hartson, K. A., Binning, K. R., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Garcia, J.,
Taborsky-Barba, S., … , Cohen, G. L. (2013). Deflecting the trajectory and changing

Stereotype Threat

13

the narrative: How self-affirmation affects academic performance and motivation
under identity threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 591–618.
Shih, M., Pittinsky, T. L., & Trahan, A. (2006). Domain-specific effects of stereotypes
on performance. Self and Identity, 5, 1–14.
Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s
math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4–28.
Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity
and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613–629.
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69,
797–811.
Stone, J., Chalabaev, A., & Harrison, C. (2012). The impact of stereotype threat on
performance in sports. In M. Inzlicht & T. Schmader (Eds.), Stereotype threat: Theory,
process, and application (pp. 217–230). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Stout, J. G., Dasgupta, N., Hunsinger, M., & McManus, M. A. (2011). STEMing the
tide: Using ingroup experts to inoculate women’s self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 100, 255–270.
Walton, G. M., & Carr, P. B. (2012). Social belonging and the motivation and intellectual achievement of negatively stereotyped students. In M. Inzlicht & T. Schmader
(Eds.), Stereotype threat: Theory, process, and application (pp. 89–106). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2011). A brief social-belonging intervention improves
academic and health outcomes of minority students. Science, 331, 1447–1451.
Walton, G. M., & Spencer, S. J. (2009). Latent ability: Grades and test scores systematically underestimate the intellectual ability of negatively stereotyped students.
Psychological Science, 20, 1132–1139.

TONI SCHMADER SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Toni Schmader is a Canada Research Chair in Social Psychology at the University of British Columbia. She received her PhD from the University of California, Santa Barbara. Her research examines how individuals are affected
by and cope with tarnished group identities and negative stereotypes. She
has published work on topics of social identity threat, group-based emotion,
and gender roles.
WILLIAM M. HALL SHORT BIOGRAPHY
William M. Hall is a PhD student at the University of British Columbia
(UBC). He is interested in understanding social psychological factors that
contribute to group differences in academic achievement. His primary line
of research examines how stereotype threat is experienced in cross-sex
conversations that take place in workplace settings.

14

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

RELATED ESSAYS
Empathy Gaps between Helpers and Help-Seekers: Implications for Cooperation (Psychology), Vanessa K. Bohns and Francis J. Flynn
Mental Models (Psychology), Ruth M.J. Byrne
Gender Segregation in Higher Education (Sociology), Alexandra Hendley
and Maria Charles
Misinformation and How to Correct It (Psychology), John Cook et al.
Self-Fulfilling Prophesies, Placebo Effects, and the Social-Psychological
Creation of Reality (Sociology), Alia Crum and Damon J. Phillips
Resilience (Psychology), Erica D. Diminich and George A. Bonanno
Cognitive Processes Involved in Stereotyping (Psychology), Susan T. Fiske
and Cydney H. Dupree
Controlling the Influence of Stereotypes on One’s Thoughts (Psychology),
Patrick S. Forscher and Patricia G. Devine
Ambivalence and Inbetweeness (Sociology), Bernhard Giesen
Cultural Neuroscience: Connecting Culture, Brain, and Genes (Psychology),
Shinobu Kitayama and Sarah Huff
Capital Punishment (Sociology), Mona Lynch
Gender Inequality in Educational Attainment (Sociology), Anne McDaniel
and Claudia Buchmann
The Role of School-Related Peers and Social Networks in Human Development (Psychology), Chandra Muller
Born This Way: Thinking Sociologically about Essentialism (Sociology),
Kristen Schilt
Regulation of Emotions Under Stress (Psychology), Amanda J. Shallcross
et al.
Gender and Work (Sociology), Christine L. Williams and Megan Tobias Neely