Search

Social-psychological research conducted over the past 15 years provides compelling evidence that pervasive psychological threats are present in common academic environments--especially threats that originate in negative intellectual stereotypes--and that these threats undermine the real-world academic performance of non-Asian ethnic minority students and of women in math and science. As a consequence, common measures of academic performance, including both grades and test scores, systematically underestimate the intellectual ability of ethnic minority students and of women in quantitative fields (Walton & Spencer, 2009). We review evidence for these psychological threats, discuss their implications for the meaning and interpretation of common performance measures used in important admissions decisions, and address their implications for the efforts of colleges and universities to create positive academic environments that allow all students to thrive. (Contains 1 footnote.)

Can social–psychological theory provide insight into the extreme racial disparities in school disciplinary action in the United States? Disciplinary problems carry enormous consequences for the quality of students’ experience in school, opportunities to learn, and ultimate life outcomes. This burden falls disproportionately on students of color. Integrating research on stereotyping and on stigma, we theorized that bias and apprehension about bias can build on one another in school settings in a vicious cycle that undermines teacher–student relationships over time and exacerbates inequality. This approach is more comprehensive than accounts in which the predicaments of either teachers or students are considered alone rather than in tandem, it complements nonpsychological approaches, and it gives rise to novel implications for policy and intervention. It also extends prior research on bias and stigmatization to provide a model for understanding the social–psychological bases of inequality more generally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We argue that in important circumstances meritocracy can be realized only through a specific form of affirmative action we call affirmative meritocracy. These circumstances arise because common measures of academic performance systematically underestimate the intellectual ability and potential of members of negatively stereotyped groups (e.g., non-Asian ethnic minorities, women in quantitative fields). This bias results not from the content of performance measures but from common contexts in which performance measures are assessed-from psychological threats like stereotype threat that are pervasive in academic settings, and which undermine the performance of people from negatively stereotyped groups. To overcome this bias, school and work settings should be changed to reduce stereotype threat. In such environments, admitting or hiring more members of devalued groups would promote meritocracy, diversity, and organizational performance. Evidence for this bias, its causes, magnitude, remedies, and implications for social policy and for law are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When a negative stereotype impugns the ability or worth of an outgroup, people may experience stereotype lift—a performance boost that occurs when downward comparisons are made with a denigrated outgroup. In a meta-analytic review, members of non-stereotyped groups were found to perform better when a negative stereotype about an outgroup was linked to an intellectual test than when it was not (d=.24, p<.0001). Notably, people appear to link negative stereotypes to evaluative tests more or less automatically. Simply presenting a test as diagnostic of ability was thus sufficient to induce stereotype lift. Only when negative stereotypes were explicitly invalidated or rendered irrelevant to the test did the lift effect disappear. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

It has become common practice to conceptualize bias as an automatic response, cultivated through exposure to bias in society. From this perspective, combating bias requires reducing a proclivity for bias within individuals, as in many implicit-bias training efforts common in schools and corporations. We introduce an alternative approach that begins with the presumption that people are inherently complex, with multiple, often contradictory, selves and goals. When the person is conceptualized this way, it is possible to ask when biased selves are likely to emerge and whether this bias can be sidelined —that is, whether situations can be altered in potent ways that elevate alternative selves and goals that people will endorse and for which bias would be nonfunctional. Using both classic and contemporary examples, we show how sidelining bias has led to meaningful improvements in real-world outcomes, including higher academic achievement and reduced school suspensions, less recidivism to jail, and less stereotyping in mass advertisements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Refugees suffer from a stigmatized identity portraying them as weak, unskilled victims. We developed a brief (~10-min) intervention that reframed refugees' identity as being, by its very nature, a source of strength and skills. Reading and writing exercises, provided by a university, highlighted how refugees' experiences helped them acquire skills such as perseverance and the ability to cope with adversity, which could help them succeed in a new country. In Experiment 1 (N = 93), the intervention boosted refugees' (a) confidence in their ability to succeed at an imagined university and (b) challenge seeking: Participants were 70% more likely to take on an academic exercise labeled as difficult. In Experiment 2, the intervention, delivered to refugees entering an online university (N = 533), increased engagement in the online-learning environment by 23% over the subsequent year. There was also evidence of greater course completion. It is possible to reframe stigmatized individuals' identity as inherently strong and resourceful, helping them put their strengths to use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

High rates of discipline citations predict adverse life outcomes, a harm disproportionately borne by Black and Latino boys. We hypothesized that these citations arise in part from negative cycles of interaction between students and teachers, which unfold in contexts of social stereotypes. Can targeted interventions to facilitate identity safety—a sense of belonging, inclusion, and growth—for students help? Experiment 1 combined social-belonging, values-affirmation, and growth-mindset interventions delivered in several class sessions in 2 middle schools with a large Latino population (N = 669). This treatment reduced citations among negatively stereotyped boys in 7th and 8th grades by 57% as compared with a randomized control condition, 95% CI [−77%, −20%]. A growth-mindset only treatment was also effective (70% reduction, 95% CI [−84%, −43%]). Experiment 2 tested the social-belonging intervention alone, a grade earlier, at a third school with a large Black population and more overall citations (N = 137 sixth-grade students). In 2 class sessions, students reflected on stories from previous 7th-grade students, which represented worries about belonging and relationships with teachers early in middle school as normal and as improving with time. This exercise reduced citations among Black boys through the end of high school by 65%, 95% CI [−85%, −15%], closing the disparity with White boys over 7 years by 75%. Suggesting improved interactions with teachers, longitudinal analyses found that the intervention prevented rises in citations involving subjective judgments (e.g., “insubordination”) within 6th and 7th grades. It also forestalled the emergence of worries about being seen stereotypically by the end of 7th grade. Identity threat can give rise to cycles of interaction that are maladaptive for both teachers and students in school; targeted exercises can interrupt these cycles to improve disciplinary outcomes over years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]