417833 XXX10.1177/1368430211417833Jamieson and HarkinsGroup Processes & Intergroup Relations G Group Processes & P Intergroup Relations I Article R Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 1 –14 Distinguishing between the © The Author(s) 2011 Reprints and permission: sagepub. effects of stereotype priming co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1368430211417833 and stereotype threat on math gpir.sagepub.com performance Jeremy P. Jamieson1 and Stephen G. Harkins2 Abstract Stereotype threat and stereotype priming have both been shown to impair test performance. Although research suggests threat-based concerns distinguish the experience of threat from priming (Marx & Stapel, 2006), it is not clear whether these psychological phenomena impact performance via similar or distinct mechanisms. The current work demonstrates that priming and threat produce distinctive patterns of performance via different mechanisms. Motivation was found to play a proximal role in the effect of stereotype threat on females’ math performance. Threatened females were motivated to disconfirm the negative stereotype, but performed more poorly because they were more likely than controls to use the incorrect, but prepotent conventional solution approach. Gender-math stereotypes do not incorporate the notion that females are motivated to disconfirm stereotypes. Instead the results are consistent with the argument that participants primed with female gender constructs performed poorly because they withdrew effort. Keywords mere effort, motivation, priming, stereotype threat Paper received xxx; paper accepted xxx Stereotype threat––one of the most heavily 2002). In each case, the threat of confirming studied topics in social psychology over the past the stereotype undermines the performance of decade––refers to the concern that is experienced stigmatized individuals. when one feels at risk of confirming, as self- characteristic, a negative stereotype about one’s group (Steele & Aronson, 1995). A wide range of 1Harvard University stereotypes have been tested (e.g., women’s lack 2Northeastern University of ability in math and science: Spencer, Steele, Corresponding author: & Quinn, 1999; African-Americans’ underper- Jeremy P. Jamieson, 1206 William James Hall, Cambridge, formance on standardized tests: Steele & Aronson, MA 02138, USA. 1995; White males’ athletic inferiority: Stone, Email: [email protected] 2 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations Stereotypes can also impact the performance motivation-based account of stereotype threat of non-stigmatized individuals. For example, performance effects (Jamieson & Harkins, 2007, Wheeler, Jarvis, and Petty (2001) primed racial 2009, 2011). stereotypes by requiring White participants to write a story from the first person perspective Motivation and stereotype threat about an individual named either “Erik” or “Tyrone.” Participants who wrote the story Given the reliability of stereotype threat perfor- from the perspective of Tyrone (a stereotypi- mance effects, much of the recent work in this cally African-American name) performed more area has focused on identifying mechanisms. poorly on a subsequent test of intellectual Converging evidence suggests that threat effects ability, which is consistent with racial stereo- are multiply mediated by cognitive, affective, types regarding intellectual ability (Wheeler et al., and motivational processes (Steele, Spencer, & 2001). Aronson, 2002). Though most of the initial work Although stereotype threat and stereotype on mechanisms focused on cognitive (e.g., priming are widely studied topics, little has been Schmader & Johns, 2003) and affective processes done to determine whether priming and threat (e.g., Bosson, Haymovitz, & Pinel, 2004), recent share underlying mechanisms. Some research has research has considered motivational processes suggested this possibility: Stereotype activation (e.g., Carr & Steele, 2009; Forbes, Schmader, & leads to stereotype-consistent behaviors (e.g., Allen, 2008; Jamieson & Harkins, 2007, 2009, Ambady, Paik, Steele, Owen-Smith, & Mitchell, 2011; Rydell, Rydell, & Boucher, 2010; Rydell, 2004; Dijksterhuis & Bargh, 2001; Wheeler et al., Shiffrin, Boucher, Van Loo, & Rydell, 2010). The 2001; Wheeler & Petty, 2000). More recently, crux of these motivational explanations is that however, Marx and Stapel (2006) have argued stigmatized individuals’ efforts to avoid confirm- that despite the fact that stereotype threat and ing the stereotype can have the paradoxical effect priming have the same effect on performance, of harming performance (e.g., Jamieson & the cognitive processes that underlie the effects Harkins, 2009; Rydell, Shiffrin et al., 2010; Seibt are different. Specifically, they proposed that ste- & Forster, 2004). reotype threat effects stem from the fact that the In the current work, we focused on motiva- target of the stereotype knows about the stereo- tional processes because efforts to disconfirm type and is a member of the stigmatized group, stereotypes are implicated in stereotype threat, whereas priming effects simply require knowl- but not in ideomotor priming processes. More edge of the stereotype. As they write: “in stereo- specifically, we examined the processes underly- type threat situations, targets (but not nontargets) ing threat and priming using Jamieson and are affected because they know the group stereo- Harkins’s (2007, 2009, 2011) motivation-based type (“women are bad at math”) and because they mere effort model. This model (and others: are members of the group that is targeted by the O’Brien & Crandall, 2003) argues that one conse- stereotype (“I am a woman”)” (p. 244). It is this quence of stigmatized participants’ motivation to combination of “knowing and being” that gives disconfirm negative stereotypes is that it potenti- rise to threat-based concerns, which distinguishes ates whatever response is prepotent, or most threat from priming. likely to be produced (e.g., reading the color-word The goal of the current work was to extend instead of naming the color in the Stroop Color- the theoretical framework provided by Marx and Word Test). If the prepotent response is correct, Stapel (2006) by testing the possibility that stereo- stereotype threat can improve performance––this type threat and priming differ not only in the can be seen in research showing threat facilitates threat-based concerns produced by the former, simple task performance (Jamieson & Harkins, but not by the latter, but also in the pattern of 2011; O’Brien & Crandall, 2003). If the prepo- performance that results. To do so, we relied on a tent response is incorrect, and participants do Jamieson and Harkins 3 not know, as is quite often the case, or lack the Given the training American students receive knowledge or time for correction, potentiating in school, this pattern of findings is not particu- that response will debilitate performance. larly surprising. As Stigler and Hiebert (1999) However, in those occasional cases where partici- note, in the US, “teachers present definitions of pants are able to recognize that their prepotent terms and demonstrate procedures for solving tendencies are incorrect and they are given the specific problems. Students are then asked to opportunity to implement correction, perfor- memorize the definitions and practice the proce- mance can be facilitated. dures” (p. 27). In other words, students are taught Recently Jamieson and Harkins (2009) tested to memorize equations, then directly apply those this model in research examining participants’ equations to the problems, and finally to calculate performance on a test comprised of two types the answers. of quantitative GRE problems––“solve” and On solve type problems, the conventional “comparison”––which differ in the solution approach is typically the most effective approach. approach that tends to be most efficient. Solve As long as the test-taker knows the correct equa- type problems tend to be most efficiently solved tion to apply, solving it will produce an answer. by using the traditional solution approach taught Thus, if threatened females are motivated to dis- in US schools: Directly applying an equation or confirm the stereotype, this motivation should algorithm and computing an answer. On the translate into facilitated performance on these other hand, comparison problems require the problems. However, the form facilitation can take test-taker to take an unconventional approach, is constrained by the task. Because the conven- such as simplifying terms or using logic, estima- tional approach is prepotent, everyone tends to tion, and/or intuition to get the correct answer. use it on solve type problems, and threatened par- In fact, comparison problems often do not ticipants should not differ from controls in their require any computations at all. knowledge of formulas or operations. As a result, Research in the educational psychology litera- effort cannot aid participants’ success in solving ture indicates that when given math problems, the problems that they attempt. Rather, height- American students predominantly take a conven- ened motivation can only be reflected in the tional approach using known rules and equations. number of problems attempted or answered. For example, Gallagher, De Lisi, Holst, And, of course, time constraints place an upper McGillicuddy-De Lisi, Morely, and Cahalan bound for this effect. (2000, Exp. 2) found that participants used a In contrast, the conventional solving approach conventional approach 55.5% of the time, is far