Stereotype Threat

What Is Stereotype Threat?

Steele and Aronson (1995) first defined stereotype threat as “being at risk of confirming, as self-characteristic, a negative stereotype about one’s group” (p. 797).

In other words, stereotype threat refers to an individual’s fear that their actions or behaviors will support negative ideas about a group to which they belong.

For instance, imagine someone worries that performing badly on a test will confirm negative beliefs about the intelligence of their race, gender, culture, or ethnicity. That worry alone is stereotype threat.

The effects are especially evident in the classroom, but they can also follow a person into the workplace and throughout the rest of their lives.

Three features set stereotype threat apart from ordinary anxiety or low expectations:

• Situational, not dispositional: the same person can feel threatened in one setting and not in another, depending on how a task is framed.
• No belief required: a woman can reject the stereotype that women are worse at math and still be affected when a test makes it salient.
• Strongest for the invested: people who care most about the domain, and have the skill to do well, have the most to lose.

Steele and Aronson’s Original Study

Steele and Aronson’s original study gave Black and White students a demanding 30-minute test built from verbal items on the Graduate Record Examination (GRE).

The stakes were high and very real. The researchers were responding to a racial stereotype that Black students are less intellectually capable than White students.

They predicted that Black students who believed the test was diagnostic of intellectual ability would perform worse than White students.

That is what happened. When the test was labeled diagnostic of intellectual ability, Black participants underperformed White participants. When the same test was labeled non-diagnostic, the gap shrank sharply (Steele & Aronson, 1995).

By labeling the test as diagnostic, the experiment made black students more vulnerable to judgment about their race’s academic ability. Performance suffered as a result. Their mental energy went toward doubt and fear of failure instead of the test.

The finding is often misread as showing that stereotype threat explains the entire Black–White test gap. It does not.

Steele and Aronson’s analyses statistically adjusted for participants’ prior SAT scores, and even in the non-diagnostic condition, black students still scored lower before that adjustment was applied.

What the study demonstrates is narrower but still important: a stereotype’s situational salience can widen an already-existing gap, not create the whole of it (Sackett, Hardison, & Cullen, 2004).

Stereotype Threat Examples

Stereotype threat was first investigated in the context of race and academic performance. Since then, researchers have documented the same pattern across gender, socioeconomic status, and other group identities.

Race and Academic Performance

The original investigation, by Steele and Aronson in 1995, examined the relationship between race and academic performance. The manipulation was simple. Across a series of four experiments, the researchers varied only how a difficult verbal test was described.

Later experiments probed the effect from different angles.

One used a word-completion task to check whether the diagnostic framing activated race- and self-doubt-related thoughts. Another found something starker. Merely asking Black students to record their race before an unrelated test was enough to lower their scores.

Threatened students were also more prone to self-handicapping. They reported less sleep and less effort beforehand, and were more likely to avoid race-related preferences. Osborne (2001) later found that anxiety partly accounted for race and sex differences in test performance.

Gender and Math Performance

Stereotype threat can also affect performance well beyond race. Spencer and colleagues showed that it may underlie gender differences in advanced math performance (Spencer et al., 1999).

The easier-test result fits the theory’s broader claim: threat bites hardest when a task is difficult enough to strain a person’s mental resources. On easier tasks, there is enough spare capacity to absorb the extra load.

The gender crossover is also where the sharpest replication disputes sit, as the Critical Evaluation section explains.

Beyond Race and Gender

Stereotype threat has also been extended to socioeconomic status (SES).

Croizet and Claire found that lower-SES students performed worse than higher-SES students on a test described as measuring intellectual ability. That gap disappeared when the same test was described as non-diagnostic (Croizet & Claire, 1998).

These findings challenge the cultural belief that people from lower-SES backgrounds have lesser intellectual ability. That belief is false. Instead, societal stereotypes can hold people back from the achievement they might otherwise attain.

Other studies show how far the effect reaches.

Shih, Pittinsky, and Ambady (1999) studied Asian American women. They scored higher on a math test when their Asian identity was salient and lower when their gender identity was.

Stone, Lynch, Sjomeling, and Darley (1999) carried the effect into sport. Black and White athletes underperformed on a golf task framed to invoke a stereotype unfavorable to their group.

The effect is not limited to stigmatized groups either. Aronson and colleagues tested this directly in a study of highly math-identified white men, a group with no stereotype of mathematical weakness.

The result matters because it rules out explanations based on chronic stigma or genuine ability gaps. Whether the identity at stake is race, gender, SES, or something else entirely, stereotype threat is a situational predicament that can befall anyone when a relevant negative comparison becomes salient.

Theories of Stereotype Threat

Why would the framing of a test change how well someone performs? Steele (1997) argued that threat works through social identity contingencies.

These are the extra things a person must manage when an identity, such as being a woman, becomes the lens for judging their performance.

This predicts a “crossover” pattern. If a stereotype is made irrelevant to a task, the deficit should disappear, and only for the stereotyped group.

Researchers have proposed several mechanisms. Most converge on one idea: threat consumes limited cognitive resources, especially working memory, that difficult tasks need.

Walton and Cohen (2007) identified a slower-acting cousin of threat. It is “belonging uncertainty,” a chronic doubt, among members of stigmatized groups, about whether they fit in a demanding setting such as an elite university.

In their studies, this doubt made African American students’ sense of belonging fragile and dependent on daily experiences, unlike majority students’. It also predicted worse achievement and wellbeing.

The desire for social belonging is a basic human motivation, and members of stigmatized groups may be more uncertain of their social bonds than others.

Like momentary threat, it imposes an extra burden of appraisal. Mental effort goes to judging whether one belongs, leaving less for the task.

A related account comes from Inzlicht, McKay, and Aronson’s (2006) “stigma as ego depletion” theory. Ego depletion is a temporary drop in self-control. The theory holds that coping with stigma drains self-regulatory resources, which then impairs performance on tasks that follow.

Picture cognitive capacity as a fuel tank that starts full. Facing discrimination or negative stereotypes burns that fuel on doubts about one’s own abilities. Less is left for the tasks that follow.

This account stresses a spillover cost. The working-memory model below focuses on the cost paid during the threatening task. Ego depletion adds a cost paid afterwards, on unrelated tasks.

Ego depletion is itself contested: the wider research on it faces serious replication challenges, a caution that applies here too.

Working Memory and the Integrated Process Model

The most intuitive explanation is anxiety: threat raises stress arousal, and arousal interferes with performance. Osborne (2001) found that anxiety partly accounted for race and sex differences in test performance.

Self-reported anxiety, however, explains only part of the effect. In a study of 60 women attempting a difficult math task, those under threat listed more negative thoughts about the test and about math.

The volume of those thoughts, not reported anxiety, statistically accounted for the drop in performance (Cadinu et al., 2005).

That finding pushed researchers toward more explicitly cognitive accounts, led by the integrated process model.

Because all three processes draw on the same limited resource, the net effect is measurably less working memory for the task itself. Later work supports the model.

Beilock, Rydell, and McConnell (2007) found that threat harms performance most on problems that heavily tax working memory. Intrusive worries that occupy that memory appear to be the route.

Cadinu et al.’s (2005) finding that women’s negative thoughts explained their performance decline fits the same bottleneck.

The ironic process adds a twist. Trying not to confirm a stereotype is self-defeating, much like trying not to think of a white bear.

Monitoring and suppressing the unwanted thought keeps it active and drains control. This helps explain why the motivation to disprove a stereotype can backfire.

The model has limits. It assumes the basic performance effect is robust, which the replication evidence below calls into question. Its mediation evidence is also correlational, so it cannot prove that working-memory depletion causes the performance drop.

Stereotype Threat and the Achievement Gap

Stereotype threat is especially dangerous because its impacts reach beyond the individual and shape society as a whole. Three areas show this most clearly.

Individual Effects

At the individual level, stereotype threat can increase anxiety and stress as people actively try to disprove negative stereotypes about themselves. Faced with this fear, people often become more disengaged from the subjects or fields the stereotype targets.

By raising the fear of confirming a negative group stereotype, such as lesser intellectual ability, stereotype threat can also produce a lack of confidence, self-defeating behavior, and disengagement.

Ironically, these resulting negative behaviors could cause a self-fulfilling prophecy for the individual who ends up living up to that negative stereotype.

That fear is corrosive. Some people even change their career trajectory to avoid this threat of failure.

A woman interested in math, for instance, might avoid a STEM major for fear of confirming a stereotype about her sex. Multiplied across many individuals, choices like this help explain the low number of women in STEM fields.

Educational Testing

At a societal level, these individual effects combine into a culture in which entire groups are held back. Standardized testing is where this is especially visible.

Exams such as the SAT, ACT, and GRE remain central to college admissions, despite ongoing debate about their fairness. Supporters argue the tests measure academic ability and reasoning. Critics counter that they largely measure access to opportunity.

The racial and socioeconomic gaps in SAT scores support the critics’ view: white and affluent students continue to outperform black, Latinx, and lower-income students.

Because test scores shape access to opportunity and social mobility, these gaps reinforce inequality across generations (Reeves & Halikias, 2017). Stereotype threat is one plausible contributor to why the gap persists.

The situational framing carries a practical lesson. It points to how a testing environment itself is designed: who sits in the room, how the test is described, and whether demographic questions come before or after it.

The lesson is to build identity-safe testing and classroom environments, while being honest that the expected effect sizes are modest.

Workplace Impacts

The effects of stereotype threat do not end at graduation. They can follow people into the workplace, discouraging them from applying for jobs, requesting promotions, or performing with confidence.

Workers who face negative stereotypes about their competence may also show greater anxiety, reduced effort, and less creativity on the job. Over time, this reduces the representation of stigmatized groups in organizations generally.

The pattern repeats in leadership. Women remain underrepresented in senior leadership roles, and ethnic minorities remain underrepresented among CEOs.

Stereotype threat has also been used to argue that standard selection tests understate stigmatized applicants’ true ability. Walton and Spencer (2009) found that grades and test scores can systematically underestimate the latent ability of negatively stereotyped students. This finding has shaped debates about fair hiring and admissions.

The achievement gap, in other words, does not stop at school. It follows people through their careers and the rest of their lives.

How to Fight Stereotype Threat

Given the far-reaching impacts of stereotype threat, researchers have tested several ways to reduce its effects. Four interventions have shown promise.

• Teaching about the threat: explaining stereotype threat helps people attribute their anxiety to an outside cause.
• Growth mindset: viewing intelligence as malleable turns a poor result into a temporary setback.
• Self-affirmation: writing about personal values shores up self-integrity under threat.
• Role models: exposure to counter-stereotypical examples weakens the stereotype’s relevance.

Teaching About the Threat

Some interventions simply teach people about stereotype threat itself. In one study on women’s math performance, explaining the phenomenon to participants beforehand eliminated the usual gap between men’s and women’s scores (Johns et al., 2005).

The likely reason is re-attribution. Once someone can attribute their test anxiety to a well-documented external phenomenon, rather than to their own inadequacy, the anxiety loses its power to predict failure.

This is an appealingly simple fix. Unlike growth-mindset or self-affirmation programs, it requires no separate exercise or curriculum change. It simply reframes the anxiety a test-taker already feels.

Its effect, like the other interventions here, rests on an assumption: that the underlying stereotype-threat effect is robust to begin with. As the Critical Evaluation section below explains, that assumption does not always hold.

Growth Mindset

A second approach teaches students that intelligence is a trait that can grow, rather than a fixed quantity. In one study, black students encouraged to view intelligence this way reported greater enjoyment and engagement with academics.

The gains were real. They also earned higher grade point averages than students in a control group (Aronson et al., 2002).

The logic is straightforward. If ability can grow, a poor result becomes a temporary setback rather than proof of a fixed group deficit, which takes the sting out of the stereotype.

As with other interventions here, later large-scale attempts found more modest and variable effects than the original study suggested.

The benefit tends to be strongest for lower-achieving and disadvantaged students, which means the effect is real but more conditional than early enthusiasm implied.

Self-Affirmation

A third intervention works by shoring up the self rather than reframing a poor result. It targets self-integrity directly.

A follow-up study went further.

It found the benefits could be recursive: small early gains propagated into better outcomes over a two-year period (Cohen et al., 2009). But self-affirmation is also a leading example of the field’s replication problem.

Later, well-powered replications have often found effects that are small or null. That is a real caveat. The emerging view is that affirmation works, when it works, mainly for specific at-risk students in genuinely identity-threatening settings, not as a universal fix.

Role Models

Finally, role models can play a valuable role in reducing stereotype threat.

The evidence backs this up. One study had college women first read about women who had succeeded in architecture, law, medicine, and invention.

Those women went on to perform significantly better on a difficult mathematics test than women who did not (McIntyre et al., 2003). Apparently, counter-stereotypical examples weaken the stereotype’s applicability.

Role models need not be met in person. Television, film, and literature can also supply counter-stereotypical examples, although the study above used written accounts.

Taken together, these interventions offer low-cost tools for institutions and workplaces. None is a guaranteed fix: as the next section explains, their effects are real but smaller and more context-dependent than early reports suggested.

Critical Evaluation

Stereotype threat remains an influential idea. Its strength is simple.

It locates part of the performance gap in the situation rather than in stable deficits, so the gap is in principle remediable. The crossover design is diagnostic.

The deficit should vanish only for the stereotyped group once the stereotype is made irrelevant. Showing the effect in non-stigmatized groups (Aronson et al., 1999) rules out several rival explanations.

The idea also spurred a testable working-memory model (Schmader et al., 2008) and a family of interventions. Even so, the evidence has shifted. Psychology’s replication crisis has reshaped how researchers view it. Four issues are central to a fair assessment.

1. Publication Bias: the early literature over-represents large effects because small studies with striking results were more likely to be published.
2. Failed Large Replications: the most rigorous, best-powered tests of the effect have often found nothing.
3. Limited Real-World Impact: in high-stakes testing settings, the effect is negligible to small.
4. The Moderator Problem: the theory leans on so many moderators, conditions that strengthen or weaken the effect, that a null result can always be explained away.

Publication Bias

The analysis has real limits. It targets schoolgirls and mathematics specifically, not every population or domain, and bias-correction methods are themselves estimates.

Even so, its central finding, that publication bias inflated the field’s early estimates, has proved robust. Later work echoes the same conclusion.

Failed Large Replications

The most decisive test of the classic gender-maths finding is a registered report by Flore, Mulder, and Wicherts (2018). In a registered report, researchers publish their hypotheses, design, and analysis plan before collecting data, which removes their ability to selectively report favorable results after the fact.

The study tested 2,064 Dutch high-school students, one of the largest and most transparent tests the theory has ever received. The researchers found no overall stereotype-threat effect.

None of the four predicted moderators, domain identification, gender identification, maths anxiety, or test difficulty, made any difference either. Most of the variation in maths performance was explained simply by gender and how strongly a student identified with the subject.

The result was decisive.

A large, transparent, pre-registered study of exactly the population the theory targets returned a clean null result. That does not mean stereotype threat never occurs, but it does mean the founding gender-maths demonstration has not held up under the field’s most rigorous scrutiny.

Limited Real-World Impact

Shewach, Sackett, and Quint (2019) asked a more practical question: how large is stereotype threat in settings that resemble real high-stakes testing?

Their focus was admissions and hiring, not lab studies.

The researchers meta-analyzed stereotype-threat studies and restricted their attention to the subset whose features most closely matched genuine operational testing. In these operational-like settings, the effect ranged from essentially zero to small (about d = .00 to −.14).

By convention, d = .20 counts as small. The researchers again detected meaningful publication bias in the underlying literature.

Their conclusion was blunt. Stereotype threat is unlikely to explain much of the real-world gaps in cognitive-test scores it is often invoked to account for.

That does not mean testing environments are irrelevant to fairness. It does mean the size of the fix should be calibrated to a small, not a large, effect.

Rival Explanations for Score Gaps

How much of the real-world gap can stereotype threat explain? The main rival position is that structural factors carry far more weight: unequal school quality and resourcing, family income, neighborhood and health conditions, and differing familiarity with standardized tests.

This is not a claim that group differences are innate. None of the sources below makes that argument.

A broader review points the same way. Nisbett et al. (2012) found that gaps between racial and socioeconomic groups narrowed over recent decades alongside improvements in schooling, nutrition, health care, and economic opportunity.

Environmental and educational factors accounted for the largest share of the variation, not innate differences and not a single situational mechanism.

Joshua Aronson, who co-originated stereotype threat, was a co-author. The structural account is therefore not an outside attack on the theory.

Ordinary test anxiety, maths anxiety, and differences in prior preparation may also explain some effects attributed to threat. So may the fact that expectations often track reality rather than create it, as in self-fulfilling prophecy research, where naturalistic expectancy effects are small.

None of this requires dismissing stereotype threat. The lab effect is real but modest (Flore & Wicherts, 2015). It is best seen as a small, additive contributor on top of larger structural forces (Shewach et al., 2019).

The Moderator Problem

The evidence points to four main moderators, conditions that strengthen or weaken the effect. The meta-analytic record confirms that the average effect hides large variation by context.

• Domain identification: the effect is strongest for people invested in the threatened domain, because doing well matters to their identity. Someone indifferent to maths has little to lose.
• Group identification and awareness: strong identification with the stereotyped group, and awareness that the stereotype exists, raise susceptibility.
• Task difficulty: threat mainly harms difficult tasks at the frontier of ability, where working memory is already stretched.
• Cue subtlety: Nguyen and Ryan’s (2008) meta-analysis found that subtle cues, such as being the only woman in the room, tended to produce larger effects than blatant ones.

Each condition is theoretically reasonable on its own.

Together, though, they create a problem. A null result can always be explained away by pointing to an unmet condition, which makes the theory difficult to falsify and easy to over-fit to whatever the data show.

Stoet and Geary (2012) illustrated the practical cost of this flexibility. They re-examined attempts to replicate the founding gender-maths study.

Its specific crossover pattern, in which the gap appears only when the stereotype is relevant, was rarely reproduced in full. Many so-called replications relied on the same statistical adjustments as the original study, rather than testing the raw, unadjusted effect the popular account describes.

Their assessment was pointed. The strength of the original evidence, they argued, had been overstated relative to the influence it went on to have on education policy.

Where the Effect Holds Up

The evidence is not uniformly null. Nguyen and Ryan’s (2008) meta-analysis of experimental studies found statistically reliable threat effects, small to moderate in size, that varied systematically by moderator.

Meta-analyses in other domains also find effects that survive scrutiny. Lamont, Swift, and Abrams (2015) reviewed age-based stereotype threat and found reliable small effects on older adults’ cognitive performance.

Appel, Weber, and Kronberger (2015) meta-analyzed threat effects on immigrants and found a small but non-zero average effect. Both effects are small.

Pennington, Heim, Levy, and Larkin’s (2016) review of psychological mediators adds that the working-memory and anxiety explanations continue to find support when the basic effect is present.

Taken together, the modern evidence points to a real but modest phenomenon. It is genuine under some laboratory conditions, but smaller, more heterogeneous, and less able to explain real-world achievement gaps than the classic studies implied.

Appel, M., Weber, S., & Kronberger, N. (2015). The influence of stereotype threat on immigrants: Review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 900. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00900

Aronson, J., Fried, C. B., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(2), 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.2001.1491

Aronson, J., Lustina, M. J., Good, C., Keough, K., Steele, C. M., & Brown, J. (1999). When white men can’t do math: Necessary and sufficient factors in stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 29–46. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1998.1371

Beilock, S. L., Rydell, R. J., & McConnell, A. R. (2007). Stereotype threat and working memory: Mechanisms, alleviation, and spillover. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(2), 256–276. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.2.256

Cadinu, M., Maass, A., Rosabianca, A., & Kiesner, J. (2005). Why do women underperform under stereotype threat? Evidence for the role of negative thinking. Psychological Science, 16(7), 572–578. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01577.x

Cohen, G. L., Garcia, J., Apfel, N., & Master, A. (2006). Reducing the racial achievement gap: A social-psychological intervention. Science, 313(5791), 1307–1310. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1128317

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(5925), 400–403. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1170769

Croizet, J. C., & Claire, T. (1998). Extending the concept of stereotype threat to social class: The intellectual underperformance of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(6), 588–594. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167298246003

Flore, P. C., & Wicherts, J. M. (2015). Does stereotype threat influence performance of girls in stereotyped domains? A meta-analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 53(1), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.10.002

Flore, P. C., Mulder, J., & Wicherts, J. M. (2018). The influence of gender stereotype threat on mathematics test scores of Dutch high school students: A registered report. Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology, 3(2), 140–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/23743603.2018.1559647

Inzlicht, M., McKay, L., & Aronson, J. (2006). Stigma as ego depletion: How being the target of prejudice affects self-control. Psychological Science, 17(3), 262–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01695.x

Johns, M., Schmader, T., & Martens, A. (2005). Knowing is half the battle: Teaching stereotype threat as a means of improving women’s math performance. Psychological Science, 16(3), 175–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00799.x

Lamont, R. A., Swift, H. J., & Abrams, D. (2015). A review and meta-analysis of age-based stereotype threat: Negative stereotypes, not facts, do the damage. Psychology and Aging, 30(1), 180–193. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038586

McIntyre, R. B., Paulson, R. M., & Lord, C. G. (2003). Alleviating women’s mathematics stereotype threat through salience of group achievements. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(1), 83–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00513-9

Nguyen, H.-H. D., & Ryan, A. M. (2008). Does stereotype threat affect test performance of minorities and women? A meta-analysis of experimental evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1314–1334. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012702

Nisbett, R. E., Aronson, J., Blair, C., Dickens, W., Flynn, J., Halpern, D. F., & Turkheimer, E. (2012). Intelligence: New findings and theoretical developments. American Psychologist, 67(2), 130–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026699

Pennington, C. R., Heim, D., Levy, A. R., & Larkin, D. T. (2016). Twenty years of stereotype threat research: A review of psychological mediators. PLOS ONE, 11(1), Article e0146487. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146487

Reeves, R. V., & Halikias, D. (2017, August 15). Race gaps in SAT scores highlight inequality and hinder upward mobility. Brookings. Retrieved January 11, 2022, from https://www.brookings.edu/research/race-gaps-in-sat-scores-highlight-inequality-and-hinder-upward-mobility/

Sackett, P. R., Hardison, C. M., & Cullen, M. J. (2004). On interpreting stereotype threat as accounting for African American–White differences on cognitive tests. American Psychologist, 59(1), 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.7

Schmader, T., Johns, M., & Forbes, C. (2008). An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance. Psychological Review, 115(2), 336–356. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.336

Shewach, O. R., Sackett, P. R., & Quint, S. (2019). Stereotype threat effects in settings with features likely versus unlikely in operational test settings: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(12), 1514–1534. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000420

Shih, M., Pittinsky, T. L., & Ambady, N. (1999). Stereotype susceptibility: Identity salience and shifts in quantitative performance. Psychological Science, 10(1), 80–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00111

Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 4–28. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1998.1373

Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52(6), 613–629. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.6.613

Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797–811. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797

Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2012). Can stereotype threat explain the gender gap in mathematics performance and achievement? Review of General Psychology, 16(1), 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026617

Stone, J., Lynch, C. I., Sjomeling, M., & Darley, J. M. (1999). Stereotype threat effects on Black and White athletic performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1213–1227. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1213

Osborne, J. W. (2001). Testing stereotype threat: Does anxiety explain race and sex differences in achievement? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26(3), 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.2000.1052

Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2007). A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 82–96. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.82

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(9), 1132–1139. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02417.x

Further Information

• Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797–811.
• Aronson, J., Lustina, M. J., Good, C., Keough, K., Steele, C. M., & Brown, J. (1999). When white men can’t do math: Necessary and sufficient factors in stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 29–46.