The Perceived Validity of Stereotype Threat as an Explanation for Underperformance

Research demonstrates that members of stigmatized groups may underperform when stereotype threat is induced. No research, however, has examined whether attributing underperformance to stereotype threat is perceived as a likely or valid explanation. In two experiments White students were randomly assigned to review the test performance of a fellow student described as a racial/ethnic minority (stigmatized group) or White (non-stigmatized group). Experiment 1 revealed that Hispanic and Black students were significantly more likely to have their underperformance attributed to dispositional and stereotypic causes than a White student. Experiment 2 revealed that White students perceived attributing underperformance to stereotype threat as a less valid explanation of underperformance compared to test anxiety. Moreover, all situational attributions for underperformance were perceived as less valid when provided by a Hispanic rather than White student. These findings suggest that majority students who are less vulnerable to stereotype threat do not detect it in others and are generally incredulous of its adverse effects. THE PERCEIVED VALIDITY OF STEREOTYPE THREAT 1 The Perceived Validity of Stereotype Threat as an Explanation for Underperformance Research demonstrates that members of stigmatized groups are vulnerable to experiencing stereotype threat—the concern of confirming a negative stereotype about one’s group (Steele & Aronson, 1995). This concern can become so overwhelming that it can hinder test performance in the lab (Steele & Aronson, 1995), classroom (Good, Aronson & Harder, 2008), and on state-wide standardized tests (Good, Aronson, & Inzlict, 2003). Knowing the adverse effects stereotype threat can have on the performance of members of stigmatized groups, it is surprising that no research, to my knowledge, has examined whether attributing underperformance to stereotype threat is perceived as a valid explanation by others. This is even more surprising considering that stereotype-threatened students can be consciously aware of the concern of confirming a negative stereotype (Marx & Goff, 2005), are able to report that this concern contributed to anxiety while completing a test (Johns, Schmader, & Martens, 2005), and have been shown to believe that anxiety can reduce test performance (Boucher, Rydell, & Murphy, 2015). If stereotype-threatened students are able to report that they underperformed on a test due to the anxiety induced by the concern of being perceived as stereotypic, it is important to examine the possible social consequences and perceived validity of attributing underperformance to stereotype threat. This is the purpose of the current research. Recent research on forecasting the experience of stereotype-threatened women has shown that students not experiencing threat (nonstereotype-threatened students) do have some insight into the experiences of stereotype-threatened students (Boucher et al., 2015). Specifically, both men and women forecasters acknowledged, but overestimated, the increased anxiety stereotypethreatened women experienced while completing a stereotype threat inducing test. Although forecasters acknowledged that stereotype-threatened women would experience increased anxiety, THE PERCEIVED VALIDITY OF STEREOTYPE THREAT 2 they did not predict that this anxiety would influence their test performance because of the belief that stereotype-threatened women would overcome the anxiety. If nonstereotype-threatened students are able to acknowledge the experience of stereotype threat but are incapable of predicting its adverse effects, then how would attributions of underperformance due to stereotype threat be perceived? Nothing in the stereotype threat literature directly addresses this question; however, research on the ultimate attribution error and the social cost of attributing negative outcomes to discrimination may provide some valuable insight. The ultimate attribution error postulates that outgroup members are more likely than ingroup members to have a negative behavior attributed to dispositional causes (Hewstone, 1990; Pettigrew, 1979). These dispositional attributions are influenced by the negative stereotypes associated with an outgroup members social group (Froehlich, Martiny, Deaux, & Mok, 2015). Stereotype-threatened students are often underrepresented in the academic domain in which they are negatively stereotyped. As a result of their outgroup status and the salience and relevance of the negative stereotypes associated with their social group, it is likely that their underperformance will be attributed to dispositional and stereotypic causes—that is, causes that invoke negative stereotypes and are perceived as dispositional to their social group. In line with the ultimate attribution error, the underperformance of negatively stereotyped outgroup members, but not nonstereotyped ingroup members, should be attributed to dispositional and stereotypic causes but not external causes such as stereotype threat. The ultimate attribution error suggests that stereotype-threatened students will have their underperformance attributed to dispositional causes rather than external causes. Perhaps more informative on the reaction others may have to attributing test performance to stereotype threat is research on reactions to attributing negative outcomes to discrimination. Specifically, research THE PERCEIVED VALIDITY OF STEREOTYPE THREAT 3 has found that Black students are more likely to be perceived as complainers when they attribute underperformance to discrimination rather than another external cause (e.g., difficulty of the test) or an internal cause (e.g., lack of ability; Kaiser & Miller, 2001). This remained true even when White students were led to believe that it was certain that the Black student was discriminated against. It has been suggested that attributing negative outcomes to discrimination is disapproved of by members of non-stigmatized groups because, since they are less likely to experience discrimination, they are more likely to underestimate its occurrence and adverse effect (Kaiser & Miller, 2001). Moreover, claiming discrimination may be perceived as excuse making (Kaiser & Miller, 2003). Attributing underperformance to stereotype threat may similarly be disapproved of by majority students who are less vulnerable to stereotype threat. Although stereotype threat is a situational predicament that anyone can experience (Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999; Steele & Aronson, 1995), members of stigmatized and underrepresented groups are likely to experience it much more frequently in their day to day lives. Moreover, groups that tend to be the most vulnerable to stereotype threat also tend to be the most consciously aware of the experience of stereotype threat (Spencer, Logel, & Davies, 2016). As a result, majority students who are less vulnerable to stereotype threat may underestimate the negative affect it can have on the performance of stereotype-threatened students because of their lack of personal experience or awareness of experiencing stereotype threat. If majority students are unable to relate to the experience of stereotype-threatened students, they may perceive it as excuse making. Even if stereotype threat is acknowledged by majority students, they may, as Boucher et al. (2015) demonstrated, expect stereotype-threatened students to simply overcome this concern. THE PERCEIVED VALIDITY OF STEREOTYPE THREAT 4 Results from these studies suggest that majority students not experiencing stereotype threat will likely attribute the underperformance of stigmatized and underrepresented students to dispositional and stereotypic causes and perceive stereotype threat as an unlikely and invalid explanation for underperformance. The present work examines this possibility. Specifically, I examined how White students—who are not negatively stereotyped in academia and are less vulnerable to stereotype threat—perceived the underperformance and explanations for the underperformance of fellow White students or racial/ethnic minority students—who are negatively stereotyped in academia and are vulnerable to stereotype threat. Across two studies, participants were randomly assigned to review the test performance of a fellow student described as a racial/ethnic minority or White. Importantly, the tests were completed in a testing environment that has been demonstrated to induce stereotype threat and attenuate the test performance of Hispanic and Black students (stereotype-threatened students) but not that of White students (nonstereotype-threatened students). In Experiment 1, participants provided attributions for the underperformance of a fellow student described as either Hispanic, Black, or White. In Experiment 2, participants rated the perceived validity of one of two explanations given for underperformance—one of them being stereotype threat—ostensibly provided by a fellow student described as either Hispanic or White. Together, the present studies explore the importance of considering how stereotype-threatened students are perceived when they underperform and when they attribute their underperformance to stereotype threat.