Retraining attitudes and stereotypes to affect motivation and cognitive capacity under stereotype threat.
In a series of experiments, a retraining paradigm was used to test the effects of attitudes and stereotypes on individuals' motivation and cognitive capacity in stereotype-threatening contexts. Women trained to have a more positive math attitude exhibited increased math motivation (Study 1). This effect was not observed for men but was magnified among women when negative stereotypes were either primed subtly (Study 2) or indirectly reinforced (Study 3). Although attitudes had no effect on working memory capacity, women retrained to associate their gender with being good at math exhibited increased working memory capacity (Studies 3 and 4), which in turn mediated increased math performance (Study 4) in a stereotype-threatening context. Results suggest that although positive attitudes can motivate stigmatized individuals to engage with threatening domains, stereotypes need to be retrained to give them the cognitive capacity critical for success. Implications for interventions to reduce stereotype threat are discussed.
Forbes
Chad E
CE
University of Arizona, USA. forbesce@cc.nih.gov
Schmader
Toni
T
D001290:Attitude; D003071:Cognition; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008433:Mathematics / Q000193:education; D008570:Memory, Short-Term; D008960:Models, Psychological; D009042:Motivation; D011581:Psychological Tests; D012737:Sex Factors; D013240:Stereotyping
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999 Apr;76(4):628-44
10234849
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2006 Oct;91(4):652-61
17014291
Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2008 Sep;3(3):253-61
19015117
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2004 May;86(5):653-67
15161392
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2009 May;35(5):584-96
19228598
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2005 Jul;89(1):22-35
16060740
Neuropsychology. 2001 Jan;15(1):115-27
11216882
J Appl Psychol. 2004 Apr;89(2):220-30
15065971
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003 Sep;85(3):440-52
14498781
Psychol Sci. 2005 Mar;16(3):175-9
15733195
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2005 Dec;89(6):852-63
16393020
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2003 Jun;29(6):782-9
15189633
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2008 Nov;137(4):691-705
18999361
Nat Neurosci. 2003 Dec;6(12):1323-8
14625557
Psychol Rev. 2008 Apr;115(2):336-56
18426293
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2005 Oct;89(4):488-503
16287413
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1995 Nov;69(5):797-811
7473032
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2004 Jul;87(1):38-56
15250791
Br J Educ Psychol. 2007 Jun;77(Pt 2):323-38
17504550
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2009 Oct;35(10):1301-14
19407004
Trends Neurosci. 2005 Aug;28(8):408-15
15979164
Annu Rev Psychol. 1989;40:109-31
2648973
Psychol Rev. 1967 May;74(3):183-200
5342882
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2007 Oct;93(4):544-64
17892331
Psychol Sci. 2006 Mar;17(3):262-9
16507068
Psychol Bull. 2006 Sep;132(5):692-731
16910748
Am Psychol. 2008 May-Jun;63(4):215-27
18473607
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002 Jul;83(1):44-59
12088131
Am Psychol. 1997 Jun;52(6):613-29
9174398
Psychol Sci. 2007 Oct;18(10):879-85
17894605
Psychol Sci. 2001 Sep;12(5):413-7
11554676
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000 May;78(5):871-88
10821195
Hum Brain Mapp. 2007 Oct;28(10):915-30
17133388
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2007 May;136(2):256-76
17500650