Stereotype Threat Articles

Advances in stereotype threat research on African Americans: continuing challenges to the validity of its role in the achievement gap

Arthur L. Whaley1

Received: 30 June 2016 / Accepted: 12 November 2017 / Published online: 5 December 2017

� Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Abstract Over the past two decades, there have been significant advances in stereotype threat research on African Americans. The current article reviews general

issues of internal validity and external validity (or generalizability) beyond college

laboratories in stereotype threat studies, and as they are revealed specifically in the

context of advances in research on African Americans. Research suggests an

internally valid operational definition of stereotype threat relevant to the African

American students’ experience is the expectation of, and reactions to, interviewer or

teacher bias. The external validity of laboratory research on stereotype threat is very

limited. Effect sizes and variance explained in multivariate models in most survey

and field studies of stereotype threat variables are very small. Advances in stereo-

type threat research emphasize the relatively greater importance of school racial

climate and faculty diversity in efforts to reduce the achievement gap. Interventions

to improve the educational experiences of African American students should

address situational factors of school racial climate, faculty diversity, and cultural

competence training for non-African American instructors and interviewers.

Keywords Achievement gap � African Americans � External validity � Internal validity � Stereotype threat

Portions of this article were presented at the 8th National African/Black Psychology Conference, Florida

A & M University, Tallahassee, FL.

& Arthur L. Whaley [email protected]

1 P.O. Box 20551, Houston, TX 77225, USA

123

Soc Psychol Educ (2018) 21:111–137

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-017-9415-9

1 Introduction

Stereotype threat theory posits that African American students underperform on

standardized tests because of worry or concerns about confirming the stereotype of

Black intellectual inferiority during the testing situation (Steele 1997, 2007; Steele

and Aronson 1995; Steele et al. 2002). Since its appearance in the social

psychological literature over two decades ago, the theory has generated consider-

able empirical research which has been documented in several reviews of the

literature (Kit et al. 2008; Lewis and Sekaquaptewa 2016; Nadler and Clark 2011;

Nguyen and Ryan 2008; Shapiro and Neuberg 2007; Smith 2004; Spencer et al.

2016; Steele et al. 2002; Wheeler and Petty 2001). Steele and Aronson’s (1995)

initial stereotype threat experiments focused on African Americans. The introduc-

tion of the formal theory by Steele (1997) a couple of years later included females

and gender stereotypes about their math (and science) abilities.

Since that time, research on stereotype threat has evolved into three novel areas

of study. One new area of study has been the application of the stereotype threat

paradigm to nonacademic cognitive and sensorimotor tasks among different

populations vulnerable to the relevant stereotypes. For example, there are studies of

stereotype threat related to memory problems among neurological patients (Kit et al.

2008) and the elderly (Armstrong et al. 2017; Barber 2017; Popham and Hess 2013);

cognitive test performance among students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds

(Croizet and Claire 1998; Tine and Gotlieb 2013), and academic underperformance

among immigrants to a new country (Appel et al. 2015).

Another extension of stereotype theory is to account for racial disparities in other

domains such as health (Aronson et al. 2013; Burgess et al. 2010) and criminal

justice (Najdowski 2011; Najdowski et al. 2015). However, the extent to which

stereotype threat accounts for such disparities relative to more traditional risk

factors like racism, poverty, and environmental hazards is unclear. The complexity

of these problems and the limited empirical data in the stereotype threat literature

precludes inclusion in this review. Sufficient numbers of research studies that place

stereotype threat in the broader context of these social problems have yet to be

conducted.

Finally, there has been a growing body of literature on the development of

interventions to reduce or eliminate stereotype threat among individuals in the

school environment (e,g., Alter et al. 2010; Aronson et al. 2002; Cohen et al. 2006).

A complete review of the intervention research is also beyond the scope this article,

but these studies will be discussed later to the extent to which they have a bearing on

the validity of the stereotype threat construct. Interestingly, the majority of

experimental research on stereotype threat now focuses on women and their math

and science-related abilities (see Nguyen and Ryan 2008), but most of the

disparities and intervention research tend to focus on the African American student

population.

Studies assessing the internal validity of stereotype threat effects have outpaced

research on its generalizability to the broader Black population. Despite advances in

stereotype threat research on African Americans, there are unresolved issues in

112 A. L. Whaley

123

terms of internal validity, as well as limited external validity, of its application to the

academic achievement gap. The purpose of this review is twofold: (1) to address

issues of internal and external validity of stereotype threat research in general; and

(2) to focus on recent advances in stereotype threat research on African Americans.

Advances in understanding stereotype threat effects still do not clearly explain

the specific mechanisms involved. Many phenomena examined in experimental

research have been used to define the unitary construct of stereotype threat (Shapiro

and Neuberg 2007). According to recent literature, stereotype threat results in poor

test performance due to cognitive disruptions, affective/motivational deficits,

physiological arousal/anxiety, and/or maladaptive test-taking behaviors stemming

from the fear of confirming a negative stereotype of about one’s social group (Carr

and Steele 2009; Johns et al. 2008; Ryan and Ryan 2005; Schmader et al. 2008;

Scherbaum et al. 2011; Taylor and Walton 2011). It is important to note that each of

these mechanisms tend to be studied independently. As pointed out by Shapiro

(2011) and Shapiro and Neuberg (2007), this fragmented approach leads to

conceptual confusion in efforts to study stereotype threat.

At face value, the failure to identify the specific causal mechanism of stereotype

threat in experimental research may be viewed as an issue of construct validity.

There are situations, however, where threats to the validity of measures and threats

to the validity of experimental designs overlap (Campbell 1996). Campbell (1996)

introduced the concept of ‘‘interaction effect of testing’’ which refers to the

possibility of a pretest measure influencing the efficacy of an experimental

manipulation. The component of the multifactorial model of stereotype threat to

which this concept may be applicable has yet to be determined. Thus incomplete

tests of mechanisms underlying stereotype threat raise questions about internal

validity of the empirical studies of stereotype threat.

Schmader et al. (2008) proposed an ‘‘integrated process model’’ that details how

these different types of mechanisms operate together to produce stereotype threat

effects, but the comprehensive model has not been empirically tested in a single

study. Without a comprehensive test of stereotype threat theory, the role of different

mechanisms cannot be specified. Some reviews of the literature underscore the fact

that a single critical mechanism or mediator of the negative relationship between

stereotype threat and performance has yet to be identified (Kit et al. 2008; Smith

2004; Wheeler and Petty 2001). Other reviews challenge some of the cardinal

principles of stereotype threat theory.

Wheeler and Petty (2001) reviewed evidence indicating that feelings of threat

and self-relevance of stereotypes are not necessary for performance decrements due

to stereotype activation. According to their Multi-Threat Framework (MFT),

Shapiro (2011) and Shapiro and Neuberg (2007) argued that experimental research

on stereotype threat effects fail to recognize that different threats occur for different

groups. A perspective echoed by Barber (2017) in her recent application of MFT to

age-based stereotype threat.

It is also quite conceivable that overall stereotype threat effects on performance

outcomes may be attributable to an irrelevant component of the multifactorial process

model (see Campbell 1996, for a discussion of ‘‘irrelevant responsiveness of

measures’’). Consistent with this view, intervention studies to address stereotype threat

Advances in stereotype threat research on African Americans… 113

123

have raised additional questions about its role in performance outcomes for Black

students. Aronson et al. (2002) subjected African American college students to an

intervention designed to have them view ‘‘intelligence’’ as expandable or malleable.

Contrary to predictions, these researchers found the following: (1) their intervention

improved within-group academic performance but did not change African American

students’ reports of stereotype threat; (2) the intervention did not have a significant

impact on racial gap in GPAs with Black college students receiving lower grades, which

remained even after controlling for stereotype threat; and (3) malleability beliefs did not

mediate the association between the malleability intervention and later GPA.

Cohen et al. (2006) used a self-affirmation intervention with African American

students in middle school which improved their academic performance, but

intervention outcomes were not correlated with their measure of stereotype threat.

Finally, an intervention that framed a difficult academic task as a challenge instead

of a threat improved Black college students performance (Alter et al. 2010).

However Alter et al. (2010) acknowledged, ‘‘Although those studies suggested that

challenge-framing is more adaptive, they did not directly measure performance in

stereotype-threatening contexts’’ (p. 170). Given this state of affairs, closer scrutiny

of the internal validity of experimental research on stereotype threat among African

Americans is warranted.

Concerns about the generalizability of the stereotype threat phenomenon, and its

significance for the Black–White achievement gap in the broader society, have also

been raised by some scholars (Sackett et al. 2004; Whaley 1998, 2009; Whaley and

Noel 2011). New developments in stereotype threat research on African Americans

that have yielded additional information about internal validity will be covered. The

main issues related to internal validity that have emerged are consistency in

operational definitions of stereotype threat; the race prime effect as a source of

stereotype threat activation; equivalence of stereotype threat effects across social

categories; and the link between stereotype threat and disidentification.

Next, the status of research on the external validity of stereotype threat effects

will be discussed. Quantitative review of the social psychology literature revealed

mostly failures to replicate laboratory experiments with college students in field

studies and survey research (Mitchell 2012). Along these lines, one major issue of

external validity deserving attention is the discrepancy between college laboratory

experiments and survey or field studies of stereotype threat. Stereotype research in

secondary schools versus college populations is another question of generalizability

to be addressed. Finally, the implications of these advances vis-à-vis validity issues

in stereotype threat research and racial disparities in education or the achievement

gap will be discussed.

2 The internal validity of stereotype threat research

2.1 Consistency in operational definitions of stereotype threat

Experimental research on stereotype research has tested various mechanisms and

used different measures to operationalize stereotype threat, and this inconsistency

114 A. L. Whaley

123

has implications for the internal validity of these studies (Shapiro and Neuberg

2007). Research on stereotype threat in college settings has evolved with

experiments demonstrating that the phenomenon can be captured using self-report

instruments (Marx and Goff 2005; McKay et al. 2002, 2003; Sawyer and Hollis-

Sawyer 2005). The use of self-report measures of stereotype threat in college

surveys is an important advance that made explicit the lack of consistency in the

operational definitions of the construct.

Stereotype threat was defined with measures of internalization of stereotypes,

externalization of stereotypes, performance burden, and academic effort in Owen

and Massey’s (2011) study. Fischer (2010) used measures of performance burden

and number of hours studied (as a proxy for disidentification) for her stereotype

threat variables. Van Laar et al. (2008) used measures of stereotype threat related to

personal identity (i.e., individual harmed by stereotype) versus social identity (i.e.,

group harmed by stereotype). These survey research findings are consistent with

recent experiments conducted by Shapiro (2011) demonstrating the importance of

this self-group distinction to understanding stereotype threat effects. Moreover, if

one compares the measure of performance burden to the measures used in Van Laar

et al.’s (2008) study, it would become evident that the measure of performance

burden confounds personal identity and social identity stereotype threat.

The Stereotype Vulnerability Scale also has items assessing both personal

identity threat and social identity threat (see Woodcock et al. 2012). Van Laar et al.

(2008) have shown that the connection between personal identity threat and social

identity threat is through perceptions of discrimination. Thus perceived discrim-

ination may be the driving force behind stereotype threat vulnerability. This would

be an example of what Campbell (1996) refers to as an irrelevant responsive

measure affecting the stereotype threat phenomenon. An early critique of stereotype

threat theory considered experiences with discrimination as an alternative expla-

nation for low test performance among African American students (Whaley 1998).

Consistent with this view, Thames et al. (2013) compared stereotype threat and

perceived discrimination as competing explanatory variables for Black examinees’

poor performance during neuropsychological testing and found a greater impact of

the latter.

In a couple of qualitative studies, African American college students reported

experiences of stereotype threat vulnerability when they were the lone student of

color in classrooms (Johnson-Ahorlu 2013; Solórzano et al. 2000). This vulnera-

bility stemmed from interactions with White professors who questioned their

academic abilities. Study participants expressed a desire to have other Black

students in their classes to validate their perceptions of discrimination (Solórzano

et al. 2000). These findings differ from the traditional stereotype threat paradigm in

that apprehension is based on actual experiences. They also point to a feature of

stereotype threat experiments that are associated with discriminatory experiences.

African American students also tend to be tested alone in these experiments which

may remind them of the solo status as victims of discrimination. In fact, Alter et al.

(2010) demonstrated empirically that ‘‘minority representation-engenders-threat’’ is

a viable explanation for stereotype threat effects. Individual testing situations may

result in interaction effects of testing (Campbell 1996). Whether the accumulation

Advances in stereotype threat research on African Americans… 115

123

of discriminatory experiences increase stereotype threat vulnerability to the point of

being triggered by subtle cues is a question to be considered in future research.

Some innovative strategies have been used to activate stereotype threat. Writing

about experiences with discrimination has been used as a stimulus for stereotype

activation in several studies (Inzlicht and Kang 2010; Inzlicht et al. 2011). Howard

and Anderson (2010) used a visual display of data on the achievement gap to induce

stereotype threat in middle school students. Both of these strategies are indirect and

require inferential thinking by targets. Stereotype threat may be the response, but

the indirect nature of these approaches opens them to multiple interpretations. For

example, these techniques may stimulate feelings of mistrust of educational

institutions among African American students in high school (Whaley and Smyer

1998) or college (Caldwell and Obasi 2010). Cultural mistrust among African

Americans has been found to be pervasive in many aspects of Black life including

cognitive testing and educational environments (Whaley 2001a, b). Given the

broader applications of stereotype threat to different racial disparities, a question for

future consideration is the relative contributions of stereotype threat versus cultural

mistrust to ethnic and racial differences in health, education, and criminal justice

and other social domains.

Consistent with ideomotor theory, these techniques may produce adverse

behavioral outcomes through enhanced stereotype accessibility instead of increasing

feelings of stereotype threat (Wheeler and Petty 2001). In other words, it is quite

possible that methods of stereotype activation that do not involve feelings of threat

can lead to the same performance outcomes. Alternatively, in a discussion of their

MFT, Shapiro and Neuberg (2007) asserted that the use of different operational

definitions to represent a unitary construct of stereotype threat may lead to the

erroneous conclusion that they measure the same thing. Without uniformity in the

operationalization of stereotype threat, the circumstances under which the

phenomenon accounts for academic underachievement and performance decrements

on nonacademic tasks among African Americans remain unclear.

2.2 Race prime effect as a source of stereotype threat activation

Another challenge to the internal validity of stereotype threat research is responding

to inquiries about ethnicity/race as a prime for stereotype threat activation. Steele

and Aronson demonstrated that simply having study participants indicate their

ethnicity/race on a form immediately before the task was sufficient to activate

stereotype threat. Field experiments of national samples of high school students

taking the SATs failed to replicate this finding (Stricker 2008; Stricker and Ward

2004). Steele et al. (2002) asserted that actual standardized testing situations like the

SAT or GRE are resistant to stereotype threat manipulations, because there is a

ceiling effect on the level of threat from the normal pressures to perform related to

the implications for students’ future.

Following the above logic, level of difficulty of SAT or GRE items should be

associated with intensity of performance apprehension when the diagnosticity of

these exams is salient. Stricker and Bejar (2004) found support for this hypothesis in

their experiment with White and female students taking the GRE, but there was no

116 A. L. Whaley

123

significant effect for level of test item difficulty and diagnosticity for African

American students. Their findings rule out ceiling effects as explanations for the

failure to find a priming effect in GRE and SAT field studies.

Mello et al. (2012) combined the traditional prime with a measure of ethnic

identity in their instructions on filling out a demographic form. Because Mello et al.

(2012) did not separate out ethnic identity from the prime, the lower scores on the

measure of school belonging cannot be attributed exclusively to stereotype threat

with absolute certainty.

In a quasi-experiment with archival data from civil service exams for several jobs

categories, Kirnan et al. (2009) found a small, but significant, priming effect for

racial self-identification before versus after the exam: No significant effect in a

second experiment with college students was evident. This set of findings is contrary

to the pattern of results that tend to show larger effects for college students than the

general population (Peterson 2001). Kirnan et al. (2009) conducted a third

experiment, an analogue study of employment testing among community college

students, comparing priming effect and diagnosticity conditions. The diagnosticity

condition classified the test as a ‘‘measure of intelligence and predictive of job

success.’’ The results showed a significant priming effect and a nonsignficant

diagnosticity condition effect on community college students’ performance.

Stone et al. (2012) used two different primes in a study of Black and White

college athletes. Study participants received a booklet of a 40-item verbal analogies

test with one of three statements on the cover page corresponding to experimental

conditions. They had to check a box next to the statement to indicate whether they

were an athlete, student–athlete, or study participant. Their findings revealed poorer

performance for ‘‘academically engaged’’ African American athletes than their

European American counterparts in the two prime conditions. The worst perfor-

mance was in the student–athlete prime condition. Stone et al. also found an athlete

prime effect on easy test items for academically disengaged African American

athletes which they claim was not due to stereotype threat activation. Taken

together, these different studies suggest that race prime effects as a source of

stereotype activation is inconclusive at best.

2.3 Equivalence of stereotype threat effects across social categories

One of the tacit assumptions underlying the stereotype threat research is that

reactions to gender-related threat and different ethnic/racial group threats are

interchangeable phenomena. Several examples of this assumption are evident in the

stereotype threat research literature. Danaher and Crandall (2008) provided an

alternative interpretation of results from Stricker and Ward (2004) in terms of their

practical significance for women taking standardized tests. One thing pointed out by

Stricker and Ward (2008) in their reply was the fact that the data for African

Americans were ignored.

In their test of stereotype threat theory in four studies on women and one on a

multicultural sample in Canada, Inzlicht and Kang (2010) admitted that they

expected similar effects across the different social identity categories: They began

their general discussion with a quote about the Black experience from the main

Advances in stereotype threat research on African Americans… 117

123

character of the novel, Native Son, by African American writer Richard Wright and

then proceeded to discuss the findings from the studies of Canadian college women

of European ancestry, as if experiences of stereotype threat by Black males and

White females are interchangeable. Their discussion also implies that the Black

experience in Canada and the United States are comparable. Such perspectives on

stereotype threat effects are contrary to the literature addressing multiple social

categories.

A few researchers acknowledge the need to test gender-related stereotype threat

hypotheses within ethnic/racial groups (e.g., Walker and Bridgeman 2008).

Activation of negative stereotypes may elicit very different reactions in African

Americans in comparison to (European American) women, because each of these

groups has been exposed to a diverse stigmatization process in society with varying

emotional responses to being placed in a stereotype threat situation (Kit et al. 2008).

Consistent with this view, Wout et al. (2009, Experiment 5) found perceived

probability of being stereotyped by the evaluator mediated the relationship between

stereotype threat and test performance for Black students but not (White) female

students. Stricker and Bejar (2004) found greater stereotype threat activation for

women than Black students in a GRE test difficulty study.

Studies that consider the intersectionality of race and gender tend to find African

American females are more similar to African American males than to European

American females, which is also consistent with the finding of a stronger racial

identity threat (Morgan and Mehta 2004). Tine and Gotlieb (2013) also found

stereotype threat based on race to be stronger than on gender. Specifically, these

researchers found that race as a single stigmatizing identity has significant

stereotype threat effects, but gender did not have such effects (Tine and Gotlieb

2013). Nguyen and Ryan’s (2008) meta-analytic review revealed that stereotype

threat effects were stronger, and interventions to alleviate it less effective, for

African Americans compared to women of European ancestry.

Black females tend to have the same stereotype expectations as Black males on

White college campuses (Chavous et al. 2004). This fact may play a major role in

the outcomes of stereotype threat studies that disaggregate ethnicity/race and

gender. Relatively stronger stereotype threat effects for ethnic/racial identity versus

gender identity have also been found in non-African American groups (Gonzales

et al. 2002; Inzlicht, and Kang 2010). Taken together, these findings suggest that the

stereotype threat phenomenon has differential impact across social groups with the

effects being greater for ethnicity/race compared to gender. More stereotype threat

research is needed to explore the intersectionality of race and gender among African

Americans.

One study examined the interaction of ethnicity/race and socioeconomic status

with regard to stereotype threat effects on psychosocial outcomes including math

and verbal tests, effort exerted, domain identification, test anxiety, and self-esteem

(Harrison et al. 2006). Across the multiple outcome variables, low-income students

had more adverse outcomes due to stereotype threat effects which were not

moderated by ethnicity/race. In contrast, the study by Tine and Gotlieb (2013) found

the intersection of gender, ethnicity/race, and income to produce the strongest

stereotype threat effects on math performance and working memory than any of

118 A. L. Whaley

123

these identities singularly, and that (low) income-based stigmatizing identity

appeared to be the most susceptible in terms of stereotype threat. Both of these

studies suggest that socioeconomic status is more susceptible to stereotype threat

effects than ethnicity/race.

However, such findings could be methodological artifacts. The ethnicity variable

in the Harrison et al. (2006) study was simply a White/non-White classification. The

non-White category included Black, Asian, Hispanic, American Indian, and Arab

American college students. Asian students may have different outcomes than Black

and Latino students from stereotype threat effects (Armenta 2010; Fischer 2010;

Owens and Massey 2011). The null results found for ethnicity/race by Harrison

et al. (2006) may be due to group misclassification. Indeed Tien and Gotlieb

recognize the conflation of ethnicity/race and income in the U.S. as the possible

driving force behind their intersectional stereotype threat effects. This assumption is

supported in the social psychological literature on racial stereotyping of Black

subgroups. Using an attribute listing task, Devine and Baker (1991) found

significant overlap in stereotypic traits between the general category of ‘‘Black’’ and

those of ‘‘streetwise Black’’, ‘‘welfare Black’’, and ‘‘ghetto Black’’, but not ‘‘Black

athlete’’ or ‘professional Black’’. These findings suggest that negative stereotypes

about African Americans in general are associated with the lower SES segment of

the population.

Clearly, the assumption of equivalence across social groups is also evident in

stereotype threat studies with students of different ethnic/racial backgrounds.

Combining multiple ethnic/racial groups including African Americans into a single

sample would also be consistent with this implicit assumption (see Harrison et al.

2006; Howard and Anderson 2010; Mello et al. 2012; Osborne and Walker 2006;

Tine and Gotlieb 2013). Some research suggests that stereotype threat effects may

also vary between different ethnic/racial groups. When Osborne and Walker (2006)

disaggregated their data to examine ethnic/racial differences in the association

between academic identification and school withdrawal, their standardized coeffi-

cients showed the strongest effect for Native American students, followed in

magnitude by African American students, and lastly Hispanic students. Unfortu-

nately, Osborne and Walker (2006) did not indicate whether these ethnic/racial

differences were statistically significant.

College surveys have also revealed ethnic/racial differences in response to

stereotype threat for African American versus Hispanics college freshman (Owens

and Massey 2011; Woodcock et al. 2012). In particular, Owens and Massey (2011)

found a better fit to their data for separate structural equation models for Black and

Hispanic students compared to the two groups combined. Nadler and Clark (2011)

found, however, no ethnic/racial differences across multiple studies between

African American and Hispanic participants in conditions which actively nullify

stereotype threat or control conditions where it is inactive. Methodological

differences may account for these contradictory findings. The college surveys were

longitudinal studies examining the impact of stereotype threat variables on

academic performance. In contrast, Nadler and Clark conducted a meta-analysis

of experimental studies of interventions to reduce stereotype threat effects.

Advances in stereotype threat research on African Americans… 119

123

Stereotype threat effects on various ethnic/racial groups may or may not be similar

depending on the methodology used and particular groups studied.

Even though similar stereotypes may be ascribed to various ethnic/racial groups,

their relevance in mainstream of American society may be different. Anti-black

stereotypes and anti-Hispanic stereotypes differ in some meaningful ways in

mainstream White American society. For example, Dixon and Rosenbaum (2004)

found the percentage of African Americans in a county or metropolitan area was

associated with increased ratings of group threat by European American respon-

dents to the General Social Survey, but no such association was evident for the

percentage of Hispanics. Another study of a nationally representative sample of

White respondents’ attitudes toward homeless persons revealed a tendency to

associate the ‘‘lazy’’ stereotype with Hispanics and the ‘‘violent’’ stereotype with

Blacks (Whaley and Link 1998). These studies suggest that particular ethnic/racial

stereotypes are more strongly associated with African Americans than Latinos in

American society.

Even in stereotype threat research itself these ethnic/racial differences may be

manifested. Van Laar et al. (2008) found that Hispanic students may be more likely

than African American students to believe that they are affirmative action

admissions to college. Woodcock et al. (2012) found that racial composition of

the college environment had a mitigating effect on stereotype threat for African

American students but not Latino students. There are also ethnic differences within

the Black college population. Second generation African Caribbean immigrants

tend to display similar levels of stereotype threat vulnerability as African

Americans, whereas their first generation counterparts do not (Deaux et al. 2007;

Owens and Lynch 2012; Owens and Massey 2011). Owens and Lynch (2012)

reported a similar pattern of generational effects for Hispanic immigrant students.

Moreover, immigrants’ generational status led to more significant stereotype threat

effects than racial group classification (Owens and Lynch 2012). This latter result

should be interpreted with caution due to the ethnic heterogeneity within the

Hispanic subsample and no precise measure of ethnic/racial identities. In

conjunction, the bulk of the studies using multiple social groups challenge the

view that stereotype threat effects are equivalent across these different groups.

2.4 The link between stereotype threat and disidentification

The disidentification hypothesis is a conceptual extension of stereotype threat

theory. In particular, Steele (1997) and Steele et al. (2002) asserted that chronic

experiences of stereotype threat result in disidentification with academics. Empirical

studies of the direct effects of academic disidentification on African American

students are not convincing. Morgan and Mehta (2004) found partial support for

disidentification among Black students during high school, while Woodcock et al.

(2012) found no mediational effect of disidentification with science for African

American STEM college majors. Fischer (2010) used number of hours studied as a

proxy measure of disidentification with significant findings. However, she found

that number of hours studied operated independent of race which calls the variable

into question as a measure of disidentification for students of color.

120 A. L. Whaley

123

School dropout is another behavioral manifestation of this disidentification with

academics (Steele 1997; Steele et al. 2002). Osborne and Walker (2006)

investigated the relationship between academic identification and school withdrawal

among ethnic/racial minority students over a 2-year period. Consistent with

stereotype threat theory, highly academically identified students of color were more

likely to leave school before graduation. Academically identified students were

defined by high academic performance. A major shortcoming of studies testing the

disidentification hypothesis is the absence of a direct measure of the construct in the

majority of these studies (Osborne and Jones 2011). Without direct measures of

academic disidentification, research implicating it as a response to stereotype threat

remains a matter of conjecture.

Also, Osborne and Jones (2011) pointed out that there are different pathways to

academic identification. These pathways include cultural mistrust (Caldwell and

Obasi 2010; Whaley and Smyer 1998), a weak racial identity (Chavous et al. 2003;

Cohen and Garcia 2005), response to social injustice or discrimination (Fine 1983;

Wong et al. 2003), and stigma consciousness (Brown and Lee 2005). These

pathways are also inferred from low academic performance or dropping out of high

school. Future research should consider direct measures of disidentification along

with additional measures reflecting the different pathways in order to provide

unequivocal evidence of academic disidentification as a response to chronic

stereotype threat.

3 The external validity of stereotype threat research

The lack of external validity of stereotype threat studies is recognized as a major

shortcoming (e.g., Whaley 1998). For this and other reasons, Sackett et al. (2004)

questioned the applicability of the research to everyday experiences of people of

color in achievement-related contexts of the regular social environment. Efforts to

bring the stereotype research into more ecologically valid social contexts have met

with limited success. Three lines of research attempt to test the generalizability of

stereotype threat theory; surveys of college populations; employment and personnel

selection; and research on K-12 students.

3.1 From laboratory experiments to surveys of college populations

As previously mentioned, the development of self-report measures of stereotype

threat has allowed researchers to move beyond laboratory settings on college

campuses. Longitudinal studies of college freshmen with self-report measures of

stereotype threat effects on subsequent academic outcomes have been conducted

(Fischer 2010; Owens and Massey 2011; Van Laar et al. 2008; Woodcock et al.

2012). Fischer (2010) and Owens and Massey (2011) analyzed data from the

National Longitudinal Survey of Freshmen (NLSF), a national probability sample of

approximately 4000 freshman who matriculated at 28 selective colleges and

universities across the United States, to test stereotype threat theory.

Advances in stereotype threat research on African Americans… 121

123

Fischer’s (2010) study demonstrated that stereotype threat impacts the three

outcomes studied: GPA, satisfaction with campus social life, and on-time

graduation. Her results with GPA and satisfaction with campus social life as the

outcomes remained significant for stereotype threat variables after controlling all

other variables in the regression model. However, the significant stereotype threat

effect on 4-year or on-time graduation rates with ethnic/racial differences in this

outcome among Black and Hispanic students versus Whites and Asian students tend

to be eliminated when grades, social life satisfaction, and racial climate on campus

are taken into consideration. In other words, these factors overshadow the effect of

stereotype threat which is defined as performance burden in the study.

Owens and Massey (2011) applied structural equation modeling (SEM) to the

NLSF data in order to test their model of stereotype threat effects on GPA an

academic year later. In the SEM model, they found ‘‘internalization’’ (i.e., extent of

endorsement of the stereotypes of lazy, unintelligent, gives up easily) mediated by

academic effort; and ‘‘externalization’’ (perceived racial discrimination) mediated

by performance burden as indicators of stereotype threat, both impact academic

performance one and two semesters later. These researchers found support for the

model with better fit for Blacks and Hispanics separately. Internalization and

externalization were empirically shown to be distinct stereotype threat constructs.

The distinction corresponds to the difference between stereotype threat and

perceived discrimination described earlier (Thames et al. 2013; Whaley 1998). The

externalization of negative racial stereotypes was statistically significant for African

Americans but not Hispanic students. Finally, contrary to stereotype theory, they

found a direct, positive effect of internalization of negative stereotypes threat on

academic performance across groups.

Another survey of African Americans and Latinos from a large representative

sample of freshmen entering the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)

assessed students’ beliefs about their affirmative action status moderated by

personal identity and social identity threats in relation to GPA a year later (Van Laar

et al. 2008). The main analyses were conducted on the two ethnic/racial groups as a

combined sample. Regression models provided convergent evidence that students of

color who believed that their admission was due to affirmative action, and

expressing high personal identity threat or social identity threat, had lower academic

performance a year later. Consistent with stereotype threat theory, college students

of color who believed that they were an affirmative action admission had lower

GPAs than those who did not endorse that belief. This effect was moderated by

personal identity threat among those who had low identification with their ethnic

group.

Woodcock et al. (2012) studied a 3-year panel of data on students majoring in

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) drawn from the first

three academic years of data from The Science Study, a study of predominantly

African American and Hispanic/Latino(a) students. They found that stereotype

threat in Year 1 led to disidentification with the science major in Year 2 and lack of

intention to pursue graduate studies in their STEM field in Year 3. However, this

direct effect over time was significant for Hispanic students but not African

Americans. Specifically, stereotype threat effect at Year 1 only impacted science

122 A. L. Whaley

123

disidentification at Year 2 for Hispanic students. According to Woodcock et al.

(2012) the nonsignificant stereotype threat effect for African American STEM

students could be due to either this group discounting negative feedback or

attending a historically Black college or university.

For the most part, the results of these longitudinal survey studies were consistent

with hypotheses derived from stereotype threat theory. Owens and Massey (2011)

consider their study a ‘‘real-world’’ application of stereotype threat theory. Fischer

(2010) makes a relatively more conservative point that college GPA is a more real-

world measure of academic performance. One issue that is germane to the efforts to

establish the generalizability of the stereotype threat phenomenon is the difference

between within-group external validity and between-group external validity

(Whaley and Noel 2011). The use of college students of different ethnic/racial

groups is considered between-group generalizability, but the examination of a given

ethnic/racial group in different social contexts is within-group generalizability. The

distinction between laboratory experiments and field studies of college students

would be another example of between-group generalizability. In other words, the

social environment and the group studied represent the same segment of the

population applying different research methodologies. Within-group generalizabil-

ity requires a change in social context. Moreover, the notion that use of survey

methodologies in college settings represents real-world applications of stereotype

threat theory may involve circular reasoning.

Stereotype threat theory emerged from observations of academic underperfor-

mance by students of color and females in college (Steele 2003, 2007). Sears (1986)

indicated that the limitations of research in college settings have to do with both the

research methodology and the subject population. Along these lines, Sears (1986)

stated,

Most obviously, undergraduates usually come from a very narrow age range

and are concentrated at the upper levels of educational background. Those

who work extensively with survey data on the general population are

accustomed to finding that age and education are the two most powerful

demographic factors influencing attitudes and attitudinal processes. This alone

leads us to suspect that those at the tails of those distributions will be a shaky

foundation upon which to generalize to the population as a whole (p. 521).

In support of Sear’s (1986) assertion, a second order meta-analysis or research

synthesis of multiple meta-analytic studies, comparing college students and

nonstudent adults on several psychological and behavioral characteristics, revealed

more homogeneity of effect sizes for college students (Peterson 2001). Peterson

(2001) also found effects in the opposite direction and smaller magnitude for some

measures in the nonstudent adults.

Howard and Anderson (2010) pointed out that the voluntary nature of college

attendance is another factor differentiating college and noncollege populations.

They explained that academic interests decline over time for most people, so all

college attendees will be more academically identified than the general population

on some level. Being highly academically identified is one of the necessary

conditions for stereotype threat effects (Steele 1997; Steele et al. 2002). Based on

Advances in stereotype threat research on African Americans… 123

123

this argument, we can assert that college populations are particularly vulnerable to

stereotype threat. Even Whaley (1998) who questions the external validity of

stereotype threat research conceded this point.

3.2 Employment testing and personnel selection contexts

Both analogue studies and applications to actual work settings have been used to

examine stereotype threat effects on African Americans. Flanagan and Green (2011)

demonstrated stereotype threat effects in an analogue experiment of manual labor

with college students sorting and assembling nuts and bolts, as well as completing

the more typical academic math test. They found a significant stereotype threat

effect on African American college students for both the nonacademic and academic

tasks. However, such findings do not negate the fact that this analogue task may

have little relevance for individuals who actually work as manual laborers.

Research on personnel selection tests and in actual employment situations often

yield weak to no support for hypotheses derived from stereotype threat theory. For

example, Chung et al. (2010) tested a SEM model of stereotype threat effects on

performance among African American and Caucasian civil servants on job

promotions examinations. The measures of ethnic identification, stereotype threat,

social anxiety, and specific self-efficacy were all self-report. The hypothesized

effects of race and ethnic identification through stereotype threat through social

anxiety through specific self-efficacy to test performance were supported. They

reported, however, that the effect sizes were weak. In addition to the mediational

model, racial group membership had a direct effect on test performance with

African American applicants obtaining lower scores. Chung et al. also reported no

significant direct effect of stereotype threat on job promotions test performance

which is at odds with the theory.

Consistent with stereotype threat theory, Kirnan et al. (2009) conducted three

studies of the priming effects of writing one’s race on a test form. These studies

were described earlier so the current focus will be on effect sizes. The priming

condition was only statistically significant in Study 1 accounting for \ 1% of the variance. In Study 2, there was a significant main effect for ethnicity but not priming

condition. Only ethnicity/race and priming condition yielded statistically significant

effects in Study 3. Ethnicity accounted for 3% of the variance in test performance

for job applicants, while it explained approximately 10% to 14% of college students

cognitive test performance. The priming condition explained 10% of the variance in

Study 3. The lack of an effect for diagnostic instructions is also a noteworthy

finding. Cullen et al. (2004) demonstrated a significant positive relationship between

Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery and job performance for African

American soldiers, which is at odds with stereotype threat theory. A nonlinear

relationship is predicted due to stereotype threat leading to underperformance by the

highest ability African Americans.

Finally, Gillespie et al. (2010) developed instructions guided by interventions to

eliminate stereotype threat effects in employment testing situations. Instructions

based on interventions from the stereotype threat literature were compared to

standard instructions in two separate field experiments of individuals taking a civil

124 A. L. Whaley

123

service test. African American applicants in the threat-reduced instructions

condition did not perform any better than those in the standard instruction or

control condition. Taken together, the empirical studies of stereotype threat in the

employment and personnel selection context challenge the generalizability of

stereotype threat research on academic performance in college populations to testing

in employment situations.

3.3 Stereotype threat and K-12 students

Negative racial stereotypes impact African American children as young as

preschool age. The classic Clark doll studies are a testament to this fact (Clark

and Clark 1939, 1940). Although the interpretation of the Clarks’ studies as

indications of Black children’s low self- esteem has not been supported by

contemporary research, the White preference behavior and more applicably the

negative characteristics attributed to Black dolls, reflect exposure to these negative

stereotypes in the broader society (Whaley 1993). Another study examined the

endorsement of race and gender stereotypes regarding musical, sports, and academic

abilities by Black and White students of both genders in 4th, 6th, and 8th grades

(Rowley et al. 2007). A major finding was that older children tend to ascribe to

traditional stereotypes more than middle childhood students. One specific finding,

which has implications for stereotype threat theory, was that Black fourth graders

perceived their own group to be more academically competent than White students,

but there was a reversal for Black sixth and eighth graders. Consistent with a

developmental perspective, the shift from middle childhood to early adolescence is

associated with the adoption of the racial stereotypes from mainstream culture.

Devine (1989) demonstrated empirically the difference between knowledge of racial

stereotypes and prejudice. Following the same line of reasoning, it is important to

note the critical distinction between knowledge of racial stereotypes and stereotype

threat. Future research should determine how early in the developmental trajectory

for African American children does stereotype threat affect academic performance.

Kellow and Jones (2005, 2008) conducted two studies of African American high

school students in which they administered a test of visual spatial ability. The

diagnostic condition presented the test as diagnostic of mathematical ability, and the

control condition described it as a racial and gender fair test. They claimed that their

results supported stereotype threat theory. However, a methodological and

conceptual critique of these studies argued that the researchers overstated the

significance of their results (Whaley 2009). For example, they found no statistically

significant difference between diagnostic and nondiagnostic conditions for African

Americans, but significantly higher performance for European American students in

the diagnostic condition. Moreover, in the 2008 study, Kellow and Jones measured a

number of psychological factors (e.g., low performance expectancy) associated with

stereotype threat effects with no significant results.

Howard and Anderson (2010) compared the effects of stereotype threat and prior

standardized test performance on expectations of standardized test performance

administered via computer simulation to a combined sample of African American

and Latino 7th grade students. Prior standardized test performance was divided into

Advances in stereotype threat research on African Americans… 125

123

low, moderate, and high levels. The stereotype threat manipulation involved

showing students data on the achievement gap in standardized test performance for

African Americans and Latinos versus Whites and Asian Americans. There were

two noteworthy findings: (1) prior standardized test performance was a much

stronger predictor of simulated standardized test performance than stereotype threat

condition; and (2) there was only a stereotype threat effect for students who

performed at the moderate level on a prior standardized test. The fact that high prior

performance resulted in an expectancy effect similar to low prior performance in the

high threat condition casts doubt on the notion of highly academically identified

students being most vulnerable to stereotype threat.

Mello et al. (2012) tested stereotype threat theory in a sample of high school

students with a measure of ‘‘school belonging’’ as the outcome. A combined sample

of African American, Latino, and American Indian students designated as the

‘‘marginalized group’’ was compared to the ‘‘nonmarginalized group’’ of European

Americans and Asian Americans. Students who filled out the demographic form,

including ethnicity/race and a measure of ethnic identity, before the measure of

school belonging were in the stereotype threat condition, while those who filled out

demographics after the target measure were in the control condition. The results

supported stereotype threat theory with a marginalized group main effect qualified

by a marginalized group by threat condition interaction effect. Mean scores on the

measure of school belonging were significantly lower for the marginalized group in

the threat condition than their counterparts in the control condition.

Students in the secondary school population closest in age to college students,

namely high school students, have not even received adequate attention in the

stereotype threat literature. Thus the larger issue is the generalizability of stereotype

threat effects to the K-12 student population in testing situations. In his 2007

presidential address to the Division of Evaluation, Measurement, and Statistics at

the American Educational Research Association annual meeting, Stricker (2008)

summarized field studies of stereotype threat in high stakes testing situations

involving national samples of high school and college students. The bulk of the

research refuted hypotheses derived from stereotype threat theory. A couple of his

team’s experiments, determining whether inquiring about test-takers ethnicity or

gender before standardized tests served as primes for stereotype threat effects, did

not yield supportive evidence (Stricker and Ward 2004). Stricker (2008) even cited

research that counters the argument that the discrepancies between high-stakes

testing contexts and college laboratories is due to ceiling effects for stereotype

threat in the former situation. He and his colleagues (Stricker and Bejar 2004) also

presented evidence that stereotype threat effects with regard to test difficulty do not

occur for college students on GRE tests.

Cullen et al. (2004) predicted that the SAT-GPA association for African

Americans and women (of European descent) students would be nonlinear because

highly competent individuals would underperform due to stereotype threat. They

found linear relationships for all groups contradicting the hypothesis that the most

highly academically identified members of low status groups are most susceptible to

stereotype threat. Finally, experimental research suggests that stereotype threat

activated in one performance domain can ‘‘spill over’’ and adversely affect

126 A. L. Whaley

123

performance on an unrelated task (Inzlicht and Kang 2010; Inzlicht et al. 2011). A

field study of the stereotype threat spillover effect in the administration of the SATs

also was not consistent with these college laboratory findings (Walker and

Bridgeman 2008). Specifically, Walker and Bridgeman (2008) did not find poorer

performance on a reading section of the SAT when followed by a math section

among those students susceptible to math stereotype threat. Thus the stereotype

threat effect has not been demonstrated in real-world high-stakes testing situations

for college students as well as high school students.

Using four waves of data from the National Education Longitudinal Survey

(NELS), Morgan and Mehta (2004) tested three hypotheses derived from the notion

that stereotype threat leads to disidentification with education for African American

students, compared to European American counterparts, who were in 8th grade

(N = 9954) at baseline: (1) a weaker correlation between academic self-concept

and academic achievement; (2) a weaker correlation between global self-esteem and

academic self-concept; and (3) a progressively weaker correlation between global

self-esteem and academic achievement over time. The study results lent support to

the first hypothesis, but the second and third hypotheses were not confirmed. In

other words, Black students’ academic self-evaluations or sense of academic

competence was not related to their academic achievement in terms of GPA.

The significant correlations of global self-esteem to academic self-concept and

academic achievement are indicative of the value placed on education, in spite of

current academic achievement. According to Morgan and Mehta (2004), their

results reflect partial disidentification, or African American students’ belief that

their performance evaluations are racially biased. Other studies also found limited

support for the disidentification hypothesis from stereotype threat theory (Cokley

2002; Osborne 1995, 1997). The studies also reflected partial support for the

disidentification hypothesis. Steele’s notion of disidentification is not supported by

these findings, because African American students continued to value education.

Overall, the progression from laboratory studies of college students to college

surveys to field studies represent increasing real-world application and decreasing

empirical support for stereotype threat theory.

4 Implications for racial disparities in education

The relevance of stereotype threat research to racial disparities in education depends

on how closely the concepts and methodologies represent real-world academic

experiences of African Americans. Survey and field study methodologies began to

move closer to real-world experiences of African Americans. The bulk of the

research is laboratory studies on women of European ancestry (see Nguyen and

Ryan 2008). Conceptual and empirical arguments regarding the lack of exchange-

ability of gender-based and race-based stereotype threat research have been made

(Kit et al. 2008; Tine and Gotlieb 2013; Wout et al. 2009). Theory and research

indicating the limited generalizability of laboratory research on college students to

the broader population have also been presented (Mitchell 2012; Peterson 2001;

Advances in stereotype threat research on African Americans… 127

123

Sears 1986). Effect sizes and variance explained by stereotype threat variables is

very small in most survey and field studies.

The complex multivariate analyses in survey studies revealed other variables that

are more significant predictors of the achievement gap. School racial climate was

found to be one of those variables. Fischer (2010) found school racial climate to be a

better predictor of satisfaction with social life and on-time graduation than

stereotype threat-related variables.

This finding is generalizable to secondary school settings. Mattison and Aber

(2007) found school racial climate to play a significant role in the achievement gap

among high school students: African American students reported more negative

school racial climates than their European American counterparts which were

associated with lower GPAs, more detentions, and more suspensions. Wong et al.

(2003) reported that racial discrimination by teachers and peers had an adverse

effect on academic performance among Black adolescents in middle school from

7th grade to 8th grade. Interestingly, Fischer did not include the school racial

climate variable in the regression equation with GPA as a dependent variable.

Race of professor was substituted for racial climate in the GPA outcome model in

Fischer’s (2010) study. The effect size for race of professor was even larger than

that of school’s racial climate for the other dependent variables. African Americans

students who reported having professors of the same race reported higher GPAs than

those that did not (Fischer 2010). This finding is consistent with the race-of-

interviewer effects in college laboratory studies of stereotype threat effects on test

performance of African American students (Marx and Goff 2005; Wout et al. 2009).

Wout et al. found that African American students who were led to believe that the

evaluator expressed an unbiased view did not experience test performance

decrements in the stereotype threat condition. It is important to note, however,

that race-of-interviewer effect can occur independent of stereotype threat.

In a telephone survey about political knowledge in the population of the state of

Michigan, Davis and Silver (2003) found a significant race-of-interviewer effect,

but no effect of test diagnosticity (stereotype threat): Regardless of the actual race of

interviewer, African American respondents got fewer answers correct when they

believed the caller to be a White interviewer as opposed to a Black interviewer.

Craemer and Orey (2017) also found a race-of-interview effect on political

knowledge. These researchers experimentally manipulated the Black respondents’

perception of the interviewer by presenting a picture of a Black research team

versus White research team or a control condition of no picture. They attributed

their finding of a lower performance among Black college students (with high

implicit identification with their racial group) in the White interviewer condition to

stereotype threat. Craemer and Orey (2017) have a fatal flaw in their experimental

research design by invoking stereotype threat to explain race-of-interviewer effects

without a measure of the construct. Indeed Davis and Silver (2003) and Fischer

(2010) demonstrated that race of interviewer or teacher is more important than

stereotype threat when they are independently measured in a study.

Race-of-teacher effects in high school settings have yet to be systematically

studied, but research suggests that the quality of the student–teacher relationship is

positively correlated with Black students’ outcomes (Spencer 1999; Spencer et al.

128 A. L. Whaley

123

1997). Cokley (2003) reported a similar finding in a sample of African American

college students. A more recent study demonstrated that ‘‘caring attitudes’’ is the

dimension of student–professor interactions responsible for positive academic self-

concept among African American college students (Franklin et al. 2017). It is

unclear whether the teachers referenced by participants in these studies are African

American.

The underrepresentation of people of color in most public education settings

makes interracial teacher–student contact the norm in U.S. society. It is possible that

characteristics other than race, but probably more prevalent among Black

instructors, account for the beneficial effects on African American students’

academic performance. For instance, an ethnographic study revealed that African

American college students consider Black faculty more ‘‘student-centered’’ than

their White counterparts, because the former’s holistic approach to student

education and life is more akin to a parental role (Guiffrida 2005). Moreover,

Hilliard (1997) situates the view of the teacher role as an extension of the parental

role in the African tradition. Taken together, these different findings underscore the

importance of addressing sociocultural context in stereotype threat research.

The internal validity of the recent stereotype threat research on African

Americans is also suspect due to inconsistency in operational definitions,

inconclusive findings of race prime to activate stereotype threat, and the lack of

direct measures of academic disidentification. An operational definition of

stereotype threat relevant to the African American student experience is the

expectation of, and reactions to, interviewer or teacher bias. This conceptualization

of stereotype threat shifts the focus onto the behavior of the instructor or test

administrator. Morgan and Mehta (2004) offered devaluation of teacher feedback as

one possible explanation for their finding of continued interest in education in spite

of a weak correlation between current grades and academic self-concept among

African Americans in the NLES. Black students may have discounted their grades

because of perceived teacher bias.

Woodcock et al. (2012) suggested that their failure to find a disidentification

effect for African American students could be due to either their discounting of

performance feedback or attendance in a predominantly same-race college

environment. These explanations may not be mutually exclusive, because

attendance at historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) could lead to

diminished expectations of teacher bias. Even within the HBCU environment, Black

students express a greater affinity toward African American instructors relative to

their European American counterparts (Rucker and Gendrin 2003). Indeed, Smith

and Hopkins (2004) found that the HBCU environment mitigated against stereotype

threat effects for African American students. In conjunction, these studies provide

convergent evidence of the central role that African American faculty play in

reducing the Black–White achievement gap.

African American students who discount the teacher evaluations of their

academic abilities during high school have been vindicated by the work of Myerson

et al. (1998). Using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, Myerson

et al. (1998) demonstrated that Whites benefited more from education than Blacks

during the high school years, but Blacks benefited much more than Whites from a

Advances in stereotype threat research on African Americans… 129

123

college education, substantially reducing the racial disparities in academic

achievement. These findings are consistent with the notion that teacher evaluations

of African American students during high school do not accurately reflect their

academic abilities. Such findings in conjunction with field studies of standardized

test performance provide a strong challenge to the assumption that stereotype threat

is a major contributor to the achievement gap.

Moreover, advances in stereotype threat research highlight the relatively greater

importance of school racial climate and faculty diversity in efforts to reduce the

achievement gap. Indeed ethnographic research with Black students and the expert

opinion of African American scholars converge to suggest the need for a more

culturally-informed approach to student–teacher relationships (see Guiffrida 2005;

Hilliard 1997). Cultural competence training to eliminate bias in the perspectives of

White academic instructors in secondary schools and colleges should also be an

integral part of the campaign against racial disparities in education. A direction for

future research is to conduct qualitative work on non-African American instructors,

who are able to connect with Black students. Focus groups with African American

students to identify the characteristics that they consider protective against

expectations of teacher or evaluator bias could also be useful. That data could

then be used to develop a measure to determine whether African American students

are graded differently as a function of instructors’ scores on the new measure.

Another approach is to adapt existing measures of ‘‘master teacher’’ behaviors by

expanding them to address culturally competent student engagement across ethnic

or racial lines. There is a literature that includes a measure of master teaching,

Teacher Behavior Checklist, and methodologies to assess quality of classroom

teaching on college campuses (e.g., Keeley et al. 2016; Landrum and Stowell 2013).

One important finding from Keeley et al. (2016) was that master teachers place

more emphasis on rapport with students than the average college professor. The

degree to which this is generalizable to cross-cultural teaching situations may be a

starting point in addressing bias toward African American college students.

Stereotype threat research has spawned interventions that target primarily

African American students and ignore the sociocultural environment (see meta-

analyses by Nguyen and Ryan 2008; Nadler and Clark 2011). Kit et al. (2008)

pointed out that the individual-level interventions are less costly and more

achievable than trying to remove stereotype cues from the sociocultural environ-

ment. This is a valid point, but there are other considerations. First, recognizing

racial stereotyping as a fact of life does not mean interventions cannot be developed

for the perpetrators of negative racial stereotypes. Ethnographic research and the

expert opinion of African American scholars provide some guidance in this regard

(see Guiffrida 2005; Hilliard 1997). This approach could hypothetically improve the

racial climate in educational settings. Sincere efforts to increase the diversity of

educators to whom Black students are exposed is also a realistic goal. Second,

individual-level interventions place the onus on African American students to

accommodate a racist environment. If stereotype threat is truly a situational

variable, some research effort should be devoted to figuring out ways to change the

educational environment and not just the African American student. Otherwise,

130 A. L. Whaley

123

stereotype threat theory may be construed as a sophisticated means of blaming the

victim.

5 Conclusion

5.1 Limitations

The current review of the literature on advances in stereotype threat research on

African Americans has room for methodological improvements. First, the review is

qualitative, so current reports of effect size differences in experimental research

versus field studies or survey research are subjective. These differences should be

tested statistically in a quantitative review or meta-analysis. Another concern is the

literature on intervention research addressing stereotype threat among African

Americans was not fully covered. The review also focused exclusively on the

disparities in academic achievement, but there is a small but growing literature on

stereotype threat in health disparities and criminal justice. Whether concerns about

the application of stereotype threat to educational disparities can be extended to

other social problems is an important question. Lastly, future reviews of research on

stereotype threat theory should compare it to other explanatory frameworks for the

achievement gap such as school alienation, discontinuity between home and school

environments, cultural bias, and inadequate school funding and resources.

Hopefully, future reviews will include these methodological changes thereby

providing a more complete understanding about the role of stereotype threat in

African American achievement behavior.

5.2 Summary

The present article revealed continual problems with internal validity and external

validity within recent advances in stereotype threat research on African Americans.

Theoretical advances, including Shapiro and Neuberg’s (2007) MTF and Wheeler

and Petty’s (2001) application of ideomotor theory to stereotype threat activation,

led to the critical discussion of the relative influence of stereotype threat versus

perceived discrimination on Black students’ academic achievement. A method-

ological advance was the development of self-report measures of stereotype threat

which allowed for tests of multivariate models in survey research. This research

points to the need to shift the focus to faculty diversity, social justice philosophy,

and cultural competence training in secondary schools and higher education.

African Americans may be less concerned about stereotypes and more with

efforts to increase their representation in the student body and a philosophy of

diversity in academic settings (see Purdie-Vaughns et al. 2008). Strong support for

this assumption came from the intervention study by Alter et al. (2010) who used

underrepresentation as a ‘‘novel instantiation of threat’’ for African Americans.

Osborne and Jones (2011) recommended greater inclusiveness of African Amer-

icans among teachers and Africentric material in the curriculum to combat academic

disidentification. These recommendations receive support from literature on Black

Advances in stereotype threat research on African Americans… 131

123

college students’ expectations of faculty and African American scholars work on

teacher education (e.g., Guiffrida 2005; Hilliard 1997). Such recommendations are

not new but support for them within the context of advances in stereotype threat

research on African Americans is a testament to their enduring importance for the

elimination of the achievement gap.

References

Alter, A. L., Aronson, J., Darley, J. M., Rodriguez, C., & Ruble, D. N. (2010). Rising to the threat:

Reducing stereotype threat by reframing the threat as a challenge. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 46(1), 166–171.

Appel, M., Weber, S., & Kronberger, N. (2015). The influence of stereotype threat on immigrants:

Review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00900.

Armenta, B. E. (2010). Stereotype boost and stereotype threat effects: The moderating role of ethnic

identification. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16(1), 94–98. https://doi.org/10.

1037/a0017564.

Armstrong, B., Gallant, S. N., Li, L., Patel, K., & Wong, B. I. (2017). Stereotype threat effects on older

adults’ episodic and working memory: A meta-analysis. The Gerontologist, 57(suppl_2), S193–

S205.

Aronson, J., Burgess, D., Phelan, S. M., & Juarez, L. (2013). Unhealthy interactions: The role of

stereotype threat in health disparities. American Journal of Public Health, 103(1), 50–56.

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.

Barber, S. J. (2017). An examination of age-based stereotype threat about cognitive decline: Implications

for stereotype-threat research and theory development. Perspectives on Psychological Science,

12(1), 62–90.

Brown, R. P., & Lee, M. N. (2005). Stigma consciousness and the race gap in college academic

achievement. Self and Identity, 4(2), 149–157.

Burgess, D. J., Warren, J., Phelan, S., Dovidio, J., & Van Ryn, M. (2010). Stereotype threat and health

disparities: What medical educators and future physicians need to know. Journal of General Internal

Medicine, 25(2), 169–177.

Caldwell, T., & Obasi, E. M. (2010). Academic performance in African American undergraduates:

Effects of cultural mistrust, educational value, and achievement motivation. Journal of Career

Development, 36(4), 348–369.

Campbell, D. T. (1996). Unresolved issues in measurement validity: An autobiographic overview.

Psychological Assessment, 8(4), 363–368.

Carr, P. B., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Stereotype threat and inflexible perseverance in problem solving.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 853–859.

Chavous, T. M., Bernat, D. H., Schmeelk-Cone, K., Caldwell, C. H., Kohn-Wood, L., & Zimmerman, M.

(2003). Racial identity and academic achievement among African American adolescents. Child

Development, 74, 1076–1090.

Chavous, T. M., Harris, A., Rivas, D., Helaire, L., & Green, L. (2004). Racial stereotypes and gender in

context: African Americans at predominantly Black and predominantly White colleges. Sex Roles,

51(1–2), 1–16.

Chung, B. G., Ehrhart, M. G., Ehrhart, K. H., Hattrup, K., & Solamon, J. (2010). Stereotype threat, state

anxiety, and specific self-efficacy as predictors of promotion exam performance. Group and

Organization Management, 35(1), 77–107.

Clark, K. B., & Clark, M. K. (1939). The development of consciousness of self and the emergence of

racial identification in Negro preschool children. The Journal of Social Psychology, 10(4), 591–599.

Clark, K. B., & Clark, M. K. (1940). Skin color as a factor in racial identification of Negro preschool

children. The Journal of Social Psychology, 11(1), 159–169.

132 A. L. Whaley

123

Cohen, G. L., & Garcia, J. (2005). ‘‘I am us’’: Negative stereotypes as collective threat. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 566–582.

Cohen, G. L., Garcia, J., Apfel, N., & Master, A. (2006). Reducing the racial achievement gap: A social-

psychological intervention. Science, 313(5791), 1307–1310.

Cokley, K. O. (2002). Ethnicity, gender, and academic self-concept: A preliminary examination of

academic disidentification and implications for psychologists. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic

Minority Psychology, 8, 378–388.

Cokley, K. O. (2003). What do we know about the motivation of African American students? Challenging

the ‘‘anti-intellectual’’ myth. Harvard Educational Review, 73, 524–558.

Craemer, T., & Orey, D. A. (2017). Implicit Black identification and stereotype threat among African

American students. Social Science Research, 65, 163–180.

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.

Cullen, M. J., Hardison, C. M., & Sackett, P. R. (2004). Using SAT-grade and ability-job performance

relationships to test predictions derived from stereotype threat theory. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 89, 220–230.

Danaher, K., & Crandall, C. S. (2008). Stereotype threat in applied settings re-examined. Journal of

Applied Social Psychology, 38(6), 1639–1655.

Davis, D. W., & Silver, B. D. (2003). Stereotype threat and race of interviewer effects in a survey on

political knowledge. American Journal of Political Science, 47(1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/

1540-5907.00003.

Deaux, K., Bikmen, N., Gilkes, A., Ventuneac, A., Joseph, Y., Payne, Y. A., et al. (2007). Becoming

American: Stereotype threat effects in Afro-Caribbean immigrant groups. Social Psychology

Quarterly, 70(4), 384–404.

Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 56(1), 5–18.

Devine, P. G., & Baker, S. M. (1991). Measurement of racial stereotype subtyping. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(1), 44–50.

Dixon, J. C., & Rosenbaum, M. S. (2004). Nice to know you? Testing contact, cultural, and group threat

theories of anti-Black and anti-Hispanic stereotypes. Social Science Quarterly, 85(2), 257–280.

Fine, M. (1983). Perspectives on inequity: Voices from urban schools. Applied Social Psychology Annual,

4, 217–246.

Fischer, M. J. (2010). A longitudinal examination of the role of stereotype threat and racial climate on

college outcomes for minorities at elite institutions. Social Psychology of Education, 13, 19–40.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-009-9105-3.

Flanagan, J. L., & Green, R. J. (2011). Stereotype threat in manual labor settings for African American

and Caucasian participants. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 23(4), 89–112.

Franklin, A. S., Debb, S. M., & Colson, D. G. (2017). Predictors of academic self-concept for African

American College Students. Journal of Black Psychology, 43, 636–653. https://doi.org/10.1177/

0995798416671578.

Gillespie, J. Z., Converse, P. D., & Kriska, S. D. (2010). Applying recommendations from the literature

on stereotype threat: Two field studies. Journal of Business Psychology, 25, 493–504.

Gonzales, P. M., Blanton, H., & Williams, K. J. (2002). The effects of stereotype threat and double-

minority status on the test performance of Latino women. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 28(5), 659–670.

Guiffrida, D. (2005). Othermothering as a framework for understanding African American students’

definitions of student-centered faculty. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(6), 701–723.

Harrison, L. A., Stevens, C. M., Monty, A. N., & Coakley, C. A. (2006). The consequences of stereotype

threat on the academic performance of White and non-White lower income college students. Social

Psychology of Education, 9, 341–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-005-5456-6.

Hilliard, A. G. (1997). Teacher education from an African American perspective. In J. J. Irvine (Ed.),

Critical knowledge for diverse teachers and learners (pp. 125–148). Washington, DC: American

Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Howard, K. E., & Anderson, K. A. (2010). Stereotype threat in middle school: The effects of prior

performance on expectancy and test performance. Middle Grades Research Journal, 5(3), 119–137.

Advances in stereotype threat research on African Americans… 133

123

Inzlicht, M., & Kang, S. K. (2010). Stereotype threat spillover: How coping with threats to social identity

affects aggression, eating, decision making, and attention. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 99(3), 467–481.

Inzlicht, M., Tullett, A. M., Legault, L., & Kang, S. K. (2011). Lingering effects: Stereotype threat hurts

more than you think. Social Issues and Policy Review, 5(1), 227–256.

Johns, M., Inzlicht, M., & Schmader, T. (2008). Stereotype threat and executive resource depletion:

Examining the influence of emotion regulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,

137(4), 691–705.

Johnson-Ahorlu, R. N. (2013). ‘‘Our biggest challenge is stereotypes’’: Understanding stereotype threat

and the academic experiences of African American undergraduates. The Journal of Negro

Education, 82(4), 382–392.

Keeley, J. W., Ismail, E., & Buskist, W. (2016). Excellent teachers’ perspectives on excellent teaching.

Teaching of Psychology, 43(3), 175–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628316649307.

Kellow, J. T., & Jones, B. D. (2005). Stereotype threat in African American high school students: An

initial investigation. Current Issues in Education, 8(15). Retrieved October 18, 2008, from http://cie.

ed.asu.edu/volume8/number20.

Kellow, J. T., & Jones, B. D. (2008). The effects of stereotypes on the achievement gap: Reexamining the

academic performance of African American high school students. Journal of Black Psychology, 34,

94–120.

Kirnan, J. P., Alfieri, J. A., Bragger, J. D., & Harris, R. S. (2009). An investigation of stereotype threat in

employment tests. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(2), 359–388.

Kit, K. A., Tuokko, H. A., & Mateer, C. A. (2008). A review of the stereotype threat literature and its

application in a neurological population. Neuropsychology Review, 18(2), 132.

Landrum, R. E., & Stowell, J. R. (2013). The reliability of student ratings of master teacher behaviors.

Teaching of Psychology, 40(4), 300–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628313501043.

Lewis, N. A., & Sekaquaptewa, D. (2016). Beyond test performance: A broader view of stereotype threat.

Current Opinion in Psychology, 11, 40–43.

Marx, D. M., & Goff, P. A. (2005). Clearing the air: The effect of experimenter race on target’s test

performance and subjective experience. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 645–657.

Mattison, E., & Aber, M. S. (2007). Closing the achievement gap: The association of racial climate with

achievement and behavioral outcomes. American Journal of Community Psychology, 40, 1–12.

McKay, P. F., Doverspike, D., Bowen-Hilton, D., & Martin, Q. D. (2002). Stereotype threat effects on the

Raven Advanced Progressive Matrices scores of African Americans. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 32(4), 767–787.

McKay, P. F., Doverspike, D., Bowen-Hilton, D., & McKay, Q. D. (2003). The effects of demographic

variables and stereotype threat on Black/White differences in cognitive ability test performance.

Journal of Business and Psychology, 18(1), 1–14.

Mello, Z. R., Mallett, R. K., Andretta, J. R., & Worrell, F. C. (2012). Stereotype threat and school

belonging in adolescents from diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds. Journal of At- Risk Issues, 17(1),

9–14.

Mitchell, G. (2012). Revisiting truth or triviality: The external validity of research in the psychological

laboratory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(2), 109–117.

Morgan, S. L., & Mehta, J. D. (2004). Beyond the laboratory: Evaluating the survey evidence for the

disidentification explanation of Black–White differences in achievement. Sociology of Education,

77(1), 82–101.

Myerson, J., Rank, M. R., Raines, F. Q., & Schnitzler, M. A. (1998). Race and general cognitive ability:

The myth of diminishing returns to education. Psychological Science, 9(2), 139–142.

Nadler, J. T., & Clark, M. H. (2011). Stereotype threat: A meta-analysis comparing African Americans to

Hispanic Americans. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(4), 872–890.

Najdowski, C. J. (2011). Stereotype threat in criminal interrogations: Why innocent Black suspects are at

risk for confessing falsely. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17(4), 562.

Najdowski, C. J., Bottoms, B. L., & Goff, P. A. (2015). Stereotype threat and racial differences in

citizens’ experiences of police encounters. Law and Human Behavior, 39(5), 463.

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.

Osborne, J. W. (1995). Academics, self-esteem, and race: A look at the underlying assumptions of the

disidentification hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 449–455.

134 A. L. Whaley

123

Osborne, J. W. (1997). Race and academic disidentification. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89,

728–735.

Osborne, J. W., & Jones, B. D. (2011). Identification with academics and motivation to achieve in school:

How the structure of the self influences academic outcomes. Educational Psychology Review, 23(1),

131–158.

Osborne, J. W., & Walker, C. (2006). Stereotype threat, identification with academics, and withdrawal

from school: Why the most successful students of colour might be most likely to withdraw.

Educational Psychology, 26(4), 563–577.

Owens, J., & Lynch, S. M. (2012). Black and Hispanic immigrants’ resilience against negative- ability

racial stereotypes at selective colleges and universities in the United States. Sociology of Education,

85(4), 303–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040711435856.

Owens, J., & Massey, D. S. (2011). Stereotype threat and college academic performance: A latent

variables approach. Social Science Research, 40(1), 150–166.

Peterson, R. A. (2001). On the use of college students in social science research: Insights from a second-

order meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 450–461. https://doi.org/10.1086/323732.

Popham, L. E., & Hess, T. M. (2013). Age differences in the underlying mechanisms of stereotype threat

effects. Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 70(2),

223–232. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbt093.

Purdie-Vaughns, V., Steele, C. M., Davies, P. G., Ditlmann, R., & Crosby, J. R. (2008). Social identity

contingencies: How diversity cues signal threat or safety for African Americans in mainstream

institutions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(4), 615–630.

Rowley, S. J., Kurtz-Costes, B., Mistry, R., & Feagans, L. (2007). Social status as a predictor of race and

gender stereotypes in late childhood and early adolescence. Social Development, 16, 150–168.

Rucker, M. L., & Gendrin, D. M. (2003). The impact of ethnic identification on student learning in the

HBCU classroom. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 30(3), 207–215.

Ryan, K. E., & Ryan, A. M. (2005). Psychological processes underlying stereotype threat and

standardized math test performance. Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 53–63.

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, 7–13.

Sawyer, T. P., & Hollis-Sawyer, L. A. (2005). Predicting stereotype threat, test anxiety, and cognitive

ability test performance: An examination of three models. International Journal of Testing, 5(3),

225–246.

Scherbaum, C. A., Blanshetyn, V., Marshall-Wolp, E., McCue, E., & Strauss, R. (2011). Examining the

effects of stereotype threat on test-taking behaviors. Social Psychology of Education, 14(3),

361–375.

Schmader, T., Johns, M., & Forbes, C. (2008). An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on

performance. Psychological Review, 115(2), 336–356.

Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social

psychology’s view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(3), 515.

Shapiro, J. R. (2011). Different groups, different threats: A multi-threat approach to the experience of

stereotype threats. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(4), 464–480. https://doi.org/10.

1177/0146167211398140.

Shapiro, J. R., & Neuberg, S. L. (2007). From stereotype threat to stereotype threats: Implications of a

multi-threat framework for causes, moderators, mediators, consequences, and interventions.

Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(2), 107–130.

Smith, J. L. (2004). Understanding the process of stereotype threat: A review of mediational variables and

new performance goal directions. Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 177–206.

Smith, C. E., & Hopkins, R. (2004). Mitigating the impact of stereotypes on academic performance: The

effects of cultural identity and attributions for success among African American college students.

Western Journal of Black Studies, 28(1), 312.

Solórzano, D., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. (2000). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions, and campus

racial climate: The experiences of African American college students. Journal of Negro Education,

69(1/2), 60–73.

Spencer, M. B. (1999). Social and cultural influences on school adjustment: The application of an

identity-focused cultural ecological perspective. Educational Psychologist, 34, 43–57.

Spencer, M., Dupree, D., & Hartmann, T. (1997). A phenomenological variant of ecological systems

theory (PVEST): A self-organization perspective in context. Development and Psychopathology, 9,

817–833.

Advances in stereotype threat research on African Americans… 135

123

Spencer, S. J., Logel, C., & Davies, P. G. (2016). Stereotype threat. Annual Review of Psychology, 67,

415–437.

Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance.

American Psychologist, 52, 613–629.

Steele, C. M. (2003). Through the back door to theory. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 314–317.

Steele, C. (2007). Stereotype threat and African American student achievement. In D. B. Grusky & S.

Szelényi (Eds.), The inequality reader: Contemporary and foundational readings in race, class, and

gender (pp. 252–257). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African

Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797–811.

Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Aronson, J. (2002). Contending with group image: The psychology of

stereotype and social identity threat. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 379–440.

Stone, J., Harrison, C. K., & Mottley, J. (2012). ‘‘Don’t call me a student-athlete’’: The effect of identity

priming on stereotype threat for academically engaged African American college athletes. Basic and

Applied Social Psychology, 34, 99–106.

Stricker, L. J. (2008). The challenge of stereotype threat for the testing community. In Presidential

address to the Division of Evaluation, Measurement, and Statistics. 2007 American Educational

Research Association Annual Meeting. http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RM-08-12.

Stricker, L. J., & Bejar, I. I. (2004). Test difficulty and stereotype threat on the GRE General Test.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(3), 563–597.

Stricker, L. J., & Ward, W. C. (2004). Stereotype threat, inquiring about test takers’ ethnicity and gender,

and standardized test performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(4), 665–693.

Stricker, L. J., & Ward, W. C. (2008). Stereotype threat in applied settings reexamined: A reply. Journal

of Applied Social Psychology, 38(6), 1656–1663.

Taylor, V. J., & Walton, G. M. (2011). Stereotype threat undermines academic learning. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(8), 1055–1067.

Thames, A. D., Hinkin, C. H., Byrd, D. A., Bilder, R. M., Duff, K. J., Mindt, M. R., et al. (2013). Effects

of stereotype threat, perceived discrimination, and examiner race on neuropsychological

performance: Simple as Black and White? Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society,

19(05), 583–593. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617713000076.

Tine, M., & Gotlieb, R. (2013). Gender-, race-, and income-based stereotype threat: the effects of

multiple stigmatized aspects of identity on math performance and working memory function. Social

Psychology of Education, 16(3), 353–376.

Van Laar, C. V., Levin, S., & Sinclair, S. (2008). Social identity and personal identity stereotype threat:

The case of affirmative action. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30(4), 295–310.

Walker, M. E, & Bridgeman, B. (2008). Stereotype threat spillover and SAT � scores. ETS Research

Report Series, 2008, i–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.2008.tb02114.x. Downloaded from

http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-08-28.

Whaley, A. L. (1993). Self-esteem, cultural identity and psychosocial adjustment in African American

youth. Journal of Black Psychology, 19, 406–422.

Whaley, A. L. (1998). Issues of validity in empirical tests of stereotype threat theory. American

Psychologist, 53(6), 679–680. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.6.679.

Whaley, A. L. (2001a). Cultural mistrust: An important psychological construct for diagnosis and

treatment of African Americans. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 32(6), 555.

Whaley, A. L. (2001b). Cultural mistrust and mental health services for African Americans: A review and

meta-analysis. The Counseling Psychologist, 29(4), 513–531.

Whaley, A. L. (2009). Stereotype threat paradigm in search of a phenomenon: A comment on Kellow and

Jones’s (2008) study. Journal of Black Psychology, 35(4), 485–494.

Whaley, A. L., & Link, B. G. (1998). Racial categorization and stereotype-based judgments about

homeless people. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 189–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.

1559-1816.1998.tb01701.x.

Whaley, A. L., & Noel, L. (2011). Sociocultural theories, academic achievement, and African American

adolescents in a multicultural context: A review of the cultural incompatibility perspective. Social

Psychology of Education, 14(2), 149–168.

Whaley, A. L., & Smyer, D. A. (1998). Self-evaluation processes of African American youth in a high

school completion program. Journal of Psychology, 132(3), 317–327.

Wheeler, S. C., & Petty, R. E. (2001). The effects of stereotype activation on behavior: A review of

possible mechanisms. Psychological Bulletin, 127(6), 797–826.

136 A. L. Whaley

123

Wong, C. A., Eccles, J. S., & Sameroff, A. (2003). The influence of ethnic discrimination and ethnic

identification on African American adolescents’ school and socioemotional adjustment. Journal of

Personality, 71(6), 1197–1232.

Woodcock, A., Hernandez, P. R., Estrada, M., & Schultz, P. (2012). The consequences of chronic

stereotype threat: Domain disidentification and abandonment. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 103(4), 635–646.

Wout, D. A., Shih, M. J., Jackson, J. S., & Sellers, R. M. (2009). Targets as perceivers: how people

determine when they will be negatively stereotyped. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

96(2), 349–362.

Arthur L. Whaley is an independent scholar who has recently served as a research/evaluation consultant for community-based programs serving Black youth in New York City. He has held several

administrative, faculty, and staff positions at various universities over the past 30 years. He received

his Ph.D. in clinical psychology from Rutgers University and completed a Dr. P. H. in epidemiology from

the Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University. His research interests include the role of

identity and culture in the academic and social behavior of African American youth; and the psychology

of teaching and learning among students attending historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs).

Advances in stereotype threat research on African Americans… 137

123

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.