Social Identity on Stereotype Threat and Academic Performance
Stereotype threat revised
-
Upload
emily-feng -
Category
Documents
-
view
586 -
download
1
Transcript of Stereotype threat revised
Meeting Expectations: Manipulating Stereotype Threat
Emily FengAmity Regional Senior High School
• Stereotype threat: when performance is affected (usually negatively) according to a relevant stereotype
(Cheryan & Bodenhausen, 2000).
• Fear of confirming a negative stereotype leads to increased stress (Cohen & Garcia, 2008)
BACKGROUND ◆ PURPOSE ◆ METHODS ◆ RESULTS ◆ CONCLUSIONS & DISCUSSION
• Social Identity Theory:
multiple identities (Stets &
Burke, 2000)
• Minimal groups:
creating identities? (Hertel & Kerr, 2001)
• Ability to manipulate to
nonexistent identities?
BACKGROUND ◆ PURPOSE ◆ METHODS ◆ RESULTS ◆ CONCLUSIONS & DISCUSSION
Does recognition of a set of salient expectations produce the expected performance?
BACKGROUND ◆ PURPOSE ◆ METHODS ◆ RESULTS ◆ CONCLUSIONS & DISCUSSION
Day 1 Day 2
BACKGROUND ◆ PURPOSE ◆ METHODS ◆ RESULTS ◆ CONCLUSIONS & DISCUSSION
Consent
Day 1 Day 2
BACKGROUND ◆ PURPOSE ◆ METHODS ◆ RESULTS ◆ CONCLUSIONS & DISCUSSION
Consent
Day 1 Day 2
BACKGROUND ◆ PURPOSE ◆ METHODS ◆ RESULTS ◆ CONCLUSIONS & DISCUSSION
Consent
Diagnostic
Day 1 Day 2
BACKGROUND ◆ PURPOSE ◆ METHODS ◆ RESULTS ◆ CONCLUSIONS & DISCUSSION
Consent
Diagnostic
Day 1 Day 2
BACKGROUND ◆ PURPOSE ◆ METHODS ◆ RESULTS ◆ CONCLUSIONS & DISCUSSION
Consent
Diagnostic
Word
Day 1 Day 2
BACKGROUND ◆ PURPOSE ◆ METHODS ◆ RESULTS ◆ CONCLUSIONS & DISCUSSION
Consent
Diagnostic
Word Shape
Day 1 Day 2
BACKGROUND ◆ PURPOSE ◆ METHODS ◆ RESULTS ◆ CONCLUSIONS & DISCUSSION
Consent
Diagnostic
Word Shape
Day 1 Day 2
BACKGROUND ◆ PURPOSE ◆ METHODS ◆ RESULTS ◆ CONCLUSIONS & DISCUSSION
Consent
Diagnostic
Word Shape
Questionnaire
Day 1 Day 2
BACKGROUND ◆ PURPOSE ◆ METHODS ◆ RESULTS ◆ CONCLUSIONS & DISCUSSION
Consent
Diagnostic
Word Shape
Questionnaire
Day 1 Day 2
Diagnostic Results
BACKGROUND ◆ PURPOSE ◆ METHODS ◆ RESULTS ◆ CONCLUSIONS & DISCUSSION
Consent
Diagnostic
Word Shape
Questionnaire
Day 1 Day 2
Diagnostic Results
BACKGROUND ◆ PURPOSE ◆ METHODS ◆ RESULTS ◆ CONCLUSIONS & DISCUSSION
Consent
Diagnostic
Word Shape
Questionnaire
Day 1 Day 2
Diagnostic Results
Questionnaire
BACKGROUND ◆ PURPOSE ◆ METHODS ◆ RESULTS ◆ CONCLUSIONS & DISCUSSION
Consent
Diagnostic
Word Shape
Questionnaire
Day 1 Day 2
Diagnostic Results
Questionnaire
BACKGROUND ◆ PURPOSE ◆ METHODS ◆ RESULTS ◆ CONCLUSIONS & DISCUSSION
Consent
Diagnostic
Word Shape
Questionnaire
Day 1 Day 2
Word
Diagnostic Results
Questionnaire
BACKGROUND ◆ PURPOSE ◆ METHODS ◆ RESULTS ◆ CONCLUSIONS & DISCUSSION
Consent
Diagnostic
Word Shape
Questionnaire
Day 1 Day 2
Word Shape
Diagnostic Results
Questionnaire
BACKGROUND ◆ PURPOSE ◆ METHODS ◆ RESULTS ◆ CONCLUSIONS & DISCUSSION
Consent
Diagnostic
Word Shape
Questionnaire
Day 1 Day 2
Word Shape
Diagnostic Results
Questionnaire
BACKGROUND ◆ PURPOSE ◆ METHODS ◆ RESULTS ◆ CONCLUSIONS & DISCUSSION
Consent
Diagnostic
Word Shape
Questionnaire
Day 1 Day 2
Word Shape
Questionnaire
Diagnostic Results
Questionnaire
BACKGROUND ◆ PURPOSE ◆ METHODS ◆ RESULTS ◆ CONCLUSIONS & DISCUSSION
Word Task
BACKGROUND ◆ PURPOSE ◆ METHODS ◆ RESULTS ◆ CONCLUSIONS & DISCUSSION
Shape Task
BACKGROUND ◆ PURPOSE ◆ METHODS ◆ RESULTS ◆ CONCLUSIONS & DISCUSSION
All Participants
Linguistic Visual
A B A B
Testing Order
BACKGROUND ◆ PURPOSE ◆ METHODS ◆ RESULTS ◆ CONCLUSIONS & DISCUSSION
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Control Trial Manipulated Trial
Word Task Performance
Linguistic Visual
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Control Trial Manipulated Trial
Shape Task Performance
General Results#
Wor
ds M
emor
ized
# P
airs
of S
hape
s M
atch
ed
BACKGROUND ◆ PURPOSE ◆ METHODS ◆ RESULTS ◆ CONCLUSIONS & DISCUSSION
General Results
Mean Sig. (2-tailed)Shape1 - Shape2 0.847 0.042
Word1 - Word2 -0.359 0.231
BACKGROUND ◆ PURPOSE ◆ METHODS ◆ RESULTS ◆ CONCLUSIONS & DISCUSSION
Group Shape Task Word Task
Word Pearson Correlation 0.374 -0.245
Shape Pearson Correlation 0.129 0.073
Accuracy v. Retention Task Score Correlation
4.96
Accuracy of Results
1 7
BACKGROUND ◆ PURPOSE ◆ METHODS ◆ RESULTS ◆ CONCLUSIONS & DISCUSSION
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Shape Task Word Task
Versions A and B Performances
A Takers B Takers
Order Effects
Sco
re
BACKGROUND ◆ PURPOSE ◆ METHODS ◆ RESULTS ◆ CONCLUSIONS & DISCUSSION
Order Effects
Order Mean Sig. (2-tailed)
A: ShapeA- ShapeB 1.870 0.001
WordA - WordB -1.283 0.007
B: ShapeB - ShapeA -0.174 0.775
WordB - WordA 0.565 0.080
Word Task: A is easier, B is harderShape task: A is harder, B is easier
What does this mean?
Order effects didn’t cancel each other out because mean increase/decrease are not the
same.
BACKGROUND ◆ PURPOSE ◆ METHODS ◆ RESULTS ◆ CONCLUSIONS & DISCUSSION
Word Task: A is easier, B is harderShape task: A is harder, B is easier
What does this mean?
Order effects didn’t cancel each other out because mean increase/decrease are not the
same.
BACKGROUND ◆ PURPOSE ◆ METHODS ◆ RESULTS ◆ CONCLUSIONS & DISCUSSION
Decrease
Word Task: A is easier, B is harderShape task: A is harder, B is easier
What does this mean?
Order effects didn’t cancel each other out because mean increase/decrease are not the
same.
BACKGROUND ◆ PURPOSE ◆ METHODS ◆ RESULTS ◆ CONCLUSIONS & DISCUSSION
IncreaseDecrease
Interaction Effects
Source Sig.Order 0.008VL 0.126Order * VL 0.877
Shape Task
Source Sig.Order 0.001VL 0.785Order * VL 0.190
Word Task
Signifiant order effects; no interaction effects
Shape Task Word Task
• High perception of relation between two studies.
• Ideal conditions?
6.1957
Perceived Degree of Relation
Control Word Task Scores
Sex N Mean Sig. (2-tailed)
Word 1M 20 4.2750
0.034F 26 5.3077
Gender Differences
Sex N Mean Sig. (2-tailed)
Shape 1-2Male 20 0.0000
0.065Female 26 1.5000
Mean Improvement on Shape Task
BACKGROUND ◆ PURPOSE ◆ METHODS ◆ RESULTS ◆ CONCLUSIONS & DISCUSSION
Results do not support hypothesis.
BACKGROUND ◆ PURPOSE ◆ METHODS ◆ RESULTS ◆ CONCLUSIONS & DISCUSSION
Results do not support hypothesis.
Order Effects
BACKGROUND ◆ PURPOSE ◆ METHODS ◆ RESULTS ◆ CONCLUSIONS & DISCUSSION
Results do not support hypothesis.
Order EffectsAdapt to realistic setting
(Schmader, 2006)
BACKGROUND ◆ PURPOSE ◆ METHODS ◆ RESULTS ◆ CONCLUSIONS & DISCUSSION
Results do not support hypothesis.
Order Effects
Reactance? ( Kray, Thompson, & Galinsky, 2001)
Adapt to realistic setting (Schmader, 2006)
BACKGROUND ◆ PURPOSE ◆ METHODS ◆ RESULTS ◆ CONCLUSIONS & DISCUSSION
Results do not support hypothesis.
Order Effects
Reactance? ( Kray, Thompson, & Galinsky, 2001)
What mechanisms/circumstances prompt reactance?
Adapt to realistic setting (Schmader, 2006)
Acknowledgements
Mark Sheskin, mentor
Jennifer Dalecki
Scott Demeo, statistics
Deborah Day, teacher