The mere effort account argues that stereotype threat motivates participants to want to perform well, which potentiates prepotent responses. If the prepotent response is correct, performance is facilitated. If incorrect and participants do not know, or lack the knowledge or time required for correction, performance is debilitated. The Graduate Record Examinations (GRE) quantitative test is made up of two problem types: (a) solve problems, which require the solution of an equation, and (b) comparison problems, which require the use of logic and estimation. Previous research shows that the prepotent tendency is to attempt to solve the equations. Consistent with mere effort predictions, Experiment 1 demonstrates that threatened participants perform better than controls on solve problems (prepotent response correct) but worse than controls on comparison problems (prepotent response incorrect). Experiment 2 shows that a simple instruction as to the correct solution approach eliminates the performance deficit on comparison problems.
Aronson, J., Lustina, M.J., Good, C., & Keough, K. ( 1999). When White men can’t do math: Necessary and sufficient factors in stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 29-46.
2.
Ben-Zeev, T., Fein, S., & Inzlicht, M. ( 2005). Arousal and stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 174-181.
3.
Bosson, J.K., Haymovitz, E.L., & Pinel, E.C. ( 2004). When saying and doing diverge: The effects of stereotype threat on self-reported versus nonverbal anxiety. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 247-255.
4.
Brown, R.P., & Pinel, E.C. ( 2003). Stigma on my mind: Individual differences in the experience of stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 39, 626-633.
5.
Cottrell, N.B. ( 1972). Social facilitation. In N. B. McClintock (Ed.), Experimental social psychology (pp. 185-236). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
6.
Croizet, J.C., Desprès, G., Gauzins, M.E., Huguet, P., Leyens, J.P., & Mèot, A. (2004). Stereotype threat undermines intellectual performance by triggering a disruptive mental load. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 721-731.
7.
Gallagher, A.M., & De Lisi, R. (1994). Gender differences in Scholastic Aptitude Test-Mathematics problem solving among high-ability students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 204-211.
8.
Gallagher, A.M., De Lisi, R., Holst, P.C., McGillicuddy-De Lisi, A.V., Morely, M., & Cahalan, C. ( 2000). Gender differences in advanced mathematical problem solving . Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 75, 165-190.
9.
Hallett, P.E. ( 1978). Primary and secondary saccades to goals defined by instructions . Vision Research, 18, 1279-1296.
10.
Harkins, S. ( 2006). Mere effort as the mediator of the evaluation-performance relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 91, 436-455.
11.
Harkins, S., & Szymanski, K. ( 1988). Social loafing and self-evaluation with an objective standard. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 354-365.
12.
Bosson, J.K., Haymovitz, E.L., & Pinel, E.C. ( 2004). When saying and doing diverge: The effects of stereotype threat on self-reported versus nonverbal anxiety. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 247-255.
13.
Inzlicht, M., & Ben-Zeev, T. ( 2003). Do high achieving female students underperform in private? The implications of threatening environments on intellectual processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 796-805.
14.
Jamieson, J.P., & Harkins, S.G. ( 2007). Mere effort and stereotype threat performance effects . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 544-564.
15.
Johns, M., Schmader, T., & Martens, A. ( 2005). Knowing is half the battle: Teaching stereotype threat as a means of improving women’s math performance. Psychological Science, 16, 175-179.
16.
Karau, S.J., & Williams, S.D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681-706
17.
Katz, I.R., Bennett, R.E., & Berger, A.E. ( 2000). Effects of response format on difficulty of SAT-Mathematics items: It’s not the strategy. Journal of Educational Measurement, 37, 39-57.
18.
Keller, J. ( 2002). Blatant stereotype threat and women’s math performance: Self-handicapping as a strategic means to cope with obtrusive negative performance expectations. Sex Roles, 47, 193-198.
19.
Keller, J., & Dauenheimer, D. (2003). Stereotype threat in the classroom: Dejection mediates the disrupting threat effect on women’s math performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 29, 371-381.
20.
Kenny, D.A., Kashy, D.A., & Bolger, N. ( 1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In D. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske , & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 233-265). New York: McGraw-Hill.
21.
Kirk, R. ( 1995). Experimental design. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
22.
Lurie, K., Pecsenye, M., Robinson, A., & Ragsdale, D. ( 2004). Cracking the GRE. New York: Princeton Review.
23.
McFall, S., Jamieson, J.P., & Harkins, S. ( 2009). Testing the generalizability of the mere effort account of the evaluation-performance relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 135-154.
O’Brien, L.T., & Crandall, C.S. (2003). Stereotype threat and arousal: Effects on women’s math performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 782-789.
26.
Quinn, D.M., & Spencer, S.J. ( 2001). The interference of stereotype threat with women’s generation of mathematical problem-solving strategies. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 55-71.
27.
Schmader, T., & Johns, M. ( 2003). Converging evidence that stereotype threat reduces working memory capacity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 85, 440-452.
28.
Schmader, T., Johns, M., & Forbes, C. ( 2008). An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance. Psychological Review, 115, 336-356.
29.
Spencer, S.J., Steele, C.M., & Quinn, D.M. ( 1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4-28.
30.
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.
31.
Steele, C.M., Spencer, S.J., Aronson, J.2002. Contending with group image: the psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed. MP Zanna, vol. 34, pp. 379-440. San Diego, CA: Academic.
32.
Stigler, J.W., & Hiebert, J. ( 1999). The teaching gap. New York: Simon & Schuster.
33.
Stone, J. ( 2002). Battling doubt by avoiding practice: The effects of stereotype threat on self-handicapping in White athletes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1667-1678.
34.
Stone, J., & McWhinnie, C. ( 2008). Evidence that blatant versus subtle stereotype threat cues impact performance through dual processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 445-452.
35.
Szymanski, K., & Harkins, S. ( 1993). The effect of experimenter evaluation on self-evaluation within the social loafing paradigm. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 268-286.
36.
White, P., Kjelgaard, M., & Harkins, S. ( 1995). Testing the contribution of self-evaluation to goal-setting effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 69-79.
37.
Witte, K., & Freund, J. ( 2001). Single-letter retrieval cues for anagram solution. Journal of General Psychology, 128, 315-328.
