Stereotype threat has been offered as a potential explanation of differential performance between men and women in some cognitive domains. Questions remain about the reliability and generality of the phenomenon. Previous studies have found that stereotype threat is activated in female chess players when they are matched against male players. I used data from over 5.5 million games of international tournament chess and found no evidence of a stereotype-threat effect. In fact, female players outperform expectations when playing men. Further analysis showed no influence of degree of challenge, player age, nor prevalence of female role models in national chess leagues on differences in performance when women play men versus when they play women. Though this analysis contradicts one specific mechanism of influence of gender stereotypes, the persistent differences between male and female players suggest that systematic factors do exist and remain to be uncovered.
BaumeisterR. F. (1984). Choking under pressure: Self-consciousness and paradoxical effects of incentives on skillful performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 610–620.
2.
BeilockS. L.RydellR. J.McConnellA. R. (2007). Stereotype threat and working memory: Mechanisms, alleviation, and spillover. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 256–276.
3.
Ben-ZeevT.FeinS.InzlichtM. (2005). Arousal and stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 174–181. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2003.11.007
4.
BilalićM.SmallboneK.McLeodP.GobetF. (2009). Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276, 1161–1165.
5.
ChabrisC. F.GlickmanM. E. (2006). Sex differences in intellectual performance: Analysis of a large cohort of competitive chess players. Psychological Science, 17, 1040–1046.
6.
CharnessN. (1992). The impact of chess research on cognitive science. Psychological Research, 54, 4–9.
7.
CharnessN.GerchakY. (1996). Participation rates and maximal performance: A log-linear explanation for group differences, such as Russian and male dominance in chess. Psychological Science, 7, 46–51.
8.
ChaseW. G.SimonH. A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 55–81.
9.
ChassyP.GobetF. (2015). Risk taking in adversarial situations: Civilization differences in chess experts. Cognition, 141, 36–40.
10.
Cohen-ZadaD.KrumerA.RosenboimM.ShapirO. M. (2017). Choking under pressure and gender: Evidence from professional tennis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 61, 176–190. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2017.04.005
11.
DoyleR. A.VoyerD. (2016). Stereotype manipulation effects on math and spatial test performance: A meta-analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 47, 103–116.
12.
EloA. E. (1978). The rating of chessplayers, past & present. New York, NY: Arco Pub.
13.
FineC. (2010). Delusions of gender: The real science behind sex differences. London, England: Icon.
14.
FloreP. C.WichertsJ. M. (2015). Does stereotype threat influence performance of girls in stereotyped domains? A meta-analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 53, 25–44.
15.
GanleyC. M.MingleL. A.RyanA. M.RyanK.VasilyevaM.PerryM. (2013). An examination of stereotype threat effects on girls’ mathematics performance. Developmental Psychology, 49, 1886–1897.
16.
GoldstoneR. L.LupyanG. (2016). Discovering psychological principles by mining naturally occurring data sets. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8, 548–568.
17.
GriffithsP.MacheryE.LinquistS. (2009). The vernacular concept of innateness. Mind & Language, 24, 605–630.
18.
HalpernD. F.BenbowC. P.GearyD. C.GurR. C.HydeJ. S.GernsbacherM. A. (2007). The science of sex differences in science and mathematics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 8, 1–51.
19.
HowardR. W. (2006). A complete database of international chess players and chess performance ratings for varied longitudinal studies. Behavior Research Methods, 38, 698–703.
20.
InzlichtM.SchmaderT. (2012). Stereotype threat: Theory, process, and application. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
21.
LamontR. A.SwiftH. J.AbramsD. (2015). A review and meta-analysis of age-based stereotype threat: Negative stereotypes, not facts, do the damage. Psychology and Aging, 30, 180–193.
22.
LeoneM. J.SlezakD. F.CecchiG. A.SigmanM. (2014). The geometry of expertise. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 47. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00047
23.
LewisN. A.SekaquaptewaD. (2016). Beyond test performance: A broader view of stereotype threat. Current Opinion in Psychology, 11, 40–43.
24.
MaassA.D’EttoleC.CadinuM. (2008). Checkmate? The role of gender stereotypes in the ultimate intellectual sport. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 231–245.
25.
MameliM.BatesonP. (2011). An evaluation of the concept of innateness. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366, 436–443.
26.
NewellA.ShawJ. C.SimonH. A. (1958). Chess-playing programs and the problem of complexity. IBM Journal of Research and Development, 2, 320–335.
27.
NguyenH.-H. D.RyanA. M. (2008). Does stereotype threat affect test performance of minorities and women? A meta-analysis of experimental evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1314–1334.
28.
O’BrienL. T.CrandallC. S. (2003). Stereotype threat and arousal: Effects on women’s math performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 782–789. doi:10.1177/0146167203029006010
29.
PinkerS. (2003). The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature. New York, NY: Penguin.
30.
RothgerberH.WolsieferK. (2014). A naturalistic study of stereotype threat in young female chess players. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17, 79–90.
31.
SackettP. R.HardisonC. M.CullenM. J. (2004). On interpreting stereotype threat as accounting for African American-White differences on cognitive tests. American Psychologist, 59, 7–13.
32.
SchmaderT.JohnsM.ForbesC. (2008). An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance. Psychological Review, 115, 336–356.
33.
SpencerS. J.LogelC.DaviesP. G. (2016). Stereotype threat. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 415–437.
34.
SpencerS. J.SteeleC. M.QuinnD. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4–28.
35.
StaffordT.DewarM. (2014). Tracing the trajectory of skill learning with a very large sample of online game players. Psychological Science, 25, 511–518.
36.
StaffordT.HaasnootE. (2017). Testing sleep consolidation in skill learning: A field study using an online game. Topics in Cognitive Science, 9, 485–496.
37.
SteeleC. M.AronsonJ. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797–811.
StrickerL. J.RockD. A.BridgemanB. (2015). Stereotype threat, inquiring about test takers’ race and gender, and performance on low-stakes tests in a large-scale assessment. ETS Research Report Series, 2015(1), 1–12.
40.
StrickerL. J.WardW. C. (2004). Stereotype threat, inquiring about test takers’ ethnicity and gender, and standardized test performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 665–693.
41.
VaciN.BilalićM. (2016). Chess databases as a research vehicle in psychology: Modeling large data. Behavior Research Methods, 49, 1227–1240.
42.
VaciN.GulaB.BilalićM. (2014). Restricting range restricts conclusions. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 569. doi:10.1080/17470216008416717
43.
WaltonG. M.SpencerS. J. (2009). Latent ability: Grades and test scores systematically underestimate the intellectual ability of negatively stereotyped students. Psychological Science, 20, 1132–1139. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02417.x
44.
WeiT. E. (2012). Sticks, stones, words, and broken bones: New field and lab evidence on stereotype threat. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34, 465–488.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
