This study reported the development and validation of the Social Identities and Attitudes Scale (SIAS)—a stereotype threat susceptibility measure. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses conducted with college students revealed that the scale, which constitutes six key ST moderators, possessed strong psychometric properties. The SIAS makes it possible for researchers to establish a baseline for measuring ST susceptibility and, subsequently, the impact of interventions attempting to reduce it. It provides researchers with the means to tease ST effects apart, differentiate between levels of ST risk (e.g., low, moderate, high), and facilitate the development of specialized interventions for different ST risk levels. Its use as a tool for identifying high-risk ST individuals might also be useful for mixed methods research seeking to understand contextual factors that exacerbate ST for these individuals and, importantly, how they respond to these environments.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmbadyN.ShihM.KimA.PittinskyT. L. (2001). Stereotype susceptibility in children: Effects of identity activation on quantitative performance. Psychological Science, 12, 385–390.
2.
AronsonJ. (2004). The threat of stereotype. Educational Leadership, 62(3), 14–19.
3.
AronsonJ.DiskoD. (1998). Frequency of stereotypes about Blacks, Whites, Asians and Latinos. Unpublished raw data, University of Texas at Austin.
4.
AronsonJ.QuinnD.SpencerS. J. (1998). Stereotype threat and the academic underperformance of minorities and women. In SwimJ. K.StangorC. (Eds.), Prejudice: The target's perspective (pp. 83–103). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
5.
AronsonJ.WilliamsJ. (2004). Stereotype threat: Forewarned is forearmed. Unpublished manuscript, New York University.
6.
BaenningerM.NewcombeN. (1995). Environmental input to the development of sex-related differences in spatial and mathematical ability. Learning and Individual Differences, 7, 363–379.
7.
BanduraA. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4, 359–373.
8.
BanduraA. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In PajaresF.UrdanT. (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307–337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
9.
BeilockS. L.RydellR. J.McConnellA. R. (2007). Stereotype threat and working memory: Mechanisms, alleviation and spillover. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 136, 256–276.
10.
BrownT. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
11.
BrownR. P.JosephsR. A. (1999). The importance of importance: The Mathematics Identification Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of Texas at Austin.
12.
BrownR. P.PinelE. C. (2003). Stigma on my mind: Individual differences in the experience of stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 626–633.
13.
BrowneM. W.CudelR. (1993). Alternate ways of assessing model fit. In BollenK. A.LongJ. S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
14.
CadinuM.MaasA.RosabiancaA.FigerioS.LatinottiS. (2003). Stereotype threat: The effect of expectancy performance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 267–285.
15.
CadinuM.MaasA.RosabiancaA.KiesnerJ. (2005). Why do women underperform under stereotype threat? Evidence for the role of negative thinking. Psychological Science, 16, 572–578.
16.
CadinuM.MaasA.RosabiancaA.LombardoM.FigerioS. (2006). Stereotype threat: The moderating role of locus of control beliefs. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 183–197.
17.
CrockerJ. (1999). Social stigma and self-esteem: Situational construction of self-worth. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 89–107.
18.
ErikssonK.LindholmT. (2007). Making gender matter: The role of gender-based expectancies and gender identification on women's and men's math performance in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 48, 329–338.
19.
FabrigarR. L.WegenerT. D.MacCallumC. R.StrahanJ. E. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272–299.
20.
GonzalesP. M.BlantonH.WilliamsK. J. (2002). The effects of stereotype threat and double-minority status on the test performance of Latino women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 659–670.
21.
GrayJ. A. (1981). A biological basis for the sex differences in achievement in science? In KellyA. (Ed.), The missing half: Girls and science education (pp. 43–58). Manchester, England: Butler & Tanner Ltd.
22.
HillC.CorbettC.St. RoseA. (2010). Why so few?: Women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women.
23.
HoffmanR. M. (2006). Gender self-definition and gender self-acceptance in women: Interception with feminist, womanist and ethnic identities. Journal of Counseling and Development, 84, 358–372.
24.
HornJ. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 32, 179–185.
25.
HoytC. (2005). The role of leadership efficacy and stereotype activation in women's identification with leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11, 2–15.
26.
HuguetP.RegnerI. (2007). Stereotype threat among school girls in quasi-ordinary classroom circumstances. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 545–560.
27.
InzlichtM.Ben-ZeevT. (2003). Do high achieving female students underperform in private? The implications of threatening environments on intellectual processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 796–805.
28.
JacobsJ. E. (1991). The influence of gender stereotypes on parent and child mathematics attitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 518–527.
29.
JacobsJ. E.EcclesJ. S. (1992). The impact of mothers' gender-role stereotypic beliefs on mothers' and childrens' ability perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 932–944.
30.
JohnsM.SchmaderT.MartensA. (2005). Knowing is half the battle: Teaching stereotype threat as a means of improving women's math performance. Psychological Science, 16, 175–179.
31.
KellerJ.DauenheimerD. (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.
32.
KellerJ.MolixL. (2008). When women can't do math: The interplay of self-construal, gender identification, and stereotypic performance standards. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 437–444.
33.
KennyD. A. (1979). Correlation and causality. New York, NY: Wiley-Interscience.
KrayL. J.GalinskyA.ThompsonL. (2001). Battle of the sexes: Gender stereotype confirmation and reactance in negotiations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 942–958.
36.
LuhtanenR.CrockerJ. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self evaluation of one's social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 302–318.
37.
MarshH. W.CravenR. (1997). Academic self-concept: Beyond the dustbowl. In PhyeG. (Ed.), Handbook of classroom assessment: Learning, achievement, and adjustment (pp. 131–198). Orland, FL: Academic Press.
38.
MarshH. W.O'NeillR. (1984). Self Description Questionnaire III: The construct validity of multidimensional self-concept ratings by late adolescents. Journal of Educational Measurement, 21, 153–174.
39.
MartensA.JohnsM.GreenbergJ.SchimelJ. (2006). Combating stereotype threat: The effect of self affirmation on women's intellectual performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 236–243.
40.
MarxD. M.RomanJ. S. (2002). Female role models: Protecting women's math test performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1183–1193.
41.
MarxD. M.StapelD. A. (2006). It's all in the timing: Measuring emotional reactions to stereotype threat before and after taking a test. European Journal of Social Psychology, 88, 432–446.
42.
McKenzieJ. F.WoodL. M.KoteckiE. J.ClarkK. J.BreyA. R. (1999). Establishing content validity: Using qualitative and quantitative steps. American Journal of Health and Behavior, 23, 311–318.
43.
MurphyM. C.SteeleC. M.GrossJ. J. (2007). Signaling threat: How situational cues affect women in math, science and engineering settings. Psychological Science, 18, 879–885.
National Science Foundation. (2009). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2009 (NSF 09-305). Arlington, VA: Hill.
PettM. A.LackeyR. N.SullivanJ. J. (2003). Making sense of factor analysis: The use of factor analysis for instrument development in healthcare research. London, England: Sage.
48.
PhinneyS. (1992). The multigroup ethnic identity measure: A new scale for use with diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 156–176.
49.
PichoK.StephensJ. M. (in press). Culture, context and stereotype threat: A comparative analysis of Ugandan females in coed and single sex schools. Journal of Educational Research.
50.
PinelE. C. (1999). Stigma consciousness: The psychological legacy of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 114–128.
51.
PinelE. C. (2004). You're just saying that because I'm a woman: Stigma consciousness and attributions to discrimination. Self and Identity, 3, 39–51.
52.
RosenthalH. E. S.CrispR. J. (2006). Reducing stereotype threat by reducing intergroup boundaries. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 501–511.
53.
SchmaderT. (2002). Gender identification moderates stereotype threat effects on women's math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 194–201.
54.
SchmaderT. (2010). Stereotype threat deconstructed. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 14–18.
55.
SchmaderT.JohnsM. (2003). Converging evidence that stereotype threat reduces working memory capacity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 934–947.
56.
SchmaderT.JohnsM.ForbesC. (2008). An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance. Psychological Review, 115, 336–356.
57.
SpencerS. J.SteeleC. M.QuinnD. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women's math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4–28.
58.
StangorC.CarrC.KiangL. (1998). Activating stereotypes undermines task performance expectations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1191–1197.
59.
SteeleC. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613–629.
60.
SteeleC. M.AronsonJ. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African-Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 797–811.
61.
TajfelH. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
62.
TerleckiM. S.NewcombeN.LittleM. (2007). Durable and generalized effects of spatial experience on mental rotation: Gender differences in growth patterns. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 996–1013.
63.
VelicerW. F. (1976). Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika, 41, 321–327.
64.
VelicerW. F.EatonC. A.FavaJ. L. (2000). Construct explication through factor or component analysis: A review and evaluation of alternative procedures for determining the number of factors or components. In GoffinR. D.HelmesE. (Eds.), Problems and solutions in human assessment (pp. 41–71). Boston, MA: Kluwer.
