Consensus is building that stereotype threat interferes with working memory, but how so? Grounded in the dual-process framework of Kane and Engle, the authors examined the extent to which stereotype threat interferes with one’s ability to maintain task goals in working memory and one’s ability to choose between conflicting responses. One hundred eighty-seven Montana State University (MSU) men were first given the Operation Span task (OSPAN) to assess working memory capacity, then engaged in the Stroop task under mostly incongruent or mostly congruent conditions. The Stroop task was presented as a measure of verbal processing skills (stereotype threat condition) or not (control condition). Stroop errors and reaction times were assessed. Results suggest that for people lower in working memory capacity, stereotype threat primarily interferes with internally maintaining task goals across trials. Implications for such stereotype threat-based distraction effects on performance in educational and workplace environments are discussed.
AikenL. S.WestS. G.
(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
2.
BeilockS. L.CarrT. H. (2005). When high-powered people fail: Working memory and “choking under pressure” in math. Psychological Science, 16, 101–105.
3.
BeilockS. L.RydellR. J.McConnellA. R. (2007). Stereotype threat and working memory: Mechanisms, alleviations, and spillover. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 256–276.
4.
BonnotV.CroizetJ. C. (2007). Stereotype internalization and women’s math performance: The role of interference in working memory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 857–866. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2006.10.006
DaviesP. G.SpencerS. J.SteeleC. M. (2005). Clearing the air: Identity safety moderates the effects of stereotype threat on women’s leadership aspirations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 276–287.
7.
EngleR. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 19–23.
8.
GuimondS.RousselL. (2001). Bragging about one’s school grades: Gender stereotyping and students’ perception of their abilities in science, mathematics, and language. Social Psychology of Education, 4, 275–293.
9.
HasherL.ZacksR. T.MayC. P. (1999). Inhibitory control, circadian arousal, and cognition. In GopherD.KoriatA. (Eds.), Attention and performance XVII: Cognitive regulation of performance: Interaction of theory and application (pp. 653–675). Cambridge: MIT Press.
10.
HolleranS. E.WhiteheadJ.SchmaderT.MehlM. R. (2010). Talking shop and shooting the breeze: A study of workplace conversation and job disengagement among STEM faculty. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 2, 65–71.
11.
HutchisonK. A. (2007). Attentional control and the relatedness proportion effect in semantic priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 645–662. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.33.4.645
12.
HutchisonK. A. (2011). The interactive effects of listwide control, item-based control, and working memory capacity on Stroop performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 851–860. doi:10.1037/a0023437
13.
HutchisonK. A.BalotaD. A.DuchekJ. M. (2010). The utility of Stroop task switching as a marker for early stage Alzheimer’s Disease. Psychology and Aging, 25, 545–559.
14.
HydeJ. S.KlingK. C. (2001). Women, motivation, and achievement. Psychology of Women Quarterly. Special Issue: Women’s Lives, Feminist Research, and the Decade of Behavior, 25, 364–378. doi:10.1111/1471-6402.00035
15.
HydeJ. S.LinnM. C. (1988). Gender difference in verbal ability: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 53–69. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.104.1.53
16.
InzlichtM.KangS. 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, 467–481. doi:10.1037/a0018951
17.
InzlichtM.McKayL.AronsonJ. (2006). Stigma as ego depletion: How being the target of prejudice affects self-control. Psychological Science, 17, 262–269. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01695
18.
JamiesonJ. P.HarkinsS. G. (2007). Mere effort and stereotype threat performance effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 544–564.
19.
KaiserC. R.VickS. B.MajorB. (2006). Prejudice expectations moderate preconscious attention to cues that are threatening to social identity. Psychological Science, 17, 332–338.
20.
KaneM. J.ConwayA. R. A.HambrickD. Z.EngleR. W. (2007). Variation in working memory as variation in executive attention and control. In ConwayA. R. A.JarroldC.KaneM. J.MiyakeA.TowseJ. N. (Eds.), Variation in working memory (pp. 21–48). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
21.
KaneM. J.EngleR. W. (2003). Working-memory capacity and the control of attention: The contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 47–70. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.132.1.47
22.
KoenigA. M.EaglyA. H. (2005). Stereotype threat in men on a test of social sensitivity. Sex Roles, 52, 489–496.
23.
KuceraH.FrancisW. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
24.
LevyB. (1996). Improving memory in old age through implicit self stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1092–1107.
25.
McVayJ. C.KaneM. J. (2009). Conducting the train of thought: Working memory capacity, goal neglect, and mind wandering in an executive-sontrol task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 196–204.
26.
McVayJ. C.KaneM. J. (2011). Why does working memory capacity predict variation in reading comprehension? On the influence of mind wandering and executive attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0025250
27.
MrazekM. D.ChinJ. M.SchmaderT.HartsonK. A.SmallwoodJ.SchoolerJ. W. (2011). Threatened to distraction: Mind-wandering as a consequence of stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1243–1248. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.05.011
28.
NormanD. A.ShalliceT. (1986). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behavior. In DavidsonR. J.SchwartzG. E.ShapiroD. (Eds.), Consciousness and self-regulation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 4, pp. 1–18). New York, NY: Plenum.
29.
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.
30.
OswaldD. L.HarveyR. D. (2000–2001). Hostile environments, stereotype threat, and math performance among undergraduate women. Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social, 19, 338–356.
31.
RegnerI.SmedingA.GimmigD.Thinus-BlancC.MonteilJ.-M.HuguetP. (2010). Indivdiual differences in working memory moderate stereotype threat effects. Psychological Science, 21, 1646–1648.
32.
RobersonL.DeitchE. A.BriefA. P.BlockC. J. (2003). Stereotype threat and feedback seeking in the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 176–188.
33.
SchmaderT. (2010). Stereotype threat deconstructed. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 14–18.
34.
SchmaderT.ForbesC. E.ZhangS.MendesW. B. (2009). A meta-cognitive perspective on cognitive deficits experienced in intellectually threatening environments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 584–596.
35.
SchmaderT.JohnsM. (2003). Converging evidence that stereotype threat reduces working memory capacity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 440–452.
SchwarzN.CloreG. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 513–523.
38.
SeibtB.ForsterJ. (2004). Stereotype threat and performance: How self-stereotypes influence processing by inducing regulatory foci. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 38–56.
39.
ShapiroJ. R.NeubergS. 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, 107–130. doi: 10.1177/1088868306294790
40.
SmithJ. L. (2004). Understanding the process of stereotype threat: A review of mediational variables and new performance directions. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 177–206.
41.
SmithJ. L.SansoneC.WhiteP. H. (2007). The stereotyped task engagement process: The role of interest and achievement motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 99–114.
42.
SmithJ. L.WhiteP. H. (2002). An examination of implicitly activated, explicitly activated, and nullified stereotypes on mathematical performance: It’s not just a woman’s issue. Sex Roles, 47, 179–191.
43.
SommersM. S.HuffL. M. (2003). The effects of age and dementia of the Alzheimer’s type on phonological false memories. Psychology and Aging, 18, 791–806.
44.
SpencerS. J.SteeleC. M.QuinnD. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4–28.
45.
SpielerD. H.BalotaD. A.FaustM. (1996). Stroop performance in healthy younger and older adults and in individuals with dementia of the Alzheimer’s type. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 461–479.
46.
SteeleC. M.AronsonJ. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of Afircan Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797–811.
47.
SteeleC. M.SpencerS. J.AronsonJ. (2002). Contending with group image: The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp.379–440). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
48.
StoneJ.LynchC. I.SjomelingM.DarleyJ. M. (1999). Stereotype threat effects on black and white athletic performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1213–1227.
49.
StoneJ.McWhinnieC. (2008). Evidence that blatant versus subtle stereotype threat cues impact performance through dual processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 445–452.
50.
StroopJ. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662. doi: 10.1037/h0054651
51.
UnsworthN.HeitzR. P.SchrockJ. C.EngleR. W. (2005). An automated version of the operation span task. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 498–505.
52.
Van SelstM.Jolicoeur. (1994). A solution to the effect of sample size on outlier elimination. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47A, 631–650.
53.
Von HippelC.WiryakusumaC.BowdenJ.ShochetM. (2011). Stereotype threat and female communication styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1312–1324. doi:10.1177/0146167211410439
54.
YeungN. C. J.von HippelC. (2008). Stereotype threat increases the likelihood that female drivers in a simulator run over jaywalkers. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 40, 667–674.
