Despite Christians being a religious majority in the United States, relatively few pursue higher education and careers in science. Our studies show that stereotypes about Christians being less competent in science than other groups are recognized by both Christians and non-Christians and are openly endorsed by non-Christians (Study 1). Our studies further demonstrate that when these stereotypes become salient, Christians are less interested in and identified with science (Study 2) and underperform on science-relevant tasks (Studies 3–5), compared to non-Christians. Even subtle contextual cues that bear more or less relevance to science are sufficient to compromise Christians’ scientific task performance, particularly among the highly religious (Study 5). When these stereotypes are explicitly removed, however, performance differences between Christians and non-Christians disappear. These results suggest that Christians’ awareness of the negative societal stereotypes about their group’s scientific competence may be partially responsible for the underperformance and underrepresentation of Christians in scientific fields.
AikenL. S.WestS. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2.
AronsonJ.LustinaM. J.GoodC.KeoughC.SteeleC. M.BrownJ. (1999). When white men can’t do math: Necessary and sufficient factors in stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 29–46.
3.
CalhounC.AronczykM.MayrlD.VanAntwerpenJ. (2007). The religious engagements of American undergraduates. Brooklyn, NY: Social Science Research Council.
4.
CheryanS.PlautV. C.DaviesP. G.SteeleC. M. (2009). Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 1045–1060.
CookJ. E.Purdie-VaughnsV.GarciaJ.CohenG. L. (2012). Chronic threat and contingent belonging: Protective benefits of values affirmation on identity development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 479–496.
7.
Dar-NimrodI.HeineS. J. (2006). Exposure to scientific theories affects women’s math performance. Science, 314, 435.
8.
DorfmanJ.ShamesV. A.KihlstromJ. F. (1996). Intuition, incubation, and insight: Implicit cognition in problem solving. In UnderwoodG. (Ed.), Implicit cognition (pp. 257–296). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
9.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J. C.GlickP.XuJ. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902.
GrossN.SimmonsS. (2009). The religiosity of American college and university professors. Sociology of Religion, 70, 101–129.
14.
InzlichtM.Ben-ZeevT. (2000). A threatening intellectual environment: Why females are susceptible to experiencing problem-solving deficits in the presence of males. Psychological Science, 11, 365–371.
15.
KrayL. J.GalinskyA. D.WongE. M. (2006). Thinking within the box: The relational processing style elicited by counterfactual mind-sets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 33–48.
16.
MarkmanK. D.LindbergM. J.KrayL. J.GalinskyA. D. (2007). Implications of counterfactual structure for creative generation and analytical problem solving. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 312–324.
17.
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.
18.
MarxD. M.GoffP. A. (2005). Clearing the air: The effect of experimenter race on target’s test performance and subjective experience. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 644–657.
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.
21.
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.
22.
NosekB. A.BanajiM. R.GreenwaldA. G. (2002). Math=male, me=female, therefore math≠me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 44–59.
23.
O’BrienL. T.CrandallC. S. (2003). Stereotype threat and arousal: Effects on women’s math performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 782–789.
24.
PennycookG.CheyneJ. A.SeliP.KoehlerD. J.FugelsangJ. A. (2012). Analytic cognitive style predicts religious and paranormal belief. Cognition, 123, 335–346.
25.
PrestonJ. L.EpleyN. (2009). Science and God: An automatic opposition between ultimate explanations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 238–241.
26.
SchmaderT. (2002). Gender identification moderates stereotype threat effects on women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 194–201.
27.
ShenhavA.RandD. G.GreeneJ. D. (2012). Divine intuition: Cognitive style influences belief in God. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 423–428.
28.
SherkatD. E. (2011). Religion and scientific literacy in the United States. Social Science Quarterly, 92, 1134–1150.
29.
SpencerS. J.SteeleC. M.QuinnD. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4–28.
30.
SteeleC. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613.
31.
SteeleC. M.AronsonJ. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797–811.
32.
SteeleC. M.SpencerS. J.AronsonJ. (2002). Contending with group image: The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 379–440.
33.
StephensN. M.FrybergS. A.MarkusH. R.JohnsonC. S.CovarrubiasR. (2012). Unseen disadvantage: how American universities’ focus on independence undermines the academic performance of first-generation college students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 1178.
34.
StoneJ.LynchC. I.SjomelingM.DarleyJ. M. (1999). Stereotype threat effects on Black and White athletic performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1213.
35.
WaltonG. M.CohenG. L. (2011). A brief social-belonging intervention improves academic and health outcomes of minority students. Science, 331, 1447–1451.
36.
ZuckermanM.SilbermanJ.HallJ. A. (2013). The relation between intelligence and religiosity: A meta-analysis and some proposed explanations, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 325–354.
