Stereotype Threat during Mental Cognition Tasks - Case Study Example

 ABSTRACT This study was conducted in a classroom setting utilizing twenty undergraduate female volunteers in order to contribute to understanding how stereotype-threat conditions can play a role in performance of female students on in cognitive processing of mental rotation tasks, as is broadly applicable to the performance of women and minorities on standardized general math assessments, such as the SAT or GRE. A threat vs no-threat condition was established by the administration of two surveys, one intended to be gender-neutral and apply no stereotype-threat anxiety and another intended to induce stereotype-threat anxiety by questioning students about gender-relevant topics. The resulting data showed no significant difference found between students administered the two different surveys, with only a slight margin favoring the students in the no-threat condition and a broad distribution between the number correct on all questions. This shows that stereotype threat may not be useful in improving the performance of females in small, controlled group settings by the application of stereotype-threat, though the same may not be true for large, diverse groups more representative of the entire population. Introduction Study hypothesis: There will not be a significant difference in cognitive processing of the mental rotation task between undergraduate women in this study. Contemporary gender studies reveal that stereotype threat may play a role in altering the performance of woman on math tests, particularly in cognitive processing sections of some tests where historically men have had superior performance. A stereotype threat is any disruptive concern caused by acknowledgement of an underlying accepted or unaccepted negative stereotype, which causes an individual to assume that they will be evaluated based on this stereotype. Stereotype threat has been shown by multiple studies to impair the performance of women on standardized tests, such as the SAT, by causing states of anxiety related to evaluation of performance by gender (Walton, 2009, p. 1132). Stereotype threat has been addressed in numerous reports and generally appears in most introductory texts, though few practical solutions for the issue have been suggested. One study attempts to address stereotype threat in a simple and affordable manner by simple explaining stereotype threat to participants and making note of whether this serves to eliminate the effects of stereotype threat, or if knowledge of stereotype threat is actually detrimental to those experiencing it (Johns, 2005, 175). In this study, mixed gender groups were given GRE problems to solve. One of the groups was subjected to a high-threat condition, as they were told that the test would be used to evaluate gender performance. Another was subjected to a similar high-threat condition, but explained the concept of stereotype threat and instructed to keep this in mind in case of anxiety. Results dramatically showed that those made consciously aware of the stereotype threat concept performed better than those that perceived their performance as an evaluation of their gender (Johns, 2005, 177-178). John’s study in 2005 established that awareness of a stereotype threat situation increased performance and relieved testing anxiety. The study conducted in this report is design to extend John’s finding to women in particular in order to identify factors that influence the performance of women in conditions where stereotype threat may exist. These conditions are applicable not only to standardized test, but also situations such as high-pressure jobs, interviews, crisis situations, or other high-anxiety situations. Methods Participants The participants were 20 undergraduate female students were selected from the University of California San Diego; of which 10 females were from the enrollment roster of a Human Development course. The remaining 10 females were selected from an unknown course from the same campus. There were no male participants due to the nature of the study. The ages of the undergraduate females ranged from 20 to 38 years old. The average age was 23. The participants were provided with participation waivers and were also compensated with 15 points course credit for participating in the experiment. Materials Questionnaires were distributed to the participants to ascertain two different sets of beliefs. One questionnaire was entitled Student Living Questionnaire. This questionnaire was used to determine information regarding the undergraduates living situation and beliefs in regards to coed living situations. Another questionnaire entitled School Preference Questionnaire was used to elicit the undergraduate’s preference on California State Universities in comparison to University of California colleges. An additional worksheet with 30 mental rotation task questions was issued to assess cognitive function. One answer sheet with the answers to the 30 mental rotation task questions was also distributed. To operationalize the stereotype threat and non-threat situation these questionnaires were distributed with the purpose to either elicit a stress response by making them concentrate on the fact that they were females or disarm them from concentrating on this issue. The Student Living Questionnaire asks six questions designed to make females think of their own living situation and motivations for herself or others choosing. The College Preference Questionnaire asks 6 questions about positive questions about school choices, designed to be gender neutral and unthreatening. The mental rotation task sheet has 30 questions with two possible answers for each question. All participants in class attendance on the day of the study were administered one questionnaire in the threat vs. non-threat category and completed the 30-question mental rotation task and one answer sheet. Procedure The experiment was conducted inside a classroom. Students were randomly issued a packet of questionnaires by the experimenter based on a presorted stack of randomized questionnaires and an alphabetized name list. Instructions were read aloud for participants. They were informed of their right to participate or withdraw from participation at any time. They were asked to sign in, listing their name and age for data collection of the study. No consent forms were administered. Each participant was given one questionnaire and was asked to produce their own writing instrument. Participants were instructed to wait until the experimenter finished the disclaimer before starting. They were told to complete their version of the threat vs. non- threat condition questionnaire. They were given as much time as needed to complete this portion. The experimenter periodically observed the students to see if any individual student needed more time. Students were told not to proceed to the mental rotation tasks until instructed. The experimenter waited approximately 15 minutes, allowing sufficient time for completion of the questionnaire and then provided instructions on completing the mental rotation task. She then asked each student to complete the next portion by completing as many questions as possible in a 6-minute time frame. Participants were instructed to look for 2 answers for each question in order for the answer to be considered correct. The timer was started. Students were then issued the answer sheet and told to mark their answers right or wrong based on the answer sheet and then pass all documents into the experimenter. During the debriefing of the study students were explained the threat vs. non-threat conditions, and the rationalization for the data collection. Data collection and analysis proceeded immediately following the study and was conducted by the author. Results Results are displayed by number of correct answers to each of the cognitive problems number 1 through 10. The age range for participants was 20 to 38 with a mean value of 23.0 and a standard derivation of 5.5. The threat condition group answered a total of 66 problems correctly, while the no-threat condition group answered a total of 68 problems correctly. According to this study, the difference between the two groups was minimal, with a broad distribution of correct answers between the threat and no-threat groups as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1: Number of Correct Answers by Threat vs Nonthreat Group Discussion The hypothesis that there will not be a significant difference in cognitive processing of the mental rotation task between undergraduate women in this study holds true, as exhibited by the above data. The small sampling size may have resulted in a less clear trend than would have been exhibited were the study conducted among a larger group representative of the population. Additionally, the threat condition and no-threat condition surveys could be additionally evaluate for their effectiveness in generating or alleviating stereotype-threat related anxiety. This study does not show that stereotype-threat can be leveraged in order to achieve better performance in cognitive processing or general math activities. References: Walton, GM; Spencer, SJ (2009). Latent ability: Grades and Test Scores Systematically Underestimate the Intellectual Ability of Negatively Stereotyped Students. Psychological Science, 20, 1132–1139. Johns, Michael; Schmader, Toni; and Martens, Andy. (2005). Knowing Is Half the Battle: Teaching Stereotype Threat as a Means of Improving Women's Math Performance. Psychological Science, 16, 175. Read More