Stereotypes & Stereotype Threat Affect Computing Students National Center for Women & Information technology (NCWIT), J. Mcgrath Cohoon & the Academic Alliance

Stereotypes Are Good … Mental shortcuts for generalizing knowledge to other situations [[ Show/Embed the YouTube Sesame Street video, “One of These Things Is Not Like the Others”: http://youtu.be/ueZ6tvqhk8U ]] We all stereotype, or generalize what we know from one situation to other situations that seem similar. This mental process is crucial for us to avoid facing every situation as unique. The right way to classify things, however, is not always obvious.

And Stereotypes Are Bad … They can lead to mistakes, or miscategorization African Americans For example, we sometimes generalize when we should not, or base our generalizations on wrong categorizations. [Note from Stephanie to design: Is there a way to made that modification look more like it belongs, or at least make all of “African American” be on one line?] with modification by Cohoon 2012

Common Stereotype: Feminine ≠ Technical An example of harmful stereotypes that are prevalent in our culture are those about being feminine and being technical. The generalizations about these two characteristics have little or no overlap. Instead, we tend to assume that men have technical skills and that technical people are masculine. For example, have you ever had the experience of someone needing technical help asking for it from a man (who actually knew little) instead of a woman (who actually knew much)? Lagesen 2005

Stereotypes Aren’t Just About Gender Race, age, body mass, … all have associated stereotypes Example: Who scores higher on math tests? -White male engineering students? -Asian male engineering students? Answer based on racial stereotyping: White male engineering students score lower when told in advance that Asians typically score higher on math tests Source: Aronson, et al., 1999; Steele & Aronson, 1998 Other examples of stereotypes, and negative effects they can cause: Race: African Americans’ academic performance suffers when reminded about stereotypes of race and intelligence Age: Seniors do worse on memory tests when attention is called to their age

Stereotypes Can Create Threatening Situations Fear of confirming negative beliefs about my group … Hinders performance Affects choices and aspirations Leads to harsh personal standards, opting out if not met [READ DEFINITION OF STEREOTYPE THREAT FROM SLIDE] “Stereotype threat is the fear of confirming negative beliefs about my group.” Stereotype threat has been shown to affect performance (e.g., age and memory tests, ability to jump and race), aspirations (gender and intention to be a leader), and personal standards (gender and intention to persist in computing after receiving a B grade). “A meta-analysis of dozens of experiments on thousands of youths found that in situations without stereotype threat, minority or female youths do better than comparable White young men” (Logel et al. 2012). Research specifically shows that female students who report high levels of stereotype threat in male-dominated majors are more likely to consider changing their majors than women in fields not dominated by men (Steele, James, & Barnett, 2002). Correll 2004; Chasteen et al. 2005

Stereotype Threat: Easy to Trigger; Affects Motivated Students Some triggers: Gender imbalance in room Stereotyped physical space Attention called to gender “People quickly detect associations between social groups and particular traits (Gawronski & Bodenhausen, 2006; Mitchell et al., 2003; Olson & Fazio, 2001), but are slow to unlearn them, even when presented with contradictory evidence (Gregg et al., 2006).” (Lane et al. 2012). Just being a stigmatized minority in the room can trigger stereotype threat, so women in a computing class that is mostly men can feel threatened by the negative stereotypes about female technical abilities. Room décor communicates what type of person belongs there, so that a room with Star Trek posters and piles of empty high-caffeine drinks reduced women students’ intentions to major in computing (Cheryan, 2010). Comments that call attention to gender, such as, “Females don’t seem to do as well as males with structured top-down programming” or even, “We’re glad that we have at least Susan and Helen to represent women in our class” can trigger stereotype threat.

Stereotype Threat Masks Ability Remove threat and women test better Advanced calculus course with 100 male, 57 female students No gender difference in course grades Significant difference in test performance without threat Graph: Calculus questions from GRE Subject test were given to college students in an advanced calculus class. Men’s and women’s course grades were the same, because only those students who could perform at an acceptable standard got into this course. The women were earning about the same grades as their male classmates, despite the presence of stereotype threat. But when an intervention reduced the threat, women performed better than men on the calculus test. This example shows that in the presence of stereotype threat, we can fail to recognize our best students. Women and minority students are likely to be performing below their actual abilities. We’re going to talk about several different interventions, and we’ll talk about the most reliable ones in just a minute. The intervention to reduce stereotype threat was the following: (I do not recommend this approach because it is too easy to inadvertently make the situation worse by awkward phrasing). Students read about the test, but women got an additional: “What about gender differences? This mathematics test has not shown any gender differences in performance or mathematics ability. The test has been piloted in many mathematics courses across the nation to determine how reliable and valid the test is for measuring mathematics ability. Analysis of thousands of students' test results has shown that males and females perform equally well on this test. In other words, this mathematics test shows no gender differences.” Good, Aronson, Harder, 2008

Stereotype Threat Triggers & Ability Example 2: Asian Women vs. control group Example 3: GRE exam White male engr grad students vs. Asian male engr grad students Another example showing how race and gender stereotype threats affect performance: “Before completing a math test, researchers randomly assigned participants to complete a demographics prompt that either had them focus on their gender, their race/ethnicity, or neither (a control condition). The focus of the demographics section differentially influenced participants’ performance: Asian women who answered questions about their gender performed worse than participants in the control condition, whereas Asian women who answered questions about their race performed better than participants in the control condition (Shih et al. 1999)” in Shapiro & Williams 2011. Good, Aronson, Harder, 2008

Stereotype Threat Reduces Learning and Persistence Note-taking skill reduced by stereotype threat Feelings of belonging impaired Appel et al. 2011; Good et al. 2012

Stereotype Threat Has Subtle Negative Effects Too Don’t speak up in groups or classes Reluctant to take leadership roles Discount their performance Many women and minorities are hesitant to speak up in a group setting, are reluctant to accept a leadership role (much less to volunteer or nominate themselves for it,) and underestimate their own abilities. In groups, they often find themselves in “executor” rather than “creator” roles. How this can show up: “this idea is probably stupid, but …” / worry about “keeping up” even when receiving same grades as men / or when working on teams, become the project manager rather than the one writing code, solving problems.

Some Interventions That Work Emphasize growth in intelligence Normalize “Wise” feedback Self-affirmation of values Research has identified several interventions that can reduce stereotype threat: Emphasize growth in intelligence (that intelligence is fungible, not fixed) Normalize (stress that the struggle is normal) “Wise” feedback (“I know you can do it”) Self-affirmation of values (remind students why they feel good about themselves) Aronson et al. 2002; Good et al. 2008; Cohen & Steele 2002; Purdie-Vaughns & Garcia 2011

Emphasize Growth in Intelligence The effort to master difficult material actually increases intellectual ability People who believe that effort improves ability, are more likely to persist in the face of challenge. A research-verified means of minimizing stereotype threat is by informing students about the evidence on the plasticity of our brains and our intelligence. They need to know that our brains, like our muscles, get stronger by working through challenges. For example, African American college students who were exposed to this view received higher grade point averages and later reported that academic achievement was more important to their senses of selves (Aronson, Fried, & Good, 2002)” (Goode et al. 2008). Likewise, there was an intervention where “college students mentored middle school students and helped them create web-pages advocating the view that intelligence is a malleable capacity (Good, Aronson, & Inzlicht, 2003). At the end of the year, the middle school females who received the malleable message earned higher scores on the state-wide standardized test in math than their female peers who instead received an anti-drug message as part of the intervention.” (Good et al. 2008)

Normalize the Struggle to Master It takes some time for most people to “get” this Keep working on it and it will click I’ll help For example, students perform better when instructors just remind them that is it normal to struggle with new concepts or skills in computing, and that with effort and practice, the material will get easier.

Provide “Wise” Feedback “I’m being critical, but I’m holding you to a high standard … I know you can do it” Results: Black students more likely to revise their work; grade gap between Black and White students reduced When giving underrepresented students performance feedback, do not coddle them just because they may be at a disadvantage. Instead, give them the specific feedback they need for honing their skills. When you give the feedback, explain that the reason you are identifying things that need improvement is because you are holding them to a very high standard, which you know they are capable of achieving. Be sure to also be specific about how to achieve those standards. Research, such as that by Cohen & Steele, shows that when instructors provided “wise” feedback, Black students were more likely to actually revise their work according to the feedback, and in the long run, the grade gap between black and white students was narrowed.

Self-Affirmation Identify your most important value(s): E.g., relationships with friends, family, being good at … Write a short paragraph about why this value is important to you. Confirm: “In general, I try to live up to these values.” Research in various settings showed long-term benefits from having students spend a few minutes affirming their values. This approach allows the students to focus on what is special and good about themselves. For example, their ability or interest in music; career; spiritual or religious values; sense of humor. As you can see from the results of one study’s outcomes graphed on this slide, the practice of identifying and writing about important personal values greatly benefitted stereotyped students. It raised women’s performance on a spatial rotation test to essentially the same level as men’s, despite women’s awareness of negative gender stereotypes about skill in this domain. Description of experiment: “The experimenter informed participants that they would work on a spatial rotation test and that the study was concerned with various factors involved in spatial intelligence. The experimenter told them that after the test they would receive feedback to give them an idea of their strengths and weaknesses on this kind of task. The experimenter added “For instance, one thing we will look at is how men and women differ in their performance on the test, and how true the stereotype is, or the generally held belief is, that women have more trouble with spatial rotation tasks.” In this way, we induced stereotype threat by explicitly telling female participants that they were stereotyped as deficient in spatial rotation ability. The experimenter then explained that the test would be challenging, and that this was necessary to accurately evaluate people’s abilities and limitations to better understand the factors involved in both. The experimenter closed the introduction by asking the participants to make a strong and genuine effort when taking the test. “…, participants were then randomly assigned one of two versions of a “preliminary form,” which served to manipulate self-affirmation. Once all the participants completed the preliminary form, the experimenter administered the spatial rotation test. This test was the Vandenberg and Kuse (1978) Mental Rotation Test, refurbished under the guidance of Peters et al. (1995). The cover page displayed the label “Spatial Ability Test” and included a space for participants to record their name and gender. There were 24 items, each consisting of a target figure and four comparison figures. Two of the four comparison figures were always rotated versions of the target figure, while the other two were always different than the target. The participants were instructed to rotate the figures in their mind to figure out and mark the two options they believed matched the target. Furthermore, they were told that for an item to be correct, both correct options needed to be marked. Before beginning the test all participants were guided through a practice page. The experimenter then explained to participants that they would have only 12 min to work on the test and to work as quickly as possible without sacrificing accuracy.” Data for chart: women affirming = 13.44; women not affirming=10.05 (significant difference at .05 level); men affirming=14.24; men not affirming=13.13 (no significant difference between the latter).

Conclusion Women and minority students are in our classes under different circumstances than majority men are. Nevertheless, we can create an environment that fosters ability, learning, and persistence of diverse students.

Learn More Create a stereotype threat-free environment for attracting able and diverse students to computing. See the resources listed on NCWIT’s Talk with Faculty Colleagues About Stereotype Threat (www.ncwit.org/stereotypethreattp) Appel, M. & Kronberger, N. (2012). Stereotypes and the achievement gap: Stereotype threat prior to test taking. Educational Psychology Review. doi: 10.1007/s10648-012-9200-4 How Does the Physical Environment Affect Women's Entry and Persistence in Computing? Design Physical Space that Has Broad Appeal (Case Study 1) (www.ncwit.org/physicalspaceuw) ReducingStereotypeThreat.org (www.reducingstereotypethreat.org) How Do Stereotype Threats Affect Retention? Better Approaches to Well-intentioned but Harmful Messages (Case Study 1) (www.ncwit.org/stereotypethreat)

Questions? Comments?

NCWIT is the National Center for Women & Information Technology Mobilizing for Change: NCWIT Our coalition includes more than 250 universities, corporations, and non-profits.