38
Social and academic stereotypes and their Impact on students Keller (2002) Gender Schmader, Johns & Barquissau (2004) Gender Aronson, Fried & Good (2002) Racial

Social and academic stereotypes and their Impact on students Keller (2002) Gender Schmader, Johns & Barquissau (2004) Gender Aronson, Fried & Good (2002)

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Social and academic stereotypes and their Impact on students Keller (2002) Gender Schmader, Johns & Barquissau (2004) Gender Aronson, Fried & Good (2002)

Social and academic stereotypes and their Impact on students

Keller (2002) Gender

Schmader, Johns & Barquissau (2004)Gender

Aronson, Fried & Good (2002) Racial

Page 2: Social and academic stereotypes and their Impact on students Keller (2002) Gender Schmader, Johns & Barquissau (2004) Gender Aronson, Fried & Good (2002)
Page 3: Social and academic stereotypes and their Impact on students Keller (2002) Gender Schmader, Johns & Barquissau (2004) Gender Aronson, Fried & Good (2002)

This ad from Mademoiselle magazine is directed at young women. What stereotypes apply?

Page 4: Social and academic stereotypes and their Impact on students Keller (2002) Gender Schmader, Johns & Barquissau (2004) Gender Aronson, Fried & Good (2002)
Page 5: Social and academic stereotypes and their Impact on students Keller (2002) Gender Schmader, Johns & Barquissau (2004) Gender Aronson, Fried & Good (2002)

1 Does playing a sport make one more masculine?2. Does cooking make one more feminine?

• the majority of males felt that masculinity or femininity was not determined by something a person does. •The majority of females had a converse opinion. They felt that playing a sport did not make one more masculine, but cooking did make one more feminine.

Page 6: Social and academic stereotypes and their Impact on students Keller (2002) Gender Schmader, Johns & Barquissau (2004) Gender Aronson, Fried & Good (2002)

Male MaleFemale Female

Sport Cooking

Page 7: Social and academic stereotypes and their Impact on students Keller (2002) Gender Schmader, Johns & Barquissau (2004) Gender Aronson, Fried & Good (2002)

http://www.campbell-kibler.com/Stereo.pdf

Page 8: Social and academic stereotypes and their Impact on students Keller (2002) Gender Schmader, Johns & Barquissau (2004) Gender Aronson, Fried & Good (2002)

Predictive relationships (also called correlations) range from 0 (no relationship) to 1 (a perfect relationship).

• The relationship between birth and death is a perfect 1.

• The closer the relationship is to 1, the better the prediction.

Page 9: Social and academic stereotypes and their Impact on students Keller (2002) Gender Schmader, Johns & Barquissau (2004) Gender Aronson, Fried & Good (2002)

The relationship between high school GPA and college GPA is: 0.6 If you have a high GPA in HS, the odds are your college GPA will also be high

The relationship between sex and quantitative skills, and sex and verbal skills are about 0.1

Page 10: Social and academic stereotypes and their Impact on students Keller (2002) Gender Schmader, Johns & Barquissau (2004) Gender Aronson, Fried & Good (2002)

http://www.campbell-kibler.com/Stereo.pdfMath Skills

Page 11: Social and academic stereotypes and their Impact on students Keller (2002) Gender Schmader, Johns & Barquissau (2004) Gender Aronson, Fried & Good (2002)
Page 12: Social and academic stereotypes and their Impact on students Keller (2002) Gender Schmader, Johns & Barquissau (2004) Gender Aronson, Fried & Good (2002)
Page 13: Social and academic stereotypes and their Impact on students Keller (2002) Gender Schmader, Johns & Barquissau (2004) Gender Aronson, Fried & Good (2002)
Page 14: Social and academic stereotypes and their Impact on students Keller (2002) Gender Schmader, Johns & Barquissau (2004) Gender Aronson, Fried & Good (2002)
Page 15: Social and academic stereotypes and their Impact on students Keller (2002) Gender Schmader, Johns & Barquissau (2004) Gender Aronson, Fried & Good (2002)

annual gender roles inchildren’s interactive media (GRIIMS) survey.

http://www.childrenssoftware.com/pdf/gender.pdf

Page 16: Social and academic stereotypes and their Impact on students Keller (2002) Gender Schmader, Johns & Barquissau (2004) Gender Aronson, Fried & Good (2002)

Lead roles:

Page 17: Social and academic stereotypes and their Impact on students Keller (2002) Gender Schmader, Johns & Barquissau (2004) Gender Aronson, Fried & Good (2002)

GenderAppeal

Page 18: Social and academic stereotypes and their Impact on students Keller (2002) Gender Schmader, Johns & Barquissau (2004) Gender Aronson, Fried & Good (2002)

Keller

Blatant Stereotype & Self-Handicapping

Schmader, Johns, & Barquissau

The Costs of Accepting Gender Stereotype

Page 19: Social and academic stereotypes and their Impact on students Keller (2002) Gender Schmader, Johns & Barquissau (2004) Gender Aronson, Fried & Good (2002)

Keller (2002). Why did women in the experiment underperform in comparison to the control group?

• They had heightened salience of negative stereotypic expectations. How did this impair them?• increased their self-handicapping tendencies• This in turn led to significantly poormath performance

Page 20: Social and academic stereotypes and their Impact on students Keller (2002) Gender Schmader, Johns & Barquissau (2004) Gender Aronson, Fried & Good (2002)

Why is gender difference in math performance assumed to be a universal phenomenon?

•Countries studied have a heterogeneous cultural mix

South AfricaRussia FranceUSA

Page 21: Social and academic stereotypes and their Impact on students Keller (2002) Gender Schmader, Johns & Barquissau (2004) Gender Aronson, Fried & Good (2002)

3 main theoretical approaches to gender differences:1. Biological models (What factors?)

•brain differences •hormonal influences •genetic factors •evolutionary processes

2. The psychosocial approaches (What factors?)

•learned helplessness •autonomous learning behavior •expectations and values

Page 22: Social and academic stereotypes and their Impact on students Keller (2002) Gender Schmader, Johns & Barquissau (2004) Gender Aronson, Fried & Good (2002)

3. Stereotype Threat Theory (STT) (Factor?) Cognitive abilitiesWhat is STT The situational aspects in testing sessions undermines the negatively stereotyped group’s performance:

Members of stereotyped groups face pressure when they find them in a situation that their performance is being judged as confirming the negativestereotypic expectations.

Page 23: Social and academic stereotypes and their Impact on students Keller (2002) Gender Schmader, Johns & Barquissau (2004) Gender Aronson, Fried & Good (2002)

Under what conditions does the stereotype threat affect women?

• where the test pushes ability to the limit, tests of a high level of difficulty

• when ability is evaluated and scrutinized

• when a negative stereotypic expectation is directly applicable to the test performance.

Page 24: Social and academic stereotypes and their Impact on students Keller (2002) Gender Schmader, Johns & Barquissau (2004) Gender Aronson, Fried & Good (2002)

What other tendency is related to STT ?

• Self-handicapping

What does it mean?

• Target groups of blatant stereotypethreat offer external explanations for a possible weak performance on the test

Page 25: Social and academic stereotypes and their Impact on students Keller (2002) Gender Schmader, Johns & Barquissau (2004) Gender Aronson, Fried & Good (2002)

Among women, what results from increased applicability of negative stereotypes?

• decreased performance by members of negatively stereotyped groups.

Page 26: Social and academic stereotypes and their Impact on students Keller (2002) Gender Schmader, Johns & Barquissau (2004) Gender Aronson, Fried & Good (2002)

What happens if men are positively stereotyped? • under conditions of high stereotype salience no reduction was found in the performance of men. • no heightened degree of self-handicapping tendencies in men• no evidence in support of the hypothesis that positive stereotypes may threaten intellectual performance

Page 27: Social and academic stereotypes and their Impact on students Keller (2002) Gender Schmader, Johns & Barquissau (2004) Gender Aronson, Fried & Good (2002)

What is a mediating factor between STT and women’s math performance?

• impact of self-handicapping tendencies

What is the impact?

• blatant stereotype threat induces a need to protect the self from negative attributions

Page 28: Social and academic stereotypes and their Impact on students Keller (2002) Gender Schmader, Johns & Barquissau (2004) Gender Aronson, Fried & Good (2002)

What occurs with the elimination of STT?

• No self-handicapping

What results from a blatant STT?

• Strong degree of uncertainty follows, which sets off self-handicapping tendencies.

Page 29: Social and academic stereotypes and their Impact on students Keller (2002) Gender Schmader, Johns & Barquissau (2004) Gender Aronson, Fried & Good (2002)

Keller Blatant Stereotype & Self- Handicapping

Schmader, Johns, & Barquissau The Costs of Accepting Gender Stereotype

Page 30: Social and academic stereotypes and their Impact on students Keller (2002) Gender Schmader, Johns & Barquissau (2004) Gender Aronson, Fried & Good (2002)

Schmader, et al. (2004)Why is stereotype endorsement an important variable in this study on gender?

• for understanding women’s lower levels of involvement in math-related fields

• as well as their lower test scores.

Page 31: Social and academic stereotypes and their Impact on students Keller (2002) Gender Schmader, Johns & Barquissau (2004) Gender Aronson, Fried & Good (2002)

What do women who believe that status differences between the sexes are legitimate, endorse?

•gender stereotypes about women’s math abilities

•predicted more negative self-perception of math competence

•less interest in continuing math studies

Page 32: Social and academic stereotypes and their Impact on students Keller (2002) Gender Schmader, Johns & Barquissau (2004) Gender Aronson, Fried & Good (2002)

What theory/ factor predict these beliefs?

•Social dominance theory

•Legitimizing ideologies

Page 33: Social and academic stereotypes and their Impact on students Keller (2002) Gender Schmader, Johns & Barquissau (2004) Gender Aronson, Fried & Good (2002)

Why do some people believe in dominance over other groups?

•They subscribe to social dominanceideologies

How is this explained?•people have a pervasive tendency to assume that it is an inevitable fact of human society that some groups must dominate other groups (Sidanius & Pratto, 1993).

Page 34: Social and academic stereotypes and their Impact on students Keller (2002) Gender Schmader, Johns & Barquissau (2004) Gender Aronson, Fried & Good (2002)

What are legitimizing ideologies?Who believe in them?

• members of advantaged groups are more likely than disadvantaged groups to endorse legitimizing ideologies

• sometimes also endorsed by lower status and socially disadvantaged groups

Page 35: Social and academic stereotypes and their Impact on students Keller (2002) Gender Schmader, Johns & Barquissau (2004) Gender Aronson, Fried & Good (2002)

Who are more likely to endorse gender stereotypes about women’s math ability?

• women majoring in male-dominated fields who believe that status differences between men and women in society are legitimate

Page 36: Social and academic stereotypes and their Impact on students Keller (2002) Gender Schmader, Johns & Barquissau (2004) Gender Aronson, Fried & Good (2002)

Why does Protestant work ethic, seem to have a more beneficial association for women?

It was related to less endorsement of gender differences in math ability

Page 37: Social and academic stereotypes and their Impact on students Keller (2002) Gender Schmader, Johns & Barquissau (2004) Gender Aronson, Fried & Good (2002)

What does the study show as the consequences if college women endorsed math-related stereotypes?

• fewer intentions to attend graduate school in their math-related major

• more negative self-perceptions related to their math abilities

• less confident in their abilities and had lower performance self-esteem

Page 38: Social and academic stereotypes and their Impact on students Keller (2002) Gender Schmader, Johns & Barquissau (2004) Gender Aronson, Fried & Good (2002)

What did endorsing gender stereotype lead to?

• lower test performance

• women’s lower levels of involvement in math-related fields