research paper topics stereotypes

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Twenty Years of Stereotype Threat Research: A Review of Psychological Mediators

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Department of Psychology, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, Lancashire, England, United Kingdom

• Charlotte R. Pennington, 
• Derek Heim, 
• Andrew R. Levy, 
• Derek T. Larkin

• Published: January 11, 2016
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146487
• Reader Comments

This systematic literature review appraises critically the mediating variables of stereotype threat. A bibliographic search was conducted across electronic databases between 1995 and 2015. The search identified 45 experiments from 38 articles and 17 unique proposed mediators that were categorized into affective/subjective ( n = 6), cognitive ( n = 7) and motivational mechanisms ( n = 4). Empirical support was accrued for mediators such as anxiety, negative thinking, and mind-wandering, which are suggested to co-opt working memory resources under stereotype threat. Other research points to the assertion that stereotype threatened individuals may be motivated to disconfirm negative stereotypes, which can have a paradoxical effect of hampering performance. However, stereotype threat appears to affect diverse social groups in different ways, with no one mediator providing unequivocal empirical support. Underpinned by the multi-threat framework, the discussion postulates that different forms of stereotype threat may be mediated by distinct mechanisms.

Citation: Pennington CR, Heim D, Levy AR, Larkin DT (2016) Twenty Years of Stereotype Threat Research: A Review of Psychological Mediators. PLoS ONE 11(1): e0146487. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146487

Editor: Marina A. Pavlova, University of Tuebingen Medical School, GERMANY

Received: June 23, 2015; Accepted: December 17, 2015; Published: January 11, 2016

Copyright: © 2016 Pennington et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: The authors acknowledge support toward open access publishing by the Graduate School and the Department of Psychology at Edge Hill University. The funders had no role in the systematic review, data collection or analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

The present review examines the mediators of stereotype threat that have been proposed over the past two decades. It appraises critically the underlying mechanisms of stereotype threat as a function of the type of threat primed, the population studied, and the measures utilized to examine mediation and performance outcomes. Here, we propose that one reason that has precluded studies from finding firm evidence of mediation is the appreciation of distinct forms of stereotype threat.

Stereotype Threat: An Overview

Over the past two decades, stereotype threat has become one of the most widely researched topics in social psychology [ 1 , 2 ]. Reaching its 20 th anniversary, Steele and Aronson’s [ 3 ] original article has gathered approximately 5,000 citations and has been referred to as a 'modern classic' [ 4 , 5 , 6 ]. In stark contrast to theories of genetic intelligence [ 7 , 8 ] (and see [ 9 ] for debate), the theory of stereotype threat posits that stigmatized group members may underperform on diagnostic tests of ability through concerns about confirming a negative societal stereotype as self-characteristic [ 3 ]. Steele and Aronson [ 3 ] demonstrated that African American participants underperformed on a verbal reasoning test when it was presented as a diagnostic indicator of intellectual ability. Conversely, when the same test was presented as non-diagnostic of ability, they performed equivalently to their Caucasian peers. This seminal research indicates that the mere salience of negative societal stereotypes, which may magnify over time, can impede performance. The theory of stereotype threat therefore offers a situational explanation for the ongoing and intractable debate regarding the source of group differences in academic aptitude [ 1 ].

Stereotype threat has been used primarily to explain gaps in intellectual and quantitative test scores between African and European Americans [ 3 , 10 ] and women and men respectively [ 11 ]. However, it is important to acknowledge that many factors shape academic performance, and stereotype threat is unlikely to be the sole explanation for academic achievement gaps [ 12 ]. This is supported by research which has shown “pure” stereotype threat effects on a task in which a gender-achievement gap has not been previously documented [ 13 ], thus suggesting that performance decrements can be elicited simply by reference to a negative stereotype. Furthermore, stereotype threat effects may not be limited to social groups who routinely face stigmatizing attitudes. Rather, it can befall anyone who is a member of a group to which a negative stereotype applies [ 3 ]. For example, research indicates that Caucasian men, a group that have a relatively positive social status, underperform when they believe that their mathematical performance will be compared to that of Asian men [ 14 ]. White men also appear to perform worse than black men when motor tasks are related to 'natural athletic ability' [ 15 , 16 ]. From a theoretical standpoint, stereotype threat exposes how group stereotypes may shape the behavior of individuals in a way that endangers their performance and further reinforces the stereotype [ 10 ].

Over 300 experiments have illustrated the deleterious and extensive effects that stereotype threat can inflict on many different populations [ 17 ]. The possibility of confirming a negative stereotype about one’s group is found to contribute to underperformance on a range of diverse tasks including intelligence [ 3 , 13 ], memory [ 18 , 19 ], mental rotation [ 20 – 23 ], and math tests [ 11 , 24 , 25 ], golf putting [ 26 ], driving [ 27 , 28 ] and childcare skills [ 29 ]. Given the generality of these findings, researchers have turned their efforts to elucidating the underlying mechanisms of this situational phenomenon.

Susceptibility to Stereotype Threat

Research has identified numerous moderators that make tasks more likely to elicit stereotype threat, and individuals more prone to experience it [ 30 , 31 ]. From a methodological perspective, stereotype threat effects tend to emerge on tasks of high difficulty and demand [ 32 , 33 ], however, the extent to which a task is perceived as demanding may be moderated by individual differences in working memory [ 34 ]. Additionally, stereotype threat may be more likely to occur when individuals are conscious of the stigma ascribed to their social group [ 32 , 35 ], believe the stereotypes about their group to be true [ 36 , 37 ], for those with low self-esteem [ 38 ], and an internal locus of control [ 39 ]. Research also indicates that individuals are more susceptible to stereotype threat when they identify strongly with their social group [ 40 , 41 , 42 ] and value the domain [ 10 , 13 , 15 , 33 , 43 ]. However, other research suggests that domain identification is not a prerequisite of stereotype threat effects [ 44 ] and may act as a strategy to overcome harmful academic consequences [ 45 , 46 ].

Mediators of Stereotype Threat

There has also been an exPLOSion of research into the psychological mediators of stereotype threat (c.f. [ 2 , 47 ] for reviews). In their comprehensive review, Schmader et al. [ 2 ] proposed an integrated process model, suggesting that stereotype threat heightens physiological stress responses and influences monitoring and suppression processes to deplete working memory efficiency. This provides an important contribution to the literature, signaling that multiple affective, cognitive and motivational processes may underpin the effects of stereotype threat on performance. However, the extent to which each of these variables has garnered empirical support remains unclear. Furthermore, prior research has overlooked the existence of distinct stereotype threats in the elucidation of mediating variables. Through the lens of the multi-threat framework [ 31 ], the current review distinguishes between different stereotype threat primes, which target either the self or the social group to assess the evidence base with regards to the existence of multiple stereotype threats that may be accounted for by distinct mechanisms.

A Multi-threat Approach to Mediation

Stereotype threat is typically viewed as a form of social identity threat: A situational predicament occurring when individuals perceive their social group to be devalued by others [ 48 , 49 , 50 ]. However, this notion overlooks how individuals may self-stigmatize and evaluate themselves [ 51 , 52 , 53 ] and the conflict people may experience between their personal and social identities [ 54 ]. More recently, researchers have distinguished between the role of the self and the social group in performance-evaluative situations [ 31 ]. The multi-threat framework [ 31 ] identifies six qualitatively distinct stereotype threats that manifest through the intersection of two dimensions: The target of the threat (i.e., is the stereotype applicable to one’s personal or social identity?) and the source of threat (i.e., who will judge performance; the in-group or the out-group?). Focusing on the target of the stereotype, individuals who experience a group-as-target threat may perceive that underperformance will confirm a negative societal stereotype regarding the abilities of their social group. Conversely, individuals who experience a self-as-target threat may perceive that stereotype-consistent performance will be viewed as self-characteristic [ 31 , 55 ]. Individuals may therefore experience either a self or group-based threat dependent on situational cues in the environment that heighten the contingency of a stereotyped identity [ 2 ].

Researchers also theorize that members of diverse stigmatized groups may experience different forms of stereotype threat [ 31 , 56 ], and that these distinct experiences may be mediated by somewhat different processes [ 31 , 57 ]. Indeed, there is some indirect empirical evidence to suggest that this may be the case. For example, Pavlova and colleagues [ 13 ] found that an implicit stereotype threat prime hampered women’s performance on a social cognition task. Conversely, men’s performance suffered when they were primed with an explicit gender-related stereotype. Moreover, Stone and McWhinnie [ 58 ] suggest that subtle stereotype threat cues (i.e., the gender of the experimenter) may evoke a tendency to actively monitor performance and avoid mistakes, whereas blatant stereotype threat cues (i.e., stereotype prime) create distractions that deplete working memory resources. Whilst different stereotype threat cues may simultaneously exert negative effects on performance, it is plausible that they are induced by independent mechanisms [ 58 ]. Nonetheless, insufficient evidence has prevented the multi-threat framework [ 31 ] to be evaluated empirically to date. It therefore remains to be assessed whether the same mechanisms are responsible for the effects of distinct stereotype threats on different populations and performance measures.

The current article offers the first systematic literature review aiming to: 1), identify and examine critically the proposed mediators of stereotype threat; 2), explore whether the effects of self-as-target or group-as-target stereotype threat on performance are the result of qualitatively distinct mediating mechanisms; and 3), evaluate whether different mediators govern different stereotyped populations.

Literature Search

A bibliographic search of electronic databases, such as PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, Web of Knowledge, PubMed, Science Direct and Google Scholar was conducted between the cut-off dates of 1995 (the publication year of Steele & Aronson’s seminal article) and December 2015. A search string was developed by specifying the main terms of the phenomenon under investigation. Here, the combined key words of stereotype and threat were utilized as overarching search parameters and directly paired with either one of the following terms; mediator , mediating , mediate(s) , predictor , predicts , relationship or mechanism(s) . Additional references were retrieved by reviewing the reference lists of relevant journal articles. To control for potential publication bias [ 59 , 60 , 61 ], the lead author also enquired about any ‘in press’ articles by sending out a call for papers through the European Association for Social Psychology. The second author conducted a comparable search using the same criteria to ensure that no studies were overlooked in the original search. Identification of relevant articles and data extraction were conducted in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement (PRISMA; See S1 Table ) [ 62 ]. A literature search was conducted separately in each database and the records were exported to citation software, after which duplicates were removed. Relevant articles were screened by examining the title and abstract in line with the eligibility criteria. The remaining articles were assessed for eligibility by performing a full text review [ 63 , 64 ].

Eligibility Criteria.

Studies were selected based on the following criteria: 1), researchers utilized a stereotype threat manipulation; 2), a direct mediation analysis was conducted between stereotype threat and performance; 3), researchers found evidence of moderated-mediation, and 4), the full text was available in English. Articles were excluded on the following basis: 1), performance was not the dependent variable, 2), investigations of “stereotype lift”; 3), doctorate, dissertation and review articles (to avoid duplication of included articles); and 4), moderating variables. Articles that did not find any significant results in relation to stereotype threat effects were also excluded in order to capture reliable evidence of mediation [ 65 ]. See Table 1 for details of excluded articles.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146487.t001

Distinguishing Different Stereotype Threats.

The current review distinguished between different experiences of stereotype threat by examining each stereotype threat manipulation. Self-as-target threats were categorized on the basis that participants focused on the test as a measure of personal ability whereas group-as-target threats were classified on the basis that participants perceived performance to be diagnostic of their group’s ability [ 31 ].

A total of 45 studies in 38 articles were qualitatively synthesized, uncovering a total of 17 distinct proposed mediators. See Fig 1 for process of article inclusion (full details of article exclusion can be viewed in S1 Supporting Information ). These mediators were categorized into affective/subjective ( n = 6), cognitive ( n = 7) or motivational mechanisms ( n = 4). Effect sizes for mediational findings are described typically through informal descriptors, such as complete , perfect , or partial [ 66 ]. With this in mind, the current findings are reported in terms of complete or partial mediation. Complete mediation indicates that the relationship between stereotype threat ( X ) and performance ( Y ) completely disappears when a mediator ( M ) is added as a predictor variable [ 66 ]. Partial mediation refers to instances in which a significant direct effect remains between stereotype threat and performance when controlling for the mediator, suggesting that additional variables may further explain this relationship [ 67 ]. Instances of moderated mediation are also reported, which occurs when the strength of mediation is contingent on the level of a moderating variable [ 68 ]. The majority of included research utilized a group-as-target prime ( n = 36, 80%) compared to a self-as-target prime ( n = 6; 13.33%). Three studies (6.66%) were uncategorized as they employed subtle stereotype threat primes, for example, manipulating the group composition of the testing environment.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146487.g001

Affective/Subjective Mechanisms

Researchers have conceptualized stereotype threat frequently as a fear, apprehension or anxiety of confirming a negative stereotype about one’s group [ 3 , 69 , 70 ]. Accordingly, many affective and subjective variables such as anxiety, individuation tendencies, evaluation apprehension, performance expectations, explicit stereotype endorsement and self-efficacy have been proposed to account for the stereotype threat-performance relationship.

Steele and Aronson’s [ 3 ] original study did not find self-reported anxiety to be a significant mediator of the effects of a self-relevant stereotype on African American’s intellectual performance. Extending this work, Spencer et al. (Experiment 3, [ 11 ]) found that anxiety was not predictive of the effects that a negative group stereotype had on women’s mathematical achievement, with further research confirming this [ 14 , 44 , 71 ]. Additional studies have indicated that self-reported anxiety does not influence the impact of self-as-target stereotype elicitation on African American’s cognitive ability [ 72 ], white students’ athletic skills [ 15 ], and group-as-target stereotype threat on older adults’ memory recall [ 18 , 32 ].

Research also suggests that anxiety may account for one of multiple mediators in the stereotype threat-performance relationship. In a field study, Chung and colleagues [ 73 ] found that self-reported state anxiety and specific self-efficacy sequentially mediated the influence of stereotype threat on African American’s promotional exam performance. This finding is supported by Mrazek et al. [ 74 ] who found that anxiety and mind-wandering sequentially mediated the effects of stereotype threat on women’s mathematical ability. Laurin [ 75 ] also found that self-reported somatic anxiety partially mediated the effects of group-as-target stereotype threat on women’s motor performance. Nevertheless, it is viable to question whether this finding is comparable to other studies as stereotype threat had a facilitating effect on performance.

The mixed results regarding anxiety as a potential mediator of performance outcomes may be indicative of various boundary conditions that enhance stereotype threat susceptibility. Consistent with this claim, Gerstenberg, Imhoff and Schmitt (Experiment 3 [ 76 ]) found that women who reported a fragile math self-concept solved fewer math problems under group-as-target stereotype threat and this susceptibility was mediated by increased anxiety. This moderated-mediation suggests that women with a low academic self-concept may be more vulnerable to stereotype threat, with anxiety underpinning its effect on mathematical performance.

Given that anxiety may be relatively difficult to detect via self-report measures [ 3 , 29 ], researchers have utilized indirect measures. For instance, Bosson et al. [ 29 ] found that physiological anxiety mediated the effects of stereotype threat on homosexual males’ performance on an interpersonal task. Nevertheless, this effect has not been replicated for the effects of group-as-target stereotype threat on older adults’ memory recall [ 32 ] and self-as-target threat on children’s writing ability [ 77 ].

Individuation tendencies.

Steele and Aronson [ 3 ] proposed that stereotype threat might occur when individuals perceive a negative societal stereotype to be a true representation of personal ability. Based on this, Keller and Sekaquaptewa [ 78 ] examined whether gender-related threats (i.e., group-as-target threat) influenced women to individuate their personal identity (the self) from their social identity (female). Results revealed that participants underperformed on a spatial ability test when they perceived that they were a single in-group representative (female) in a group of males. Moreover, stereotype threat was partially mediated by ‘individuation tendencies’ in that gender-based threats influenced women to disassociate their self from the group to lessen the applicability of the stereotype. The authors suggest that this increased level of self-focused attention under solo status conditions is likely related to increased levels of anxiety.

Evaluation apprehension.

Steele and Aronson [ 3 ] also suggested that individuals might apprehend that they will confirm a negative stereotype in the eyes of out-group members. Despite this, Mayer and Hanges [ 72 ] found that evaluation apprehension did not mediate the effects of a self-as-target stereotype threat on African American’s cognitive ability. Additional studies also indicate that evaluation apprehension does not mediate the effects of group-as-target stereotype threat on women’s mathematical performance [ 11 , 79 ].

Performance expectations.

Under stereotype threat, individuals may evaluate the subjective likelihood of success depending on their personal resources. As these personal resources are typically anchored to group-level expectations, in-group threatening information (i.e., women are poor at math) may reduce personal expectancies to achieve and diminish performance [ 80 ]. Testing this prediction, Cadinu et al. (Experiment 1 [ 80 ]) found that women solved fewer math problems when they were primed with a negative group-based stereotype relative to those who received a positive or no stereotype. Furthermore, performance expectancies partially mediated the effect of group-as-target threat on math performance, revealing that negative information was associated with lower expectancies. A second experiment indicated further that performance expectancies partially mediated the effects of group-as-target threat on Black participants’ verbal ability. Research by Rosenthal, Crisp and Mein-Woei (Experiment 2 [ 81 ]) also found that performance expectancies partially mediated the effects of self-based stereotypes on women’s mathematical performance. However, rather than decreasing performance expectancies, women under stereotype threat reported higher predictions for performance relative to a control condition.

Research has extended this work to examine the role of performance expectancies in diverse stigmatized populations. For example, Hess et al. [ 32 ] found evidence of moderated-mediation for the effects of a group-as-target stereotype threat on older adults’ memory recall. Here, the degree to which performance expectancies mediated stereotype threat effects was moderated by participants’ education. That is, elderly individuals with higher levels of education showed greater susceptibility to stereotype threat. These findings add weight to the assertion that lowered performance expectations may account for the effects of stereotype threat on performance, especially among individuals who identify strongly with the ability domain. Conversely, Appel et al. [ 43 ] found that performance expectancies do not mediate the effects of group-based stereotype threat among highly identified women in the domains of science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

Further research suggests that stereotype threat can be activated through subtle cues in the environment rather than explicit stereotype activation [ 58 , 82 ]. It is therefore plausible that expectancies regarding performance may be further undermined when stigmatized in-group members are required to perform a stereotype-relevant task in front of out-group members. Advancing this suggestion, Sekaquaptewa and Thompson [ 82 ] examined the interactive effects of solo status and stereotype threat on women’s mathematical performance. Results revealed that women underperformed when they completed a quantitative examination in the presence of men (solo status) and under stereotype threat. However, whilst performance expectancies partially mediated the relationship between group composition and mathematical ability, they did not mediate the effects of stereotype threat on performance.

Explicit stereotype endorsement.

Research has examined whether targeted individuals’ personal endorsement of negative stereotypes is associated with underperformance. For example, Leyens and colleagues [ 83 ] found that men underperformed on an affective task when they were told that they were not as apt as women in processing affective information. Against predictions, however, stereotype endorsement was not found to be a significant intermediary between stereotype threat and performance. Other studies also indicate that stereotype endorsement is not an underlying mechanism of the effects of self-as-target [ 3 ] and group-as-target stereotype threat on women’s mathematical aptitude [ 11 , 84 ].

Self-efficacy.

Research suggests that self-efficacy can have a significant impact on an individual’s motivation and performance [ 85 , 86 , 87 ], and may be influenced by environmental cues [ 88 ]. Accordingly, it has been proposed that the situational salience of a negative stereotype may reduce an individual’s self-efficacy. As mentioned, Chung et al. [ 73 ] found that state anxiety and specific self-efficacy accounted for deficits in African American’s performance on a job promotion exam. However, additional studies indicate that self-efficacy does not mediate the effects of self-as-target threat on African American’s cognitive ability [ 72 ] and group-as-target threat on women’s mathematical performance [ 11 ].

Cognitive Mechanisms

Much research has proposed that affective and subjective variables underpin the harmful effects that stereotype threat exerts on performance [ 89 ]. However, other research posits that stereotype threat may influence performance detriments through its demands on cognitive processes [ 2 , 89 , 90 ]. Specifically, researchers have examined whether stereotype threat is mediated by; working memory, cognitive load, thought suppression, mind-wandering, negative thinking, cognitive appraisals and implicit stereotype endorsement.

Working memory.

Schmader and Johns [ 89 ] proposed that performance-evaluative situations might reduce working memory capacity as stereotype-related thoughts consume cognitive resources. In three studies, they examined whether working memory accounted for the influence of a group-as-target threat on women’s and Latino American’s mathematical ability. Findings indicated that both female and Latino American participants solved fewer mathematical problems compared to participants in a non-threat control condition. Furthermore, reduced working memory capacity, measured via an operation span task [ 91 ], mediated the deleterious effects of stereotype threat on math performance. Supporting this, Rydell et al. (Experiment 3 [ 92 ]) found that working memory mediated the effects of a group-relevant stereotype on women’s mathematical performance when they perceived their performance to be evaluated in line with their gender identity. Here results also showed that these performance decrements were eliminated when women were concurrently primed with a positive and negative social identity (Experiment 2).

Further research has also examined how stereotype threat may simultaneously operate through cognitive and emotional processes. Across four experiments, Johns et al. [ 90 ] found that stereotype threat was accountable for deficits in women’s verbal, intellectual and mathematical ability. Moreover, emotion regulation − characterized as response-focused coping − mediated the effects of group-as-target stereotype threat on performance by depleting executive resources.

Nonetheless, executive functioning is made up of more cognitive processes than the construct of working memory [ 93 ]. Acknowledging this, Rydell et al. [ 93 ] predicted that updating (i.e., the ability to maintain and update information in the face of interference) would mediate stereotype threat effects. They further hypothesized that inhibition (i.e., the ability to inhibit a dominant response) and shifting (i.e., people’s ability to switch between tasks) should not underpin this effect. Results indicated that women who experienced an explicit group-as-target threat displayed reduced mathematical performance compared to a control condition. Consistent with predictions, only updating mediated the stereotype threat-performance relationship. These results suggest that the verbal ruminations associated with a negative stereotype may interfere with women’s ability to maintain and update the calculations needed to solve difficult math problems.

The extent to which updating accounts for stereotype threat effects in diverse populations, however, is less straightforward. For example, Hess et al. [ 32 ] found that working memory, measured by a computational span task, did not predict the relationship between group-based stereotype threat and older participants’ memory performance.

Cognitive load.

There is ample evidence to suggest that stereotype threat depletes performance by placing higher demands on mental resources [ 89 , 93 ]. These demands may exert additional peripheral activity (i.e., emotional regulation) that can further interfere with task performance [ 90 ]. In order to provide additional support for this notion, Croizet et al. [ 94 ] examined whether increased mental load, measured by participants’ heart rate, mediated the effects of stereotype threat on Psychology majors’ cognitive ability. Here, Psychology majors were primed that they had lower intelligence compared to Science majors. Results indicated that this group-as-target stereotype threat undermined Psychology majors’ cognitive ability by triggering a psychophysiological mental load. Moreover, this increased mental load mediated the effects of stereotype threat on cognitive performance.

Thought suppression.

Research suggests that individuals who experience stereotype threat may be aware that their performance will be evaluated in terms of a negative stereotype and, resultantly, engage in efforts to disprove it [ 3 , 94 , 95 ]. This combination of awareness and avoidance may lead to attempts to suppress negative thoughts that consequently tax the cognitive resources needed to perform effectively. In four experiments, Logel et al. (Experiment 2 [ 95 ]) examined whether stereotype threat influences stereotypical thought suppression by counterbalancing whether participants completed a stereotype-relevant lexical decision task before or after a mathematical test. Results indicated that women underperformed on the test in comparison to men. Interestingly, women tended to suppress stereotypical words when the lexical decision task was administered before the math test, but showed post-suppression rebound of stereotype-relevant words when this task was completed afterwards. Mediational analyses revealed that only pre-test thought suppression partially mediated the effects of stereotype threat on performance.

Mind-wandering.

Previous research suggests that the anticipation of a stereotype-laden test may produce a greater proportion of task-related thoughts and worries [ 93 , 95 ]. Less research has examined the role of thoughts unrelated to the task in hand as a potential mediator of stereotype threat effects. Directly testing this notion, Mrazek et al. (Experiment 2 [ 74 ]) found that a group-as-target stereotype threat hampered women’s mathematical performance in comparison to a control condition. Furthermore, although self-report measures of mind-wandering resulted in null findings, indirect measures revealed that women under stereotype threat showed a marked decrease in attention. Mediation analyses indicated further that stereotype threat heightened anxiety which, in turn, increased mind-wandering and contributed to the observed impairments in math performance. Despite these findings, other studies have found no indication that task irrelevant thoughts mediate the effects of group-as-target stereotype threat on women’s mathematical performance [ 24 ] and African American participants’ cognitive ability [ 72 ].

Negative thinking.

Schmader and Johns’ [ 89 ] research suggests that the performance deficits observed under stereotype threat may be influenced by intrusive thoughts. Further research [ 74 ] has included post-experimental measures of cognitive interference to assess the activation of distracting thoughts under stereotype threat. However, the content of these measures are predetermined by the experimenter and do not allow participants to report spontaneously on their experiences under stereotype threat. Overcoming these issues, Cadinu and colleagues [ 96 ] asked women to list their current thoughts whilst taking a difficult math test under conditions of stereotype threat. Results revealed that female participants underperformed when they perceived a mathematical test to be diagnostic of gender differences. Moreover, participants in the stereotype threat condition listed more negative thoughts relative to those in the control condition, with intrusive thoughts mediating the relationship between stereotype threat and poor math performance. It seems therefore that negative performance-related thoughts may consume working memory resources to impede performance.

Cognitive appraisal.

Other research suggests that individuals may engage in coping strategies to offset the performance implications of a negative stereotype. One indicator of coping is cognitive appraisal, whereby individuals evaluate the significance of a situation as well as their ability to control it [ 97 ]. Here, individuals may exert more effort on a task when the situational presents as a challenge, but may disengage from the task if they evaluate the situation as a threat [ 98 , 99 ]. Taking this into consideration, Berjot, Roland-Levy and Girault-Lidvan [ 100 ] proposed that targeted members might be more likely to perceive a negative stereotype as a threat to their group identity rather than as a challenge to disprove it. They found that North African secondary school students underperformed on a visuospatial task when they perceived French students to possess superior perceptual-motor skills. Contrary to predictions, threat appraisal did not mediate the relation between stereotype threat and performance. Rather, perceiving the situation as a challenge significantly mediated the stereotype threat-performance relationship. Specifically, participants who appraised stereotype threat as a challenge performed better than those who did not. These results therefore suggest that individuals may strive to confront, rather than avoid, intellectual challenges and modify the stereotype held by members of a relevant out-group in a favorable direction [ 101 ].

Implicit stereotype endorsement.

Situational cues that present as a threat may increase the activation of automatic associations between a stereotyped concept (i.e., female), negative attributes (i.e., bad), and the performance domain (i.e., math; [ 102 ]). Implicit measures may be able to detect recently formed automatic associations between concepts and stereotypical attributes that are not yet available to explicitly self-report [ 103 ]. In a study of 240 six-year old children, Galdi et al. [ 103 ] examined whether implicit stereotype threat endorsement accounted for the effects of stereotype threat on girls’ mathematical performance. Consistent with the notion that automatic associations can precede conscious beliefs, results indicated that girls acquire implicit math-gender stereotypes before they emerge at an explicit level. Specifically, girls showed stereotype-consistent automatic associations between the terms ‘boy-mathematics’ and ‘girl-language’, which mediated stereotype threat effects.

Motivational Mechanisms

Most of the initial work on the underlying mechanisms of stereotype threat has focused on affective and cognitive processes. More recently, research has begun to examine whether individuals may be motivated to disconfirm a negative stereotype, with this having a paradoxical effect of harming performance [ 104 , 105 , 106 ]. To this end, research has elucidated the potential role of effort, self-handicapping, dejection, vigilance, and achievement goals.

Effort/motivation.

Underpinned by the “mere effort model” [ 104 ], Jamieson and Harkins [ 105 ] examined whether motivation plays a proximal role in the effect of stereotype threat on women’s math performance. Here they predicted that stereotype threat would lead participants to use a conventional problem solving approach (i.e., use known equations to compute an answer), which would facilitate performance on ‘solve’ problems, but hamper performance on ‘comparison’ problems. Results supported this hypothesis, indicating that stereotype threat debilitated performance on comparison problems as participants employed the dominant, but incorrect, solution approach. Furthermore, this incorrect solving approach mediated the effect of stereotype threat on comparison problem performance. This suggests that stereotype threat motivates participants to perform well, which increases activation of a dominant response to the task. However, as this dominant approach does not always guarantee success, the work indicates that different problem solving strategies may determine whether a person underperforms on a given task [ 105 , 107 ].

Stereotype threat may have differential effects on effort dependent on the prime utilized [ 27 ]. For example, Skorich et al. [ 27 ] examined whether effort mediated the effects of implicit and explicit stereotypes on provisional drivers’ performance on a hazard perception test. Participants in the implicit prime condition ticked their driving status (provisional, licensed) on a questionnaire, whereas participants in the explicit prime condition were provided with stereotypes relating to the driving ability of provisional licensees. Results revealed that participants detected more hazards when they were primed with an explicit stereotype relative to an implicit stereotype. Mediational analyses showed that whilst increased effort mediated the effects of an implicit stereotype on performance, decreased effort mediated the effects of an explicit stereotype prime. Research also indicates that reduced effort mediates the effects of an explicit stereotype on older adults’ memory recall [ 18 ]. Taken together, these results suggest that implicit stereotype primes may lead to increased effort as participants aim to disprove the stereotype, whereas explicit stereotype threat primes may lead to decreased effort as participants self-handicap [ 27 ]. Nevertheless, other studies utilizing self-reported measures of effort have resulted in non-significant findings (Experiment 1 & 2 [ 14 ]; Experiment 4 [ 44 ]; Experiment 2 [ 77 ]; Experiment 2, 4 & 5, [ 108 ]).

Self-handicapping.

Individuals may engage in self-handicapping strategies to proactively reduce the applicability of a negative stereotype to their performance. Here, people attempt to influence attributions for performance by erecting barriers to their success. Investigating this notion, Stone [ 15 ] examined whether self-handicapping mediated the effects of stereotype threat on white athletes’ sporting performance. Self-handicapping was measured by the total amount of stereotype-relevant words completed on a word-fragment task. Results indicated that white athletes practiced less when they perceived their ability on a golf-putting task to be diagnostic of personal ability, thereby confirming a negative stereotype relating to ‘poor white athleticism’. Moreover, these athletes were more likely to complete the term ‘awkward’ on a word fragment completion test compared to the control condition. Mediation analyses revealed that the greater accessibility of the term ‘awkward’ partially mediated the effects of stereotype threat on psychological disengagement and performance. The authors suggest that stereotype threat increased the accessibility of thoughts related to poor athleticism to inhibit athletes' practice efforts. However, a limitation of this research is that analyses were based on single-item measures (i.e., the completion of the word ‘awkward’) rather than total of completed words on the word-fragment test.

Keller [ 109 ] also tested the hypothesis that the salience of a negative stereotype is related to self-handicapping tendencies. Results showed that women who were primed with a group-as-target stereotype underperformed on a mathematical test relative to their control group counterparts. Furthermore, they expressed stronger tendencies to search for external explanations for their weak performance with this mediating the effects of stereotype threat on performance. Despite these preliminary findings, Keller and Dauenheimer [ 44 ] were unable to provide support for the notion that self-reported self-handicapping is a significant intermediary between stereotype threat and women’s mathematical underperformance.

Research on performance expectations suggests that stereotype threat effects may be mediated by goals set by the participants. Extending this work, Keller and Dauenheimer [ 44 ] hypothesized that female participants may make more errors on a mathematical test due to an overly motivated approach strategy. Results indicated that women underperformed when a math test was framed as diagnostic of gender differences (a group-as-target threat). Furthermore, their experiences of dejection were found to mediate the relation between stereotype threat and performance. The authors suggest that individuals may be motivated to disconfirm the negative stereotype and thus engage in a promotion focus of self-regulation. However, feelings of failure may elicit an emotional response that resultantly determines underperformance.

In contrast to Keller and Dauenheimer [ 44 ], Seibt and Förster (Experiment 5; [ 108 ]) proposed that under stereotype threat, targeted individuals engage in avoidance and vigilance strategies. They predicted that positive stereotypes should induce a promotion focus, leading to explorative and creative processing, whereas negative stereotypes should induce a prevention focus state of vigilance, with participants avoiding errors. Across five experiments, male and female participants were primed with a group-as-target stereotype suggesting that women have better verbal abilities than men. However, rather than showing a stereotype threat effect, results indicated a speed-accuracy trade off with male participants completing an analytical task slower but more accurately than their counterparts in a non-threat control condition. Furthermore, this prevention focus of vigilance was found to partially mediate the effects of stereotype threat on men’s analytical abilities (Experiment 5). The authors conclude that the salience of a negative group stereotype elicits a vigilant, risk-averse processing style that diminishes creativity and speed while bolstering analytic thinking and accuracy.

Achievement goals.

Achievement goals theory [ 110 ] posits that participants will evaluate their role in a particular achievement context and endorse either performance-focused or performance-avoidance goals. In situations where the chances of success are low, individuals engage in performance-avoidance goals, corresponding to a desire to avoid confirming a negative stereotype. Accordingly, Chalabaev et al. [ 111 ] examined whether performance avoidance goals mediated the effects of stereotype threat on women’s sporting performance. Here, the impact of two self-as-target stereotypes (i.e., poor athletic and soccer ability) on performance were assessed relative to a control condition. Results indicated that women in the athletic ability condition performed more poorly on a dribbling task, but not in the soccer ability condition. Furthermore, although these participants endorsed a performance-avoidance goal, this did not mediate the relationship between stereotype threat and soccer performance.

Highlighting the possible interplay between affective, cognitive and motivation mechanisms, Brodish and Devine [ 112 ] proffered a multi-mediator model, proposing that anxiety and performance-avoidance goals may mediate the effects of group-as-target stereotype threat on women’s mathematical performance. Achievement goals were measured by whether participants endorsed performance-avoidant (the desire to avoid performing poorly) or approach goals (trying to outperform others). Results indicated that women under stereotype threat solved fewer mathematical problems relative to those in a control condition. Mediation analyses revealed that performance avoidance goals and anxiety sequentially mediated women’s mathematical performance. That is, stereotype threatened women were motivated to avoid failure, which in turn heightened anxiety and influenced underperformance. Table 2 summarizes the articles reviewed and details their key findings and respective methodologies. See S2 Table for overview of significant mediational findings.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146487.t002

The current review evaluated empirical support for the mediators of stereotype threat. Capitalizing on the multi-threat framework [ 31 ], we distinguished between self-relevant and group-relevant stereotype threats to examine the extent to which these are mediated by qualitatively distinct mechanisms and imperil diverse stigmatized populations. On the whole, the results of the current review indicate that experiences of stereotype threat may increase individuals’ feelings of anxiety, negative thinking and mind-wandering which deplete the working memory resources required for successful task execution. Research documents further that individuals may be motivated to disconfirm the negative stereotype and engage in efforts to suppress stereotypical thoughts that are inconsistent with task goals. However, many of the mediators tested have resulted in varying degrees of empirical support. Below we suggest that stereotype threat may operate in distinct ways dependent on the population under study, the primes utilized, and the instruments used to measure mediation and performance.

Previous research has largely conceptualized stereotype threat as a singular construct, experienced similarly by individuals and groups across situations [ 31 , 55 ]. Consequently, research has overlooked the possibility of multiple forms of stereotype threats that may be implicated through concerns to an individual’s personal or social identity [ 31 ]. This is highlighted in the present review, as the majority of stereotype threat studies employed a group-as-target prime. Here stereotype threat is typically instantiated to highlight that stereotype-consistent performance may confirm, or reinforce, a negative societal stereotype as being a true representation of one’s social group [ 48 ]. This has led to a relative neglect of situations in which individuals may anticipate that their performance may be indicative of personal ability [ 31 , 55 ].

Similar processes such as arousal, deficits in working memory, and motivation may be triggered by self-as-target and group-as-target stereotype threats. However, it is important to note that the experiences of these stereotype threats may be fundamentally distinct [ 31 ]. That is, deficits in working memory under self-as-target stereotype threat may be evoked by negative thoughts relating to the self (i.e., ruining one’s opportunities, letting oneself down). Conversely, group-based intrusive thoughts may mediate the effects of group-as-target threat on performance as individuals view their performance in line with their social group (i.e., confirming a societal stereotype, letting the group down) [ 31 ]. Moreover, research suggests that when a group-based stereotype threat is primed, individuals dissociate their sense of self from the negatively stereotyped domain [ 78 ]. Yet, this may be more unlikely when an individual experiences self-as-target stereotype threat as their personal ability is explicitly tied to a negative stereotype that governs their ingroup. As such, the activation of a group-based stereotype may set in motion mechanisms that reflect a protective orientation of self-regulation, whereas self-relevant knowledge may heighten self-consciousness. To date, however, research has not explicitly distinguished between self-as-target and group-as-target stereotype threat in the elucidation of mediating variables. Future research would therefore benefit from a systematic investigation of how different stereotype threats may hamper performance in qualitatively distinguishable ways. One way to investigate the hypotheses set out here would be to allow participants to spontaneously report their experiences under self-as-target and group-as-target stereotype threat, and to examine differences in the content of participants’ thoughts as a function of these different primes.

In a similar vein, different mechanisms may mediate the effects of blatant and subtle stereotype threat effects on performance [ 27 , 58 , 111 ]. Blatant threat manipulations explicitly inform participants of a negative stereotype related to performance (e.g., [ 3 , 11 ]), whereas placing stigmatized group members in a situation in which they have minority status may evoke more subtle stereotype threat [ 78 , 82 ]. Providing evidence consistent with this notion, Sekaquaptewa and Thompson [ 82 ] found that performance expectancies partially mediated the effects of solo status, but not stereotype threat on performance. These results suggest that women may make comparative judgments about their expected performance when they are required to undertake an exam in the presence of out-group members, yet may not consciously recognize how a negative stereotype can directly impair performance. Further research suggests that working memory may mediate the effects of subtle stereotype threat cues on performance as individuals attend to situational cues that heighten the salience of a discredited identity [ 88 , 94 ]. Alternatively, motivation may mediate the effects of blatant stereotype threat as individuals strive to disprove the negative stereotype [ 27 , 44 , 58 , 108 ]. Although stereotype threat effects appear to be robust [ 30 ], it is plausible that these distinct manipulations diverge in the nature, the focus, and the intensity of threat they produce and may therefore be mediated by different mechanisms [ 31 ].

It is also conceivable that different groups are more susceptible to certain types of stereotype threat [ 13 , 31 , 56 ]. For example, research indicates that women’s performance on a social cognition task was influenced to a greater extent by implicit gender-related stereotypes, whereas men were more vulnerable to explicit stereotype threat [ 13 ]. Further research suggests that populations who tend to have low group identification (e.g., those with a mental illness or obesity) are more susceptible to self-as-target threats. Conversely, populations with high group identification, such as individuals of a certain ethnicity, gender or religion are more likely to experience group-as-target threats [ 56 ]. Whilst this highlights the role of moderating variables that heighten individuals’ susceptibility to stereotype threat, it also suggests that individuals may experience stereotype threat in different ways, dependent on their stigmatized identity. This may explain why some variables (e.g., anxiety, self-handicapping) that have been found to mediate the effects of stereotype threat on some groups have not emerged in other populations.

Finally, it is conceivable that diverse mediators account for the effects of stereotype threat on different performance outcomes. For example, although working memory is implicated in tasks that typically require controlled processing, it is not required for tasks that rely more on automatic processes [ 24 , 58 , 93 ]. In line with this notion, Beilock et al. [ 24 ] found that experts’ golf putting skills were harmed under stereotype threat when attention was allocated to automatic processes that operate usually outside of working memory. This suggests that well-learned skills may be hampered by attempts to bring performance back under step-by-step control. Conversely, skills such as difficult math problem solving appear to involve heavy processing demands and may be harmed when working memory is consumed by a negative stereotype. As such, distinct mechanisms may underpin different threat-related performance outcomes.

Limitations of Stereotype Threat Research

We now outline methodological issues in current stereotype threat literature with a view to inform the design of future research. First, researchers have predominantly utilized self-report measures in their efforts to uncover the mediating variables of stereotype threat. However, it has long been argued that individuals have limited access to higher order mental processes [ 113 , 114 ], such as those involved in the evaluation and initiation of behavior [ 115 , 116 ]. Resultantly, participants under stereotype threat may be unable to observe and explicitly report the operations of their own mind [ 29 , 114 , 117 , 118 , 119 ]. Consistent with this assertion, Bosson et al. [ 29 ] found that although stereotype threat heightened individuals’ physiological anxiety, the same individuals did not report an awareness of increased anxiety on self-report measures. Participants may thus be mindful of the impression they make on others and engage in self-presentational behaviors in an effort to appear invulnerable to negative stereotypes [ 29 ]. This is supported by research suggesting that stereotype threatened participants tend not to explicitly endorse stereotypes [ 29 , 37 , 83 , 84 ] and are more likely to claim impediments to justify poor performance [ 3 , 14 , 109 ]. Moreover, it is possible that stereotype threat processes are non-conscious [ 119 ] with research indicating that implicit–but not explicit–stereotype endorsement mediates stereotype threat effects [ 103 ]. This suggests that non-conscious processing of stereotype-relevant information may influence the decrements observed in individuals’ performance under stereotype threat. Furthermore, this research underscores the greater sensitivity of indirect measures for examining the mediators of stereotype threat. From this perspective, future research may benefit from the use of physiological measures, such as heart rate, cortisol and skin conductance to examine anxiety (c.f., [ 94 , 120 , 121 ]), the IAT to measure implicit stereotype endorsement [ 103 ] and the sustained response to attention task to measure mind-wandering [ 74 ].

In the investigation of stereotype threat, self-report measures may be particularly susceptible to order effects. For example, Brodish and Devine [ 112 ] found that women reported higher levels of anxiety when they completed a questionnaire before a mathematical test compared to afterwards. This suggests that pre-test anxiety ratings may have reflected participants’ uneasiness towards the upcoming evaluative test, with this apprehension diminishing once the test was completed. Research by Logel and colleagues [ 95 ] provides support for this notion, indicating that women who completed a lexical decision task after a math test were quicker to respond to stereotype-relevant words compared to women who subsequently completed the task. These results exhibit the variability in individuals’ emotions under stereotype threat and suggest that they may be unable to retrospectively report on their feelings once the threat has passed. This emphasizes the importance of counterbalancing test instruments in the investigation of stereotype threat, purporting that the order in which test materials are administered may influence mediational findings.

This review highlights that, in some studies, individuals assigned to a control condition may have also experienced stereotype threat, thus potentially preventing reliable evidence of mediation. For instance, Chalabaev et al. [ 111 ] primed stereotype threat by presenting a soccer ability test as a diagnostic indicator of personal factors related to athletic ability. Nevertheless, participants in the control condition received information that the aim of the test was to examine psychological factors in athletic ability. Consequently, these participants may have also been apprehensive about their performance being evaluated, and this may have precluded evidence that achievement goals mediate the stereotype threat-performance relationship. Furthermore, research has manipulated the salience of stereotype threat by stating that gender differences in math performance are equal [ 82 ]. However, other research has utilized this prime within control conditions (e.g., [ 94 , 105 , 119 ]), underpinned by the rationale that describing a test as ‘fair’ or non-diagnostic of ability eliminates stereotype threat [ 122 ]. It is therefore possible that, in some instances, researchers have inadvertently induced stereotype threat. This outlines the importance of employing a control condition in which individuals are not made aware of any negative stereotypes, and are told that the test is non-diagnostic of ability, in order to detect possible mediators.

Two decades of research have demonstrated the harmful effects that stereotype threat can exert on a wide range of populations in a broad array of performance domains. However, findings with regards to the mediators that underpin these effects are equivocal. This may be a consequence of the heterogeneity of primes used to instantiate stereotype threat and the methods used to measure mediation and performance. To this end, future work is likely to benefit from the following directions: First, account for the existence of multiple stereotype threats; Second, recognize that the experiences of stereotype threat may differ between stigmatized groups, and that no one mediator may provide generalized empirical support across diverse populations; Third, utilize indirect measures, in addition to self-report measures, to examine reliably mediating variables and to examine further the convergence of these two methods; Fourth, counterbalance test instruments to control for order effects; and finally, ensure that participants in a control condition do not inadvertently encounter stereotype threat by stating explicitly that the task is non-diagnostic of ability.

Supporting Information

S1 supporting information. list of excluded studies and rationale for exclusion..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146487.s001

S1 Table. PRISMA Checklist.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146487.s002

S2 Table. Summary of affective, cognitive and motivational mechanisms that have been found to mediate stereotype threat effects.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146487.s003

Author Contributions

Analyzed the data: CRP DH. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: CRP DH ARL DTL. Wrote the paper: CRP. Developed the review design and protocol: CRP DH AL DL. Reviewed the manuscript: DH AL DL. Cross-checked articles in systematic review: CRP DH.

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• PubMed/NCBI
• 6. Google Scholar. Citation Reports. Available: https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cites=15396601321629817023&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en
• 48. Steele CM, Spencer SJ, Aronson J. Contending with group image: The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. In: Zanna M, editor. Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34). New York, NY: Academic Press; 2002. pp. 379–440.
• 50. Tajfel H, Turner JC. The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In: Worchel S, Austin WG, editors. Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago: Nelson-Hall; 1986. pp. 7–24.
• 57. Shapiro JR. Types of threats: From stereotype threat to stereotype threats. In: Schmader T, Inzlicht M, editors. Stereotype Threat: Theory, Process, and Application. New York: Oxford University Press; 2012. pp. 71–88.
• 59. Dickersin K. Publication bias: Recognizing the problem, understanding its origins and scope, and preventing harm. In: Rothstein HR, Sutton AJ, Borenstein M, editors. Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons; 2005. pp. 11–33.
• 64. Khan KS, Riet GT, Popay J, Nixon J, Kleijnen J. (2009). Study quality assessment (Stage 2 Conducting the review, Phase 5). In: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (Ed.), Systematic Reviews. pp. 1–20. Available: http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/rtamblyn/Readings%5CUK%20Guide%20-%20Study%20Quality%20Assessment.pdf
• 65. Hayes AF. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guildford Press; 2013.
• 85. Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1986.
• 97. Lazarus RS, Folkman S. Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer; 1984.
• 115. Mandler G. Consciousness: Respectable, useful and probably necessary. In: Solso R, editor. Information processing and cognition: The Loyola symposium. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2004. pp. 1–27.
• 116. Miller GA. Psychology: The science of mental life. Oxford: Harper & Row; 1962.
• 118. Wegner DM. The illusion of conscious will. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books; 2002.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 01 September 2017

Implicit stereotypes and the predictive brain: cognition and culture in “biased” person perception

• Perry Hinton 1  

Palgrave Communications volume  3 , Article number:  17086 ( 2017 ) Cite this article

162k Accesses

46 Citations

137 Altmetric

Metrics details

Over the last 30 years there has been growing research into the concept of implicit stereotypes. Particularly using the Implicit Associations Test, it has been demonstrated that experimental participants show a response bias in support of a stereotypical association, such as “young” and “good” (and “old” and “bad”) indicating evidence of an implicit age stereotype. This has been found even for people who consciously reject the use of such stereotypes, and seek to be fair in their judgement of other people. This finding has been interpreted as a “cognitive bias”, implying an implicit prejudice within the individual. This article challenges that view: it is argued that implicit stereotypical associations (like any other implicit associations) have developed through the ordinary working of “the predictive brain”. The predictive brain is assumed to operate through Bayesian principles, developing associations through experience of their prevalence in the social world of the perceiver. If the predictive brain were to sample randomly or comprehensively then stereotypical associations would not be picked up if they did not represent the state of the world. However, people are born into culture, and communicate within social networks. Thus, the implicit stereotypical associations picked up by an individual do not reflect a cognitive bias but the associations prevalent within their culture—evidence of “culture in mind”. Therefore to understand implicit stereotypes, research should examine more closely the way associations are communicated within social networks rather than focusing exclusively on an implied cognitive bias of the individual.

Similar content being viewed by others

Trait knowledge forms a common structure across social cognition

Implicit racial biases are lower in more populous more diverse and less segregated US cities

Jumping to attributions during social evaluation

Traditionally a stereotype has been defined as overgeneralized attributes associated with the members of a social group (such as the reserved English or the geeky engineer), with the implication that it applies to all group members ( Hinton, 2000 ). A large body of research, particularly in the United States of America (USA), has focused on the (negative) stereotypes of women and African Americans, which are linked to prejudice and discrimination in society ( Nelson, 2009 , Steele, 2010 ). Psychological researchers have sought to identify why certain people employed stereotypes and, in much of the twentieth century, they were viewed as due to a mental fallacy or misconception of a social group, an individual’s “biased” cognition, resulting from proposed factors such as “simplicity” of thought ( Koenig and King, 1964 ) and arising from upbringing and social motivation (particularly “authoritarianism”, Adorno et al., 1950 ). A considerable amount of effort has been made subsequently to persuade people to avoid stereotype use, by highlighting its inaccuracy and unfairness (for example, Brown, 1965 ). However, since the 1960s, cognitive researchers, such as Tajfel (1969) , have argued that stereotyping is a general feature of human social categorization. Despite this, it has been argued that individuals can consciously seek to avoid using negative stereotypes and maintain a non-prejudiced view of others ( Devine, 1989 ; Schneider, 2004 ). Indeed, Fiske and Taylor (2013) claim that now only ten percent of the population (in Western democracies) employ overt stereotypes. Unfortunately, recent work, specifically using techniques such as the Implicit Associations Test ( Greenwald et al., 1998 ), has shown that stereotypical associations can implicitly influence social judgement, even for people who consciously seek to avoid their use ( Lai et al., 2016 ). These implicit stereotypes have provoked questions of both the control of, and an individual’s responsibility for, the implicit effects of stereotypes that they consciously reject ( Krieger and Fiske, 2006 ). This article explores the nature of implicit stereotypes by examining what is meant by “bias” in the psychological literature on stereotyping, and proposes an explanation of how culture influences implicit cognition through the concept of the “predictive brain” ( Clark, 2013 ). The present work argues that, rather than viewing implicit stereotypes as a problem of the cognitive bias of the individual (for example, Fiske and Taylor, 2013 ), they should be viewed as “culture in mind” influencing the cognition of cultural group members. It is also proposed that combining the research on implicit cognition with an understanding of the complex dynamics of culture and communication, will lead to greater insight into the nature of implicit stereotypes.

Implicit stereotypes

The view of a stereotype as a fixed set of attributes associated with a social group comes from the seminal experimental psychology research by Katz and Braly (1933) . One hundred students of Princeton University were asked to select the attributes that they associated with ten specific nationalities, ethnic and religious groups from a list of 84 characteristics. The researchers then compiled the attributes most commonly associated with each group. Katz and Braly (1933 : 289) referred to these associations as “a group fallacy attitude”, implying a mistaken belief (or attitude) on behalf of the participants. The study was repeated in Princeton by Gilbert (1951) and Karlins et al. (1969) , and similar attributes tended to emerge as the most frequent for the groups. The endurance of these associations, such as the English as tradition-loving and conservative, over 35 years has often been narrowly interpreted as evidence for the fixed nature of stereotypes. Yet, a closer look at the data shows counter-evidence. Rarely was an attribute selected by more than half the participants: for the English only “sportsmanlike” in 1933, and “conservative” in 1969 reached this figure. Also both the percentages and the chosen attributes changed over time. By 1969, “sportsmanlike” for the English had dropped to 22%. A number of attributes in the initial top five for some of the groups dropped to below 10% by 1969. Also the stereotypes generally tended to become more positive over time. However, what the studies did establish was a methodological approach to stereotypes as the experimental investigation of “character” attributes associated with social groups in the mind of an individual.

The notion of implicit stereotypes is built on two key theoretical concepts: associative networks in semantic (knowledge) memory and automatic activation. Concepts in semantic memory are assumed to be linked together in terms of an associative network, with associated concepts having stronger links, or are closer together, than unrelated concepts ( Collins and Loftus, 1975 ). Thus “doctor” has a stronger link to “nurse” (or viewed as closer in the network) than to unrelated concepts, such as “ship” or “tree”. Related concepts cluster together, such as hospital, doctor, nurse, patient, ward, orderly, operating theatre, and so forth, in a local network ( Payne and Cameron, 2013 ) that is sometimes referred to as a schema ( Ghosh and Gilboa, 2014 ; see Hinton, 2016 ). Activation of one concept (such as reading the word “doctor”) spreads to associated concepts in the network (such as “nurse”) making them more easily accessible during the activation period. Evidence for the associative network model comes from response times in a number of research paradigms, such as word recognition, lexical decision and priming tasks: for example, Neely (1977) showed that the word “nurse” was recognized quicker in a reaction time task following the word “doctor” than when preceded by a neutral prime (such as a row of X’s) or an unrelated prime word (such as “table”). Considerable amount of research has been undertaken on the nature of semantic association, which reflects subjective experience as well as linguistic similarity, although people appear to organize their semantic knowledge in similar ways to others. Weakly associated concepts may be activated by spreading activation based on thematic association, and the complexity of the structure of associations develops over time and experience ( De Deyne et al., 2016 ).

The spreading activation of one concept to another was viewed as occurring unconsciously or automatically. In the mid-1970s a distinction was made between two forms of mental processing: conscious (or controlled) processing and automatic processing ( Shiffrin and Schneider, 1977 ). Conscious processing involves attentional resources and can be employed flexibly and deal with novelty. However, it requires motivation and takes time to operate, which can lead to relatively slow serial processing of information. Automatic processing operates outside of attention, occurs rapidly and involves parallel processing. However, it tends to be inflexible and (to a high degree) uncontrollable. Kahneman (2011) refers to these as System 2 and System 1, respectively. Shiffrin and Schneider (1977) found that detecting a letter among numbers could be undertaken rapidly and effortlessly, implying the automatic detection of the categorical differences of letters and numbers. Detecting items from a group of target letters among a second group of background letters took time and concentration, requiring (conscious) attentional processing. However, novel associations (of certain letters as targets and other letters as background) could be learnt by extensive practice as long as the associations were consistent (targets were never used as background letters). After many thousands of trials, detection times reduced significantly, with the participants reporting the targets “popping out” from the background letters, implying that practice had led to automatic activation of the target letters (based on the new target-background letter categories). Thus, consistency of experience (practice) can lead to new automatically activated learnt associations. However, when Shiffrin and Schneider (1977) switched the targets and background letters after thousands of consistent trials, performance dropped to well below the initial levels—detection times were extremely slow requiring conscious attention as participants struggled with the automatic activation of the old-but-now-incorrect targets. Slowly, and with additional practice of thousands of trials, performance gradually improved with the new configuration of target and background letters. Thus, highly practiced semantic associations—consistent in a person’s experience—can become automatically activated on category detection—but once learnt are extremely difficult to unlearn.

Employing these theoretical ideas, a stereotypical association (such as “Black” and “aggressiveness”) might be stored in semantic memory and automatically activated, producing an implicit stereotype effect. This was demonstrated by Devine (1989) . White participants were asked to generate the features of the Black stereotype, and also to complete a prejudice questionnaire. Devine found that both the low- and high-prejudiced individuals knew the characteristics of the Black stereotype. In the next phase of the study the participants rated the hostility of a person only referred to as Donald, described in a 12-sentence paragraph as performing ambiguously hostile behaviours such as demanding his money back on something he had just bought in a store. Before the description, words related to the Black stereotype were rapidly displayed on the screen but too briefly to be consciously recognized. This automatic activation of the stereotype was shown to affect the judgement of Donald’s hostility by both the low- and high-prejudiced participants. Finally, the participants were asked to anonymously list their own views of Black people. Low-prejudice individuals gave more positive statements and more beliefs (such as “all people are equal”) than traits, whereas high-prejudice participants listed more negative statements and more traits (such as “aggressive”).

Devine explained these results by arguing that, during socialization, members of a culture learn the beliefs existing in that culture concerning different social groups. Owing to their frequency of occurrence, stereotypical associations about people from the stereotyped group become firmly-established in memory. Owing to their widespread existence in society, more-or-less everyone in the culture, even the non-prejudiced individual, has the implicit stereotypical associations available in semantic memory. Consequently, the stereotype is automatically activated in the presence of a member of the stereotyped group, and has the potential to influence the perceiver’s thought and behaviour. However, people whose personal beliefs reject prejudice and discrimination may seek to consciously inhibit the effect of the stereotype in their thoughts and behaviour. Unfortunately, as described above, conscious processing requires the allocation of attentional resources and so the influence of an automatically activated stereotype may only be inhibited if the person is both aware of its potential bias on activation and is motivated to allocate the time and effort to suppress it and replace it in their decision-making with an intentional non-stereotypical judgement. Devine (1989 : 15) viewed the process of asserting conscious control as “the breaking of a bad habit”.

It has been argued that conscious attentional resources are only employed when necessary, with the perceiver acting as a “cognitive miser” ( Fiske and Taylor, 1991 ): as a result, Macrae et al. (1994) argued that stereotypes could be viewed as efficient processing “tools”, avoiding the need to “expend” valuable conscious processing resources. Yet, Devine and Monteith (1999) argued that they can be consciously suppressed when a non-prejudiced perception is sought. Also an implicit stereotype is only automatically activated when the group member is perceived in terms of a particular social meaning ( Macrae et al., 1997 ) so automatic activation is not guaranteed on presentation of a group member ( Devine and Sharp, 2009 ). Devine and Sharp (2009) argued that conscious and automatic activation are not mutually exclusive but in social perception there is an interplay between the two processes. Social context can also influence automatic activation so that, in the context of “prisoners” there is a Black stereotype bias (compared with White) but not in the context of “lawyers” ( Wittenbrink et al., 2001 ). Indeed, Devine and Sharp (2009) argued that a range of situational factors and individual differences can affect automatic stereotype activation, and conscious control can suppress their effects on social perception. However, Bargh (1999) was less optimistic than Devine in the ability of individual conscious control to suppress automatically activated stereotypes, and proposed that the only way to stop implicit stereotype influence was “through the eradication of the cultural stereotype itself” ( Bargh (1999 : 378). Rather than the cognitive miser model of cognitive processing, Bargh proposed the “cognitive monster”, arguing that we do not have the degree of conscious control, which Devine proposes, to mitigate the influence of implicit stereotypes ( Bargh and Williams, 2006 ; Bargh, 2011 ).

Greenwald and Banaji (1995) called for the greater use of indirect measures of implicit cognition to demonstrate the effect of activation outside of the conscious control of the perceiver. They were particularly concerned about implicit stereotypes, arguing that the “automatic operation of stereotypes provides the basis for implicit stereotyping”, citing research such as that of Gaertner and McLaughlin (1983) . In this latter study, despite participants scoring low on a direct self-report measure of prejudice, they still reliably reacted quicker to an association between “White” and positive attributes, such as “smart”, compared with the pairing of “Black” with the same positive attributes. Thus, they concluded that the indirect reaction time measure was identifying an implicit stereotype effect. Consequently, Greenwald et al. (1998) developed the Implicit Association Test (or IAT). This word-association reaction time test presents pairs of words in a sequence of trials over five stages, with each stage examining the reaction time to different combinations of word pairings. From the results at the different stages, the reaction time to various word associations can be examined. For example, the poles of the age concept, “young” and “old”, can be sequentially paired with “good” and “bad” to see if the reaction times to the young-good and/or the old-bad pairing are reliably faster than alternative pairings indicating evidence of the implicit stereotype of age. As a technique the IAT can be applied to any word pair combination and as a result can be used to examine a range of implicit stereotypes, such as “White” and “Black” for ethnic stereotyping, or “men” and “women” for gender stereotyping, paired with any words associated with stereotypical attributes, such as aggression or dependence. The results have been quite dramatic. The subsequent use of the IAT has consistently demonstrated implicit stereotyping for a range of different social categories, particularly gender and ethnicity ( Greenwald et al., 2015 ). Implicit stereotyping is now viewed as one aspect of implicit social cognition that is involved in a range of social judgements ( Payne and Gawronski, 2010 ).

Criticisms of the findings of the IAT have questioned whether it is actually identifying a specific unconscious prejudice, unrelated to conscious judgement ( Oswald et al., 2013 ) or, as Devine (1989) suggested, simply knowledge of a cultural association that may be controllable and inhibited in decision-making ( Payne and Gawronski, 2010 ). In support of the IAT, Greenwald et al.’s (2009) meta-analysis of 184 IAT studies showed that there was predictive validity of the implicit associations to behavioural outcomes across a range of subject-areas, and Greenwald et al. (2015) claim this can have significant societal effects. As a consequence, if implicit stereotyping indicates a potentially-uncontrollable cognitive bias, the question then arises as to how to deal with the outcomes of it in decision-making, particularly for a person genuinely striving for a non-prejudiced judgement. Overt prejudice has been tackled by a range of socio-political measures from anti-discrimination laws to employment interviewer training, but interventions essentially seek to persuade or compel individuals to consciously act in a non-prejudiced way. Lai et al. (2016) examined a range of intervention techniques to reduce implicit racial prejudice, such as exposure to counter-stereotypical exemplars or priming multiculturalism, but the conclusions were somewhat pessimistic. Different interventions had different effects on the implicit stereotype (as measured by the IAT). For example, a vivid counter-stereotypical example (which the participants read)—imagining walking alone at night and being violently assaulted by a White man and rescued by a Black man—was quite effective. However, of the nine interventions examined by Lai et al. (2016) , all were effective to some extent but subsequent testing showed that the beneficial effect disappeared within a day or so. The authors concluded that, while implicit associations were malleable in the short term, these (brief) interventions had no long term effect. This could indicate that implicit stereotypes are firmly established and may only be responsive to intensive and long-term interventions ( Devine et al., 2012 ). Lai et al. (2016) also suggest that children may be more susceptible to implicit stereotype change than adults.

The problem is that if people are not consciously able to change their implicit “bias”, to what extent are they responsible for actions based on these implicit stereotypes? Law Professor Krieger (1995) argued that lawmakers and lawyers should take account of psychological explanations of implicit bias in their judgements. For example, in a study by Cameron et al. (2010) participants rated the responsibility of a White employer who sometimes discriminated against African Americans, despite a conscious desire to be fair. When this discrimination was presented as resulting from an unconscious bias, that the employer was unaware of, then the personal responsibility for the discrimination was viewed as lower by the participants. However, being told that the implicit bias was an automatic “gut feeling” that the employer was aware of, but found difficult to control, did not produce the same reduction in moral responsibility. This also has potential legal significance ( Krieger and Fiske, 2006 ), as the law has traditionally assumed that a discriminatory act is the responsibility of the individual undertaking that act, with the assumption of an underlying discriminatory motivation (an intention). The effect of an implicit stereotype bias may be a discriminatory action that the individual neither intended nor was conscious of.

Implicit stereotype bias provides a challenge to the individual as the sole source and cause of their thoughts and actions. In a huge study of over two hundred thousand participants, all citizens of the USA, Axt et al. (2014) employed the MC-IAT, a variant of the IAT, to examine implicit bias in the judgement of ethnic, religious and age groups. Whilst participants showed in-group favouritism, consistent hierarchies of the social groups emerged in their response times. For ethnicity, in terms of positivity of evaluation, Whites were highest, followed by Asians, Blacks and Hispanics, with the same order obtained from participants from each of the ethnic groups. For religion, a consistent order of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and Islam was produced. For the age study, positive evaluations were associated with youth, with a consistent order of children, young adults, middle-aged adults, and old adults, across participants of all ages, from their teens to their sixties. Axt et al. argued that the consistent implicit evaluations reflect cultural hierarchies of social power (and social structures) “pervasively embedded in social minds” ( Axt et al., 2014 : 1812). They also suggest that these implicit biases might “not be endorsed and may even be contrary to conscious beliefs and values” ( Axt et al., 2014 : 1812). The focus on cognitive bias, with its implication of an individual’s biased judgement has tended to ignore the importance of culture in cognition. It is this issue that is now considered here.

Implicit cognitive “bias”

Implicit stereotypes are referred to in the literature, and taught to psychology students, as a cognitive bias ( Fiske and Taylor, 2013 ). When, in the past, only a specific group of people were assumed to stereotype (such as authoritarians or the cognitively simple) then they could be viewed as biased in terms of the liberal views of the rest of the population. However, as Fiske and Taylor (2013) claim that now only 10% of the population use overt stereotypes in liberal Western democracies, the major issue is the implicit stereotypes that could affect us all. Indeed, some psychologists (who the reader rightly infers to be supporters of egalitarian values) are willing to reveal examples of their inadvertent use of implicit stereotypes in their own lives—to their chagrin (for example, Stainton Rogers, 2003 : 301). Now the assumption is that implicit stereotypes can affect everyone. This makes the use of the term cognitive “bias” problematic when it is universally applied, particularly as it contains the implication of an unconscious cognitive “failing” of the individual (a “cognitive monster” within them), especially given the unsuccessful attempts to correct it, noted above. There also arises the question of how an unbiased judgement can be defined. This idea of an implicit stereotype as a cognitive bias is challenged here.

A wheel is said to be biased if it wobbles on an axle (when others do not). Adjusting it or correcting the imperfections makes it “true” and it is able to run smoothly and straight on the axle. Indeed, the word bias derives from the word “oblique” (for a diagonal thread in weaving) or deviating from the perpendicular. In human social terms, the idiomatic “straight (or strait) and narrow” view might be based on “self-evident truths” (to quote the Declaration of Independence of the USA) rooted in religious or philosophical beliefs, which essentially provide a position from which all other views are biased. Yet, unlike “true” wheels and “fair” coins, there is not an absolute moral standard that is universally accepted, with a long philosophical debate ranging from Plato and Kant to Hume about the issue. Different cultures—as nation states—have different belief systems that are conventionalised into different national legal systems, with dynamically changing laws. Despite the United States Constitution, there are many differences between the views of the Republican and Democratic Parties and their conservative and liberal supporters, and there is a constant political interplay between them about what, in terms of another idiom, is “good and proper” thinking. Recently, the psychologist Haidt (2012) has examined the difference between liberals and conservatives in the USA in terms of their moral foundations. Conventional wisdom is also about both power and politics and in modern times has also been challenged (and changed) by social movements, such as civil rights and women’s liberation. Thus, in human terms a “biased” view is often one that differs from the agreed position of a powerful group in a society, with power relations often considered in the sociology of stereotyping (for example, Pickering, 2001 ), but much less so in the cognitive research. In many cases throughout history, dissenters (such as heretics or dissidents) have been severely punished, imprisoned and put into “psychiatric” institutions, for their unconventional “biased” views.

Furthermore, not all implicit stereotypes have the same cultural value. Consider the associations of “artists” with “creativity” and “women” with “dependence”. Both associations are overgeneralisations and can be labelled as stereotypes. In this sense they are both cognitive “biases”. Yet there is no large body of psychological research challenging the stereotype of the creative artist. This is because the two associations differ significantly in their socio-cultural and political meaning. The latter presents a representation of women (common in the past) which is no longer acceptable in a modern liberal democracy where generations of women have politically fought hard to overcome discrimination and achieve equality. Not surprisingly, the majority of the research into stereotyping in the psychological literature has focused on very specific topics: ethnicity or race, gender, sexuality, disability and age. These are all critical issues in the political debates during the last century in Western societies, particularly the USA. Conventional views about these social groups have also undertaken radical change in line with the greater concerns about reducing discrimination and promoting equality. As a result the common views (and associated descriptive terminology) of only a past generation or two are now socially unacceptable and often illegal. It is not unusual to hear modern egalitarian adults discuss with horror the racist or homophobic views they heard at the feet of their grandparents’ generation. These topics continue to be of significance in an ongoing political discussion about anti-discrimination and equality in modern Western democracies.

Finally, human cognitive abilities have evolved for a purpose, and implicit associations guiding rapid decision-making have a survival benefit. Fox (1992) argued that this form of pre-judgement (rather than culturally based intergroup prejudices) has evolutionary value. Learning an association of large animals with danger might be “biased” against harmless large animals (who we run away from needlessly) but that is a very small cost to pay compared to a life-saving rapid decision to get out of the way of a dangerous beast. Indeed, Todd et al. (2012) argued that it is our ability to make “fast and frugal” strategic (heuristic) judgements that make humans smart. Making decisions using simple associations, based on factors such as recognition or familiarity, may not always result in a logically “correct” answer but can be highly successful heuristics, as research in topics such as economics and investment decision-making, emergency medicine and consumer behaviour have all shown ( Gigerenzer and Gaissmaier, 2011 ). The model of the person emerging from the implicit stereotyping research appears to characterise the fair-minded individual as wrestling with an implicitly biased cognitive monster within them. However, it is argued here that this is a false image. We learn the cultural mores of our society through socialisation and daily communication with other members of the culture. We may not approve of all aspects of our culture (and indeed might strongly object to some) but cultural knowledge—just like other knowledge—is crucial to our pragmatic functioning in society. The wide range of semantic associations we learn in our culture can successfully guide our judgements from what to wear at a job interview, which side of the road to drive on, and how to talk to the boss. In order to change the specific set of implicit associations which we find consciously objectionable, it may be better to explore ways of changing the culture to undermine these specific associations, rather than focusing on the inferred “bias” of human cognition: as is argued from the “predictive brain” model below, human cognition is functionally driven to pick up regularities and develop implicit associations from the world around us.

The predictive brain

It has been proposed that human brains are “prediction machines” ( Clark, 2013 : 181), in that experience develops expectations. Perception operates by employing prior probabilities that are efficiently deployed to reduce the processing requirements of treating each new experience as completely new. While explored mostly with basic object perception, Clark (2013) argued that it is applicable to social perception, and Otten et al. (2017) have applied it to social knowledge. For Clark (2014) perceiving is predicting. For example, we are able to quickly and efficiently recognize a friend we have arranged to meet outside a restaurant, even from quite a distance. Through repeated experience of the friend we have developed a sophisticated prediction based on a range of cues from their gait to their favourite coat. Usually, this prediction is correct and it is the person we expected. The dynamic of the predictive brain is to minimise the error of the prediction, that is, the difference between the prediction and the experienced event. Every now and again we are “surprised”—we mistake a stranger for the friend—and this instance of “surprisal” (an engineering term for the error) will also have an incremental effect on the probabilities (and we might be a little more careful when we next meet the friend). The brain seeks to minimise “surprisal” by a constant process of updating probabilities with each experience. However, an occasional error—as only one instance—will normally only have a small effect on the prior probabilities that have been developed over multiple successful perceptions. In this model of the brain, cognitive bias is not an inaccurate deviation from a “true” position, but an expectation or prediction based on the prior probabilities that have developed through experience. Prediction is not about being correct every time—but is about minimising error and maximising predictive accuracy. This process follows Bayes’ Theorem, which expresses a probability of one event (A) given that another event (B) has occurred (such as it being the friend, given the familiarity of the coat and hairstyle observed). This is referred as “likelihood”. Human perception operating according to Bayesian decision-making has been studied in both psychology and economics, so the predictive brain model is also referred to as the “Bayesian brain” ( El-Gamal and Grether, 1995 ; Bubic et al., 2010 ). The implicit semantic associations of “bread” and “butter” or “table” and “chair” ( Neely, 1977 ) have developed through their repeated co-occurrence during our experience of the world. Clearly in ancient Japan (without bread and butter or Western-style tables and chairs) these specific implicit associations did not develop. In social perception we can ask: what is the probability of this man being a basketball player given that he is a tall, Black professional sportsman? This likelihood is based on prior probabilities—which come from experience or knowledge of the culture—so the likelihood could be judged differently by a person from the USA compared with a person from Kenya.

Allport (1979 : 191) proposed that stereotypes were “exaggerated beliefs” associated with a social group, citing “all lawyers are crooked” as an example. The idea that stereotypes involve a belief that all members of the category share an attribute has persisted in the cognitive research ( Hinton, 2000 ). However, Allport (1979 : 189) also stated that a stereotype is “a generalized judgement based on a certain probability that an object of a class will possess a given attribute”. This is not the same. The assumption that stereotypes involve “all” judgements presents them as rigid and fixed, yet the probabilistic association of a stereotyped group member and a specific attribute does not. The presence of an honest lawyer demonstrably proves the former “all” statement to be an incorrect generalization. In the latter case, which follows from the predictive brain model, the experience of an honest lawyer will only adjust the probabilities according to Bayes’ theorem, making it slightly less likely that the next (unknown) lawyer will be predicted to be crooked.

In a well-known study Kahneman and Tversky (1973 : 241) gave participants a description of Jack that matched the stereotype of an engineer:

Jack is a 45-year-old man. He is married and has four children. He is generally conservative, careful, and ambitious. He shows no interest in political and social issues and spends most of his free time on his many hobbies which include home carpentry, sailing and mathematical puzzles.

They were then asked to predict the probability of Jack actually being an engineer in a room of 30 engineers and 70 lawyers. Participants tended to ignore the base-rate probabilities (0.3 for engineer and 0.7 for lawyer) but made their judgements on the stereotypicality of the description. Kahneman and Tversky argued that the participants were making their judgements on the similarity of the description to the engineer stereotype, which they called “the representativeness heuristic”, and not on the base-rate probabilities. They argued that this strategy was not as good as using the base-rate probabilities as the description may not be valid and furthermore it could match more of the lawyer group as there are simply more of them. However, they admitted that a Bayesian prediction could produce the likelihood of Jack being an engineer if the description was accurate and diagnostic. This highlights a key problem of arguing that people’s judgements are “biased” compared to an “accurate” measurement. Outside the psychological laboratory people almost never know the base-rate probabilities ( Todd et al., 2012 ) and learnt associations are often all they have to go on. In an attempt to find accurate demographic information about engineers, I discovered that 80% of engineering students in the USA are men ( Crawford, 2012 )—which is not diagnostic in this case—but could find no data on the overall proportion of engineers who are uninterested in politics or enjoy mathematical puzzles. In many cases like this, accurate demographic data is unavailable, either because it is not there or because we do not have the time and motivation to find it—we can only rely on our general knowledge of engineers. The Bayesian brain develops its statistical probabilities from experience of engineers—such as the engineers encountered in life and learnt about through the media. The likelihood that an engineer is a man who is uninterested in politics and likes mathematical puzzles does not mean that all engineers must have these attributes, simply that these are frequently encountered in engineers in the social world, such as the engineer Howard Wolowitz in the popular US sitcom The Big Bang Theory , 2007. Thus, the predictive brain, operating through past experience and subtly adapting to each new experience, is a pragmatically functional system rather than being “biased” by an all-or-none overgeneralization.

Consider the following example where I could find some demographic information Footnote 1 . There are 70 professional golfers and 30 professional basketball players in a room (all men and from the USA). The only available information is that Tom is 193 cm tall (6′4″). What is the probability that he is a basketball player? From Kahneman and Tversky (1973) , we can infer that a participant will respond, using the representativeness heuristic, that Tom is probably a basketball player on the learnt association that “basketball players are tall”. Using only the base-rate probabilities Tom should be predicted to be a golfer. However, a Bayesian analysis of the demographic data agrees with the representativeness heuristic that it is very likely that Tom is a basketball player. Rather than assuming that human cognition is statistically naive, an alternative explanation is that people are unconsciously Bayesian and they normally assume that a description identifying learnt implicit associations is accurate and diagnostic (unless they consciously decide otherwise). Kahneman (2011 : 151) acknowledges the link between height and basketball players as an example of where representativeness can lead to a more accurate than chance guess of an athlete’s sport. Outside of the psychological laboratory it may be that a limited description is all the information people have to go on. Indeed, Jussim (2012) argues that when a perceiver has almost no information about a person except, say, a social category (“This person is an engineer”) then they may employ stereotypical associations, based on social knowledge, to make predictions about them (“Engineers are not interested in politics”), which may well be accurate. However, in an encounter with the specific person, they will learn new information to adjust this view if the prediction is not supported.

Jussim (2012 : 159) argued, in agreement with Kelly (1955) , that people operate as naïve scientists, seeking to make accurate predictions of people and events based on expectation and, in the research focus on bias, the evidence that social perception is generally accurate has been ignored, with various independent factors often conflated in the discussion of stereotype accuracy. For example, if a perceiver Ben predicts, on the stereotypical association of a social group and underachievement, that Joe (a member of the group) will not get into the top university he has applied for, and Joe is rejected by the university, then Ben’s social perception is accurate. However, this does not relate to Ben’s belief about why Joe wasn’t admitted or the actual reason why Joe was not admitted. Ben could be prejudiced against the social group (believing the stereotype) but, alternatively, he might be a fair-minded person who believes that the university is prejudiced against the group in its procedures. Also the university might have rejected Ben either as it is prejudiced in its selection or, alternatively, has a fair-assessment system and Ben is rejected for reasons unrelated to his group membership. These additional factors do not mitigate the evidence that Ben’s social judgement was correct. Jussim (2012 : 155) challenged the researchers who criticize the “permissibility” of relying on stereotypes in judgement social judgement—arguing for a moral imperative that stereotypes should not be employed in social judgements—in their rejection of the accuracy data.

A key point to note here is that the predictive brain operates on the state of the world as it is experienced and not on the state of the world as we believe it should be . Working towards gender equality and encouraging more women into engineering is a key aim in many Western societies, but that admirable social and political goal should not lead us to misunderstand the unconscious working of the predictive brain. Indeed, according to Crawford’s (2012) figures, the probabilistic association of “engineer” and “man” is an accurate reflection of the “true” state of the USA in 2012 where 80% of the recruits to the profession are men. A second important point is that the Bayesian brain seeks predictive validity through the picking up of regularities (to form associations) on the basis of experience. Diversity, or counter-stereotypical examples (such as encountering a woman engineer) will reduce the probability of an association (between “engineer” and “man”), but only to the degree that they are experienced. Whereas the presence of even a single female engineer disproves the assertion that “all engineers are men”—and demonstrates that gender is not a relevant factor in engineering ability—the presence of only one female engineer (where all the rest are men) will only have a small effect on the predictive probability of an engineer being a man. The implication from the predictive brain model is that when there are more women engineers, who then become more visible in everyday life (and in the media) then the implicit stereotypical association of “engineer” and “man” will change ( Weber and Crocker, 1983 ).

The predictive brain, as a perceptual mechanism, is directed solely by the minimization of surprisal. It does not make a moral judgement or provide an explanation for the state of the world. It simply seeks to make accurate predictions. In a study on language learning, Perfors and Navarro (2014) argued that the Bayesian brain learns through a process of iterative learning (from other members of the community). Whereas previous researchers have argued that it is solely the structure of language that structures the meanings acquired, Perfors and Navarro (2014) argued that the structure of the external world (and the meanings within it) will also influence the process. We don’t simply learn that an engineer, by definition, designs and builds systems but also that, in the external world, they are mostly men. Thus, semantic knowledge acquired will be shaped by the meaning structure communicated. As long as the things people talk about reflect the relationships of those things in the external world then the semantic relationships learnt will reflect the meanings present in the external world. Thus, knowledge of the relationship between concepts will be acquired from the meanings communicated by others. Furthermore, the proposal of a Bayesian brain does not require that it operates in an optimal (or rational) manner—simply that a Bayesian model best represents its behaviour ( Tauber et al., 2017 ). Learning for the Bayesian brain involves testing predictions (hypotheses) by using the data obtained from the world and applying Bayes’ theorem to develop probabilities ( Perfors, 2016 ). For the predictive brain, the degree to which implicit stereotypes are learnt and employed depends on the probabilities with which the implicit associations between the social category and an attribute are expected and experienced in communication. It is this world of the social perceiver that is considered now.

Implicit stereotypes and “culture in mind”

Implicit stereotypes, like other implicit associations can be viewed as cultural knowledge or folk wisdom that the person acquires through their experience in a culture ( Bruner, 1990 ). The idea that stereotypical associations are cultural in origin was proposed in the early work on stereotypes, but has tended to be ignored in the focus on the fallacy or bias of individual cognition. Journalist and political commentator Walter Lippmann is usually seen as stimulating the academic study of stereotyping with his 1922 book Public Opinion ( Hinton, 2000 ). While Lippmann used the term “stereotype” familiar to him from newspaper printing, he saw it as a cultural phenomenon: “we tend to perceive that which has been picked out in the form s tereotyped for us by our culture .” ( Lippmann, 1922 : 81; my italics) In Lippmann’s view it is the culture that is creating the stereotype, not the individual ( Hinton, 2016 ). As Allport (1979 : 189) pointed out: stereotypes “manifestly come from somewhere ”. To illustrate this, we can examine the origin of the associations identified in the Princeton studies, discussed at the beginning of this article, by considering the example of the English. As Hinton (2016) has argued, the selected attributes reflect the notion of the English gentleman, a common representation of the Englishman in the American media of the first half of the twentieth century, and hence familiar to the exclusively male, upper-class Princeton student participants who, if they had encountered English people it is likely that they would be from the same class demographic as themselves. It is also likely that these participants did not consider (nor were they asked to do so) a range of categories of English people, such as women or the working classes, so, not surprisingly, tended to focus on the specific and familiar representation of the English defined for them by their culture (to paraphrase Lippmann). By 1969, the image of the English gentleman had become rather archaic and even a figure of fun in both the British and American media ( Hinton, 2016 ) and the selected English attributes had changed. Also, a crucial point to note is that the student participants were only asked “to select those [attributes] which seem to you to be typical” of the group ( Katz and Braly, 1933 : 282). Even so, some students refused to do the task in 1951 and 1969 ( Brown et al., 1987 ), which indicates that, even for the students who had agreed to take part in the study, there was no evidence that the selected attributes represented their own personal attitudes, thus the responses did not reflect a fallacy or a cognitive bias of the participants. To perform the task with no information except the category name, the students may have simply drawn on attributes they knew to be commonly circulating about the English in their culture. The most popular attribute in 1933 for the English was “sportsmanlike”, and this might even have shown up in the IAT if it had been available at the time. Yet this does not mean that the students viewed all English people as sportsmanlike. However, the sportsmanlike English gentleman was a familiar trope in American popular culture at the time, typified by actor Ronald Colman in Hollywood movies such as The Dark Angel , 1925, and Bulldog Drummond , 1929. By 1969, “sportsmanlike” had dropped out of the Princeton top five attributes for the English ( Karlins et al., 1969 ). We can take Allport’s example of the “crooked lawyer” stereotype as a second example. A person with no personal antipathy to lawyers, and well-aware that they are a highly regulated profession of mostly honest people, might make the prediction that when a lawyer character appears in a popular crime drama that they will (probably) be crooked from the experience of lawyers in famous movies such as The Godfather series, 1972–1990, and television programs such as Breaking Bad , 2008–2013, (along with the spin-off series about a crooked lawyer, Better Call Saul , 2015).

As Devine (1989) has argued, well-learnt associations picked up during socialization form implicit stereotypes even for the individual seeking non-prejudiced views. It is argued here that the predictive brain model provides the mechanism for this. The process of picking up associations probabilistically is happening unconsciously through Bayesian principles throughout a person’s life within a culture. Yet culture is neither monolithic nor fixed and unchanging. People are active in the construction both of their social world and their media environment ( Livingstone, 2013 ; Burr, 2015 ). As Smith (2008 : 51) points out “In reality, people’s social environments are probably best characterized as social networks . People have links of acquaintanceship, friendship, etc. to particular other people, which interconnect them in a complex web”. Within any society, there will be different social networks of this kind communicating different social representations about social groups. According to Moscovici (1998) , it is these shared representations that define a culture or subcultural group. Different cultural groups will differ ideologically through their position in society and the representations that circulate in the communication within their social network. While one cultural group may be actively promoting one representation (such as “immigrants” are “a great economic benefit to our society and add to the diversity of our culture”) through a range of communications, such as television, newspaper and social media, another group may be promoting an alternative representation (such as “immigrants” are “a burden on society, taking jobs and undermining our culture”). In the communication within any social network there will be regular and consistent associations between social groups and attributes, which will be picked up by it members, through the working of the predictive brain. The extent to which individuals share implicit associations will depend on the hegemonic social representations within the society across cultural groups ( Gillespie, 2008 ), such as a positive belief in democracy and a negative view of communism, which are prevalent in the wider social institutions within a nation, and examined in the sociological study of stereotypes (for example, Pickering, 2001 ).

The role of stereotypes in communication within a social network was demonstrated by Kashima and colleagues ( Kashima and Yeung, 2010 ; Kashima et al., 2013 ) in their research on the serial retelling of stories. The results showed that stereotype-consistent information was emphasized. Even though stereotype-inconsistent information attracted attention it was not necessarily passed on. Thus, the story became more stereotypical and consistent in the serial retelling. They argued that “stereotypes can be thought of a significant cultural resources that help us to transmit cultural information” ( Kashima and Yeung, 2010 ). Within a social network common understandings are developed via the use of stereotypes. Members of the culture assume a knowledge of the stereotype in other group members, which facilitates social interaction, but potentially also helps to maintain the stereotype, even in the face of inconsistent information. From this research, it can be argued that the analysis of implicit stereotypes should focus on the communication of meaning within a social network, rather than considering them as a “bias”. The complex dynamics of the individual within a social network (for example, Christakis and Fowler, 2009 ) needs to be considered in investigating the formation, transmission and maintenance of implicit stereotypes.

In the modern world of the twenty-first century, the options available for people to construct their social environments have radically increased ( Giddens, 1991 ). The media has rapidly expanded through multiple television channels, a proliferation of media outlets, and the development of social media via the internet. While this offers the potential for people to engage with a diversity of representation and counter-stereotypical information, it also allows people to remain in an ideological subculture, communicating with like-minded people where specific representations of cultural others are constantly being circulated unchallenged within the social network. In terms of the predictive brain, implicit associations will develop from the consistent messages people receive in their everyday lives. If certain implicit stereotypes are deemed unacceptable then it will only be when people experience consistent counter-stereotypical information over a long period of time that these associations will be probabilistically undermined. For this to be achieved, everyday experience has to involve necessarily (but not sufficiently) exposure to alternative representations and counter-evidence to these specific implicit stereotypes, rather than people only experiencing the consistent representations about social groups circulating within a particular culture, social network or social media “bubble”.

Over the last 30 years stereotype research has focused on implicit stereotypes, particularly using the IAT, which have been interpreted as revealing an implicit or unconscious cognitive bias, even for the consciously fair-minded person. Despite research questioning the predictive validity of the IAT as a method of revealing unconscious prejudice (for example, Oswald et al., 2013 ), the focus of implicit stereotypes has dominated the psychology of stereotyping in the twenty-first century ( Fiske and Taylor, 2013 ). However, it is argued here that implicit stereotypes, as attributes associated with social groups, do not indicate an unconscious cognitive “bias” (a “cognitive monster”) within the fair-minded person but are learnt associations arising from the normal working of the predictive brain in everyday life. These associations are based on information circulating within the person’s culture, and the associations are probabilistically detected by the predictive brain: as such they can be characterised as “culture in mind” rather than an individual bias. According to the predictive brain model, when the culture changes then the implicit stereotypes of its members will change (albeit slowly for some associations). Therefore, to properly understand the nature of implicit stereotypes, the cognitive research needs to be combined with the study of the dynamics of culture, to understand the specific associations prevalent in the communication within a culture and their implicit influence on the members of that culture.

Data availability

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed.

Additional information

How to cite this article : Hinton P (2017) Implicit stereotypes and the predictive brain: cognition and culture in ‘biased’ person perception. Palgrave Communications . 3:17086 doi: 10.1057/palcomms.2017.86.

Publisher’s note : Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

I worked with the following data. American golfers are of normal height (say, mean of 173 cm or 5 feet and 10 inches), professional basketball players in the USA are tall (say, a mean of 200 cm of 6 feet 7 inches), assumed standard deviations of 10 cm or 4 inches for both groups, and heights to be normally distributed.

Allport GW (1979[1954]) The Nature of Prejudice . Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA.

Google Scholar  

Adorno TW, Frenkel-Brunswik E, Levinson DJ and Sanford RN (1950) The Authoritarian Personality . Harper and Row: New York.

Axt JR, Ebersole CR and Nosek BA (2014) The rules of implicit evaluation by race, religion, and age. Psychological Science ; 25 (9): 1804–1815.

Bargh JA (2011) Unconscious thought theory and its discontents: A critique of the critiques. Social Cognition ; 29 (6): 629–647.

Bargh JA (1999) The cognitive monster: The case against controllability of automatic stereotype effects. In: Chaiken S and Trope Y (eds). Dual Process Theories in Social Psychology . Guilford: New York, pp 361–382.

Bargh JA and Williams EL (2006) The automaticity of social life. Current Directions in Psychological Science ; 15 (1): 1–4.

Brown R (1965) Social Psychology . Collier-Macmillan: London.

Brown BL, Williams RN, Norton RF and Barrus GS (1987) Semantic space comparisons of cross-cultural stereotyping. Deseret Language and Linguistic Society Symposium ; 13 (1): Article 3.

Bruner JS (1990) Acts of Meaning . Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.

Bubic A, von Cramon DY and Schubotz RI (2010) Prediction, cognition and the brain. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience ; 4 (25): 1–15.

Burr V (2015) Social Constructionism , 3rd edn, Routledge: London.

Cameron CD, Payne BK and Knobe J (2010) Do theories of implict race bias change moral judgements? Social Justice Research ; 23 (4): 272–289.

Christakis NA and Fowler JH (2009) Connected: The Surprising Power of our Social Networks and how they Shape Our Lives . Little & Brown: New York.

Clark A (2014) Perceiving as predicting. In: Stokes D, Matthen M and Biggs S (eds). Perception and Its Modalities . Oxford University Press: New York, pp 23–43.

Clark A (2013) Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences ; 36 (3): 181–204.

Crawford M (2012) Engineering still needs more women, https://www.asme.org/career-education/articles/undergraduate-students/engineering-still-needs-more-women , accessed 12 December 2016.

Collins AM and Loftus EF (1975) A spreading activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review ; 82 (6): 407–428.

De Deyne S, Navarro DJ, Perfors A and Storms G (2016) Structure at every scale: A semantic network account for the similarities between unrelated concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General ; 145 (9): 1228–1254.

Devine PG (1989) Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. ; 56 (1): 5–18.

Devine PG, Forscher PS, Austin AJ and Cox WTL (2012) Long-term reduction in implict race bias: A prejudice habit-breaking intervention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology ; 48 (6): 1267–1278.

Devine PG and Monteith MJ (1999) Automaticity and control in stereotyping. In: Chaiken S and Trope Y (eds). Dual-process Theories in Social Psychology . Guilford: New York, pp 339–360.

Devine PG and Sharp LB (2009) Automaticity and control in stereotyping and prejudice. In: Nelson TD (ed). Handbook of Prejudice, Sereotyping, and Discrimination . Taylor and Francis: New York, pp 61–88.

El-Gamal MA and Grether DM (1995) Are people Bayesian? Uncovering behavioral strategies. Journal of the American Statistical Society ; 90 (432): 1137–1145.

Fiske ST and Taylor SE (2013) Social Cognition: From Brains to Culture , 2nd edn, Sage: London.

Fiske ST and Taylor SE (1991) Social Cognition. 2nd edn, McGraw-Hill: New York.

Fox R (1992) Prejudice and the unfinished mind: A new look at an old failing. Psychological Inquiry ; 3 (2): 137–152.

Gaertner SL and McLaughlin JP (1983) Racial stereotypes: Associations and ascriptions of positive and negative characteristics. Social Psychology Quarterly ; 46 (1): 23–30.

Ghosh VE and Gilboa A (2014) What is a memory schema? A historical perspective on current neuroscience literature. Neuropsychologia ; 53 , 104–114.

Giddens A (1991) Modernity and Self-identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age . Polity Press: Cambridge, UK.

Gigerenzer G and Gaissmaier W (2011) Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology ; 62 , 451–482.

Gilbert GM (1951) Stereotype persistence and change among college students. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology ; 46 (2): 245–254.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Gillespie A (2008) Social representations, alternative representations and semantic barriers. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour ; 38 (4): 375–391.

Greenwald AG and Banaji MR (1995) Implicit social cognition: Attitude, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review ; 102 (1): 4–27.

Greenwald AG, Banaji MR and Nosek BA (2015) Statistically small effects of the Implicit Association Tst can have socially large effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ; 108 (4): 553–561.

Greenwald AG, McGhee DE and Schwartz JLK (1998) Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ; 74 (6): 1464–1480.

Greenwald AG, Poehlman TA, Uhlmann E and Banaji MR (2009) Understanding and using the implicit association test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ; 97 (1): 17–41.

Haidt J (2012) The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are divided by Politics and Religion . Vintage Books: New York.

Hinton PR (2016) The Perception of People: Integrating Cognition and Culture . Routledge: London.

Hinton PR (2000) Stereotypes, Cognition and Culture . Psychology Press: Hove, UK.

Jussim L (2012) Social Perception and Social Reality: Why Accuracy Dominates Bias and Self-fulfilling Prophecy . Oxford University Press: New York.

Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow . Penguin Books: London.

Kahneman D and Tversky A (1973) On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review ; 80 (4): 237–251.

Karlins M, Coffman TL and Walters G (1969) On the fading of social stereotypes: Studies in three generations of college students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ; 13 (1): 1–16.

Kashima Y, Lyons A and Clark A (2013) The maintenance of cultural stereotypes in the conversational retelling of narratives. Asian Journal of Social Psychology ; 16 (1): 60–70.

Kashima Y and Yeung VWL (2010) Serial reproduction: An experimental simulation of cultural dynamics. Acta Psychologica Sinica ; 42 (1): 56–71.

Katz D and Braly KW (1933) Racial prejudice and racial stereotypes. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology ; 30 (2): 175–193.

Kelly GA (1955) A Theory of Personality: The Theory of Personal Constructs . Norton: New York.

Koenig FW and King MB Jr (1964) Cognitive simplicity and out-group stereotyping. Social Forces ; 42 (3): 324–327.

Krieger LH (1995) The content of our categories: A cognitive bias approach to discrimination and equal employment opportunity. Stanford Law Review ; 47 (6): 1161–1248.

Krieger LH and Fiske ST (2006) Behavioral realism in employment discrimination law: Implicit bias and disparate treatment. California Law Review ; 94 (4): 997–1062.

Lai CK, Skinner AL, Cooley E et al. (2016) Reducing implicit racial preferences: II. Intervention effectiveness across time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General ; 145 (8): 1001–1016.

Lippmann W (1922) Public Opinion . Harcourt-Brace: New York.

Livingstone S (2013) The participation paradigm in audience research. Communication Review ; 16 (1-2): 21–30.

Macrae CN, Bodenhausen GV, Milne AB, Thorn TMJ and Castelli L (1997) On the activation of social stereotypes: The moderating role of processing objectives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology ; 33 (5): 471–489.

Macrae CN, Milne AB and Bodenhausen GV (1994) Stereotypes as energy-saving devices: A peek inside the cognitive toolbox. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ; 66 (1): 37–47.

Moscovici S (1998) The history and actuality of social representations. In: Flick U (ed). The Psychology of the Social . Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. pp 209–247.

Neely JH (1977) Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Roles of inhibitionless spreading activation and limited-capacity attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General ; 106 (3): 226–254.

Nelson TD (2009) Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination . Psychology Press: Hove, UK.

Oswald FL, Mitchell G, Blanton H, Jaccard J and Tetlock PE (2013) Predicting ethnic and racial discrimination: A meta-analysis of IAT criterion studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ; 105 (2): 171–192.

Otten M, Seth AK and Pinto Y (2017) A social Bayesian brain: How social knowledge can shape visual perception. Brain and Cognition ; 112 , 69–77.

Payne BK and Cameron CD (2013) Implicit social cognition and mental representation. In: Carlston D (ed). Oxford handbook of social cognition . Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Payne BK and Gawronski B (2010) A history of implicit social cognition: Where is it coming from? Where is it now? Where is it going? In: Gawronski B and Payne BK (eds). Handbook of Implicit Social Cognition: Measurement, Theory, and Applications . Guilford Press: New York, pp 1–15.

Perfors A (2016) Piaget, probability, causality, and contradiction. Human Development ; 59 (1): 26–33.

Perfors A and Navarro DJ (2014) Language evolution can be shaped by the structure of the world. Cognitive Science ; 38 (4): 775–793.

Pickering M (2001) Stereotyping: The Politics of Representation . Palgrave Macmillan: New York.

Schneider DJ (2004) The Psychology of Stereotyping . Guilford: New York.

Shiffrin RM and Schneider W (1977) Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psychological Review ; 84 (2): 127–190.

Smith ER (2008) Rediscovering the emotional aspects of prejudice and intergroup behavior. In: Tropp LR, Finchilescu G and Tredoux C (eds). Improving Intergroup Relations: Building on the Legacy of Thomas F. Pettigrew . Wiley: New York, pp 42–54.

Stainton RW (2003) Social Psychology: Experimental and Critical Approaches . Open University Press: Maidenhead, UK.

Steele C (2010) Whistling Vivaldi: and Other Clues to how Stereotypes affect us . W.W. Norton: New York.

Tajfel H (1969) Cognitive aspects of prejudice. Journal of Social Issues ; 25 (4): 79–93.

Tauber S, Navarro DJ, Perfors A and Steyvers M (2017) Bayesian models of cognition revisited: Setting optimality aside and letting data drive psychological theory. Psychological Review ; 124 (4): 410–441.

Todd PM and Gigerenzer G the ABC Research Group. (2012) Ecological Rationality: Intelligence in the World . Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Weber R and Crocker J (1983) Cognitive processes in the revision of stereotypic beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ; 45 (5): 961–977.

Wittenbrink B, Judd CM and Park B (2001) Spontaneous prejudice in context: Variability in automatically activated attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ; 81 (5): 815–827.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Warwick, Centre for Applied Linguistics, Coventry, UK

Perry Hinton

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Perry Hinton .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declare that they have no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Hinton, P. Implicit stereotypes and the predictive brain: cognition and culture in “biased” person perception. Palgrave Commun 3 , 17086 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2017.86

Download citation

Received : 28 January 2017

Accepted : 17 July 2017

Published : 01 September 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2017.86

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Communication as the origin of consciousness.

• Sergei A. Fedotov
• Ekaterina V Baidyuk

Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science (2023)

At the intersection of humanity and technology: a technofeminist intersectional critical discourse analysis of gender and race biases in the natural language processing model GPT-3

• M. A. Palacios Barea
• J. F. Ferreira Goncalves

AI & SOCIETY (2023)

Self-protecting motivation, indexed by self-threat, modifies retrieval-induced-forgetting and confidence in employment decision bias against out-group targets

• Shaohang Liu
• Christopher Kent
• Josie Briscoe

Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications (2021)

New Horizons on Non-invasive Brain Stimulation of the Social and Affective Cerebellum

• Z. Cattaneo
• F. Van Overwalle

The Cerebellum (2021)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• A-Z Publications

Annual Review of Psychology

Volume 69, 2018, review article, gender stereotypes.

• Naomi Ellemers 1
• View Affiliations Hide Affiliations Affiliations: Faculty of Social Sciences, Utrecht University, 3508 TC Utrecht, Netherlands; email: [email protected]
• Vol. 69:275-298 (Volume publication date January 2018) https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011719
• First published as a Review in Advance on September 27, 2017
• © Annual Reviews

There are many differences between men and women. To some extent, these are captured in the stereotypical images of these groups. Stereotypes about the way men and women think and behave are widely shared, suggesting a kernel of truth. However, stereotypical expectations not only reflect existing differences, but also impact the way men and women define themselves and are treated by others. This article reviews evidence on the nature and content of gender stereotypes and considers how these relate to gender differences in important life outcomes. Empirical studies show that gender stereotypes affect the way people attend to, interpret, and remember information about themselves and others. Considering the cognitive and motivational functions of gender stereotypes helps us understand their impact on implicit beliefs and communications about men and women. Knowledge of the literature on this subject can benefit the fair judgment of individuals in situations where gender stereotypes are likely to play a role.

Article metrics loading...

Full text loading...

Literature Cited

• Amodio D . 2014 . The neuroscience of prejudice and stereotyping. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 15 : 670– 82 [Google Scholar]
• Anderson RC , Klofstad CA . 2012 . Preference for leaders with masculine voices holds in the case of feminine leadership roles. PLOS ONE 7 : 12 e51216 [Google Scholar]
• Badgett MVL , Folbre N . 2003 . Job gendering: occupational choice and the labor market. Ind. Relat. 42 : 270– 98 [Google Scholar]
• Banaji MR , Greenwald AG . 1995 . Implicit gender stereotyping in judgments of fame. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 68 : 181– 98 [Google Scholar]
• Barreto M , Ellemers N . 2015 . Detecting and experiencing prejudice: new answers to old questions. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 52 : 139– 219 [Google Scholar]
• Barreto M , Ellemers N , Cihangir S , Stroebe K . 2008 . The self-fulfilling effects of contemporary sexism: how it affects women's well-being and behavior. The Glass Ceiling in the 21 st Century: Understanding Barriers to Gender Inequality M Barreto, M Ryan, M Schmitt 99– 123 Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc. [Google Scholar]
• Barreto M , Ellemers N , Palacios M . 2004 . The backlash of token mobility: the impact of past group experiences on individual ambition and effort. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 30 : 1433– 45 [Google Scholar]
• Barreto M , Ellemers N , Piebinga L , Moya M . 2010 . How nice of us and how dumb of me: the effect of exposure to benevolent sexism on women's task and relational self-descriptions. Sex Roles 62 : 532– 44 [Google Scholar]
• Becker SW , Eagly AH . 2004 . The heroism of women and men. Am. Psychol. 59 : 163– 78 [Google Scholar]
• Behm-Morawitz E , Mastro D . 2009 . The effects of the sexualization of female video game characters on gender stereotyping and female self-concept. Sex Roles 61 : 808– 23 [Google Scholar]
• Bennett M , Sani F , Hopkins N , Agostini L , Malucchi L . 2000 . Children's gender categorization: an investigation of automatic processing. Br. J. Dev. Psychol. 18 : 97– 102 [Google Scholar]
• Biernat M , Manis M . 1994 . Shifting standards and stereotype-based judgments. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 66 : 5– 20 [Google Scholar]
• Bittman M , England P , Sayer L , Folbre N , Matheson G . 2003 . When does gender trump money? Bargaining and time in household work. Am. J. Sociol. 109 : 186– 214 [Google Scholar]
• Borkowska B , Pawlowski B . 2011 . Female voice frequency in the context of dominance and attractiveness perception. Anim. Behav. 82 : 55– 59 [Google Scholar]
• Brescoll VL , Uhlmann EL . 2005 . Attitudes toward traditional and nontraditional parents. Psychol. Women Q. 29 : 436– 45 [Google Scholar]
• Brescoll VL , Uhlmann EL . 2008 . Can angry women get ahead? Status conferral, gender, and expression of emotion in the workplace. Psychol. Sci. 19 : 268– 75 [Google Scholar]
• Buffington C , Cerf B , Jones C , Weinberg BA . 2016 . STEM training and early career outcomes of female and male graduate students: evidence from UMETRICS data linked to the 2010 Census. Am. Econ. Rev. 106 : 333– 38 [Google Scholar]
• Bur. Labor Stat. 2016 . Charts by topic: household activities Am. Time Use Surv. Rep., Bur. Labor Stat., US Dep. Labor Washington, DC: [Google Scholar]
• Bussey K , Bandura A . 1999 . Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychol. Rev. 106 : 676– 713 [Google Scholar]
• Byrnes JP , Miller DC , Schafer WD . 1999 . Gender differences in risk taking: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 125 : 367– 83 [Google Scholar]
• Canal P , Garnham A , Oakhill J . 2015 . Beyond gender stereotypes in language comprehension: self sex-role descriptions affect the brain's potentials associated with agreement processing. Front. Psychol. 6 : 1953 [Google Scholar]
• Carney DR , Cuddy AJC , Yap AJ . 2010 . Power posing: Brief nonverbal displays affect neuroendocrine levels and risk tolerance. Psychol. Sci. 21 : 1363– 68 [Google Scholar]
• Cashdan E . 1998 . Smiles, speech, and body posture: how women and men display sociometric status and power. J. Nonverbal Behav. 22 : 209– 28 [Google Scholar]
• Chatard A , Guimond S , Selimbegovic L . 2007 . “How good are you in math?” The effect of gender stereotypes on students’ recollection of their school marks. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 43 : 1017– 24 [Google Scholar]
• Cikara M , Eberhardt JL , Fiske ST . 2011 . From agents to objects: sexist attitudes and neural responses to sexualized targets. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 23 : 540– 51 [Google Scholar]
• Clausell E , Fiske ST . 2005 . When do subgroup parts add up to the stereotypic whole? Mixed stereotype content for gay male subgroups explains overall ratings. Soc. Cogn. 23 : 161– 81 [Google Scholar]
• Cohn E . 2015 . Google image search has a gender bias problem. Huffington Post Apr. 10. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/10/google-image-gender-bias_n_7036414.html [Google Scholar]
• Correll SJ , Benard S , Paik I . 2007 . Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty. Am. J. Sociol. 112 : 483– 99 [Google Scholar]
• Croft A , Schmader T , Block K . 2015 . An underexamined inequality: cultural and psychological barriers to men's engagement with communal roles. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 19 : 343– 70 [Google Scholar]
• Croft A , Schmader T , Block K , Baron AS . 2014 . The second shift reflected in the second generation: Do parents' gender roles at home predict children's aspirations?. Psychol. Sci. 25 : 1418– 28 [Google Scholar]
• Cuddy AJ , Wolf EB , Glick P , Crotty S , Chong J , Norton MI . 2015a . Men as cultural ideals: Cultural values moderate gender stereotype content. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 109 : 622– 35 [Google Scholar]
• Cuddy AJC , Fiske ST , Glick P . 2004 . When professionals become mothers, warmth doesn't cut the ice. J. Soc. Issues 60 : 701– 18 [Google Scholar]
• Cuddy AJC , Wilmuth CA , Yap AJ , Carney DR . 2015b . Preparatory power posing affects nonverbal presence and job interview performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 100 : 1286– 95 [Google Scholar]
• De Lemus S , Spears R , Moya M . 2012 . The power of a smile to move you: complementary submissiveness in women's posture as a function of gender salience and facial expression. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 38 : 1480– 94 [Google Scholar]
• Derks B , Van Laar C , Ellemers N . 2007 . The beneficial effects of social identity protection on the performance motivation of members of devalued groups. Soc. Issues Policy Rev. 1 : 217– 56 [Google Scholar]
• Derks B , Van Laar C , Ellemers N . 2016 . The queen bee phenomenon: why women leaders distance themselves from junior women. Leadersh. Q. 27 : 456– 69 [Google Scholar]
• Diekman AB , Steinberg M , Brown ER , Belanger AL , Clark EK . 2017 . A goal congruity model of role entry, engagement, and exit: understanding communal goal processes in STEM gender gaps. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 21 : 142– 75 [Google Scholar]
• Drury BJ , Kaiser CR . 2014 . Allies against sexism: the role of men in confronting sexism. J. Soc. Issues 70 : 637– 52 [Google Scholar]
• Dutt K , Pfaff DL , Bernstein AF , Dillard JS , Block CJ . 2016 . Gender differences in recommendation letters for postdoctoral fellowships in geoscience. Nat. Geosci. 9 : 805– 8 [Google Scholar]
• Dyble M , Salali GD , Chaudhary N , Page A , Smith D . et al. 2015 . Sex equality can explain the unique social structure of hunter-gatherer bands. Science 348 : 796– 98 [Google Scholar]
• Eagly AH , Mladinic A . 1994 . Are people prejudiced against women? Some answers from research on attitudes, gender stereotypes, and judgments of competence. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 5 : 1– 35 [Google Scholar]
• Eagly AH , Wood W . 2013 . The nature-nurture debates: 25 years of challenges in understanding the psychology of gender. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 8 : 340– 57 [Google Scholar]
• Ellemers N . 2014 . Women at work: how organizational features impact career development. Policy Insights Behav. Brain Sci. 1 : 46– 54 [Google Scholar]
• Ellemers N , Barreto M . 2015 . Modern discrimination: how perpetrators and targets interactively perpetuate social disadvantage. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 3 : 142– 46 [Google Scholar]
• Ellemers N , Jetten J . 2013 . The many ways to be marginal in a group. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 17 : 3– 21 [Google Scholar]
• Ellemers N , Rink F , Derks B , Ryan M . 2012 . Women in high places: when and why promoting women into top positions can harm them individually or as a group (and how to prevent this). Res. Organ. Behav. 32 : 163– 87 [Google Scholar]
• Ellemers N , Scheepers D , Popa A . 2010 . Something to gain or something to lose? Affirmative action and regulatory focus emotions. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 13 : 201– 13 [Google Scholar]
• Endendijk JJ , Groeneveld MG , Mesman J , Van der Pol LD , Van Berkel SR . et al. 2014 . Boys don't play with dolls: mothers’ and fathers’ gender talk during picture book reading. Parent. Sci. Pract. 14 : 141– 61 [Google Scholar]
• Faniko K , Ellemers N , Derks B . 2016 . Queen bees and alpha males: Are successful women more competitive than successful men. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 46 : 903– 13 [Google Scholar]
• Faniko K , Ellemers N , Derks B , Lorenzi-Cioldi F . 2017 . Nothing changes, really: why women who break through the glass ceiling end up reinforcing it. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 43 : 638– 51 [Google Scholar]
• Feinberg DR , DeBruine LM , Jones BC , Perrett DI . 2008 . The role of femininity and averageness of voice pitch in aesthetic judgments of women's voices. Perception 37 : 615– 23 [Google Scholar]
• Fine C . 2013 . Neurosexism in functional neuroimaging: from scanner to pseudo-science to psyche. The SAGE Handbook of Gender and Psychology MK Ryan, NR Branscombe 45– 60 London: Sage [Google Scholar]
• Fischer J , Anderson VN . 2012 . Gender role attitudes and characteristics of stay-at-home and employed fathers. Psychol. Men Masc. 13 : 16– 31 [Google Scholar]
• Fiske ST , Bersoff DN , Borgida E , Deaux K , Heilman ME . 1991 . Social science research on trial: use of sex stereotyping research in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. Am. Psychol. 46 : 1049– 60 [Google Scholar]
• Fiske ST , Cuddy AC , Glick P , Xu J . 2002 . A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 82 : 878– 902 [Google Scholar]
• Fiske ST , Taylor SK . 2013 . Social Cognition: From Brains to Culture London: Sage [Google Scholar]
• Folbre N . 2012 . Should women care less? Intrinsic motivation and gender inequality. Br. J. Ind. Relat. 50 : 597– 619 [Google Scholar]
• Fredrickson B , Roberts TA . 1997 . Objectification theory: toward understanding women's lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychol. Women Q. 21 : 173– 206 [Google Scholar]
• Garcia D , Schmitt MT , Branscombe NR , Ellemers N . 2010 . Women's reactions to ingroup members who protest discriminatory treatment: the importance of beliefs about inequality and response appropriateness. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40 : 733– 45 [Google Scholar]
• Glick P , Fiske ST , Mladinic A , Saiz J , Abrams D . et al. 2000 . Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 79 : 763– 75 [Google Scholar]
• Glick P , Sakalli-Ugurlu N , Ferreira MC , Souza MA . 2002 . Ambivalent sexism and attitudes toward wife abuse in Turkey and Brazil. Psychol. Women Q. 26 : 292– 97 [Google Scholar]
• Gordon I , Zagoory-Sharon O , Leckman JF , Feldman R . 2010 . Oxytocin and the development of parenting in humans. Biol. Psychiatry 68 : 377– 82 [Google Scholar]
• Greenwald AG , Banaji MR . 1995 . Implicit social cognition: attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychol. Rev. 102 : 4– 27 [Google Scholar]
• Grunspan DZ , Eddy SL , Brownell SE , Wiggins BL , Crowe AJ , Goodreau SM . 2016 . Males under-estimate academic performance of their female peers in undergraduate biology classrooms. PLOS ONE 11 : e0148405 [Google Scholar]
• Hammond MD , Overall NC . 2015 . Benevolent sexism and support of romantic partner's goals: undermining women's competence while fulfilling men's intimacy needs. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 41 : 1180– 94 [Google Scholar]
• Handley IM , Brown ER , Moss-Racusin CA , Smith JA . 2015 . Quality of evidence revealing subtle gender biases in science is in the eye of the beholder. PNAS 112 : 13201– 6 [Google Scholar]
• Heflick N , Goldenberg J , Cooper D , Puvia E . 2011 . From women to objects: appearance focus, target gender, and perceptions of warmth, morality and competence. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 47 : 572– 81 [Google Scholar]
• Heilman ME , Haynes MC . 2005 . No credit where credit is due: attributional rationalization of women's success in male-female teams. J. Appl. Psychol. 90 : 905– 16 [Google Scholar]
• Heilman ME , Okimoto T . 2008 . Motherhood: a potential source of bias in employment decisions. J. Appl. Psychol. 93 : 189– 98 [Google Scholar]
• Hornsey MJ , Wellauer R , McIntyre JC , Barlow FK . 2015 . A critical test of the assumption that men prefer conformist women and women prefer nonconformist men. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 41 : 755– 68 [Google Scholar]
• Huang Y , Davies PG , Sibley CG , Osborne D . 2016 . Benevolent sexism, attitudes toward motherhood, and reproductive rights: a multi-study longitudinal examination of abortion attitudes. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 42 : 970– 84 [Google Scholar]
• Hyde J . 2014 . Gender similarities and differences. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 65 : 373– 98 [Google Scholar]
• Ito TA , Urland GR . 2003 . Race and gender on the brain: electrocortical measures of attention to the race and gender of multiply categorizable individuals. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 85 : 616– 26 [Google Scholar]
• Jarman J , Blackburn RM , Racko G . 2012 . The dimensions of occupational gender segregation in industrial countries. Sociology 46 : 1003– 19 [Google Scholar]
• Joel D , Berman Z , Tavor I , Wexler N , Gaber O . et al. 2015 . Sex beyond the genitalia: the human brain mosaic. PNAS 112 : 15468– 73 [Google Scholar]
• Joshi A , Son J , Roh H . 2015 . When can women close the gap? A meta-analytic test of sex differences in performance and rewards. Acad. Manag. J. 58 : 1516– 45 [Google Scholar]
• Kaiser CR , Major B , Jurcevic I , Dover TL , Brady LM , Shapiro JR . 2013 . Presumed fair: ironic effects of organizational diversity structures. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 104 : 504– 19 [Google Scholar]
• Kaiser CR , Miller CT . 2001 . Stop complaining! The social costs of making attributions to discrimination. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 27 : 254– 63 [Google Scholar]
• Kite ME , Deaux K , Haines EL . 2008 . Gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women: A Handbook of Issues and Theories 2 FL Denmark, MA Paludi 205– 36 New York: Praeger [Google Scholar]
• Klofstad CA , Anderson RC , Peters S . 2012 . Sounds like a winner: Voice pitch influences perception of leadership capacity in both men and women. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 279 : 2698– 704 [Google Scholar]
• Koenig AM , Eagly AH . 2005 . Stereotype threat in men on a test of social sensitivity. Sex Roles 52 : 489– 96 [Google Scholar]
• Krendl AC , Richeson JA , Kelley WM , Heatherton TF . 2008 . The negative consequences of threat: a functional magnetic resonance imaging investigation of the neural mechanisms underlying women's underperformance in math. Psychol. Sci. 19 : 168– 75 [Google Scholar]
• Kulich C , Trojanowski G , Ryan MK , Haslam SA , Renneboog LDR . 2011 . Who gets the carrot and who gets the stick? Evidence of gender disparities in executive remuneration. Strateg. Manag. J. 32 : 301– 21 [Google Scholar]
• Leslie S-J , Cimpian A , Meyer M , Freeland E . 2015 . Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science 347 : 262– 65 [Google Scholar]
• Lyness KS , Judiesch MK . 2014 . Gender egalitarianism and work-life balance for managers: a multisource perspective in 36 countries. Appl. Psychol. Int. Rev. 63 : 96– 129 [Google Scholar]
• Maass A . 1999 . Linguistic intergroup bias: stereotype perpetuation through language. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 31 : 79– 121 [Google Scholar]
• Maass A , Cadinu M , Guarnieri G , Grasselli A . 2003 . Sexual harassment under social identity threat: the computer harassment paradigm. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 85 : 853– 70 [Google Scholar]
• MacNell L , Driscoll A , Hunt AN . 2015 . What's in a name: exposing gender bias in student ratings of teaching. Innov. High. Educ. 40 : 291– 303 [Google Scholar]
• Matthews JL . 2007 . Hidden sexism: facial prominence and its connections to gender and occupational status in popular print media. Sex Roles 57 : 515– 25 [Google Scholar]
• Mayew WJ , Parsons CA , Venkatachalam M . 2013 . Voice pitch and the labor market success of male chief executive officers. Evol. Hum. Behav. 34 : 243– 48 [Google Scholar]
• Moss-Racusin CA , Dovidio JF , Brescoll VL , Graham MJ , Handelsman J . 2012 . Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students. PNAS 109 : 16474– 79 [Google Scholar]
• Moss-Racusin CA , Molenda AK , Cramer CR . 2015 . Can evidence impact attitudes? Public reactions to evidence of gender bias in STEM fields. Psychol. Women Q. 39 : 194– 209 [Google Scholar]
• Moss-Racusin CA , Phelan JE , Rudman LA . 2010 . When men break the gender rules: status incongruity and backlash against modest men. Psychol. Men Masc. 11 : 140– 51 [Google Scholar]
• Netchaeva E , Kouchaki M , Sheppard LD . 2015 . A man's (precarious) place: men's experienced threat and self-assertive reactions to female superiors. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 41 : 1247– 59 [Google Scholar]
• Oakes PJ , Haslam SA , Turner JC . 1994 . Stereotyping and Social Reality Oxford, UK: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
• Park LE , Young AF , Eastwick PW . 2015 . (Psychological) distance makes the heart grow fonder: effects of psychological distance and relative intelligence on men's attraction to women. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 41 : 1459– 73 [Google Scholar]
• Peters K , Ryan MK , Haslam SA . 2015 . Marines, medics, and machismo: Lack of fit with masculine occupational stereotypes discourages men's participation. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 106 : 635– 55 [Google Scholar]
• Peters K , Ryan M , Haslam SA , Fernandes H . 2012 . To belong or not to belong: evidence that women's occupational disidentification is promoted by lack of fit with masculine occupational prototypes. J. Personal. Psychol. 11 : 148– 58 [Google Scholar]
• Plant TA , Hyde JS , Keltner D , Devine PC . 2000 . The gender stereotyping of emotion. Psychol. Women Q. 24 : 81– 92 [Google Scholar]
• Prentice DA , Carranza E . 2002 . What women and men should be, shouldn't be, are allowed to be, and don't have to be: the contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychol. Women Q. 57 : 269– 81 [Google Scholar]
• Proudfoot D , Kay AC , Koval CZ . 2015 . A gender bias in the attribution of creativity: archival and experimental evidence for the perceived association between masculinity and creative thinking. Psychol. Sci. 26 : 1751– 61 [Google Scholar]
• Radke HRM , Hornsey MJ , Barlow FK . 2016 . Barriers to women engaging in collective action to overcome sexism. Am. Psychol. 71 : 863– 74 [Google Scholar]
• Ramos MR , Barreto M , Ellemers N , Moya M , Ferreira L . 2017 . What hostile and benevolent sexism communicate about men's and women's warmth and competence. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. In press [Google Scholar]
• Ridgeway CL . 2001 . Gender, status, and leadership. J. Soc. Issues 57 : 637– 55 [Google Scholar]
• Ridgeway CL , Smith-Lovin L . 1999 . The gender system and interaction. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 25 : 191– 216 [Google Scholar]
• Riggs JM . 1997 . Mandates for mothers and fathers: perceptions of breadwinners and care givers. Sex Roles 37 : 565– 80 [Google Scholar]
• Rudman LA , Phelan JE . 2008 . Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organizations. Res. Organ. Behav. 28 : 61– 79 [Google Scholar]
• Ryan MK , Haslam SA . 2007 . The glass cliff: exploring the dynamics surrounding the appointment of women to precarious leadership positions. Acad. Manag. Rev. 32 : 549– 72 [Google Scholar]
• Scheepers D , Ellemers N , Sintemaartensdijk N . 2009 . Suffering from the possibility of status loss: physiological responses to social identity threat in high status groups. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 39 : 1075– 92 [Google Scholar]
• Schein VE , Mueller R , Lituchy T , Liu J . 1996 . Think manager—think male: a global phenomenon. J. Organ. Behav. 17 : 33– 41 [Google Scholar]
• Schmader T . 2002 . Gender identification moderates stereotype threat effects on women's math performance. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 38 : 194– 201 [Google Scholar]
• Schmader T , Johns M . 2003 . Converging evidence that stereotype threat reduces working memory capacity. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 85 : 440– 52 [Google Scholar]
• Schmader T , Johns M , Forbes C . 2008 . An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance. Psychol. Rev. 115 : 336– 56 [Google Scholar]
• Schmader T , Whitehead J , Wysocki VH . 2007 . A linguistic comparison of letters of recommendation for male and female chemistry and biochemistry job applicants. Sex Roles 57 : 509– 14 [Google Scholar]
• Schmitt MT , Branscombe NR . 2001 . The good, the bad, and the manly: threats to one's prototypicality and evaluations of fellow in-group members. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 37 : 510– 17 [Google Scholar]
• Ståhl T , Van Laar C , Ellemers N . 2012a . How stereotype threat affects cognitive performance under a prevention focus: Initial cognitive mobilization is followed by depletion. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 102 : 1239– 51 [Google Scholar]
• Ståhl T , Van Laar C , Ellemers N , Derks B . 2012b . Searching for acceptance: Prejudice expectations direct attention towards social acceptance cues when under a promotion focus. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 15 : 523– 38 [Google Scholar]
• Steffens MC , Jelenec P , Noack P . 2010 . On the leaky math pipeline: comparing implicit math-gender stereotypes and math withdrawal in female and male children and adolescents. J. Educ. Psychol. 102 : 947– 63 [Google Scholar]
• Stephens NM , Levine CS . 2011 . Opting out or denying discrimination? How the framework of free choice in American society influences perceptions of gender inequality. Psychol. Sci. 22 : 1231– 36 [Google Scholar]
• Stroebe K , Barreto M , Ellemers N . 2010 . Experiencing discrimination: how members of disadvantaged groups can be helped to cope with discrimination. Soc. Issues Policy Rev. 4 : 181– 213 [Google Scholar]
• Swim JK , Sanna LJ . 1996 . He's skilled, she's lucky: a meta-analysis of observers' attributions for women's and men's successes and failure. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 22 : 509– 19 [Google Scholar]
• Tiedemann J . 2000 . Gender-related beliefs of teachers in elementary school mathematics. Educ. Stud. Math. 41 : 191– 207 [Google Scholar]
• Treviño LJ , Gomez-Mejia LR , Balkin DB , Mixon FG . 2015 . Meritocracies or masculinities? The differential allocation of named professorships by gender in the academy. J. Manag . https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315599216 [Google Scholar]
• Van der Lee R , Ellemers N . 2015 . Gender contributes to personal research funding success in the Netherlands. PNAS 112 : 12349– 53 [Google Scholar]
• Van der Pol LD , Groeneveld MG , Van Berkel SR , Endendijk JE , Hallers-Haalboom ET . et al. 2015 . Fathers’ and mothers’ emotion talk with their girls and boys from toddlerhood to preschool age. Emotion 15 : 854– 64 [Google Scholar]
• Van Honk J , Terburg D , Bos PA . 2011 . Further notes on testosterone as a social hormone. Trends Cogn. Sci. 15 : 291– 92 [Google Scholar]
• Van Steenbergen E , Ellemers N . 2009 . Is managing the work–family interface worthwhile? Benefits for employee health and performance. J. Organ. Behav. 30 : 617– 42 [Google Scholar]
• Ward LM , Harrison K . 2005 . The impact of media use on girls' beliefs about gender roles, their bodies, and sexual relationships: a research synthesis. Featuring Females: Feminist Analyses of Media E Cole, JH Daniel 3– 23 Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc. [Google Scholar]
• Wigboldus DHJ , Dijksterhuis A , Van Knippenberg A . 2003 . When stereotypes get in the way: Stereotypes obstruct stereotype-inconsistent trait inferences. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 84 : 470– 84 [Google Scholar]
• Wigboldus DHJ , Semin GR , Spears R . 2000 . How do we communicate stereotypes? Linguistic bases and inferential consequences. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 78 : 5– 18 [Google Scholar]
• Williams JC , Berdahl JL , Vandello JA . 2016 . Beyond work-life “integration.”. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 67 : 515– 39 [Google Scholar]
• Williams JC , Dempsey R . 2014 . What Works for Women at Work: Four Patterns Working Women Need to Know New York: NYU Press [Google Scholar]
• Williams MJ , Tiedens LZ . 2016 . The subtle suspension of backlash: a meta-analysis of penalties for women's implicit and explicit dominance behavior. Psychol. Bull. 142 : 165– 97 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

• Article Type: Review Article

Most Read This Month

Most cited most cited rss feed, job burnout, executive functions, social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective, on happiness and human potentials: a review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being, sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it, mediation analysis, missing data analysis: making it work in the real world, grounded cognition, personality structure: emergence of the five-factor model, motivational beliefs, values, and goals.

• Architecture and Design
• Asian and Pacific Studies
• Business and Economics
• Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
• Computer Sciences
• Cultural Studies
• Engineering
• General Interest
• Geosciences
• Industrial Chemistry
• Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Library and Information Science, Book Studies
• Life Sciences
• Linguistics and Semiotics
• Literary Studies
• Materials Sciences
• Mathematics
• Social Sciences
• Sports and Recreation
• Theology and Religion
• Publish your article
• The role of authors
• Promoting your article
• Abstracting & indexing
• Publishing Ethics
• Why publish with De Gruyter
• How to publish with De Gruyter
• Our book series
• Our subject areas
• Your digital product at De Gruyter
• Contribute to our reference works
• Product information
• Tools & resources
• Product Information
• Promotional Materials
• Orders and Inquiries
• FAQ for Library Suppliers and Book Sellers
• Repository Policy
• Free access policy
• Open Access agreements
• Database portals
• For Authors
• Customer service
• People + Culture
• Journal Management
• How to join us
• Working at De Gruyter
• Mission & Vision
• De Gruyter Foundation
• De Gruyter Ebound
• Our Responsibility
• Partner publishers

Your purchase has been completed. Your documents are now available to view.

How to approach ‘prejudice’ and ‘stereotypes’ qualitatively: The search for a meaningful way

• Magda Petrjánošová

This paper is partly a theoretical and analytical exploration of different ways to do research about stereotypes and prejudice, and partly a confessional tale of my journey. It is a journey that has been about looking for a meaningful and useful way of approaching empirical material collected in different research projects over more than 15 years, in an attempt to say something about how ordinary social actors talk (and possibly think) about prejudice and stereotypes. There is an immense volume of social psychological writing on this topic, and from that I discuss in detail several new(ish) discursive, critical and constructional approaches and the (im)possibility of applying them to my empirical material.

Introduction

Over time, this article has evolved from a short, simple conference presentation focusing on a few interesting extracts concerning prejudice and stereotypes. When I began writing the article in “discussion” with other (cited) authors, looking for potential new ways of analysing the same extracts, it got far more complicated than I had anticipated. It now takes the form of part theoretical and analytical paper about stereotypes and prejudice, and part confessional tale ( Van Maanen, 1988 ) of my journey. It is a journey that has been about looking for a meaningful and useful approach to analysing empirical material I have collected in different research projects over more than 15 years, in an attempt to say something about prejudice and stereotypes.

The study of prejudice became central to social psychology with the work of Allport (1954) . Allport, who focused mainly on negative ethnic prejudice, defined it as “an antipathy based on faulty and inflexible generalization. It may be felt or expressed. It may be directed toward a group or an individual of that group” ( Allport, 1954 , p. 9). As Billig (2012) notes, prejudice was initially defined more broadly but at the beginning of the 20 th century it narrowed to refer to negative opinions and to focus on categories of ethnicity and race [2] . Today (in mainstream social psychology) this concept can mainly be found in the triad of prejudice, stereotypes/stereotyping and discrimination; prejudice is usually defined more specifically as a complex attitude to a specific group, stereotypes/stereotyping as the attribution of specific characteristics to this group and discrimination as a non-neutral behaviour towards this group and its members (e.g. Dovidio, Hewstone, Glick, & Esses, 2010 ). Alternatively, this triad is understood slightly differently in the three-part model of attitudes (sometimes called the ABC model), in which stereotypes are seen as the cognitive aspect, prejudice as the affective aspect and discrimination as the behavioural aspect of attitudes towards a group ( Fiske, 1998 ). Moreover, in recent writing numerous more specific concepts have appeared that have a more or less clear connection to the concept of prejudice and that can be used as dependent measures which tap into the ABC model. These include social distance, intergroup trust, perceived threat, and so forth (for an incomplete but rather voluminous and recent overview, see Lášticová & Findor, 2016 ).

Nonetheless there is immense variation in the social psychological work done on prejudice. As Condor and Figgou (2012) summarize more generally, in social psychology, prejudice has been studied as a matter of “instinct, drive, motivation, emotion, categorization, social identity, attribution, personality, executive control or rhetoric” (p. 202). There have also been many different opinions on the reasons for prejudice and the mechanisms by which it comes about. Dovidio (2001) describes how these have changed over time—the early works saw prejudice as a personality fault, later it was viewed as imperfect information processing and recently more and more researchers have focused on unconscious and automatic prejudices.

Again, when we look at how prejudice has been researched, there is great diversity. Very different methods were used at different times and by researchers working within different paradigms. Prejudice has been researched using qualitative (e.g. interviews, focus groups), quantitative (e.g. questionnaires, social distance scales), as well as experimental (e.g. pupil dilation, response latency) methods. The predominant methods, though, are perhaps those that are most easy to use: direct self-report questionnaires (for an excellent overview see Fiske & North, 2014 ). Usually those researched give their views (personal or for their whole group [3] ) on different groups defined for example according to race/ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation or other criteria, and researchers measure the attitudes of one group towards the other while working with different components according to the theory they subscribe to—competence, trust, warmth, and so on.

The role of the researchers is omnipotent here—they get to say what is (and is not) prejudice and whether and to what extent someone is prejudiced (or not); in short the researchers are the “standard setters” of truth (Kruglanski, 1989 in Dixon & Levine, 2012a , p. 306). As Durrheim and colleagues argue (2016) , social psychologists have “generally sought to develop authoritative definitions and measures of prejudice” (p. 18) and these from top down definitions “have been superimposed on ordinary people’s attitudes in order to identify prejudiced individuals” (p. 18). Moreover, there is a problem with these definitions. As Condor and Figgou (2012) state, they are not very precise and have not exhibited a “high level of consistency over the past century” (p. 201). Despite social scientists’ claims that they have 1) been making the definition more and more accurate over time in line with scientific progress, and 2) that they are much more specific and precise than ordinary social actors—lay men and women—in fact their definitions are not so very different. However, as Durrheim, Quayle and Dixon (2016) state, in everyday communication what counts or does not count as prejudice is context dependent in the given situation and sometimes even fought over “with considerable passion and no little skill” (p.18), mainly because casting the same idea as prejudice or as a rational and legitimate attitude has very different consequences in the real world. Because of all the real-life complications with a clear-cut definition of prejudice, and because of other more generally critical voices (e.g. Whetherell, 2012), I have placed the terms “prejudice” and “stereotypes” in quotation marks in the title and also in important places in the article as a reminder that these are just labels.

Inspired by these insights and following my old suspicion of measurement tools, in this article, I am not interested in measuring the extent to which someone (a person or group) could be considered prejudiced, or how that changes after such and such an intervention [4] . Neither am I interested in the content, what exactly the potentially prejudiced opinion is about or which characteristics are ascribed to the group of people in question. What I want to look at are the opinions of the participants, but I plan to approach prejudice from a meta position, so as to better understand what the participants say and possibly think ABOUT prejudice, rather than what their explicit definitions of it might be. Thus in this article I shall attempt an approach to stereotypes and prejudice where I am interested in how the research participants THEMSELVES refer to the existence and validity of prejudice/stereotypes (in themselves and others), what they think about how the stereotypes are shared within their own and other groups, how they personally (dis)agree with them, how carefully they express an opinion that could be socially unacceptable, how they work around this complication, and so on. All this is possible only in contexts where the participants can articulate their opinions (not for example in closed questions in a questionnaire). Thus the methods of empirical material collection already determine which approaches can and cannot be used with the material. Here I am using extracts from interviews, focus groups and (open limit) answers to an open question in a questionnaire. Another possibility would be to use statements that did not originate in a research setting, but that are “natural” [5] —like newspapers articles or political speeches (see e.g. Wodak & Meyer, 2001 ).

I would like to make two small points before I present the empirical material collected and the analytical perspective: First, as mentioned above, implicit definitions of prejudice do not appear to differ so greatly in lay discourses and in scientific writing. However, in my experience, if ordinary social actors use (and often they do not) an explicit term when referring to something they consider prejudiced/one-sided/stereotypical, they tend not to distinguish between the concepts of stereotypes and prejudice but use both terms synonymously, or they sometimes use “prejudice” in reference to negative opinions only, and “stereotypes” for both positive and negative opinions. That is why I use both terms in this article, and, of course, I use the term the participants use in each extract from the empirical material. Second, in this article I deal only with nationally defined groups, often defined on the basis of state citizenship because this was the perspective from which our earlier research projects were conducted. This is despite my agreeing that nationalities are labels and that in real life issues around membership in nationally defined groups is often complicated, complex and not at all clear-cut (see also methodological nationalism , Wimmer & Glick Schiller, 2002 ).

Empirical material and analytical perspective

In 2003–2004 we used semi-structured interviews and commented drawings of the borderland in an Austrian–Slovak project about young adults from the borderland and their perceptions of their own nation and the other nation (32 Slovaks, 32 Austrians, aged 16–24, selected using quota sampling taking into account age, gender, education, size of dwelling and (not) having a better experience of the other nation) (see Spannring et al., 2005 );

in 2005–2007 in a project on the lives, attitudes and feelings of home of Slovaks travelling regularly (mostly daily) to Austria for study or work we used focus group discussions, semi-structured interviews and commented drawings of the borderland (26 Slovaks, aged 24–46, selected using quota sampling taking into account age, gender, education and size of dwelling. We then looked for and added “contrasting cases”) (see Lášticová & Petrjánošová, 2014 );

in 2009–2010 in a project on the everyday lives of a “community” of Slovak short-term migrants to Ireland we used semi-structured interviews with 8 (male and female) Slovaks who had different leadership roles in the Slovak group in Ireland (see Lášticová & Petrjánošová, 2013 );

in 2010–2012 in a research project on intergroup attitudes in central Europe we analysed answers to an open question about experiences of the neighbouring nation. The respondents were Czechs and all their neighbours—Austrians, Germans, Poles and Slovaks (1,260 female and male university students from the respective borderlands) (see Graf, Hřebíčková, Petrjánošová, & Leix, 2015 ).

The theoretical perspective I adopt in this article was inspired and influenced mainly by the traditions of discursive analysis (e.g. Condor, 2011 ), critical discursive analysis (e.g. Wodak & Krzyzanowski, 2008 ; Van Dijk, 1984 ) and rhetorical approach (e.g. Billig, 2012 ). Much of the texts, especially the older ones, deal with the tensions around expressing prejudice in a world and era where there is a broadly shared prejudice against prejudice or a “general cultural norm against ‘prejudice’” ( Billig, 2012 , p. 141) and a tendency to consider prejudiced attitudes to be objectionable on ethical grounds and irrational in nature. [6] Researchers have focused on the micro-level of strategic self-monitoring, self-presentation (relying on Goffman’s work) or more generally on identity management issues in expressing prejudice but avoiding the stigma of being evaluated as prejudiced ( Condor, 2000 ; Augustinos & Every, 2007 ) or even more generally on “careful negotiation and identity construction around the topic of prejudice” ( Wetherell, 2012 , p. 168). For example Van Dijk explored specific semantic, pragmatic and conversation strategies of “adequate self-expression, positive self-presentation and effective persuasion” (1984, p. 116) when formulating “ethnic opinions” (p.116). Recently, the writings have focused even more on the “social” side—not on the verbal acts of individual actors but rather on how prejudicing and stereotyping happens as a result of the joint discursive action of several speakers (e.g. Condor & Figgou, 2012 ) or even of speakers and hearers (as a result of implicit allusions on one side and understanding of contextual information and shared categorical associations, e.g. Durrheim et al., 2016 ). [7]

Thus, when looking now (in 2018) at the older materials, I am mainly interested in how people speak ABOUT “stereotypes” and “prejudice”, and for instance how they assess their accuracy and whether they admit to expressing views that can be considered prejudiced. In connection with the last point I assume that there are many more negative stereotypes around, which did not come up in the research projects, because the participants did not want to “admit” to them, meaning they did not consider it socially desirable to share them with us, the researchers, in that interaction. [8]

In the following part I will show, using specific extracts from the empirical material, examples of different approaches to stereotypes/prejudice, the way the research participants talk/write and possibly think about them. From the wide range of aspects that could be focused on, I shall look in this article, in the following order, at prejudice as a source of knowledge; stereotypes declared as shared within the ingroup and (dis)agreement with them; different discursive ways of dealing with personal experience that contradicts a shared stereotype; and at a declared change in a stereotypical attitude following personal experience.

Prejudice as a source of knowledge about the other group

In the following extract from a semi-structured interview with a young Austrian man from the Slovak–Austrian borderland we can see how he tries to meaningfully answer a question on the differences between his national group and the neighbouring national group. The interview took place in 2003, shortly before Slovak accession to the European Union—a small number of people from Slovakia had been studying in Austria, and a larger number went shopping there or on trips, but the border controls still existed and officially it was impossible for Slovaks to work in Austria. In general there was much less contact in the wider borderlands, including the capitals Vienna and Bratislava, than there is today, in 2018.

Extract 1: I don’t know of any prejudice about Slovaks

Interviewer: and what are the differences between slovaks and austrians.

Participant: (...) perhaps wealth. And if anything, then the lifestyle, they do not have it so far, but are on the way. But I don’t know of any prejudice about Slovaks from which I could infer the differences between them and Austrians [9] (answer in a semi-structured interview, 2003, male participant from Austria, age 25, completed upper secondary school, Vienna)

Unfortunately, the interviewer did not press the participant to explain what exactly he meant by “prejudice” when he used the concept in this rather unusual context. More detailed questioning might have revealed more information on his “ethnotheory of prejudice”, on what he thinks about the accuracy of such information or if and how he goes about verifying it. Here, we ultimately lose the advantage obtained by the researcher not asking directly about prejudice but some participants spontaneously thematizing it, which could hopefully have made the answer less socially desirable than if the question had been ‘are you prejudiced against your eastern neighbours?’ This is an extract from a semi-structured interview covering several topics, and so the researcher moves on to the next topic and we learn nothing more than this interesting fragment of information. We could extrapolate that the participant does not know a lot about Slovaks, perhaps because of the socio-political context mentioned above, that perhaps they do not interest him (as he lives in a higher status state), and that he has almost certainly never visited Slovakia, but that nonetheless he still (unsurprisingly) tries to answer the question. Only very seldom do participants tell us straight away that they do not know. In his answer this young Austrian man begins by mentioning economic differences (the most frequently mentioned specific difference from the Slovak participants, too, see Spannring et al., 2005 ). His reference to ‘lifestyle’ probably means standard of living and without giving the adjective, he means a high, higher or perhaps an average European standard of living, seen from the Austrian side of the border. Then, quite quickly he states explicitly that he does not have enough information about Slovaks to answer the question and suggests the reason is he does not know of any prejudice about Slovaks. This could be viewed as supporting the idea that stereotyping and prejudice are innocent attempts at categorizing the unknown. The problem is that it is not innocent when the prejudice is explicitly negative and when it is the cause of people from different groups having no contact with one another and remaining permanently unknown to each other. It is also interesting to see how he (probably lacking the personal experience) automatically looks for any socially shared information about the other group accessible to him, even if it is just hearsay. Not having any information he logically cannot take the next possible step of testing/questioning the accuracy of such information, in contrast to the participants cited in the next part.

Stereotypes declared within the in-group and (dis)agreement with them

In this part I will look at the stereotypes the participants refer to as known or more or less broadly shared within their own group (in-group). It will then be interesting to see whether they declare an agreement or disagreement with them and the reasons they give.

I would like to add a more general note here—if the empirical material collected allows for a comparative perspective, it is useful to look at how the two sides (two groups, for example members of two nations) see each other and what are the differences. In the fourth cited research project involving Austrians, Czechs, Germans, Poles and Slovaks we had this opportunity and found that interesting asymmetries emerged, including in relation to how many stereotypes each group mentioned in reference to the other groups or what the ratio was of positive to negative stereotypes about the same group. If one group (nationally defined, for example) has more stereotypes about the other group than vice versa, this could be interpreted as indicating the second group is particularly interesting to the first group for some, historical, economical or other, reasons. A big difference of this kind was noticeable in relation to Czechs and Germans for instance, with the first group reporting many more stereotypes about Germans than the Germans did about Czechs. [10] Moreover, where it was possible to guess the emotional valence [11] , clear differences emerged in the ratio of “negative” to “positive” stereotypes. For example, all the Austrian stereotypes mentioned in relation to Czechs were negative, but of the reported Czech stereotypes regarding Austrians half were negative and half positive. As mentioned above, I was not interested in statements like The Czechs are close-fisted, which is a hypothetical statement that could have been evaluated as prejudiced from the researcher’s position. Rather I focused on explicit references to the existence of stereotypes/prejudice like Here they say, that Czechs are close-fisted which is another hypothetical statement where it would be interesting to see for example whether and how the speaker maintains the constructed distances from the stereotype (because it is not ´we´ who is saying it, but it is ´they´) in her/his next sentences.

The next extract introduces the theme of agreeing or disagreeing with a stereotype that seems to be broadly shared within the in-group. Sometimes the participants reported agreeing with such a stereotype or that they had experienced it being validated. More often they mentioned such cases when the stereotype was contested, possibly because in these instances it is easier to recognize that stereotypes shape our thinking.

Extract 2: In contrast to what we say here

(...) In contrast to what we say here about Germans, these two girls were much more spontaneous and friendly than me at the time (answer to a single open question “what is your experience of Germans?” in a questionnaire on intergroup contact and attitudes comprised of closed questions except for this one, 2010, Czech statement about Germans, female participant, age unknown, statement no. 1432).

The participant, speaking about a student exchange some time ago during secondary school, does not explicitly say what they “ say here about Germans ”. Again, if it was in an interview, at least it would have been possible for a vigilant interviewer to ask for more details about what “they” say and who “they” are, and whether the speaker thought so before, too. But we do not have this fuller answer and can only infer—for example, from the context of the positively coloured statement about receiving a friendly welcome while on the exchange, we could assume that this thing that is generally said about the Germans is quite the opposite of the speaker’s experience of the two spontaneous and friendly young German girls. This situation repeated itself several times, and always when the participants did not specify the stereotype or prejudice referred to, from the context it was clear that they were negative.

Different discursive ways of dealing with a personal experience that contradicts a stereotype broadly shared within the in-group

Where personal experience did not confirm a stereotype reported to be shared within the in-group, participants used different discursive strategies to deal with this in a meaningful and logical way. Sometimes they just reflected on the difference, as was the case with the statement in extract 2. In some cases they declared an exception to the rule—someone from another national group who did not act in accordance with the stereotype was declared to be an exception, but the stereotype remained uncontested. [12] Sometimes there were so many exceptions that whole exceptional subgroups of the big national group were declared. An example could be (a fictional) statement like The Austrians who are my friends are ok, but in general it is true that as a nation they are all big-headed. These subgroups could be defined according to knowledge of the person, as in the example, but also according to region of origin, age, gender and so on. Only in a few cases from all the material collected did an “antistereotypical” personal experience lead to an (at least declared) change of opinion or abandonment of the stereotype.

Declared change in stereotypical belief

Where there was a (declared) abandoning of a stereotypical opinion, it was often narrated as a story progressing over time in stages: stereotypical information—personal experience—change of opinion/abandonment of stereotype, and this makes the change of opinion sound reasonable and logical.

Extract 3: Ireland is beautiful.

(…) I have heard that the Irish just drink and take drugs and that Ireland is ugly and it’s always raining, but I came here and they are friendly and Ireland is beautiful.(…) (extract from an interview about experiences in Ireland and the existence of a Slovak “community” there, speaking about the decision to go abroad, 2009, AZ, age 29, male participant, short-term Slovak migrant in Ireland)

The personal experiences required for such a change were often not one-off, but repeated and/or long-term. [13] Personal experience of the members of another national group does not always improve relationships and lead to the stereotypes being abandoned (see also Allport’s famous conditions for positive inter-group contact influence, in Allport, 1954 ). In the empirical material there were several cases mentioned where this reportedly did not work (cf. Paolini et al., 2010 ). For example, in one reported story, following personal contact among Czech and German secondary school students that did not go well a new negative stereotype was created (about what Czech secondary school students are like) and the whole exchange program was stopped.

Concluding remarks

I think stereotypes and prejudice are both a fascinating research issue and a topic with real everyday consequences for all of us. Given my vague suspicion of measurement tools such as direct self-report questionnaires, [14] I felt enlightened and inspired when I discovered the work of several scholars that can be mainly grouped under the discursive and critical approaches to stereotypes/prejudice, [15] who were not interested in how many people in group A would tick negative categorical evaluations of the members of group B. They had found so much more to investigate and problematize!

In this article I wanted to apply what I saw them doing with their extracts to the empirical material we had collected over many years and from many projects. Using a qualitative analysis inspired by the discursive approaches allowed me to observe how participants explicitly talk (and possibly think) about stereotypes—for example, how often and how exactly they mention them, assess their accuracy, (dis)agree with them, explain changes in their own originally stereotypical opinions, explain logically two contradictory assessments of members of the same national group in one short statement. However, I did not look at the most “classic” tension points, at the way speakers mitigate or manage expressions that could be judged as prejudiced in order to avoid being judged as prejudiced themselves. I was more interested in what I could learn about stereotypes/prejudice from the viewpoint of the participants, so in this article I have not used extracts containing prejudice/stereotypes (that I the researcher would have to evaluate as such) but ones ABOUT prejudice/stereotypes. That coincides with the claim of Condor and colleagues (2012) that the research on lay understandings of prejudice is surprisingly sparse, and with Billig’s recommendation (2012) that the research should include what ordinary people understand by “prejudice”, given that the concept is so important in lay discourse.

However, I kept to the individual level, just as the majority of measuring approaches do. Condor and Figgou (2012) criticize methodological individualism, [16] as the main tendency among all the different approaches to prejudice and suggest that an alternative could be to think of prejudice in terms of collaborative cognition. In this approach groups or networks, not individuals, are the units of analysis. They show the construction, expression and suppression of subtle or blatant prejudice in a different light: first, they show the workings of so called “social scaffolding”—the way a more skilled person helps a less skilled person, instructing him/her in and facilitating the production of a logical (in this case racist) narrative. Second, they focus on how the pejorative portrayal of Others can be the result of joint action, where the contributions of each person are contextually important to the contributions of other participants, in this case allowing escalation in the expression of negative opinions. Third, they provide examples of joint inhibition, where one individual relies on others instead of self-monitoring and regulating his own expression of prejudice. Thus the display of prejudice is regulated through the interaction of several people—either through correcting the use of prejudiced categories or by openly admonishing the prejudicial talk of some of them— and not in the individual’s mind.

Moreover, Durrheim (2012) , when writing about implicit prejudice in interaction, demonstrates how “stereotypes are formulated in the context of social interaction and that they can take an implicit form in which the hearer must help to stereotype” (p.190). In the same spirit, Durrheim and colleagues (2016) present an identity performance model of prejudice that focuses attention not only on how the expression of prejudice is responsive to norms and audiences but also how it shapes those norms. They also show how contestation of the very definition of what can and cannot count as prejudice, can be used either to mobilize hatred against out-groups (if their negative opinion of them is presented not as prejudiced but as reasonable), and to cement or change identities and norms. Regarding the latter they give an interesting example of paedophile people attempting to cast themselves as a “minor-attracted sexual orientation group” and the negative attitudes towards them as prejudice, which would result in very tangible real-life changes, in law for example. Further they illustrate how accusations and denials of prejudice “help to preserve categories, meanings and boundaries” (p. 26) and how repression of prejudice “can be viewed as a collaborative identity performance” (p. 29) in which all participants avoid the potential shame associated with uttering or hearing prejudice. Thus denials as well as accusations often remain inexplicit, but still the “work of reproducing the racial order” (2016, p. 29) has been done. Their article is a persuasive plea for a new agenda in social research that would attempt to “understand how the very definition of ‘prejudice’ is jointly defined and negotiated and deployed in social interactions to achieve social and political outcomes” (p. 32).

I consider these recent constructionist and critical psychological approaches to be highly inspirational but realize they cannot be applied to my empirical material—which I had at first hoped to do in order to obtain a kind of higher level analysis. Of course, having the empirical material that would allow for qualitative analysis (e.g. interview transcripts) is here not enough. To be able to “shake-off” the individual focus and to pay attention to the social or interactional, I would need “interactional” material—transcripts of conversations, for example. Ideally if I am to approach real-life situations these should not be elicited conversations (at the researcher’s request or in answer to a direct question) but either “natural” ones (see my explanation above) or ones that do not at least primarily focus on the issue interesting to the researchers (cf. Condor & Figgou, 2012 ). This last approach is exactly what I was trying to apply in this article when I began looking at older empirical material with a new topic and new perspective in mind.

To be more precise and honest, I wanted to put together material from over a long period and from several research projects, look at it with a new focus and then show how it could be analysed on several levels, inspired by the “classic” and more recent discursive analytical writing. Then I realized just how far the newest approaches have moved on and how inadequate my empirical material is for that.

I still think that the original idea of looking at the topic of stereotypes/prejudice using empirical material in which participants mention it spontaneously and not when prompted is a good one. But as became immediately clear, this does not work if there was not opportunity for letting them elaborate on the issue once touched upon. There are several reasons for this—the impossibility of asking further more detailed questions in the case of open questions in a questionnaire; interviews having a different focus at the time they were conducted and researchers wanting to cover too many topics in a single encounter in the case of interviews, and I would now say even the inability to explore the unexpected “jewel” of new and interesting information.

Thus in this article I was only able to go as far as the collected empirical material allowed, but exploring these new approaches has given me some new ideas for research that will be more difficult to realize but that will hopefully prove more helpful in the struggle to understand prejudice/stereotypes in the social reality of everyday life.

1 This work was supported by the Slovak Research and Development Agency contract No. APVV-14-0531; however, the empirical material it is based on was collected as part of several earlier research projects (for details, see part 2. Empirical material). An earlier and much shorter version of this article appeared (in Slovak) in Community psychology in Slovakia: Proceedings from a scientific conference ( Petrjánošová, 2015 ).

Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice . Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books. Search in Google Scholar

Augustinos, M., & Every, D. (2007). The language of “race” and prejudice. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 26 ,123-141. 10.1177/0261927X07300075 Search in Google Scholar

Billig, M. (2012). The notion of ‘prejudice’: Some rhetorical and ideological aspects. In J. Dixon & M. Levine (Eds.), Beyond prejudice . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139022736.009 Search in Google Scholar

Condor, S. (2000). Pride and prejudice: Identity management in English people’s talk about ‘this country’. Discourse & Society , 11 (2), 175-205. 10.1177/0957926500011002003 Search in Google Scholar

Condor, S. (2011). Sense and sensibility: The conversational etiquette of English national self-identification. In A. Aughey & C. Berbech (Eds.), These Englands: A conversation on national identity . Manchester: Manchester University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Condor, S., & Figgou, L. (2012). Rethinking the prejudice problematic: A collaborative cognition perspective. In J. Dixon & M. Levine (Eds.), Beyond prejudice . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139022736.012 Search in Google Scholar

Dionigi, R. A. (2015). Stereotypes of aging: Their effects on the health of older adults. Journal of Geriatrics , Article ID 954027, 9 p., available online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/954027. 10.1155/2015/954027 Search in Google Scholar

Dixon, J., & Levine, M. (2012b). Conclusions and future directions: the nature, significance and inherent limitations of the concept of prejudice in social psychology in J. Dixon & M. Levine (Eds.), Beyond prejudice . Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139022736.018 Search in Google Scholar

Dixon, J., & Levine, M.(2012b). Introduction in J. Dixon & M. Levine (Eds.), Beyond prejudice . Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139022736 Search in Google Scholar

Dovidio, J. (2001). On the nature of contemporary prejudice: The third wave. Journal of Social Issues , 57 (4), 829-849. 10.1111/0022-4537.00244 Search in Google Scholar

Dovidio, J., Hewstone, M., Glick, P., & Esses, V. (2010). Prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination: Theoretical and empirical overview. In J. Dovidio, M. Hewstone, P. Glick, & V. Esses (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination. (pp. 3-29). London: SAGE. 10.4135/9781446200919.n1 Search in Google Scholar

Durrheim, K. (2012). Implicit prejudice in mind and interaction. In J. Dixon & M. Levine (Eds.), Beyond prejudice . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139022736.011 Search in Google Scholar

Durrheim, K. Quayle, M., & Dixon, J. (2016). The struggle for the nature of “Prejudice”: “Prejudice” expression as identity performance. Political Psychology , 37 (1), 17-38. 10.1111/pops.12310 Search in Google Scholar

Fiske, S. T. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 357-411). New York: McGraw-Hill. Search in Google Scholar

Fiske, S.T., & North, M.S. (2014). Measures of stereotyping and prejudice: Barometers of bias. In G. Boyle & D. Saklofske (Eds.), Measures of personality & social psychological constructs. Cambridge, MA: Elsevier/Academic Press. 10.1016/B978-0-12-386915-9.00024-3 Search in Google Scholar

Fúskova, J., Hargašová, L., & Andraščíková, S. (2017). Why we can’t and shan’t measure gender. Human Affairs: Postdisciplinary Humanities and Social Sciences Quarterly, 27 (2), 205-218. 10.1515/humaff-2017-0018 Search in Google Scholar

Graf, S., Hřebíčková, M., Petrjánošová, M., & Leix, A. (2015). Češi a jejich sousedé: meziskupinové postoje a kontakt ve střední Evropě . Praha: Academia. Search in Google Scholar

Lášticová, B., & Findor, A. (2016). Developing explicit measures of stereotypes and anti-Roma prejudice in Slovakia: conceptual and methodological challenges. Human Affairs: Postdisciplinary Humanities and Social Sciences Quarterly, 26 (3), 233-252. 10.1515/humaff-2016-0022 Search in Google Scholar

Lášticová, B., & Petrjánošová, M. (2013). Sociálne inovácie a sociálne identity: občianske iniciatívy slovenských migrantov a migrantiek v Írsku [Social innovations and social identities: Civic initiatives of Slovak migrants in Ireland]. Slovenský národopis, 61 (3), 273-288. Search in Google Scholar

Lášticová, B., & Petrjánošová, M. (2014). Social identities, societal change, and mental borders: Identity construction strategies of young Slovaks commuting between Bratislava and Vienna. In Culture and political psychology: A societal perspective . (pp. 285-312). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing, Inc. Search in Google Scholar

Leix, A. (2013). I was expecting her to be a fanatic catholic, but she was not: How international exchange programmes reduce prejudice. The New Educational Review, 31 (1), 204-216. 10.15804/tner.13.31.1.18 Search in Google Scholar

Levine, J. M., Hogg, M. A. (Eds). (2010). Encyclopedia of Group Processes and Intergroup Relations. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications. 10.4135/9781412972017 Search in Google Scholar

Paolini, S., Harwood, J., & Rubin, M. (2010). Negative intergroup contact makes group memberships salient: Explaining why intergroup conflict endures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36 , 1723-1738. 10.1177/0146167210388667 Search in Google Scholar

Petrjánošová, M. (2015). Ako skúmať stereotypy kvalitatívnymi metódami [How to explore stereotypes using qualitative methods]. In Komunitná psychológia na Slovensku 2015: zborník z 2. ročníka vedeckej konferencie Komunitná psychológia na Slovensku (Bratislava, 30. 11. 2015). Ed. Júlia Sadovská Halamová (Ed.), (pp. 72-78). Bratislava: Ústav aplikovanej psychológie, Fakulta sociálnych a ekonomických vied UK. Search in Google Scholar

Popper, M., & Petrjánošová, M. (2016). Do we know what we are asking?: Individual and group cognitive interviews. Human Affairs: Postdisciplinary Humanities and Social Sciences Quarterly, 26 (3), 253-270. 10.1515/humaff-2016-0023 Search in Google Scholar

Spannring, R., Wächter, N., Datler, G., Bianchi, G., Lášticová, B., & Petrjánošová, M. (2005). Neue Gemeinschaften-neue Identitäten? Eine Studie zu territorialen Identitäten Jugendlicher in der österreichisch-slowakischen Grenzregion [New ….- new identities? A study about teritorial identities of young people in the Austrian-Slovak borderlands] . Unpublished Final Report from the Austrian National Bank Funded Project N. 10690. Wien: OEIJ. Search in Google Scholar

Tileaga, C. (2015). The nature of prejudice . Society, discrimination and moral exclusion. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203770696 Search in Google Scholar

Van Dijk, T.A. (1984). Prejudice in discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pb.v.3 Search in Google Scholar

Van Maanen (1988). Tales of the field. On writing ethnography . Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Search in Google Scholar

Vázquez, J. J., Panadero, S., & Zúniga, C. (2017). Content and uniformity of stereotypes and meta-stereotypes of homeless people in Madrid (Spain). Journal of Community Psychology, 45 (1), 128-137. 10.1002/jcop.21836 Search in Google Scholar

Wetherell, M. (2012). The prejudice problematic . In J. Dixon & M. Levine (Eds.), Beyond prejudice . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139022736.010 Search in Google Scholar

Willis, G. B. (1999). Cognitive interviewing: A how to guide. Available online at http://www.hkr.se/pagefiles/35002/gordonwillis.pdf Search in Google Scholar

Wimmer, A., & Glick Schiller, N. (2002). Methodological nationalism and beyond: nation-state building, migration and the social sciences. Global Networks, 4 (2), 301-334. 10.1111/1471-0374.00043 Search in Google Scholar

Wodak, R., & Krzyzanowski, M. (Eds.) (2008). Qualitative discourse analysis in the social sciences . Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. 10.1007/978-1-137-04798-4 Search in Google Scholar

Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2001). Methods of critical discourse analysis . Great Britain: SAGE Publications. 10.4135/9780857028020 Search in Google Scholar

© 2018 Institute for Research in Social Communication, Slovak Academy of Sciences

• X / Twitter

Supplementary Materials

Please login or register with De Gruyter to order this product.

Journal and Issue

Articles in the same issue.

• How It Works
• All Projects
• Top-Rated Pages
• Admission essay writing
• Book report writing
• Cheap essay writing
• Coursework writing
• Dissertation writing
• Essay editing
• MBA essay writing
• Scholarship essay writing
• Term paper writing
• Write my essay
• Free sample essays
• Writing blog

152 Stereotypes Essay Topics: Impressive Ideas List

Many students struggle to choose stereotypes essay topics. That’s because teachers and professors expect them to write about unique titles. However, stereotype covers many aspects of human life because it’s oversimplified, fixed, and widely held idea or image of a person or thing.

Since humans are different, living without assumptions becomes difficult. While some expectations are harmless, others lead to discrimination. Overall, stereotyping plays an influential role in people’s interactions. Some individuals impose specific behaviors on others without sufficient evidence.

Therefore, choosing stereotype topics for essays requires a careful understanding of this concept. Also, you must learn to recognize stereotypes in society-wide thinking patterns and everyday life to know what the educator expects you to write about in your paper. This article explains what stereotype is while listing 150-plus topics for stereotype essays. It’s a helpful article because it provides knowledge and ideas to students struggling to pick stereotype topics for their papers.

What Is a Stereotype?

A stereotype is a fixed idea several people have about a group or a thing that is partly true or untrue. Social psychologists define stereotype as an over-generalized, fixed belief about a specific class or group of people. When people stereotype others, they infer that people have a wide range of abilities and characteristics that others assume every member of that particular group possesses.

Educators ask students to write about stereotypes because it’s a prolific issue in society. Apart from being a preconceived idea about a specific group, a stereotype is a degree of people’s expectations for individuals in that class. And these expectations are centered on a particular belief, attitude, and personality.

Stereotypes are often inaccurate, and they create misconceptions about a community. While they sometimes help people understand a group, its heritage, and culture, stereotypes are over-generalized. And this over-generalization can harm some individuals in a group because people aren’t entirely identical to those preconceived ideas.

How To Write Good Essay On Stereotypes

Has your college or university lecturer assigned you a stereotype essay? If so, you want to write a good essay and score the top grade in your class. These steps will help you write a winning essay about stereotypes.

Choose an interesting topic : Selecting a topic for a stereotype essay might seem easy for some learners. However, it requires a careful understanding of stereotypes and what the educator expects to read in your paper. Outline your essay : Use the essay prompt to outline your paper. Your outline should highlight where your thesis statement will go and the content to include in your stereotype essay introduction, body, and conclusion. Brainstorm for ideas : Once you have an outline, brainstorm for the issues to write about in your paper. That way, you will save the time you spend rewriting and reorganizing some parts of your paper. Read stereotype essay samples : If you have the time, read good samples of stereotype essays before writing. That way, you will know how the educator expects you to organize and present information. Research : Take your time researching and gathering information for your essay. Your research should gather relevant examples and evidence to support your arguments. Write the essay : Follow your outline to write the paper using the information you gathered in your research. Present your argument with supporting evidence for every point you make in the body section. Conclude your essay : Wrap up your piece, summarizing your main points with unique words. Don’t introduce anything new in the conclusion. Write the bibliography : Include a reference for all the information sources, including journal articles and books that you used to research your topic. Proofread your essay : Read through the paper, eliminating all typos, spelling, and factual errors.

Some stereotypes are highly controversial. Therefore, present information that won’t offend your readers if you opt to write about such topics. If you don’t want to face those doubts alone, english essay writers from our team will be glad to solve this problem for you.

The Best Stereotype Essay Topics

Once you’ve known how to write a stereotype essay, you may want the best topics for your paper. This list has the best ideas to consider for a stereotype essay.

• A formal critique for the men bashing stereotype
• How society has traditionally stereotyped female characters
• Racism issues- Stereotypes and looks
• The trap music and women- Is it succumbing to this stereotype or empowering females?
• How video games depict stereotypes for boys
• Alcohol in Canada and aboriginals stereotype
• How movies reflect the Chinese stereotypes
• How the media propagate white women stereotypes
• Reviewing stereotypes- Arousal and treat
• The female’s math performance stereotype- What are the effects?
• How the media presents different stereotypes
• Do the media promote stereotyping?
• How activating gender stereotypes influence females
• Stereotype threat- How does it affect a person’s education?
• How television perpetuates gender stereotypes
• The American citizens’ stereotypes
• Is learning to stereotype others a lifelong process?
• Describe the Canadian stereotypes
• Stereotypes, lies, and sex- Is being prejudiced due to inequalities correct?
• Is the mathematics achievement gap a reality or stereotype for African American students?
• Stereotype image and rhetoric aspects
• Stereotypes and culture- What’s the correlation?
• Superheroes and gender stereotypes
• Are gender stereotypes relevant in gender studies?
• The stereotype and hoodies- Is it good or bad?
• What is a stereotype threat?
• Do modern toys perpetuate gender stereotypes?
• Are stereotypes significant in communication?
• What stereotypes do people have towards the Chinese?
• Evaluating culture and gender stereotypes- What’s the relationship?
• Using anthropology to evaluate stereotypes
• Stereotypes of Muslims and Islam in the west

Pick any of these topics if you want to research and write about something your teacher will find interesting to read.

Hot Topic Ideas For An Essay On Stereotype

Maybe you’re looking for a hot topic to research and write about in your stereotype essay. In that case, consider these ideas.

• Evaluating workplace gender stereotypes
• Prejudices and stereotypes within the human resource sector
• Racial stereotypes, intersectionality, and identity
• Family gender stereotypes- Do they exist?
• Gender stereotypes and race in literature
• Sociology- The influence of stereotypes
• Stereotypes and rhetoric
• African-Americans prejudices and stereotypes
• Fighting gender stereotypes- Which methods are the best?
• Misunderstanding and gender stereotypes- What’s the difference?
• Do the media develop stereotypes about minorities in society?
• Cultural perspectives and aging stereotypes
• Gender roles distribution and women stereotypes
• How women perceive the long-existing gender stereotypes
• How Barry Jenkins’ Moonlight film presents stereotypes
• How gender stereotypes affect mental health and career
• How families perpetuate gender stereotypes
• Illness and health in the community- What’s the role of stereotypes?
• How families develop gender stereotypes
• How children develop gender stereotypes
• Evaluating gender stereotypes in eastern and western cultures
• How the media perpetuate Arab stereotypes
• Relationship development and dating stereotypes

Choose and write about any of these ideas if looking for a hot topic. However, consult some information sources to write an informative essay.

Interesting Stereotype Paper Topics

Do you want to write an essay on an exciting stereotype topic? If so, consider the following exciting ideas.

• Stereotype and objectivity in sexual media advertisements
• How stereotype threat affects age differences in terms of memory performance
• Americanization- The Indian stereotype creation
• Investigating stereotype in Robert Luketic’s Dumb Blonde in Legally Blonde film
• The Female Taming stereotype in time in The Taming of the Shew by Shakespeare
• Women stereotype in a Patriarchal society
• Using stereotype cues in the perceived mathematics level
• Understanding the Macho-Man Myth’s gender stereotype
• Hurston’s Sweat- How stereotypes influence women’s role
• Gender stereotype imposition by modern society
• How stereotype and race affect justice
• Racist stereotype- What is its function in Blackface Minstrelsy?
• Females are worse drivers than males- Is it a stereotype?
• Can Stereotype threat affect women’s performance?
• The schemer stereotype- Understanding its metamorphosis
• Thinking like a monkey- Analysis of the Animal Social Dynamics in reducing stereotype threat
• Marketing advertisers and sports media- A Hyper masculine stereotype
• Stereotype, discrimination, prejudice and Out-group vs. in-group
• Racial stereotyping- How Merriam define a stereotype
• A high-achieving Asian-American stereotype

Choose and develop any of such ideas as your essay topic idea. However, take your time investigating various sources to write a winning paper.

Good Topics For Essays About Stereotyping

A good topic is easy to research and write about without compromising your grade. Consider these ideas for a good essay topic.

• The average media stereotype and the aboriginal people’s problems
• Macho-Men stereotype plaguing in modern men- A detailed analysis
• Ending the stereotype- Aboriginals in urban areas have the highest happiness score
• How does society perpetuate the teenage driver stereotype?
• How does the violent African-American stereotype affect rap music?
• Joseph Conrad’s African Characters in the Heart of Darkness- Analyzing stereotype
• The adverse stereotype of the Jewbird’s Jewish race and the Last Mohican
• The stranger stereotype and Alice Sebold
• Pros and cons of fitting into a stereotype
• Analyzing the masculinity stereotype in the early 1800s
• Analysis of stereotype and conventional character roles in achieving the author’s purposes
• Stereotype and perspective in detective novels
• Criminality stereotype and its impact on poverty
• Women’s depiction of Women Essay- Marketing, brand stereotype, and Gen
• Erasing male stereotype and feminine autonomy in the Paycoc and Juno
• The Chief Illiniwek history- A Racist stereotype and university of Illinois Mascot
• Women’s role and society’s stereotypes
• Body type or blood type genotype- Are they the basis of stereotypes?
• Are television ads stereotyping men and women’s roles in society?
• Stereotype Italian-American in the Cable Show, Sopranos, in the United States
• How stereotype threat impacts women’s ability
• American cheerleader- The stereotype, the icon, and the truth

Choose and work on any of these ideas to write an excellent essay about stereotypes. However, some of these ideas require extensive research and analysis before writing.

Social And Gender Stereotype Essay Topics

Do you want to write a paper about gender and stereotype? If so, consider these ideas for your stereotype essay.

• Investigating the correlation between employment and gender stereotypes
• Gender stereotypes in academic and family settings
• Dominant male stereotypes
• Reasons to research gender stereotypes
• Gender stereotypes- Data analysis
• Gender stereotypes and data presentation
• The U.S. women and gender stereotypes
• How the U.S. media presents Latinos gender stereotypes, culture, and values
• Social psychology- Stereotypes and prejudice
• Stereotype threat among African-Americans
• Stereotypes and cultural differences in Jim Jarmusch’s Coffee and Cigarettes
• Is stereotype discrimination and bias?
• Adolescents workmates- Best practices and stereotypes
• Seeing Africa- How to destroy stereotypes
• What are the roots of African-American stereotypes?
• Stereotypes and ethnocentrism in Crash, the movie
• Ortiz Cofer’s Essay- Investigating stereotypes
• Mass media- How stereotypes affect people
• The racial and ethnic stereotypes in the American literature and media
• Stereotypes and rhetoric in modern society
• Subject-informal logic- Stereotypes and rhetoric
• Can music reinforce stereotypes?
• Cross-cultural stereotypes and competence

These ideas are suitable for an essay on gender and social stereotypes. However, research your topic extensively before writing.

Easy Stereotype Essay Ideas

Maybe you need an easy topic for your stereotype paper. If so, pick any of these ideas for your essay on stereotypes.

• How cultural diversity affects stereotypes
• Positive and negative impacts of ethnic and racial stereotypes
• How the women’s rights movement changed stereotypes and gender roles
• How gender stereotypes affect children
• Stereotypes that Americans hold before visiting the third world
• How gender stereotypes affect society
• Classroom gender stereotypes
• Gender stereotypes and gender labeling
• Can children grow without gender stereotypes?
• How stereotypes affect community colleges
• Revealing stereotypes among immigrants in schools
• How stereotypes affect Haitians in the U.S.
• The Roman empire and racial stereotypes
• How racial stereotype impacts everyday life
• Gender and sexism stereotypes in the P.R. sector
• Stereotypes about the American culture
• Common stereotypes and misconceptions about lesbians and gays
• Stereotypes and stigma of mental illness
• What causes persistent ethnic and racial stereotypes?
• Stereotypes that Black-American teenagers face
• How television commercials perpetuate gender stereotypes
• The role of native Americans’ stereotypes and Native people’s dominance
• Are stereotypes dangerous- How can society reduce them?
• Menstruation stereotypes- Why society should abandon them
• Clothing and stereotypes
• The negative stereotype that the community has towards a bisexual lifestyle
• How stereotypes differ from prejudices
• How stereotypes relate to groups’ dynamics
• The superhero impact- Stereotypes and idealism in comic books
• Stereotyping students- How to improve academic performance via stereotypes
• How socialization relates to gender stereotypes
• Social stereotypes- Are they detrimental, beneficial, or neutral?

Whether you choose cliché essay topics or the latest stereotypes, research your topic extensively to write a winning paper.

Professional Essay Help For Your Rescue

Perhaps, you’re stuck with a stereotype essay. If so, our expert writers are ready to assist you. B uy college essays online to get fast and cheap writing assistance. We guarantee you a quality writing service that won’t burn a hole in your pocket. Contact us now!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Have a team of vetted experts take you to the top, with professionally written papers in every area of study.

Home — Essay Samples — Sociology — Sociology of Gender — Gender Stereotypes

Essays on Gender Stereotypes

Gender stereotypes have been a prevalent issue in society for decades, influencing the way individuals are perceived and treated based on their gender. As such, it's a crucial topic for discussion and analysis in academic settings. When it comes to writing an essay on gender stereotypes, choosing the right topic is essential for producing an impactful piece of work. In this article, we'll explore the importance of the topic, provide advice on selecting a suitable essay topic, and offer a detailed list of recommended topics, divided by category.

The subject of gender stereotypes is significant as it directly impacts individuals' lives, shaping their opportunities, experiences, and self-perception. By addressing gender stereotypes in essays, students can contribute to the ongoing conversation about equality and challenge societal norms. Furthermore, exploring this topic can help individuals develop a deeper understanding of how gender stereotypes manifest in various aspects of life, such as education, the workplace, media, and relationships.

Advice on Choosing a Topic

When selecting a gender stereotypes essay topic, it's essential to consider personal interests, research opportunities, and the potential for making a meaningful impact. It's advisable to choose a topic that aligns with one's passion and allows for in-depth exploration. Additionally, students should assess the availability of scholarly resources and data related to the chosen topic to ensure a well-supported argument.

Recommended Gender Stereotypes Essay Topics Essay Topics

• The impact of gender stereotypes on academic performance
• Gender bias in STEM education
• Exploring the portrayal of gender roles in school textbooks
• The influence of teachers' gender stereotypes on students' learning experiences
• Gender stereotypes and the gender pay gap
• Challenges faced by women in male-dominated industries
• Leadership roles and gender bias in corporate environments
• The effects of gender stereotypes on career progression

Media and Entertainment

• Portrayal of masculinity and femininity in popular media
• Gender stereotypes in advertising
• Impact of social media on perpetuating gender stereotypes
• Representation of LGBTQ+ individuals in mainstream media

Relationships and Family Dynamics

• Gender roles in traditional vs. modern family structures
• The influence of gender stereotypes on dating and romantic relationships
• Parental expectations based on gender
• Effect of gender stereotypes on mental health within relationships

Health and Wellness

• Body image and gender stereotypes
• Gender-specific healthcare disparities
• Stigma surrounding mental health based on gender
• Impact of gender stereotypes on access to reproductive health services

Social and Cultural Gender Stereotypes

• Impact of gender stereotypes on society
• Role of media in perpetuating gender stereotypes
• Gender stereotypes in the workplace
• Gender stereotypes in education
• Effect of gender stereotypes on relationships

Psychological and Emotional Effects of Gender Stereotypes

• How gender stereotypes affect self-esteem
• Impact of gender stereotypes on mental health
• Gender stereotypes and body image
• Psychological effects of gender role expectations
• Gender stereotypes and emotional well-being

Historical and Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Gender Stereotypes

• Evolution of gender stereotypes throughout history
• Comparison of gender stereotypes in different cultures
• Impact of religion on gender role expectations
• Gender stereotypes in literature and art
• Challenges to traditional gender roles in different societies

Legal and Policy Implications of Gender Stereotypes

• Gender stereotypes and discrimination in the legal system
• Effect of gender stereotypes on policy-making
• Gender stereotypes and access to healthcare
• Legal protections against gender-based discrimination
• Impact of gender stereotypes on LGBTQ+ rights

Intersectionality and Gender Stereotypes

• Impact of race on gender stereotypes
• Gender stereotypes and disability
• Intersection of gender and socioeconomic status
• Gender stereotypes and age
• Challenges faced by individuals at the intersection of multiple marginalized identities

By exploring these diverse gender stereotypes essay ideas, students can delve into various facets of the issue and contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of its impact on society. Whether examining gender stereotypes in education, the workplace, media, relationships, or health, each topic offers a unique opportunity for critical analysis and meaningful discourse.

The Stereotypes of Women

The myth of the latin woman summary, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Reflective Paper on Gender Stereotypes

Equality in workplace: sociology and gender stereotypes, gender stereotypes and their effect on children, the impact of society on creating gender stereotypes, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

A Report on Gender Equality

Literature's portrayal of gender roles in society, gender stereotypes and dilemma faced by female leaders, the meaning of being a man in nowadays culture, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

Gender Stereotypes in The Workplace: a Research

Gender stereotypes in modern movies: beauty and the beast, gender stereotypes in the usa, gender stereotypes in disney princess movies, gender stereotypes in parenting and family, definitions, development and aftermath of racial and gender stereotypes, representation of negative gender stereotypes in the movie mulan, gender stereotypes: disney princesses are not harmful to young girls, unfavorability and favorability of female boss, the problem of a lack of female leaders, a theme of gender equality in trifles by susan glaspell, women's struggle in fighting gender inequality in the us, gender roles and stereotypes in walt disney's films, representation of stereotypes in the media, gender differences in the education achievements of boys and girls, women in literature: lanyer vs. modern stereotypes, the portrayals of females and males in superhero movies, rape culture: victim blaming and gender stereotyping, the problem of stereotypes in american society, gender roles in asian culture: their reflection in literature.

A gender stereotype is a generalized view or preconception about attributes or characteristics, or the roles that are or ought to be possessed by, or performed by, women and men.

The four basic kinds of gender stereotypes can relate to personality traits, domestic behaviors, occupations, and physical appearance.

Women are natural nurturers; men are natural leaders. Women with children are less devoted to their jobs. Boys and men are expected to use violence and aggression to prove their manliness. Boys should be directed to like blue and green; girls toward red and pink.

1. Ellemers, N. (2018). Gender stereotypes. Annual review of psychology, 69, 275-298. (https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011719) 2. Heilman, M. E. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in organizational Behavior, 32, 113-135. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191308512000093) 3. Haines, E. L., Deaux, K., & Lofaro, N. (2016). The times they are a-changing… or are they not? A comparison of gender stereotypes, 1983–2014. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(3), 353-363. (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0361684316634081?journalCode=pwqa) 4. Deaux, K., & Lewis, L. L. (1984). Structure of gender stereotypes: Interrelationships among components and gender label. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 46(5), 991. (https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1984-25799-001) 5. Cvencek, D., Meltzoff, A. N., & Greenwald, A. G. (2011). Math–gender stereotypes in elementary school children. Child development, 82(3), 766-779. (https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01529.x) 6. Sanbonmatsu, K. (2002). Gender stereotypes and vote choice. american Journal of political Science, 20-34. (https://www.jstor.org/stable/3088412) 7. Bian, L., Leslie, S. J., & Cimpian, A. (2017). Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children’s interests. Science, 355(6323), 389-391. (https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aah6524) 8. Deaux, K., Winton, W., Crowley, M., & Lewis, L. L. (1985). Level of categorization and content of gender stereotypes. Social Cognition, 3(2), 145-167. (https://guilfordjournals.com/doi/abs/10.1521/soco.1985.3.2.145) 9. Koch, J. W. (2000). Do citizens apply gender stereotypes to infer candidates' ideological orientations?. The Journal of Politics, 62(2), 414-429. (https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1111/0022-3816.00019)

Relevant topics

• Sex, Gender and Sexuality
• Gender Roles
• Gender Criticism
• Personal Identity
• Sociological Imagination
• Discourse Community
• Effects of Social Media

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Bibliography

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• How It Works
• PhD thesis writing
• Master thesis writing
• Bachelor thesis writing
• Dissertation writing service
• Dissertation abstract writing
• Thesis proposal writing
• Thesis editing service
• Thesis proofreading service
• Thesis formatting service
• Coursework writing service
• Research paper writing service
• Architecture thesis writing
• Computer science thesis writing
• Engineering thesis writing
• History thesis writing
• MBA thesis writing
• Nursing dissertation writing
• Psychology dissertation writing
• Sociology thesis writing
• Statistics dissertation writing
• Buy dissertation online
• Write my dissertation
• Cheap thesis
• Cheap dissertation
• Custom dissertation
• Dissertation help
• Pay for thesis
• Pay for dissertation
• Senior thesis
• Write my thesis

100 Gender Research Topics For Academic Papers

Gender research topics are very popular across the world. Students in different academic disciplines are often asked to write papers and essays about these topics. Some of the disciplines that require learners to write about gender topics include:

Sociology Psychology Gender studies Business studies

When pursuing higher education in these disciplines, learners can choose what to write about from a wide range of gender issues topics. However, the wide range of issues that learners can research and write about when it comes to gender makes choosing what to write about difficult. Here is a list of the top 100 gender and sexuality topics that students can consider.

Controversial Gender Research Topics

Do you like the idea of writing about something controversial? If yes, this category has some of the best gender topics to write about. They touch on issues like gender stereotypes and issues that are generally associated with members of a specific gender. Here are some of the best controversial gender topics that you can write about.

• How human behavior is affected by gender misconceptions
• How are straight marriages influenced by gay marriages
• Explain the most common sex-role stereotypes
• What are the effects of workplace stereotypes?
• What issues affect modern feminism?
• How sexuality affects sex-role stereotyping
• How does the media break sex-role stereotypes
• Explain the dual approach to equality between women and men
• What are the most outdated sex-role stereotypes
• Are men better than women?
• How equal are men and women?
• How do politics and sexuality relate?
• How can films defy gender-based stereotypes
• What are the advantages of being a woman?
• What are the disadvantages of being a woman?
• What are the advantages of being a man?
• Discuss the disadvantages of being a woman
• Should governments legalize prostitution?
• Explain how sexual orientation came about?
• Women communicate better than men
• Women are the stronger sex
• Explain how the world can be made better for women
• Discuss the future gender norms
• How important are sex roles in society
• Discuss the transgender and feminism theory
• How does feminism help in the creation of alternative women’s culture?
• Gender stereotypes in education and science
• Discuss racial variations when it comes to gender-related attitudes
• Women are better leaders
• Men can’t survive without women

This category also has some of the best gender debate topics. However, learners should be keen to pick topics they are interested in. This will enable them to ensure that they enjoy the research and writing process.

Interesting Gender Inequality Topics

Gender-based inequality is witnessed almost every day. As such, most learners are conversant with gender inequality research paper topics. However, it’s crucial to pick topics that are devoid of discrimination of members of a specific gender. Here are examples of gender inequality essay topics.

• Sex discrimination aspects in schools
• How to identify inequality between sexes
• Sex discrimination causes
• The inferior role played by women in relationships
• Discuss sex differences in the education system
• How can gender discrimination be identified in sports?
• Can inequality issues between men and women be solved through education?
• Why are professional opportunities for women in sports limited?
• Why are there fewer women in leadership positions?
• Discuss gender inequality when it comes to work-family balance
• How does gender-based discrimination affect early childhood development?
• Can sex discrimination be reduced by technology?
• How can sex discrimination be identified in a marriage?
• Explain where sex discrimination originates from
• Discuss segregation and motherhood in labor markets
• Explain classroom sex discrimination
• How can inequality in American history be justified?
• Discuss different types of sex discrimination in modern society
• Discuss various factors that cause gender-based inequality
• Discuss inequality in human resource practices and processes
• Why is inequality between women and men so rampant in developing countries?
• How can governments bridge gender gaps between women and men?
• Work-home conflict is a sign of inequality between women and men
• Explain why women are less wealthy than men
• How can workplace gender-based inequality be addressed?

After choosing the gender inequality essay topics they like, students should research, brainstorm ideas, and come up with an outline before they start writing. This will ensure that their essays have engaging introductions and convincing bodies, as well as, strong conclusions.

Amazing Gender Roles Topics for Academic Papers and Essays

This category has ideas that slightly differ from gender equality topics. That’s because equality or lack of it can be measured by considering the representation of both genders in different roles. As such, some gender roles essay topics might not require tiresome and extensive research to write about. Nevertheless, learners should take time to gather the necessary information required to write about these topics. Here are some of the best gender topics for discussion when it comes to the roles played by men and women in society.

• Describe gender identity
• Describe how a women-dominated society would be
• Compare gender development theories
• How equally important are maternity and paternity levees for babies?
• How can gender-parity be achieved when it comes to parenting?
• Discuss the issues faced by modern feminism
• How do men differ from women emotionally?
• Discuss gender identity and sexual orientation
• Is investing in the education of girls beneficial?
• Explain the adoption of gender-role stereotyped behaviors
• Discuss games and toys for boys and girls
• Describe patriarchal attitudes in families
• Explain patriarchal stereotypes in family relationships
• What roles do women and men play in politics?
• Discuss sex equity and academic careers
• Compare military career opportunities for both genders
• Discuss the perception of women in the military
• Describe feminine traits
• Discus gender-related issues faced by women in gaming
• Men should play major roles in the welfare of their children
• Explain how the aging population affects the economic welfare of women?
• What has historically determined modern differences in gender roles?
• Does society need stereotyped gender roles?
• Does nature have a role to play in stereotyped gender roles?
• The development and adoption of gender roles

The list of gender essay topics that are based on the roles of each sex can be quite extensive. Nevertheless, students should be keen to pick interesting gender topics in this category.

Important Gender Issues Topics for Research Paper

If you want to write a paper or essay on an important gender issue, this category has the best ideas for you. Students can write about different issues that affect individuals of different genders. For instance, this category can include gender wage gap essay topics. Wage variation is a common issue that affects women in different countries. Some of the best gender research paper topics in this category include:

• Discuss gender mainstreaming purpose
• Discuss the issue of gender-based violence
• Why is the wage gap so common in most countries?
• How can society promote equality in opportunities for women and men in sports?
• Explain what it means to be transgender
• Discuss the best practices of gender-neutral management
• What is women’s empowerment?
• Discuss how human trafficking affects women
• How problematic is gender-blindness for women?
• What does the glass ceiling mean in management?
• Why are women at a higher risk of sexual exploitation and violence?
• Why is STEM uptake low among women?
• How does ideology affect the determination of relations between genders
• How are sporting women fighting for equality?
• Discuss sports, women, and media institutions
• How can cities be made safer for girls and women?
• Discuss international trends in the empowerment of women
• How do women contribute to the world economy?
• Explain how feminism on different social relations unites men and women as groups
• Explain how gender diversity influence scientific discovery and innovation

This category has some of the most interesting women’s and gender studies paper topics. However, most of them require extensive research to come up with hard facts and figures that will make academic papers or essays more interesting.

Students in high schools and colleges can pick what to write about from a wide range of gender studies research topics. However, some gender studies topics might not be ideal for some learners based on the given essay prompt. Therefore, make sure that you have understood what the educator wants you to write about before you pick a topic. Our experts can help you choose a good thesis topic . Choosing the right gender studies topics enables learners to answer the asked questions properly. This impresses educators to award them top grades.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment * Error message

Name * Error message

Email * Error message

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

As Putin continues killing civilians, bombing kindergartens, and threatening WWIII, Ukraine fights for the world's peaceful future.

Ukraine Live Updates

Towards Evaluating the Relationship Between Gender Stereotypes & Culture Research Paper

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Modernization and science has freed people’s perception and consciousness from many retrogressive traditions, having exposed them to be socially illusionary, economically unproductive, and politically partisan.

For example, no one in the 21 st century would now challenge the fact that no race, creed, or nationality is superior to another. However, several stereotypes to date remain untouched. And one, in particular, is the notion that gender intrinsically determines an individual’s psyche, occupation, and social standing in society (Kluchko, 2010).

This notion has heralded a multiplicity of other incomplete and inaccurate beliefs, fueled by our varying cultural dispositions, and encoded in our linguistic expressions as well as in normative discourses. It is therefore the object of this paper to examine the relationship between gender stereotypes and culture with a view to elucidating how gender stereotypes, reinforced by our diverse cultural beliefs, continue to allocate roles along the tenets of gender.

Gender stereotypes has been defined by Kluchko (2010) as the “…totality of fixed ideas about the natural determination of male and female social characteristics” (p. 75).

Current literature as revealed by Cuddy et al. (2009) and Lenton et al. (2009) demonstrate that culture, which can be simply defined as a people’s way of life, employs powerful and influential representations to vehicle and maintain these stereotypes. Indeed, it is the opinion of many researchers and theorists that there exist distinct division between male and female throughout all cultures, and more so in the division of labor and wealth ownership.

From the list of Occupations and Gender provided, a pattern was formed upon responding to the questions, which saw more complicated roles being allocated to men and less technical jobs being allocated to women.

The list revealed that some complicated roles such as doctor, lawyer, taxi-driver, pilot, mechanic, and architect have more traditional masculine traits, while other less complicated roles such as baby sitter, chef, designer, and make-up artist have more traditional feminine traits.

Such a pattern only serves to perpetuate the conceptual difference between men and women, not mentioning that it reveals the veracity and dynamism of modern-day gender stereotypes and their ability to cut across cultural boundaries (Tripathy, 2010).

Both responses from the list revealed some similarities and differences. Most similarities revolved around the complexity of a particular role and the gender to be allocated such a role. More complex roles, as indicated above, were allocated to men across the two responses, while less complex roles were allocated to women.

For instance, roles of doctor, lawyer, pilot, and architect were all allocated to men, while roles of baby sitter, chef, and make-up artist were allocated to women. Some differences were noted, though, especially in roles that were neither too complex nor too easy. These roles include that of a school-teacher and dancer.

In all dimensions, our cultural backgrounds affected the perceptions that were drawn. Cultural disposition, according to Campbell & Collaer (2009), is a major component and influencer of how society delegates roles according to gender. The observations from the list demonstrate how different cultures across the world employ similar but unrelated normative values and stereotypes to assign roles for men and women in relation to the roles’ complexity (Lenton et al., 2009).

By taking into account culturally learned characteristics, men are viewed as more masculine and therefore able to handle more complex roles, while women are traditionally viewed as more feminine and malleable, thus unfit to be entrusted with complex roles. In short, this is a reflection of gender stereotypes.

Culture, particularly in African and Asian countries, is largely viewed as unchanging and oppressive, to some extent fossilized and frozen in time. When one is born, he is internalized into this unchanging culture along with its rules, normative values, and beliefs (Tripathy, 2010).

In consequence, if one is born into a culture that has biased constructions of femininity and masculinity, chances are that he will remain with the internalized notion of division of labor for a long time, and will also make biased decisions as to what roles fits men and what roles fits women, thus falling into a spin of cultural essentialism (Tripathy, 2010).

Most cultures across the world delegates simple roles to women, while the more professional and financially fulfilling roles are the preserve of men. Kluchko (2010) puts it right by observing that “…for a woman, housewife and mother is considered the most significant social role.

She is assigned to the private sphere of life: home, giving birth to children and responsibility for interrelations in the family is entrusted to her” (p. 75). Such cultural orientations affected the perceptions drawn in the Occupations and Gender list. However, the differences noted in the list demonstrate that gender stereotypes are not natural dispositions, but are founded on gender ideologies and are culturally constructed.

A meta-analytic review on automatic gender stereotypes found that there exist a lot of gender stereotypes in the workplace (Lenton et al., 2009). Indeed, some CEOs are to date unconvinced that a woman is able to handle a managerial position in their organizations.

Indeed, Kluchko (2010) observes that “…according to traditional ideas, it is assumed that women’s work should be in the nature of doing and serving, part of the expressive sphere of activity” (p. 75). But this must not be allowed to continue. Tripathy (2010) argues that women, the main culprits of gender stereotypes, need to be empowered to be creative and endeavor to achieve more.

Lenton et al. (2009) argues that employees should be educated and coached so as not to resist change. Resistance to change has been highlighted by Campbell & Collaer (2009) as one of the contributing factors towards gender stereotypes. Lastly, employees need to avoid experiences or environments that may activate gender stereotyping. All in all, society needs to shed off some of these inaccurate and incomplete beliefs such as gender stereotypes.

Reference List

Campbell, S.M., & Collaer, M.L. (2009). Stereotype threat and gender differences in performance on a novel visuospatial task. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33 (4), 437-444. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier Database

Cuddy, A.J.C., Fiske, S.T., Kwan, V.S.Y., Glick, P., Demoulin, S…Palacios, M. (2009). Stereotype content model across cultures: Towards universal similarities and some differences. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48 (1), 1-33. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier Database

Kluchko, O.I. (2010). Gender stereotyping in studying pressing social problems. Anthropology & Archeology of Eurasia, 49 (1), 75-91. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier Database

Lenton, A.P., Bruder, M., Sedikides, C. (2009). A meta-analysis on the malleability of automatic gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33 (2), 183-196. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier Database

Tripathy, J. (2010). How gendered is gender and development? Culture, masculinity, and gender difference. Development in Practice, 20 (1), 113-121. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier Database

• Psychological Aspect of Generosity Acts
• Social Imagination Theory
• Dajoji Inc.’s Obsession with Functionality has a New Design; Organic Cotton Chef’s Jackets
• Alexander Campbell's Impact on Christian Religion
• Mathematics Dispositions of Secondary School Students
• Muammar Gaddafi's Personality Matrix
• Psychodynamic and Humanistic Theories
• College Learning: Attention Restoration Theory
• Controversial Issues in Entertainment
• Lifestyle and technologies of the self
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, February 20). Towards Evaluating the Relationship Between Gender Stereotypes & Culture. https://ivypanda.com/essays/towards-evaluating-the-relationship-between-gender-stereotypes-culture/

"Towards Evaluating the Relationship Between Gender Stereotypes & Culture." IvyPanda , 20 Feb. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/towards-evaluating-the-relationship-between-gender-stereotypes-culture/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Towards Evaluating the Relationship Between Gender Stereotypes & Culture'. 20 February.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Towards Evaluating the Relationship Between Gender Stereotypes & Culture." February 20, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/towards-evaluating-the-relationship-between-gender-stereotypes-culture/.

1. IvyPanda . "Towards Evaluating the Relationship Between Gender Stereotypes & Culture." February 20, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/towards-evaluating-the-relationship-between-gender-stereotypes-culture/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Towards Evaluating the Relationship Between Gender Stereotypes & Culture." February 20, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/towards-evaluating-the-relationship-between-gender-stereotypes-culture/.

From politicians to pop stars to professionals, gender stereotypes shape how we view power and status

Russian President Vladimir Putin and pop star Taylor Swift have something in common as two of the world’s “most powerful” people, according to Forbes . But while Putin rose to power as the leader of the world’s largest country, Swift amassed status and wealth as a wildly popular singer and performer.

These two paths to prominence—through power and status—are deeply tied to gender stereotypes that shape how society views them, according to new research published in the journal Psychological Science . While men are more typically linked to power, or having control over valuable resources, women are more often associated with status, defined as being respected by others.

“We noticed there seemed to be a fundamental difference between Forbes ’ list of powerful people and its separate list of powerful women, and we wanted to find out whether this was indicative of broadly held gendered associations,” says lead researcher Charlotte Townsend , PhD 24, who began the project as a doctoral student and is now a postdoc at Cornell University. “We found deeply held stereotypes in how we recognize leaders—whether they are leading a company or running for president.”

Household names

Just five of the 75 people on Forbes’ last “ World’s Most Powerful People ” list are women, while 99 women—plus a plastic doll, with the recent addition of Barbie—appear on the separate “ World’s Most Powerful Women ” list.

Townsend, working with Berkeley Haas Professor Laura Kray and Sonya Mishra , PhD 23, an assistant professor at Dartmouth’s Tuck School of Business, used Forbes ’ lists to test how men and women are viewed differently in terms of power and status, and to examine the implications of these stereotypes.

In one experiment, the undergraduate student participants rated men on the Forbes list higher in power but lower in status compared to the women, while they rated the women higher in status than the men. What’s more, the men were more likely to be recognized if they were perceived as powerful, while the women were more likely to be recognized if they were viewed as having high status.

“The most powerful men tend to be household names, while for women it’s those with the most status,” says Kray. “We pay more attention to high-status women like Taylor Swift and high-power men like Jeff Bezos, and less attention to high-power women like General Motors CEO Mary Barra.”

In the experiments, the researchers measured power using statements about authority and control (e.g. supervising subordinates, administering discipline or rewards), while status was measured using statements about whether the person was admired, respected, and sought out for their opinions. The studies were done in 2020 and 2022, and used Forbes’ 2018 “Most Powerful People” list and 2019 “Most Powerful Women” list. (Note: Forbes stopped updating its “Most Powerful People” list in 2018 but continues to update its “Most Powerful Women” list).

Public attention

The researchers then collected data on media mentions and social media followers for the Forbes ’ list members that had been rated high on power or status. The analysis found it was the “powerful” men who garnered more media mentions and social media followers, while “powerful” women had fewer. Conversely, the women rated as “high status” had more media mentions and social media followers compared with high-status men.

The fact that society gives more attention to powerful men and high-status women “aligns with past research finding that people are more likely to notice and recall information that confirms their stereotypes,” says Mishra. “These mental shortcuts reduce our cognitive load as perceivers.”

Deeply ingrained biases

To test whether gender stereotypes around power and status persist with people who aren’t household names, the researchers selected photos of lesser-known people from Fortune ‘s “40 Under 40 Finance List.” They used an Implicit Association Test (IAT) to measure unconscious biases with another group of undergraduates, and again found strong associations between men and power, and women and status—supporting the idea that these gender stereotypes are deeply ingrained.

The study also confirmed that participants viewed men as having more societal power and status overall, even though women were more strongly associated with status.

Self-perceptions

A final experiment tested how men and women view themselves. (The study samples included too few participants who identified as neither a man nor a woman for a separate analysis.)

They found that women, in particular, tended to associate themselves more with status than with power. When asked directly about themselves, women reported feeling less powerful than men, but more status-oriented.

Yet when asked about what they wanted, both men and women reported similar desires for power and status.

So while women might not necessarily be shying away from power, they might be aware of the backlash they’d incur from wanting power, the researchers suggest. Townsend noted that they have preliminary findings for a follow-up paper showing that women expect less backlash for seeking status than power.

This builds on prior research on how women’s fears of backlash shape their behavior, such as highlighting their accomplishments in an interview, Another recent study by Mishra and Kray found that women who are seen as going after power are more likely to face a backlash than those viewed as seeking status in addition to seeking power.

“Power-seeking women experience backlash because they are seen to violate feminine stereotypes,” Mishra says. Although women might have more leadership opportunities today compared to 20 years ago, seeking and possessing power still convey more masculine stereotypes than feminine stereotypes.

It will be interesting to see how this phenomenon plays out in the 2024 presidential election, the researchers note, since Vice President Kamala Harris became the presidential candidate somewhat by default after President Joe Biden stepped aside. This could be an advantage.

“It could be that Harris is perceived as less power-hungry, and as a result, she might encounter less backlash compared with a candidate like Hillary Clinton, who campaigned heavily for her candidacy,” Mishra suggested.

And while both power and status are important in social hierarchies, they come with different expectations. Social status tends to be more fragile than power, and more easily taken away, says Kray. And those with status are more often expected to be fair and kind, which can limit their ability to use their rank effectively, and limit them to roles with less control over resources, she adds.  “Unfortunately, this further entrenches the stereotype that women’s power must be limited to being highly respected while men’s power encompasses tangible control over resources,” Kray says.

The researchers note that the study involved mainly college students and U.S. adults, so may not be applicable to everyone. But what’s clear is that achieving full gender equality will require continuing examination of—and challenges to—these deeply held stereotypes.

Key takeaways:

• Men are often linked with power, women with status.
• This stereotype affects public recognition and self-perception.
• Despite being respected, women’s association with status can limit their control over resources.

Read the full paper:

Not All Powerful People Are Created Equal: An Examination of Gender and Pathways to Social Hierarchy Through the Lens of Social Cognition By Charlotte H. Townsend, Sonya Mishra, and Laura J. Kray Psychological Science , August 2024

Acknowledgement: This study was partially supported by the Center for Equity Gender and Leadership at the University of California, Berkeley.

• Operations & IT Management
• Sustainability
• Economic Analysis & Policy
• Business & Public Policy
• Social Impact
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
• Innovation & Technology
• Real Estate
• Entrepreneurship
• Energy & Environment
• Faculty News
• Student News
• School News
• Perspectives
• News Releases
• Alumni News

• Color Blindness Topics Topics: 49
• Animal Rights Research Topics Topics: 55
• Gender Inequality Topics Topics: 75
• Gender Equality Research Topics Topics: 77
• Homelessness Topics Topics: 151 Research Questions
• Social Inequality Research Topics Topics: 77
• Black Lives Matter Research Topics Topics: 112
• Domestic Violence Topics Topics: 160
• Animal Cruelty Essay Topics Topics: 107
• Animal Testing Topics Topics: 111
• Animal Abuse Topics Topics: 97
• Gender Issues Topics Topics: 101
• Animal Ethics Paper Topics Topics: 60
• Social Problems Paper Topics Topics: 157
• Drug Abuse Research Topics Topics: 141

94 Gender Stereotypes Essay Topics

🏆 best essay topics on gender stereotypes, 👍 good gender stereotypes research topics & essay examples, 🎓 most interesting gender stereotypes research titles, 💡 simple gender stereotypes essay ideas, ❓ research questions about gender stereotypes.

• Gender Stereotypes in Western and Eastern Culture
• Gender Stereotypes: Should Real Men Wear Pink?
• How Gender Stereotypes Affect Society
• Gender Stereotypes in “Frozen” Animated Film
• Race and Gender Stereotypes in Literature
• Gender Stereotypes and Misunderstanding
• Role of Gender Stereotypes in Advertising
• Futurama Series Speaks Against Gender Stereotypes Although Futurama may seem to be a sexist series, at first sight, a closer examination reveals several directions in which this work speaks against gender stereotypes.
• Gender Stereotypes Developed Within Families The researchers hypothesized that parents’ views on gender roles as well as their stereotypes would be adopted by their children.
• Gender Stereotypes in Academic and Family Settings Gender stereotypes refer to the assumption about gender features and roles that every woman or man is expected to possess or depict.
• Gender Stereotypes Have Changed by Eagly et al. Gender Stereotypes Have Changed by Eagly et al. investigates the changes in gender stereotypes over a long period and the historical and social processes that contributed to this.
• Gender Stereotypes and Their Role in Advertising Now it is difficult to imagine life without advertising. In modern society, there is still a principle of building advertising on gender stereotypes.
• The Problem of Gender Stereotypes Gender stereotyping seems to be an element of the traditional gender ideology that describes average differences between males and females.
• Gender Stereotypes in Advertisements Gender-stereotyped portrayals remain perverse in ads and other promotional activities in conventional print and broadcast media and digital and social networking platforms.
• Gender Stereotypes in Commercials Home appliances or makeup commercials are typically directed at women. Automobile advertising, on the contrary, tends to concentrate on the male audience.
• Gender Stereotypes in the Modern World The About Face project aims to oppose a culture that promotes the belief that women are weak, and have a particular set of duties and responsibilities that should be obeyed.
• Gender Stereotypes of the US Women This work is a proposal study concerning experiences that influence US women’s attitudes towards their roles in society, gender stereotypes, distribution of power.
• Gender Stereotypes: Data Presentation Strategy This report examines gender stereotypes from a quantitative perspective, including data presentation strategy and strategy of credibility, dependability, and transferability.
• Data Analysis Proposal: Gender Stereotypes This paper presents a data analysis proposal of the study that focuses on developing females gender stereotypes using an empirical phenomenology approach.
• Gender Stereotypes: Research Question This work is a research proposal on the topic of what factors affect the development of opinions in women concerning gender-related issues as seen by working females.
• Gender Stereotypes in Family and Academic Settings The persistence of gender stereotypes in the USA as well as the rest of the world is one of the most burning issues.
• The Gender Stereotypes in the Workplace The gender stereotypes in the workplace were the focus of the discussion. Different studies exploring issues related to gender stereotypes in the working environment were analyzed.
• Gender Stereotypes in Family: Research Methods Family is one of the most important factors that affect the development of children’s perceptions concerning gender roles.
• Gender Stereotypes in Families: Parents’ Gender Roles and Children’s Aspirations Psychologists have paid significant attention to gender stereotypes, and many important trends have been identified and evaluated. Researchers use various methodologies.
• Gender Stereotypes Formation in Children This paper focuses on a study that explores the extent to which parents model gender roles to their children and dwells upon the development of gender stereotypes in children.
• Gender Stereotypes in Families: Parental Influence on an Adolescent’s Career Choice Gender stereotypes are still persistent in societies that often seem to be egalitarian. These stereotypes are transmitted to younger generations that copy their parents’ role models.
• Gender Stereotypes’ Effects Career and Mental Health This paper discusses the stereotypes about women and shows how they limit the professional development of women and put them at risk of domestic violence and mental health issues.
• Women’s Views on Long-Existing Gender Stereotypes Women are still seen as creatures fit for child-rearing and keeping households. Men still think that women cannot perform certain tasks and take up some responsibilities.
• Gender Stereotypes in Women’s Opinion Study This study focuses on the opinions of women and their perspectives on the prevalence of gender stereotypes. The qualitative research will best fit the purpose of the study.
• Socialization and Its Relationship to Gender Stereotypes
• Impact Color Associations Have On Gender Stereotypes
• The Hidden Gender Stereotypes in the Animations of the Little Mermaid and Tangled
• Gender Stereotypes Start With Toys
• Raising Children Without Gender Stereotypes
• The Harmful Effects That Gender Stereotypes Can Reflect on the Individual and Society
• Workplace Segregation and Gender Stereotypes
• Television Commercials and How They Perpetuate Gender Stereotypes
• Media Messages, Gender Stereotypes & Baby Mama
• Defining Manhood Through Gender Stereotypes
• How Jane Eyre and the Works of Robert Browning Subvert Gender Stereotypes?
• Gender Stereotypes That Have an Influence on People From Their Birth
• Nostalgic Representations and Gender Stereotypes in Romanian Advertising
• Gender Stereotypes and Bias in Child Rearing
• Holding Fast: The Persistence and Dominance of Gender Stereotypes
• English Postcolonial Animal Tales and Gender Stereotypes
• Gender Stereotypes and Estimated IQ Scores
• Toys That Develop Gender Stereotypes
• Gender Stereotypes and Influences of Celebrities on Our
• Gender Norms and Enforcing Gender Stereotypes on Society
• Warnings Against Gender Stereotypes in Early Twentieth-Century American Literature
• Gender Stereotypes Are Still Pervasive in Our Culture
• The Factors That Influence Gender Roles, Gender Identity, and Gender Stereotypes
• Sports Broadcasting Reinforces Gender Stereotypes and Homophobia Media
• Gender Stereotypes and Their Effects on Society
• Mickey Mouse Monopoly: Gender Stereotypes in Disney Films
• Gender Differences and Gender Stereotypes From a Psychological Perspect
• Masculinity, Femininity, Gender Stereotypes, and Racial Stereotypes in the Media
• Female Development and the Impact of Gender Stereotypes
• Gender Stereotypes Influence the Perception of and Attitude Towards Characters
• Physical Appearance and Gender Stereotypes
• Gender and Gender Stereotypes and How They Have an Impact on Children
• Men Who Defy Gender Stereotypes
• Pop Culture and Gender Stereotypes
• Sexism and Gender Stereotypes in the Public Relations Industry
• Gender Stereotypes: The Reign of the Blue Collar Male
• Girls Rule, Boys Drool: The Effects of Gender Stereotypes
• Workplace and Gender Stereotypes
• Gender Stereotypes Throughout the Past Decades
• What Is the Relationship Between Physical Appearance and Gender Stereotypes?
• How Do Gender Stereotypes Warp Our View of Depression?
• How Do Magazines Create Gender Stereotypes?
• How Do Gender Stereotypes Impact Dimensions of Effective Leader Behavior?
• How Women Are Fighting for Gender Stereotypes in Today’s Society?
• What Are the Gender Stereotypes Against Iranian Women?
• How Does Ridley Scott Create and Destroy Gender Stereotypes in “Thelma and Louise”?
• How Do Television Commercials Perpetuate Gender Stereotypes?
• How Can Gender Stereotypes Explain the Gender-equality Paradox?
• How To Reduce the Effects of Gender Stereotypes on Performance Evaluations?
• What Is the Role of Gender Stereotypes in Speech Perception?
• What Is the Influence of Gender Stereotypes on Parent and Child Mathematics Attitudes?
• What Does the Term Pancultural Gender Stereotypes Mean?
• Do Citizens Apply Gender Stereotypes To Infer Candidates’ Ideological Orientations?
• What Are the Discourses of Female Violence and Societal Gender Stereotypes?
• What Changes Did Occur in Gender Stereotypes Over Time?
• How Do Brain Potentials Reflect Violations of Gender Stereotypes?
• What Is the Role of Gender Stereotypes in US Senate Campaigns?
• How Gender Stereotypes Prevent Women’s Ascent up the Organizational Ladder?
• What Are the Implicit and Explicit Occupational Gender Stereotypes?
• What Is an Evolution of Gender Stereotypes in Spain?
• How Do Newspaper Sources Trigger Gender Stereotypes?
• What Is the Influence of Gender Stereotypes on Role Adoption in Student Teams?
• What Are the Current Gender Stereotypes and Their Evaluative Content?

Cite this post

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2022, May 10). 94 Gender Stereotypes Essay Topics. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/gender-stereotypes-essay-topics/

"94 Gender Stereotypes Essay Topics." StudyCorgi , 10 May 2022, studycorgi.com/ideas/gender-stereotypes-essay-topics/.

StudyCorgi . (2022) '94 Gender Stereotypes Essay Topics'. 10 May.

1. StudyCorgi . "94 Gender Stereotypes Essay Topics." May 10, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/gender-stereotypes-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "94 Gender Stereotypes Essay Topics." May 10, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/gender-stereotypes-essay-topics/.

StudyCorgi . 2022. "94 Gender Stereotypes Essay Topics." May 10, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/gender-stereotypes-essay-topics/.

These essay examples and topics on Gender Stereotypes were carefully selected by the StudyCorgi editorial team. They meet our highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, and fact accuracy. Please ensure you properly reference the materials if you’re using them to write your assignment.

This essay topic collection was updated on December 27, 2023 .

• Frontiers in Psychiatry
• Computational Psychiatry
• Research Topics

Women in Psychiatry 2024: Computational Psychiatry

Total Downloads

Total Views and Downloads

About this Research Topic

Frontiers in Psychiatry is proud to launch this year's Women in Psychiatry: Computational Psychiatry collection to showcasing recent research advances from women across the entire breadth of Computational Psychiatry - presenting advances in theory, experiment, and methodology. This Research Topic is seeking submissions exploring psychiatric disorders through computational modeling of brain or behavior with using data with using data. Suggested topics include psychiatric taxonomy, the utilization of computational work with brain histology, multimodal neuroimaging, papers exploring clinical applications, the emerging field of psychoradiology, computational and statistical methodologies, machine learning approaches, new computational and statistical approaches and translational medicine. At present, less than 30% of researchers worldwide are women. Long-standing biases and gender stereotypes are discouraging girls and women away from science-related fields, and STEM research in particular. Science and gender equality are essential to ensure sustainable development. In order to change traditional mindsets, gender equality must be promoted, stereotypes defeated, and girls and women should be encouraged to pursue STEM careers. Please note: to be considered for this collection, the first or last author should be a researcher who identifies as a woman.

Keywords : women in, computational, computer modelling

Important Note : All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.

Topic Editors

Topic coordinators, submission deadlines.

Participating Journals

Manuscripts can be submitted to this Research Topic via the following journals:

total views

• Demographics

No records found

total views article views downloads topic views

Top countries

Top referring sites, about frontiers research topics.

With their unique mixes of varied contributions from Original Research to Review Articles, Research Topics unify the most influential researchers, the latest key findings and historical advances in a hot research area! Find out more on how to host your own Frontiers Research Topic or contribute to one as an author.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Twenty Years of Stereotype Threat Research: A Review of Psychological Mediators

Charlotte r. pennington.

Department of Psychology, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, Lancashire, England, United Kingdom

Andrew R. Levy

Derek t. larkin.

Analyzed the data: CRP DH. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: CRP DH ARL DTL. Wrote the paper: CRP. Developed the review design and protocol: CRP DH AL DL. Reviewed the manuscript: DH AL DL. Cross-checked articles in systematic review: CRP DH.

Associated Data

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

This systematic literature review appraises critically the mediating variables of stereotype threat. A bibliographic search was conducted across electronic databases between 1995 and 2015. The search identified 45 experiments from 38 articles and 17 unique proposed mediators that were categorized into affective/subjective ( n = 6), cognitive ( n = 7) and motivational mechanisms ( n = 4). Empirical support was accrued for mediators such as anxiety, negative thinking, and mind-wandering, which are suggested to co-opt working memory resources under stereotype threat. Other research points to the assertion that stereotype threatened individuals may be motivated to disconfirm negative stereotypes, which can have a paradoxical effect of hampering performance. However, stereotype threat appears to affect diverse social groups in different ways, with no one mediator providing unequivocal empirical support. Underpinned by the multi-threat framework, the discussion postulates that different forms of stereotype threat may be mediated by distinct mechanisms.

Introduction

The present review examines the mediators of stereotype threat that have been proposed over the past two decades. It appraises critically the underlying mechanisms of stereotype threat as a function of the type of threat primed, the population studied, and the measures utilized to examine mediation and performance outcomes. Here, we propose that one reason that has precluded studies from finding firm evidence of mediation is the appreciation of distinct forms of stereotype threat.

Stereotype Threat: An Overview

Over the past two decades, stereotype threat has become one of the most widely researched topics in social psychology [ 1 , 2 ]. Reaching its 20 th anniversary, Steele and Aronson’s [ 3 ] original article has gathered approximately 5,000 citations and has been referred to as a 'modern classic' [ 4 , 5 , 6 ]. In stark contrast to theories of genetic intelligence [ 7 , 8 ] (and see [ 9 ] for debate), the theory of stereotype threat posits that stigmatized group members may underperform on diagnostic tests of ability through concerns about confirming a negative societal stereotype as self-characteristic [ 3 ]. Steele and Aronson [ 3 ] demonstrated that African American participants underperformed on a verbal reasoning test when it was presented as a diagnostic indicator of intellectual ability. Conversely, when the same test was presented as non-diagnostic of ability, they performed equivalently to their Caucasian peers. This seminal research indicates that the mere salience of negative societal stereotypes, which may magnify over time, can impede performance. The theory of stereotype threat therefore offers a situational explanation for the ongoing and intractable debate regarding the source of group differences in academic aptitude [ 1 ].

Stereotype threat has been used primarily to explain gaps in intellectual and quantitative test scores between African and European Americans [ 3 , 10 ] and women and men respectively [ 11 ]. However, it is important to acknowledge that many factors shape academic performance, and stereotype threat is unlikely to be the sole explanation for academic achievement gaps [ 12 ]. This is supported by research which has shown “pure” stereotype threat effects on a task in which a gender-achievement gap has not been previously documented [ 13 ], thus suggesting that performance decrements can be elicited simply by reference to a negative stereotype. Furthermore, stereotype threat effects may not be limited to social groups who routinely face stigmatizing attitudes. Rather, it can befall anyone who is a member of a group to which a negative stereotype applies [ 3 ]. For example, research indicates that Caucasian men, a group that have a relatively positive social status, underperform when they believe that their mathematical performance will be compared to that of Asian men [ 14 ]. White men also appear to perform worse than black men when motor tasks are related to 'natural athletic ability' [ 15 , 16 ]. From a theoretical standpoint, stereotype threat exposes how group stereotypes may shape the behavior of individuals in a way that endangers their performance and further reinforces the stereotype [ 10 ].

Over 300 experiments have illustrated the deleterious and extensive effects that stereotype threat can inflict on many different populations [ 17 ]. The possibility of confirming a negative stereotype about one’s group is found to contribute to underperformance on a range of diverse tasks including intelligence [ 3 , 13 ], memory [ 18 , 19 ], mental rotation [ 20 – 23 ], and math tests [ 11 , 24 , 25 ], golf putting [ 26 ], driving [ 27 , 28 ] and childcare skills [ 29 ]. Given the generality of these findings, researchers have turned their efforts to elucidating the underlying mechanisms of this situational phenomenon.

Susceptibility to Stereotype Threat

Research has identified numerous moderators that make tasks more likely to elicit stereotype threat, and individuals more prone to experience it [ 30 , 31 ]. From a methodological perspective, stereotype threat effects tend to emerge on tasks of high difficulty and demand [ 32 , 33 ], however, the extent to which a task is perceived as demanding may be moderated by individual differences in working memory [ 34 ]. Additionally, stereotype threat may be more likely to occur when individuals are conscious of the stigma ascribed to their social group [ 32 , 35 ], believe the stereotypes about their group to be true [ 36 , 37 ], for those with low self-esteem [ 38 ], and an internal locus of control [ 39 ]. Research also indicates that individuals are more susceptible to stereotype threat when they identify strongly with their social group [ 40 , 41 , 42 ] and value the domain [ 10 , 13 , 15 , 33 , 43 ]. However, other research suggests that domain identification is not a prerequisite of stereotype threat effects [ 44 ] and may act as a strategy to overcome harmful academic consequences [ 45 , 46 ].

Mediators of Stereotype Threat

There has also been an exPLOSion of research into the psychological mediators of stereotype threat (c.f. [ 2 , 47 ] for reviews). In their comprehensive review, Schmader et al. [ 2 ] proposed an integrated process model, suggesting that stereotype threat heightens physiological stress responses and influences monitoring and suppression processes to deplete working memory efficiency. This provides an important contribution to the literature, signaling that multiple affective, cognitive and motivational processes may underpin the effects of stereotype threat on performance. However, the extent to which each of these variables has garnered empirical support remains unclear. Furthermore, prior research has overlooked the existence of distinct stereotype threats in the elucidation of mediating variables. Through the lens of the multi-threat framework [ 31 ], the current review distinguishes between different stereotype threat primes, which target either the self or the social group to assess the evidence base with regards to the existence of multiple stereotype threats that may be accounted for by distinct mechanisms.

A Multi-threat Approach to Mediation

Stereotype threat is typically viewed as a form of social identity threat: A situational predicament occurring when individuals perceive their social group to be devalued by others [ 48 , 49 , 50 ]. However, this notion overlooks how individuals may self-stigmatize and evaluate themselves [ 51 , 52 , 53 ] and the conflict people may experience between their personal and social identities [ 54 ]. More recently, researchers have distinguished between the role of the self and the social group in performance-evaluative situations [ 31 ]. The multi-threat framework [ 31 ] identifies six qualitatively distinct stereotype threats that manifest through the intersection of two dimensions: The target of the threat (i.e., is the stereotype applicable to one’s personal or social identity?) and the source of threat (i.e., who will judge performance; the in-group or the out-group?). Focusing on the target of the stereotype, individuals who experience a group-as-target threat may perceive that underperformance will confirm a negative societal stereotype regarding the abilities of their social group. Conversely, individuals who experience a self-as-target threat may perceive that stereotype-consistent performance will be viewed as self-characteristic [ 31 , 55 ]. Individuals may therefore experience either a self or group-based threat dependent on situational cues in the environment that heighten the contingency of a stereotyped identity [ 2 ].

Researchers also theorize that members of diverse stigmatized groups may experience different forms of stereotype threat [ 31 , 56 ], and that these distinct experiences may be mediated by somewhat different processes [ 31 , 57 ]. Indeed, there is some indirect empirical evidence to suggest that this may be the case. For example, Pavlova and colleagues [ 13 ] found that an implicit stereotype threat prime hampered women’s performance on a social cognition task. Conversely, men’s performance suffered when they were primed with an explicit gender-related stereotype. Moreover, Stone and McWhinnie [ 58 ] suggest that subtle stereotype threat cues (i.e., the gender of the experimenter) may evoke a tendency to actively monitor performance and avoid mistakes, whereas blatant stereotype threat cues (i.e., stereotype prime) create distractions that deplete working memory resources. Whilst different stereotype threat cues may simultaneously exert negative effects on performance, it is plausible that they are induced by independent mechanisms [ 58 ]. Nonetheless, insufficient evidence has prevented the multi-threat framework [ 31 ] to be evaluated empirically to date. It therefore remains to be assessed whether the same mechanisms are responsible for the effects of distinct stereotype threats on different populations and performance measures.

The current article offers the first systematic literature review aiming to: 1), identify and examine critically the proposed mediators of stereotype threat; 2), explore whether the effects of self-as-target or group-as-target stereotype threat on performance are the result of qualitatively distinct mediating mechanisms; and 3), evaluate whether different mediators govern different stereotyped populations.

Literature Search

A bibliographic search of electronic databases, such as PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, Web of Knowledge, PubMed, Science Direct and Google Scholar was conducted between the cut-off dates of 1995 (the publication year of Steele & Aronson’s seminal article) and December 2015. A search string was developed by specifying the main terms of the phenomenon under investigation. Here, the combined key words of stereotype and threat were utilized as overarching search parameters and directly paired with either one of the following terms; mediator , mediating , mediate(s) , predictor , predicts , relationship or mechanism(s) . Additional references were retrieved by reviewing the reference lists of relevant journal articles. To control for potential publication bias [ 59 , 60 , 61 ], the lead author also enquired about any ‘in press’ articles by sending out a call for papers through the European Association for Social Psychology. The second author conducted a comparable search using the same criteria to ensure that no studies were overlooked in the original search. Identification of relevant articles and data extraction were conducted in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement (PRISMA; See S1 Table ) [ 62 ]. A literature search was conducted separately in each database and the records were exported to citation software, after which duplicates were removed. Relevant articles were screened by examining the title and abstract in line with the eligibility criteria. The remaining articles were assessed for eligibility by performing a full text review [ 63 , 64 ].

Eligibility Criteria

Studies were selected based on the following criteria: 1), researchers utilized a stereotype threat manipulation; 2), a direct mediation analysis was conducted between stereotype threat and performance; 3), researchers found evidence of moderated-mediation, and 4), the full text was available in English. Articles were excluded on the following basis: 1), performance was not the dependent variable, 2), investigations of “stereotype lift”; 3), doctorate, dissertation and review articles (to avoid duplication of included articles); and 4), moderating variables. Articles that did not find any significant results in relation to stereotype threat effects were also excluded in order to capture reliable evidence of mediation [ 65 ]. See Table 1 for details of excluded articles.

Distinguishing Different Stereotype Threats

The current review distinguished between different experiences of stereotype threat by examining each stereotype threat manipulation. Self-as-target threats were categorized on the basis that participants focused on the test as a measure of personal ability whereas group-as-target threats were classified on the basis that participants perceived performance to be diagnostic of their group’s ability [ 31 ].

A total of 45 studies in 38 articles were qualitatively synthesized, uncovering a total of 17 distinct proposed mediators. See Fig 1 for process of article inclusion (full details of article exclusion can be viewed in S1 Supporting Information ). These mediators were categorized into affective/subjective ( n = 6), cognitive ( n = 7) or motivational mechanisms ( n = 4). Effect sizes for mediational findings are described typically through informal descriptors, such as complete , perfect , or partial [ 66 ]. With this in mind, the current findings are reported in terms of complete or partial mediation. Complete mediation indicates that the relationship between stereotype threat ( X ) and performance ( Y ) completely disappears when a mediator ( M ) is added as a predictor variable [ 66 ]. Partial mediation refers to instances in which a significant direct effect remains between stereotype threat and performance when controlling for the mediator, suggesting that additional variables may further explain this relationship [ 67 ]. Instances of moderated mediation are also reported, which occurs when the strength of mediation is contingent on the level of a moderating variable [ 68 ]. The majority of included research utilized a group-as-target prime ( n = 36, 80%) compared to a self-as-target prime ( n = 6; 13.33%). Three studies (6.66%) were uncategorized as they employed subtle stereotype threat primes, for example, manipulating the group composition of the testing environment.

Affective/Subjective Mechanisms

Researchers have conceptualized stereotype threat frequently as a fear, apprehension or anxiety of confirming a negative stereotype about one’s group [ 3 , 69 , 70 ]. Accordingly, many affective and subjective variables such as anxiety, individuation tendencies, evaluation apprehension, performance expectations, explicit stereotype endorsement and self-efficacy have been proposed to account for the stereotype threat-performance relationship.

Steele and Aronson’s [ 3 ] original study did not find self-reported anxiety to be a significant mediator of the effects of a self-relevant stereotype on African American’s intellectual performance. Extending this work, Spencer et al. (Experiment 3, [ 11 ]) found that anxiety was not predictive of the effects that a negative group stereotype had on women’s mathematical achievement, with further research confirming this [ 14 , 44 , 71 ]. Additional studies have indicated that self-reported anxiety does not influence the impact of self-as-target stereotype elicitation on African American’s cognitive ability [ 72 ], white students’ athletic skills [ 15 ], and group-as-target stereotype threat on older adults’ memory recall [ 18 , 32 ].

Research also suggests that anxiety may account for one of multiple mediators in the stereotype threat-performance relationship. In a field study, Chung and colleagues [ 73 ] found that self-reported state anxiety and specific self-efficacy sequentially mediated the influence of stereotype threat on African American’s promotional exam performance. This finding is supported by Mrazek et al. [ 74 ] who found that anxiety and mind-wandering sequentially mediated the effects of stereotype threat on women’s mathematical ability. Laurin [ 75 ] also found that self-reported somatic anxiety partially mediated the effects of group-as-target stereotype threat on women’s motor performance. Nevertheless, it is viable to question whether this finding is comparable to other studies as stereotype threat had a facilitating effect on performance.

The mixed results regarding anxiety as a potential mediator of performance outcomes may be indicative of various boundary conditions that enhance stereotype threat susceptibility. Consistent with this claim, Gerstenberg, Imhoff and Schmitt (Experiment 3 [ 76 ]) found that women who reported a fragile math self-concept solved fewer math problems under group-as-target stereotype threat and this susceptibility was mediated by increased anxiety. This moderated-mediation suggests that women with a low academic self-concept may be more vulnerable to stereotype threat, with anxiety underpinning its effect on mathematical performance.

Given that anxiety may be relatively difficult to detect via self-report measures [ 3 , 29 ], researchers have utilized indirect measures. For instance, Bosson et al. [ 29 ] found that physiological anxiety mediated the effects of stereotype threat on homosexual males’ performance on an interpersonal task. Nevertheless, this effect has not been replicated for the effects of group-as-target stereotype threat on older adults’ memory recall [ 32 ] and self-as-target threat on children’s writing ability [ 77 ].

Individuation tendencies

Steele and Aronson [ 3 ] proposed that stereotype threat might occur when individuals perceive a negative societal stereotype to be a true representation of personal ability. Based on this, Keller and Sekaquaptewa [ 78 ] examined whether gender-related threats (i.e., group-as-target threat) influenced women to individuate their personal identity (the self) from their social identity (female). Results revealed that participants underperformed on a spatial ability test when they perceived that they were a single in-group representative (female) in a group of males. Moreover, stereotype threat was partially mediated by ‘individuation tendencies’ in that gender-based threats influenced women to disassociate their self from the group to lessen the applicability of the stereotype. The authors suggest that this increased level of self-focused attention under solo status conditions is likely related to increased levels of anxiety.

Evaluation apprehension

Steele and Aronson [ 3 ] also suggested that individuals might apprehend that they will confirm a negative stereotype in the eyes of out-group members. Despite this, Mayer and Hanges [ 72 ] found that evaluation apprehension did not mediate the effects of a self-as-target stereotype threat on African American’s cognitive ability. Additional studies also indicate that evaluation apprehension does not mediate the effects of group-as-target stereotype threat on women’s mathematical performance [ 11 , 79 ].

Performance expectations

Under stereotype threat, individuals may evaluate the subjective likelihood of success depending on their personal resources. As these personal resources are typically anchored to group-level expectations, in-group threatening information (i.e., women are poor at math) may reduce personal expectancies to achieve and diminish performance [ 80 ]. Testing this prediction, Cadinu et al. (Experiment 1 [ 80 ]) found that women solved fewer math problems when they were primed with a negative group-based stereotype relative to those who received a positive or no stereotype. Furthermore, performance expectancies partially mediated the effect of group-as-target threat on math performance, revealing that negative information was associated with lower expectancies. A second experiment indicated further that performance expectancies partially mediated the effects of group-as-target threat on Black participants’ verbal ability. Research by Rosenthal, Crisp and Mein-Woei (Experiment 2 [ 81 ]) also found that performance expectancies partially mediated the effects of self-based stereotypes on women’s mathematical performance. However, rather than decreasing performance expectancies, women under stereotype threat reported higher predictions for performance relative to a control condition.

Research has extended this work to examine the role of performance expectancies in diverse stigmatized populations. For example, Hess et al. [ 32 ] found evidence of moderated-mediation for the effects of a group-as-target stereotype threat on older adults’ memory recall. Here, the degree to which performance expectancies mediated stereotype threat effects was moderated by participants’ education. That is, elderly individuals with higher levels of education showed greater susceptibility to stereotype threat. These findings add weight to the assertion that lowered performance expectations may account for the effects of stereotype threat on performance, especially among individuals who identify strongly with the ability domain. Conversely, Appel et al. [ 43 ] found that performance expectancies do not mediate the effects of group-based stereotype threat among highly identified women in the domains of science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

Further research suggests that stereotype threat can be activated through subtle cues in the environment rather than explicit stereotype activation [ 58 , 82 ]. It is therefore plausible that expectancies regarding performance may be further undermined when stigmatized in-group members are required to perform a stereotype-relevant task in front of out-group members. Advancing this suggestion, Sekaquaptewa and Thompson [ 82 ] examined the interactive effects of solo status and stereotype threat on women’s mathematical performance. Results revealed that women underperformed when they completed a quantitative examination in the presence of men (solo status) and under stereotype threat. However, whilst performance expectancies partially mediated the relationship between group composition and mathematical ability, they did not mediate the effects of stereotype threat on performance.

Explicit stereotype endorsement

Research has examined whether targeted individuals’ personal endorsement of negative stereotypes is associated with underperformance. For example, Leyens and colleagues [ 83 ] found that men underperformed on an affective task when they were told that they were not as apt as women in processing affective information. Against predictions, however, stereotype endorsement was not found to be a significant intermediary between stereotype threat and performance. Other studies also indicate that stereotype endorsement is not an underlying mechanism of the effects of self-as-target [ 3 ] and group-as-target stereotype threat on women’s mathematical aptitude [ 11 , 84 ].

Self-efficacy

Research suggests that self-efficacy can have a significant impact on an individual’s motivation and performance [ 85 , 86 , 87 ], and may be influenced by environmental cues [ 88 ]. Accordingly, it has been proposed that the situational salience of a negative stereotype may reduce an individual’s self-efficacy. As mentioned, Chung et al. [ 73 ] found that state anxiety and specific self-efficacy accounted for deficits in African American’s performance on a job promotion exam. However, additional studies indicate that self-efficacy does not mediate the effects of self-as-target threat on African American’s cognitive ability [ 72 ] and group-as-target threat on women’s mathematical performance [ 11 ].

Cognitive Mechanisms

Much research has proposed that affective and subjective variables underpin the harmful effects that stereotype threat exerts on performance [ 89 ]. However, other research posits that stereotype threat may influence performance detriments through its demands on cognitive processes [ 2 , 89 , 90 ]. Specifically, researchers have examined whether stereotype threat is mediated by; working memory, cognitive load, thought suppression, mind-wandering, negative thinking, cognitive appraisals and implicit stereotype endorsement.

Working memory

Schmader and Johns [ 89 ] proposed that performance-evaluative situations might reduce working memory capacity as stereotype-related thoughts consume cognitive resources. In three studies, they examined whether working memory accounted for the influence of a group-as-target threat on women’s and Latino American’s mathematical ability. Findings indicated that both female and Latino American participants solved fewer mathematical problems compared to participants in a non-threat control condition. Furthermore, reduced working memory capacity, measured via an operation span task [ 91 ], mediated the deleterious effects of stereotype threat on math performance. Supporting this, Rydell et al. (Experiment 3 [ 92 ]) found that working memory mediated the effects of a group-relevant stereotype on women’s mathematical performance when they perceived their performance to be evaluated in line with their gender identity. Here results also showed that these performance decrements were eliminated when women were concurrently primed with a positive and negative social identity (Experiment 2).

Further research has also examined how stereotype threat may simultaneously operate through cognitive and emotional processes. Across four experiments, Johns et al. [ 90 ] found that stereotype threat was accountable for deficits in women’s verbal, intellectual and mathematical ability. Moreover, emotion regulation − characterized as response-focused coping − mediated the effects of group-as-target stereotype threat on performance by depleting executive resources.

Nonetheless, executive functioning is made up of more cognitive processes than the construct of working memory [ 93 ]. Acknowledging this, Rydell et al. [ 93 ] predicted that updating (i.e., the ability to maintain and update information in the face of interference) would mediate stereotype threat effects. They further hypothesized that inhibition (i.e., the ability to inhibit a dominant response) and shifting (i.e., people’s ability to switch between tasks) should not underpin this effect. Results indicated that women who experienced an explicit group-as-target threat displayed reduced mathematical performance compared to a control condition. Consistent with predictions, only updating mediated the stereotype threat-performance relationship. These results suggest that the verbal ruminations associated with a negative stereotype may interfere with women’s ability to maintain and update the calculations needed to solve difficult math problems.

The extent to which updating accounts for stereotype threat effects in diverse populations, however, is less straightforward. For example, Hess et al. [ 32 ] found that working memory, measured by a computational span task, did not predict the relationship between group-based stereotype threat and older participants’ memory performance.

Cognitive load

There is ample evidence to suggest that stereotype threat depletes performance by placing higher demands on mental resources [ 89 , 93 ]. These demands may exert additional peripheral activity (i.e., emotional regulation) that can further interfere with task performance [ 90 ]. In order to provide additional support for this notion, Croizet et al. [ 94 ] examined whether increased mental load, measured by participants’ heart rate, mediated the effects of stereotype threat on Psychology majors’ cognitive ability. Here, Psychology majors were primed that they had lower intelligence compared to Science majors. Results indicated that this group-as-target stereotype threat undermined Psychology majors’ cognitive ability by triggering a psychophysiological mental load. Moreover, this increased mental load mediated the effects of stereotype threat on cognitive performance.

Thought suppression

Research suggests that individuals who experience stereotype threat may be aware that their performance will be evaluated in terms of a negative stereotype and, resultantly, engage in efforts to disprove it [ 3 , 94 , 95 ]. This combination of awareness and avoidance may lead to attempts to suppress negative thoughts that consequently tax the cognitive resources needed to perform effectively. In four experiments, Logel et al. (Experiment 2 [ 95 ]) examined whether stereotype threat influences stereotypical thought suppression by counterbalancing whether participants completed a stereotype-relevant lexical decision task before or after a mathematical test. Results indicated that women underperformed on the test in comparison to men. Interestingly, women tended to suppress stereotypical words when the lexical decision task was administered before the math test, but showed post-suppression rebound of stereotype-relevant words when this task was completed afterwards. Mediational analyses revealed that only pre-test thought suppression partially mediated the effects of stereotype threat on performance.

Mind-wandering

Previous research suggests that the anticipation of a stereotype-laden test may produce a greater proportion of task-related thoughts and worries [ 93 , 95 ]. Less research has examined the role of thoughts unrelated to the task in hand as a potential mediator of stereotype threat effects. Directly testing this notion, Mrazek et al. (Experiment 2 [ 74 ]) found that a group-as-target stereotype threat hampered women’s mathematical performance in comparison to a control condition. Furthermore, although self-report measures of mind-wandering resulted in null findings, indirect measures revealed that women under stereotype threat showed a marked decrease in attention. Mediation analyses indicated further that stereotype threat heightened anxiety which, in turn, increased mind-wandering and contributed to the observed impairments in math performance. Despite these findings, other studies have found no indication that task irrelevant thoughts mediate the effects of group-as-target stereotype threat on women’s mathematical performance [ 24 ] and African American participants’ cognitive ability [ 72 ].

Negative thinking

Schmader and Johns’ [ 89 ] research suggests that the performance deficits observed under stereotype threat may be influenced by intrusive thoughts. Further research [ 74 ] has included post-experimental measures of cognitive interference to assess the activation of distracting thoughts under stereotype threat. However, the content of these measures are predetermined by the experimenter and do not allow participants to report spontaneously on their experiences under stereotype threat. Overcoming these issues, Cadinu and colleagues [ 96 ] asked women to list their current thoughts whilst taking a difficult math test under conditions of stereotype threat. Results revealed that female participants underperformed when they perceived a mathematical test to be diagnostic of gender differences. Moreover, participants in the stereotype threat condition listed more negative thoughts relative to those in the control condition, with intrusive thoughts mediating the relationship between stereotype threat and poor math performance. It seems therefore that negative performance-related thoughts may consume working memory resources to impede performance.

Cognitive appraisal

Other research suggests that individuals may engage in coping strategies to offset the performance implications of a negative stereotype. One indicator of coping is cognitive appraisal, whereby individuals evaluate the significance of a situation as well as their ability to control it [ 97 ]. Here, individuals may exert more effort on a task when the situational presents as a challenge, but may disengage from the task if they evaluate the situation as a threat [ 98 , 99 ]. Taking this into consideration, Berjot, Roland-Levy and Girault-Lidvan [ 100 ] proposed that targeted members might be more likely to perceive a negative stereotype as a threat to their group identity rather than as a challenge to disprove it. They found that North African secondary school students underperformed on a visuospatial task when they perceived French students to possess superior perceptual-motor skills. Contrary to predictions, threat appraisal did not mediate the relation between stereotype threat and performance. Rather, perceiving the situation as a challenge significantly mediated the stereotype threat-performance relationship. Specifically, participants who appraised stereotype threat as a challenge performed better than those who did not. These results therefore suggest that individuals may strive to confront, rather than avoid, intellectual challenges and modify the stereotype held by members of a relevant out-group in a favorable direction [ 101 ].

Implicit stereotype endorsement

Situational cues that present as a threat may increase the activation of automatic associations between a stereotyped concept (i.e., female), negative attributes (i.e., bad), and the performance domain (i.e., math; [ 102 ]). Implicit measures may be able to detect recently formed automatic associations between concepts and stereotypical attributes that are not yet available to explicitly self-report [ 103 ]. In a study of 240 six-year old children, Galdi et al. [ 103 ] examined whether implicit stereotype threat endorsement accounted for the effects of stereotype threat on girls’ mathematical performance. Consistent with the notion that automatic associations can precede conscious beliefs, results indicated that girls acquire implicit math-gender stereotypes before they emerge at an explicit level. Specifically, girls showed stereotype-consistent automatic associations between the terms ‘boy-mathematics’ and ‘girl-language’, which mediated stereotype threat effects.

Motivational Mechanisms

Most of the initial work on the underlying mechanisms of stereotype threat has focused on affective and cognitive processes. More recently, research has begun to examine whether individuals may be motivated to disconfirm a negative stereotype, with this having a paradoxical effect of harming performance [ 104 , 105 , 106 ]. To this end, research has elucidated the potential role of effort, self-handicapping, dejection, vigilance, and achievement goals.

Effort/motivation

Underpinned by the “mere effort model” [ 104 ], Jamieson and Harkins [ 105 ] examined whether motivation plays a proximal role in the effect of stereotype threat on women’s math performance. Here they predicted that stereotype threat would lead participants to use a conventional problem solving approach (i.e., use known equations to compute an answer), which would facilitate performance on ‘solve’ problems, but hamper performance on ‘comparison’ problems. Results supported this hypothesis, indicating that stereotype threat debilitated performance on comparison problems as participants employed the dominant, but incorrect, solution approach. Furthermore, this incorrect solving approach mediated the effect of stereotype threat on comparison problem performance. This suggests that stereotype threat motivates participants to perform well, which increases activation of a dominant response to the task. However, as this dominant approach does not always guarantee success, the work indicates that different problem solving strategies may determine whether a person underperforms on a given task [ 105 , 107 ].

Stereotype threat may have differential effects on effort dependent on the prime utilized [ 27 ]. For example, Skorich et al. [ 27 ] examined whether effort mediated the effects of implicit and explicit stereotypes on provisional drivers’ performance on a hazard perception test. Participants in the implicit prime condition ticked their driving status (provisional, licensed) on a questionnaire, whereas participants in the explicit prime condition were provided with stereotypes relating to the driving ability of provisional licensees. Results revealed that participants detected more hazards when they were primed with an explicit stereotype relative to an implicit stereotype. Mediational analyses showed that whilst increased effort mediated the effects of an implicit stereotype on performance, decreased effort mediated the effects of an explicit stereotype prime. Research also indicates that reduced effort mediates the effects of an explicit stereotype on older adults’ memory recall [ 18 ]. Taken together, these results suggest that implicit stereotype primes may lead to increased effort as participants aim to disprove the stereotype, whereas explicit stereotype threat primes may lead to decreased effort as participants self-handicap [ 27 ]. Nevertheless, other studies utilizing self-reported measures of effort have resulted in non-significant findings (Experiment 1 & 2 [ 14 ]; Experiment 4 [ 44 ]; Experiment 2 [ 77 ]; Experiment 2, 4 & 5, [ 108 ]).

Self-handicapping

Individuals may engage in self-handicapping strategies to proactively reduce the applicability of a negative stereotype to their performance. Here, people attempt to influence attributions for performance by erecting barriers to their success. Investigating this notion, Stone [ 15 ] examined whether self-handicapping mediated the effects of stereotype threat on white athletes’ sporting performance. Self-handicapping was measured by the total amount of stereotype-relevant words completed on a word-fragment task. Results indicated that white athletes practiced less when they perceived their ability on a golf-putting task to be diagnostic of personal ability, thereby confirming a negative stereotype relating to ‘poor white athleticism’. Moreover, these athletes were more likely to complete the term ‘awkward’ on a word fragment completion test compared to the control condition. Mediation analyses revealed that the greater accessibility of the term ‘awkward’ partially mediated the effects of stereotype threat on psychological disengagement and performance. The authors suggest that stereotype threat increased the accessibility of thoughts related to poor athleticism to inhibit athletes' practice efforts. However, a limitation of this research is that analyses were based on single-item measures (i.e., the completion of the word ‘awkward’) rather than total of completed words on the word-fragment test.

Keller [ 109 ] also tested the hypothesis that the salience of a negative stereotype is related to self-handicapping tendencies. Results showed that women who were primed with a group-as-target stereotype underperformed on a mathematical test relative to their control group counterparts. Furthermore, they expressed stronger tendencies to search for external explanations for their weak performance with this mediating the effects of stereotype threat on performance. Despite these preliminary findings, Keller and Dauenheimer [ 44 ] were unable to provide support for the notion that self-reported self-handicapping is a significant intermediary between stereotype threat and women’s mathematical underperformance.

Research on performance expectations suggests that stereotype threat effects may be mediated by goals set by the participants. Extending this work, Keller and Dauenheimer [ 44 ] hypothesized that female participants may make more errors on a mathematical test due to an overly motivated approach strategy. Results indicated that women underperformed when a math test was framed as diagnostic of gender differences (a group-as-target threat). Furthermore, their experiences of dejection were found to mediate the relation between stereotype threat and performance. The authors suggest that individuals may be motivated to disconfirm the negative stereotype and thus engage in a promotion focus of self-regulation. However, feelings of failure may elicit an emotional response that resultantly determines underperformance.

In contrast to Keller and Dauenheimer [ 44 ], Seibt and Förster (Experiment 5; [ 108 ]) proposed that under stereotype threat, targeted individuals engage in avoidance and vigilance strategies. They predicted that positive stereotypes should induce a promotion focus, leading to explorative and creative processing, whereas negative stereotypes should induce a prevention focus state of vigilance, with participants avoiding errors. Across five experiments, male and female participants were primed with a group-as-target stereotype suggesting that women have better verbal abilities than men. However, rather than showing a stereotype threat effect, results indicated a speed-accuracy trade off with male participants completing an analytical task slower but more accurately than their counterparts in a non-threat control condition. Furthermore, this prevention focus of vigilance was found to partially mediate the effects of stereotype threat on men’s analytical abilities (Experiment 5). The authors conclude that the salience of a negative group stereotype elicits a vigilant, risk-averse processing style that diminishes creativity and speed while bolstering analytic thinking and accuracy.

Achievement goals

Achievement goals theory [ 110 ] posits that participants will evaluate their role in a particular achievement context and endorse either performance-focused or performance-avoidance goals. In situations where the chances of success are low, individuals engage in performance-avoidance goals, corresponding to a desire to avoid confirming a negative stereotype. Accordingly, Chalabaev et al. [ 111 ] examined whether performance avoidance goals mediated the effects of stereotype threat on women’s sporting performance. Here, the impact of two self-as-target stereotypes (i.e., poor athletic and soccer ability) on performance were assessed relative to a control condition. Results indicated that women in the athletic ability condition performed more poorly on a dribbling task, but not in the soccer ability condition. Furthermore, although these participants endorsed a performance-avoidance goal, this did not mediate the relationship between stereotype threat and soccer performance.

Highlighting the possible interplay between affective, cognitive and motivation mechanisms, Brodish and Devine [ 112 ] proffered a multi-mediator model, proposing that anxiety and performance-avoidance goals may mediate the effects of group-as-target stereotype threat on women’s mathematical performance. Achievement goals were measured by whether participants endorsed performance-avoidant (the desire to avoid performing poorly) or approach goals (trying to outperform others). Results indicated that women under stereotype threat solved fewer mathematical problems relative to those in a control condition. Mediation analyses revealed that performance avoidance goals and anxiety sequentially mediated women’s mathematical performance. That is, stereotype threatened women were motivated to avoid failure, which in turn heightened anxiety and influenced underperformance. Table 2 summarizes the articles reviewed and details their key findings and respective methodologies. See S2 Table for overview of significant mediational findings.

The current review evaluated empirical support for the mediators of stereotype threat. Capitalizing on the multi-threat framework [ 31 ], we distinguished between self-relevant and group-relevant stereotype threats to examine the extent to which these are mediated by qualitatively distinct mechanisms and imperil diverse stigmatized populations. On the whole, the results of the current review indicate that experiences of stereotype threat may increase individuals’ feelings of anxiety, negative thinking and mind-wandering which deplete the working memory resources required for successful task execution. Research documents further that individuals may be motivated to disconfirm the negative stereotype and engage in efforts to suppress stereotypical thoughts that are inconsistent with task goals. However, many of the mediators tested have resulted in varying degrees of empirical support. Below we suggest that stereotype threat may operate in distinct ways dependent on the population under study, the primes utilized, and the instruments used to measure mediation and performance.

Previous research has largely conceptualized stereotype threat as a singular construct, experienced similarly by individuals and groups across situations [ 31 , 55 ]. Consequently, research has overlooked the possibility of multiple forms of stereotype threats that may be implicated through concerns to an individual’s personal or social identity [ 31 ]. This is highlighted in the present review, as the majority of stereotype threat studies employed a group-as-target prime. Here stereotype threat is typically instantiated to highlight that stereotype-consistent performance may confirm, or reinforce, a negative societal stereotype as being a true representation of one’s social group [ 48 ]. This has led to a relative neglect of situations in which individuals may anticipate that their performance may be indicative of personal ability [ 31 , 55 ].

Similar processes such as arousal, deficits in working memory, and motivation may be triggered by self-as-target and group-as-target stereotype threats. However, it is important to note that the experiences of these stereotype threats may be fundamentally distinct [ 31 ]. That is, deficits in working memory under self-as-target stereotype threat may be evoked by negative thoughts relating to the self (i.e., ruining one’s opportunities, letting oneself down). Conversely, group-based intrusive thoughts may mediate the effects of group-as-target threat on performance as individuals view their performance in line with their social group (i.e., confirming a societal stereotype, letting the group down) [ 31 ]. Moreover, research suggests that when a group-based stereotype threat is primed, individuals dissociate their sense of self from the negatively stereotyped domain [ 78 ]. Yet, this may be more unlikely when an individual experiences self-as-target stereotype threat as their personal ability is explicitly tied to a negative stereotype that governs their ingroup. As such, the activation of a group-based stereotype may set in motion mechanisms that reflect a protective orientation of self-regulation, whereas self-relevant knowledge may heighten self-consciousness. To date, however, research has not explicitly distinguished between self-as-target and group-as-target stereotype threat in the elucidation of mediating variables. Future research would therefore benefit from a systematic investigation of how different stereotype threats may hamper performance in qualitatively distinguishable ways. One way to investigate the hypotheses set out here would be to allow participants to spontaneously report their experiences under self-as-target and group-as-target stereotype threat, and to examine differences in the content of participants’ thoughts as a function of these different primes.

In a similar vein, different mechanisms may mediate the effects of blatant and subtle stereotype threat effects on performance [ 27 , 58 , 111 ]. Blatant threat manipulations explicitly inform participants of a negative stereotype related to performance (e.g., [ 3 , 11 ]), whereas placing stigmatized group members in a situation in which they have minority status may evoke more subtle stereotype threat [ 78 , 82 ]. Providing evidence consistent with this notion, Sekaquaptewa and Thompson [ 82 ] found that performance expectancies partially mediated the effects of solo status, but not stereotype threat on performance. These results suggest that women may make comparative judgments about their expected performance when they are required to undertake an exam in the presence of out-group members, yet may not consciously recognize how a negative stereotype can directly impair performance. Further research suggests that working memory may mediate the effects of subtle stereotype threat cues on performance as individuals attend to situational cues that heighten the salience of a discredited identity [ 88 , 94 ]. Alternatively, motivation may mediate the effects of blatant stereotype threat as individuals strive to disprove the negative stereotype [ 27 , 44 , 58 , 108 ]. Although stereotype threat effects appear to be robust [ 30 ], it is plausible that these distinct manipulations diverge in the nature, the focus, and the intensity of threat they produce and may therefore be mediated by different mechanisms [ 31 ].

It is also conceivable that different groups are more susceptible to certain types of stereotype threat [ 13 , 31 , 56 ]. For example, research indicates that women’s performance on a social cognition task was influenced to a greater extent by implicit gender-related stereotypes, whereas men were more vulnerable to explicit stereotype threat [ 13 ]. Further research suggests that populations who tend to have low group identification (e.g., those with a mental illness or obesity) are more susceptible to self-as-target threats. Conversely, populations with high group identification, such as individuals of a certain ethnicity, gender or religion are more likely to experience group-as-target threats [ 56 ]. Whilst this highlights the role of moderating variables that heighten individuals’ susceptibility to stereotype threat, it also suggests that individuals may experience stereotype threat in different ways, dependent on their stigmatized identity. This may explain why some variables (e.g., anxiety, self-handicapping) that have been found to mediate the effects of stereotype threat on some groups have not emerged in other populations.

Finally, it is conceivable that diverse mediators account for the effects of stereotype threat on different performance outcomes. For example, although working memory is implicated in tasks that typically require controlled processing, it is not required for tasks that rely more on automatic processes [ 24 , 58 , 93 ]. In line with this notion, Beilock et al. [ 24 ] found that experts’ golf putting skills were harmed under stereotype threat when attention was allocated to automatic processes that operate usually outside of working memory. This suggests that well-learned skills may be hampered by attempts to bring performance back under step-by-step control. Conversely, skills such as difficult math problem solving appear to involve heavy processing demands and may be harmed when working memory is consumed by a negative stereotype. As such, distinct mechanisms may underpin different threat-related performance outcomes.

Limitations of Stereotype Threat Research

We now outline methodological issues in current stereotype threat literature with a view to inform the design of future research. First, researchers have predominantly utilized self-report measures in their efforts to uncover the mediating variables of stereotype threat. However, it has long been argued that individuals have limited access to higher order mental processes [ 113 , 114 ], such as those involved in the evaluation and initiation of behavior [ 115 , 116 ]. Resultantly, participants under stereotype threat may be unable to observe and explicitly report the operations of their own mind [ 29 , 114 , 117 , 118 , 119 ]. Consistent with this assertion, Bosson et al. [ 29 ] found that although stereotype threat heightened individuals’ physiological anxiety, the same individuals did not report an awareness of increased anxiety on self-report measures. Participants may thus be mindful of the impression they make on others and engage in self-presentational behaviors in an effort to appear invulnerable to negative stereotypes [ 29 ]. This is supported by research suggesting that stereotype threatened participants tend not to explicitly endorse stereotypes [ 29 , 37 , 83 , 84 ] and are more likely to claim impediments to justify poor performance [ 3 , 14 , 109 ]. Moreover, it is possible that stereotype threat processes are non-conscious [ 119 ] with research indicating that implicit–but not explicit–stereotype endorsement mediates stereotype threat effects [ 103 ]. This suggests that non-conscious processing of stereotype-relevant information may influence the decrements observed in individuals’ performance under stereotype threat. Furthermore, this research underscores the greater sensitivity of indirect measures for examining the mediators of stereotype threat. From this perspective, future research may benefit from the use of physiological measures, such as heart rate, cortisol and skin conductance to examine anxiety (c.f., [ 94 , 120 , 121 ]), the IAT to measure implicit stereotype endorsement [ 103 ] and the sustained response to attention task to measure mind-wandering [ 74 ].

In the investigation of stereotype threat, self-report measures may be particularly susceptible to order effects. For example, Brodish and Devine [ 112 ] found that women reported higher levels of anxiety when they completed a questionnaire before a mathematical test compared to afterwards. This suggests that pre-test anxiety ratings may have reflected participants’ uneasiness towards the upcoming evaluative test, with this apprehension diminishing once the test was completed. Research by Logel and colleagues [ 95 ] provides support for this notion, indicating that women who completed a lexical decision task after a math test were quicker to respond to stereotype-relevant words compared to women who subsequently completed the task. These results exhibit the variability in individuals’ emotions under stereotype threat and suggest that they may be unable to retrospectively report on their feelings once the threat has passed. This emphasizes the importance of counterbalancing test instruments in the investigation of stereotype threat, purporting that the order in which test materials are administered may influence mediational findings.

This review highlights that, in some studies, individuals assigned to a control condition may have also experienced stereotype threat, thus potentially preventing reliable evidence of mediation. For instance, Chalabaev et al. [ 111 ] primed stereotype threat by presenting a soccer ability test as a diagnostic indicator of personal factors related to athletic ability. Nevertheless, participants in the control condition received information that the aim of the test was to examine psychological factors in athletic ability. Consequently, these participants may have also been apprehensive about their performance being evaluated, and this may have precluded evidence that achievement goals mediate the stereotype threat-performance relationship. Furthermore, research has manipulated the salience of stereotype threat by stating that gender differences in math performance are equal [ 82 ]. However, other research has utilized this prime within control conditions (e.g., [ 94 , 105 , 119 ]), underpinned by the rationale that describing a test as ‘fair’ or non-diagnostic of ability eliminates stereotype threat [ 122 ]. It is therefore possible that, in some instances, researchers have inadvertently induced stereotype threat. This outlines the importance of employing a control condition in which individuals are not made aware of any negative stereotypes, and are told that the test is non-diagnostic of ability, in order to detect possible mediators.

Two decades of research have demonstrated the harmful effects that stereotype threat can exert on a wide range of populations in a broad array of performance domains. However, findings with regards to the mediators that underpin these effects are equivocal. This may be a consequence of the heterogeneity of primes used to instantiate stereotype threat and the methods used to measure mediation and performance. To this end, future work is likely to benefit from the following directions: First, account for the existence of multiple stereotype threats; Second, recognize that the experiences of stereotype threat may differ between stigmatized groups, and that no one mediator may provide generalized empirical support across diverse populations; Third, utilize indirect measures, in addition to self-report measures, to examine reliably mediating variables and to examine further the convergence of these two methods; Fourth, counterbalance test instruments to control for order effects; and finally, ensure that participants in a control condition do not inadvertently encounter stereotype threat by stating explicitly that the task is non-diagnostic of ability.

Supporting Information

S1 supporting information, funding statement.

The authors acknowledge support toward open access publishing by the Graduate School and the Department of Psychology at Edge Hill University. The funders had no role in the systematic review, data collection or analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Data Availability

Why is Christian Science in our name?

Our name is about honesty. The Monitor is owned by The Christian Science Church, and we’ve always been transparent about that.

The Church publishes the Monitor because it sees good journalism as vital to progress in the world. Since 1908, we’ve aimed “to injure no man, but to bless all mankind,” as our founder, Mary Baker Eddy, put it.

Here, you’ll find award-winning journalism not driven by commercial influences – a news organization that takes seriously its mission to uplift the world by seeking solutions and finding reasons for credible hope.

Your subscription makes our work possible.

We want to bridge divides to reach everyone.

Deepen your worldview with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads .

Age tech is exploding. The ‘modern grandma’ market wants more than health aids.

• Deep Read ( 4 Min. )
• By Kristen Senz Contributor

August 15, 2024 | Bloomington, Ind.

Nearing 80, artist Patricia Cole defies the stereotype of technology-averse older people. She uses digital devices daily to shop, stream music, and post Instagram reels she makes to market her paintings and comment on world affairs.

“I wouldn’t say I’m really good with tech, but I can figure a lot of things out,” says Ms. Cole, a former city councilor here in Bloomington.  

Why We Wrote This

The number of baby boomers hitting age 65 peaks this year, creating an exploding market for “age tech” innovation that serves their digital needs.

Roughly 62 million Americans are age 65 or older, accounting for nearly 20% of the population. Many of them regularly engage, stream, and shop online, and tech companies and investors are taking notice. Tech spending by Americans ages 50-plus is projected to quadruple by 2050, according to AARP.  

“Age tech,” or gerontechnology – digital products and platforms that aim to meet the specific needs of older people – is growing beyond health- and care-related devices to include household gadgets and lifestyle items geared toward social connection, gaming, fitness, relationship-building, and home-sharing.

Describing the savvy and spending power of the older generation at a recent Aging 2.0 startup pitch competition in Nashville, gerontologist and marketer Amy LaGrant said: “These are people who ran the world before they became a ‘senior.’”   

For many older people, the feeling of being recognized or “seen” can seem like a luxury reserved for the young, especially when it comes to technology products, which are almost always designed and marketed for adults younger than 60 years old.  

But that’s changing. Older consumers are drawing attention as a distinct and fast-growing tech target market. Despite persistent stereotypes about being tech-averse, they regularly engage, stream, and shop online, often using multiple devices.

Patricia Cole , a 79-year-old Bloomington, Indiana, artist, uses her iPhone and iPad daily to engage on multiple social media platforms, shop, and stream music through her headphones while she paints.

“I often make little videos – they call them reels – for Instagram around my studio, looking at paintings and talking about them,” says Ms. Cole, a former longtime city councilor here. “I wouldn’t say I’m really good with tech, but I can figure a lot of things out.”

Older tech users like Ms. Cole, living, working, and playing longer than previous generations, have unique consumer needs and the means to acquire new apps and devices to make their lives more fun and fulfilling.  

The market for “age tech,” or gerontechnology – digital products and platforms that aim to meet the specific needs of older people – has exploded in recent years, with many companies in the space focused on health- and care-related devices. Now, recognizing the spending power of users like Ms. Cole, investors are increasingly backing startups with household gadgets and lifestyle items geared toward social connection, gaming, fitness, education, relationship-building, and home-sharing.

The shifting internet user base

“Demographic changes are among the most significant changes to technology, because they represent changes to the internet user base,” says founder-turned-investor Monique Woodard. Her venture capital firm, Cake Ventures, funds startups that leverage demographic shifts, including the rapid growth of the older population.

There are about 62 million people ages 65 or older in the United States – close to 20% of the population. It is the  wealthiest age  group and accounted for 22% of spending in 2022, up from 15% in 2010, according to the U.S. Labor Department’s consumer expenditures survey.  Technology spending by people older than 50 is expected to grow to $623 billion per year by 2050, according to recent research by AARP.

Another recent AARP study reveals a new reality about older people and tech: Americans over 50 own smartphones at roughly the rate consumers ages 18 to 49 do. Even among those ages 70-plus, 61% say they “have the digital skills necessary to fully take advantage of being online.” Video gaming is also widespread among older adults; most play logic, puzzle, or card games on their smartphones, but more are purchasing gaming consoles in recent years.

Older people are generally more skeptical of artificial intelligence and more concerned about data privacy, and they might need higher contrast or larger text on websites, but many regularly download and use digital apps and platforms much as younger generations do.

Debunking ageist stereotypes.

The age 65-plus population skews female, and many in this demographic are fitness-conscious, tech-savvy women who enjoy traveling and spending time with friends and loved ones. As their numbers swell, they’re bringing to life a new vision of old age, garnering such online descriptors as “modern grandma” and “glam-ma.”

Investors are taking notice, says Ms. Woodard, whose relatively early interest in age tech began in 2016: “I’ve seen it completely change and evolve over the last several years. Now, there are a number of individual investors, as well as firms, who are very interested in the aging space. They think of this as a good strategy, and downstream capital is more available.”

Similarly, Mary Furlong, a longevity economy expert working at the intersection of aging, health, and technology, saw age tech's potential as far back as 1996, when she founded the nonprofit SeniorNet .

“The longevity market today is where the internet was 30 years ago,” she says. “Many companies didn’t have an internet strategy 30 years ago because they were just learning how the digital world was going to change business and change culture.”

Although age tech companies have awoken to the opportunities within the demographic changes, they have not yet established best practices for involving older adults in product design. As a result, most older gamers “feel like an afterthought to the gaming industry,” AARP researchers wrote. 

Company founders, like Eben Pingree of Boston-based Kinsome, an AI-powered app that facilitates engagement between grandparents and grandchildren, find it difficult to connect at scale for product research with older adults who live independently. Early on, Kinsome relied mainly on input from residents of living facilities for older people. Now, it gets feedback from beta users in the company's target market.  

“Part of the problem is that there isn’t enough segmenting of those groups and talking about them more specifically,” Mr. Pingree says.

Reaching this fragmented market is often a challenge of whether to aim directly at older consumers, their adult children, or organizations and governments, says Ms. Furlong. At the same time, companies relying on ageist cliches and stereotypes in their ads experience  backlash . Ms. Furlong advises her clients to develop strong business-to-business strategies in which nonprofits, governments, and other businesses help get products into consumer hands.

Gerontologist and marketer Amy LaGrant believes “the experienced consumer,” a term she coined for the multigenerational, multifaceted user group, deserves sophisticated, tailored messaging.

“I’m not necessarily saying that young people are dumb, but I am saying that experience and wisdom come with age,” she recently told an audience at an Aging 2.0 startup pitch competition in Nashville. “These are people who ran the world before they became a ‘senior.’”   

Many experienced entrepreneurs, surprised by the dearth of tech useful to their aging parents, have found themselves involved in age tech. Their products are making it easier for older people to tell their life stories, stay connected socially, monitor and manage health, continue learning, and live more independently.

Ms. Furlong, a well-known figure in the age tech space, is optimistic that changing attitudes and perceptions of aging will ultimately improve the quality and diversity of digital solutions coming onto the market for older users. “What I find the most exciting,” Ms. Furlong says, “is the orchestra of talent developing the next set of solutions. I’ve never seen as many smart people coming into this space.”

This article was written with the support of a journalism fellowship from the Gerontological Society of America, the Journalists Network on Generations, and The Commonwealth Fund.   

Help fund Monitor journalism for $11/ month

Already a subscriber? Login

Monitor journalism changes lives because we open that too-small box that most people think they live in. We believe news can and should expand a sense of identity and possibility beyond narrow conventional expectations.

Our work isn't possible without your support.

Unlimited digital access $11/month.

Digital subscription includes:

• Unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.
• CSMonitor.com archive.
• The Monitor Daily email.
• No advertising.
• Cancel anytime.

Related stories

Letter from tampa: aging gets a makeover at this gerontology summit, the explainer is the ‘king of search’ too dominant inside us lawsuit against google., europe aligns with us big tech probe, targets apple, alphabet, and meta, share this article.

Link copied.

Give us your feedback

We want to hear, did we miss an angle we should have covered? Should we come back to this topic? Or just give us a rating for this story. We want to hear from you.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

Subscription expired

Your subscription to The Christian Science Monitor has expired. You can renew your subscription or continue to use the site without a subscription.

Return to the free version of the site

If you have questions about your account, please contact customer service or call us at 1-617-450-2300 .

This message will appear once per week unless you renew or log out.

Session expired

Your session to The Christian Science Monitor has expired. We logged you out.

No subscription

You don’t have a Christian Science Monitor subscription yet.

Suggestions or feedback?

MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

• Machine learning
• Sustainability
• Black holes
• Classes and programs

Departments

• Aeronautics and Astronautics
• Brain and Cognitive Sciences
• Architecture
• Political Science
• Mechanical Engineering

Centers, Labs, & Programs

• Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL)
• Picower Institute for Learning and Memory
• Lincoln Laboratory
• School of Architecture + Planning
• School of Engineering
• School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
• Sloan School of Management
• School of Science
• MIT Schwarzman College of Computing

Study reveals ways in which 40Hz sensory stimulation may preserve brain’s “white matter”

Press contact :.

Previous image Next image

Early-stage trials in Alzheimer’s disease patients and studies in mouse models of the disease have suggested positive impacts on pathology and symptoms from exposure to light and sound presented at the “gamma” band frequency of 40 hertz (Hz). A new study zeroes in on how 40Hz sensory stimulation helps to sustain an essential process in which the signal-sending branches of neurons, called axons, are wrapped in a fatty insulation called myelin. Often called the brain’s “white matter,” myelin protects axons and insures better electrical signal transmission in brain circuits.

“Previous publications from our lab have mainly focused on neuronal protection,” says Li-Huei Tsai , Picower Professor in The Picower Institute for Learning and Memory and the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT and senior author of the new open-access study in Nature Communications . Tsai also leads MIT’s Aging Brain Initiative. “But this study shows that it’s not just the gray matter, but also the white matter that’s protected by this method.”

This year Cognito Therapeutics, the spinoff company that licensed MIT’s sensory stimulation technology, published phase II human trial results in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease indicating that 40Hz light and sound stimulation significantly slowed the loss of myelin in volunteers with Alzheimer’s. Also this year, Tsai’s lab published a study showing that gamma sensory stimulation helped mice withstand neurological effects of chemotherapy medicines, including by preserving myelin. In the new study, members of Tsai’s lab led by former postdoc Daniela Rodrigues Amorim used a common mouse model of myelin loss — a diet with the chemical cuprizone — to explore how sensory stimulation preserves myelination.

Amorim and Tsai’s team found that 40Hz light and sound not only preserved myelination in the brains of cuprizone-exposed mice, it also appeared to protect oligodendrocytes (the cells that myelinate neural axons), sustain the electrical performance of neurons, and preserve a key marker of axon structural integrity. When the team looked into the molecular underpinnings of these benefits, they found clear signs of specific mechanisms including preservation of neural circuit connections called synapses; a reduction in a cause of oligodendrocyte death called “ferroptosis;” reduced inflammation; and an increase in the ability of microglia brain cells to clean up myelin damage so that new myelin could be restored.

“Gamma stimulation promotes a healthy environment,” says Amorim, who is now a Marie Curie Fellow at the University of Galway in Ireland. “There are several ways we are seeing different effects.”

The findings suggest that gamma sensory stimulation may help not only Alzheimer’s disease patients but also people battling other diseases involving myelin loss, such as multiple sclerosis, the authors wrote in the study.

Maintaining myelin

To conduct the study, Tsai and Amorim’s team fed some male mice a diet with cuprizone and gave other male mice a normal diet for six weeks. Halfway into that period, when cuprizone is known to begin causing its most acute effects on myelination, they exposed some mice from each group to gamma sensory stimulation for the remaining three weeks. In this way they had four groups: completely unaffected mice, mice that received no cuprizone but did get gamma stimulation, mice that received cuprizone and constant (but not 40Hz) light and sound as a control, and mice that received cuprizone and also gamma stimulation.

After the six weeks elapsed, the scientists measured signs of myelination throughout the brains of the mice in each group. Mice that weren’t fed cuprizone maintained healthy levels, as expected. Mice that were fed cuprizone and didn’t receive 40Hz gamma sensory stimulation showed drastic levels of myelin loss. Cuprizone-fed mice that received 40Hz stimulation retained significantly more myelin, rivaling the health of mice never fed cuprizone by some, but not all, measures.

The researchers also looked at numbers of oligodendrocytes to see if they survived better with sensory stimulation. Several measures revealed that in mice fed cuprizone, oligodendrocytes in the corpus callosum region of the brain (a key point for the transit of neural signals because it connects the brain’s hemispheres) were markedly reduced. But in mice fed cuprizone and also treated with gamma stimulation, the number of cells were much closer to healthy levels.

Electrophysiological tests among neural axons in the corpus callosum showed that gamma sensory stimulation was associated with improved electrical performance in cuprizone-fed mice who received gamma stimulation compared to cuprizone-fed mice left untreated by 40Hz stimulation. And when researchers looked in the anterior cingulate cortex region of the brain, they saw that MAP2, a protein that signals the structural integrity of axons, was much better preserved in mice that received cuprizone and gamma stimulation compared to cuprizone-fed mice who did not.

A key goal of the study was to identify possible ways in which 40Hz sensory stimulation may protect myelin.

To find out, the researchers conducted a sweeping assessment of protein expression in each mouse group and identified which proteins were differentially expressed based on cuprizone diet and exposure to gamma frequency stimulation. The analysis revealed distinct sets of effects between the cuprizone mice exposed to control stimulation and cuprizone-plus-gamma mice.

A highlight of one set of effects was the increase in MAP2 in gamma-treated cuprizone-fed mice. A highlight of another set was that cuprizone mice who received control stimulation showed a substantial deficit in expression of proteins associated with synapses. The gamma-treated cuprizone-fed mice did not show any significant loss, mirroring results in a 2019 Alzheimer’s 40Hz study that showed synaptic preservation. This result is important, the researchers wrote, because neural circuit activity, which depends on maintaining synapses, is associated with preserving myelin. They confirmed the protein expression results by looking directly at brain tissues.

Another set of protein expression results hinted at another important mechanism: ferroptosis. This phenomenon, in which errant metabolism of iron leads to a lethal buildup of reactive oxygen species in cells, is a known problem for oligodendrocytes in the cuprizone mouse model. Among the signs was an increase in cuprizone-fed, control stimulation mice in expression of the protein HMGB1, which is a marker of ferroptosis-associated damage that triggers an inflammatory response. Gamma stimulation, however, reduced levels of HMGB1.

Looking more deeply at the cellular and molecular response to cuprizone demyelination and the effects of gamma stimulation, the team assessed gene expression using single-cell RNA sequencing technology. They found that astrocytes and microglia became very inflammatory in cuprizone-control mice but gamma stimulation calmed that response. Fewer cells became inflammatory and direct observations of tissue showed that microglia became more proficient at clearing away myelin debris, a key step in effecting repairs.

The team also learned more about how oligodendrocytes in cuprizone-fed mice exposed to 40Hz sensory stimulation managed to survive better. Expression of protective proteins such as HSP70 increased and as did expression of GPX4, a master regulator of processes that constrain ferroptosis.

In addition to Amorim and Tsai, the paper’s other authors are Lorenzo Bozzelli, TaeHyun Kim, Liwang Liu, Oliver Gibson, Cheng-Yi Yang, Mitch Murdock, Fabiola Galiana-Meléndez, Brooke Schatz, Alexis Davison, Md Rezaul Islam, Dong Shin Park, Ravikiran M. Raju, Fatema Abdurrob, Alissa J. Nelson, Jian Min Ren, Vicky Yang and Matthew P. Stokes.

Fundacion Bancaria la Caixa, The JPB Foundation, The Picower Institute for Learning and Memory, the Carol and Gene Ludwig Family Foundation, Lester A. Gimpelson, Eduardo Eurnekian, The Dolby Family, Kathy and Miguel Octavio, the Marc Haas Foundation, Ben Lenail and Laurie Yoler, and the U.S. National Institutes of Health provided funding for the study.

Share this news article on:

Related links.

• Li-Huei Tsai
• The Picower Institute for Learning and Memory
• Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences

Related Topics

• Alzheimer's
• Brain and cognitive sciences
• Neuroscience
• Picower Institute

Related Articles

A noninvasive treatment for “chemo brain”

How sensory gamma rhythm stimulation clears amyloid in Alzheimer’s mice

Evidence that gamma rhythm stimulation can treat neurological disorders is emerging

40 Hz vibrations reduce Alzheimer’s pathology, symptoms in mouse models

Small studies of 40-hertz sensory stimulation confirm safety, suggest Alzheimer’s benefits

Previous item Next item

More MIT News

Lincoln Laboratory and National Strategic Research Institute launch student research program to tackle biothreats to national security

Read full story →

Christine Ortiz named director of MIT Technology and Policy Program

MIT engineers design tiny batteries for powering cell-sized robots

New open-source tool helps to detangle the brain

LLMs develop their own understanding of reality as their language abilities improve

Building bidirectional bridges

• More news on MIT News homepage →

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, USA

• Map (opens in new window)
• Events (opens in new window)
• People (opens in new window)
• Careers (opens in new window)
• Accessibility
• Social Media Hub
• MIT on Facebook
• MIT on YouTube
• MIT on Instagram

How to cite ChatGPT

Use discount code STYLEBLOG15 for 15% off APA Style print products with free shipping in the United States.

We, the APA Style team, are not robots. We can all pass a CAPTCHA test , and we know our roles in a Turing test . And, like so many nonrobot human beings this year, we’ve spent a fair amount of time reading, learning, and thinking about issues related to large language models, artificial intelligence (AI), AI-generated text, and specifically ChatGPT . We’ve also been gathering opinions and feedback about the use and citation of ChatGPT. Thank you to everyone who has contributed and shared ideas, opinions, research, and feedback.

In this post, I discuss situations where students and researchers use ChatGPT to create text and to facilitate their research, not to write the full text of their paper or manuscript. We know instructors have differing opinions about how or even whether students should use ChatGPT, and we’ll be continuing to collect feedback about instructor and student questions. As always, defer to instructor guidelines when writing student papers. For more about guidelines and policies about student and author use of ChatGPT, see the last section of this post.

Quoting or reproducing the text created by ChatGPT in your paper

If you’ve used ChatGPT or other AI tools in your research, describe how you used the tool in your Method section or in a comparable section of your paper. For literature reviews or other types of essays or response or reaction papers, you might describe how you used the tool in your introduction. In your text, provide the prompt you used and then any portion of the relevant text that was generated in response.

Unfortunately, the results of a ChatGPT “chat” are not retrievable by other readers, and although nonretrievable data or quotations in APA Style papers are usually cited as personal communications , with ChatGPT-generated text there is no person communicating. Quoting ChatGPT’s text from a chat session is therefore more like sharing an algorithm’s output; thus, credit the author of the algorithm with a reference list entry and the corresponding in-text citation.

When prompted with “Is the left brain right brain divide real or a metaphor?” the ChatGPT-generated text indicated that although the two brain hemispheres are somewhat specialized, “the notation that people can be characterized as ‘left-brained’ or ‘right-brained’ is considered to be an oversimplification and a popular myth” (OpenAI, 2023).

OpenAI. (2023). ChatGPT (Mar 14 version) [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com/chat

You may also put the full text of long responses from ChatGPT in an appendix of your paper or in online supplemental materials, so readers have access to the exact text that was generated. It is particularly important to document the exact text created because ChatGPT will generate a unique response in each chat session, even if given the same prompt. If you create appendices or supplemental materials, remember that each should be called out at least once in the body of your APA Style paper.

When given a follow-up prompt of “What is a more accurate representation?” the ChatGPT-generated text indicated that “different brain regions work together to support various cognitive processes” and “the functional specialization of different regions can change in response to experience and environmental factors” (OpenAI, 2023; see Appendix A for the full transcript).

Creating a reference to ChatGPT or other AI models and software

The in-text citations and references above are adapted from the reference template for software in Section 10.10 of the Publication Manual (American Psychological Association, 2020, Chapter 10). Although here we focus on ChatGPT, because these guidelines are based on the software template, they can be adapted to note the use of other large language models (e.g., Bard), algorithms, and similar software.

The reference and in-text citations for ChatGPT are formatted as follows:

• Parenthetical citation: (OpenAI, 2023)
• Narrative citation: OpenAI (2023)

Let’s break that reference down and look at the four elements (author, date, title, and source):

Author: The author of the model is OpenAI.

Date: The date is the year of the version you used. Following the template in Section 10.10, you need to include only the year, not the exact date. The version number provides the specific date information a reader might need.

Title: The name of the model is “ChatGPT,” so that serves as the title and is italicized in your reference, as shown in the template. Although OpenAI labels unique iterations (i.e., ChatGPT-3, ChatGPT-4), they are using “ChatGPT” as the general name of the model, with updates identified with version numbers.

The version number is included after the title in parentheses. The format for the version number in ChatGPT references includes the date because that is how OpenAI is labeling the versions. Different large language models or software might use different version numbering; use the version number in the format the author or publisher provides, which may be a numbering system (e.g., Version 2.0) or other methods.

Bracketed text is used in references for additional descriptions when they are needed to help a reader understand what’s being cited. References for a number of common sources, such as journal articles and books, do not include bracketed descriptions, but things outside of the typical peer-reviewed system often do. In the case of a reference for ChatGPT, provide the descriptor “Large language model” in square brackets. OpenAI describes ChatGPT-4 as a “large multimodal model,” so that description may be provided instead if you are using ChatGPT-4. Later versions and software or models from other companies may need different descriptions, based on how the publishers describe the model. The goal of the bracketed text is to briefly describe the kind of model to your reader.

Source: When the publisher name and the author name are the same, do not repeat the publisher name in the source element of the reference, and move directly to the URL. This is the case for ChatGPT. The URL for ChatGPT is https://chat.openai.com/chat . For other models or products for which you may create a reference, use the URL that links as directly as possible to the source (i.e., the page where you can access the model, not the publisher’s homepage).

Other questions about citing ChatGPT

You may have noticed the confidence with which ChatGPT described the ideas of brain lateralization and how the brain operates, without citing any sources. I asked for a list of sources to support those claims and ChatGPT provided five references—four of which I was able to find online. The fifth does not seem to be a real article; the digital object identifier given for that reference belongs to a different article, and I was not able to find any article with the authors, date, title, and source details that ChatGPT provided. Authors using ChatGPT or similar AI tools for research should consider making this scrutiny of the primary sources a standard process. If the sources are real, accurate, and relevant, it may be better to read those original sources to learn from that research and paraphrase or quote from those articles, as applicable, than to use the model’s interpretation of them.

We’ve also received a number of other questions about ChatGPT. Should students be allowed to use it? What guidelines should instructors create for students using AI? Does using AI-generated text constitute plagiarism? Should authors who use ChatGPT credit ChatGPT or OpenAI in their byline? What are the copyright implications ?

On these questions, researchers, editors, instructors, and others are actively debating and creating parameters and guidelines. Many of you have sent us feedback, and we encourage you to continue to do so in the comments below. We will also study the policies and procedures being established by instructors, publishers, and academic institutions, with a goal of creating guidelines that reflect the many real-world applications of AI-generated text.

For questions about manuscript byline credit, plagiarism, and related ChatGPT and AI topics, the APA Style team is seeking the recommendations of APA Journals editors. APA Style guidelines based on those recommendations will be posted on this blog and on the APA Style site later this year.

Update: APA Journals has published policies on the use of generative AI in scholarly materials .

We, the APA Style team humans, appreciate your patience as we navigate these unique challenges and new ways of thinking about how authors, researchers, and students learn, write, and work with new technologies.

American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1037/0000165-000

Related and recent

Comments are disabled due to your privacy settings. To re-enable, please adjust your cookie preferences.

APA Style Monthly

Subscribe to the APA Style Monthly newsletter to get tips, updates, and resources delivered directly to your inbox.

Welcome! Thank you for subscribing.

APA Style Guidelines

Browse APA Style writing guidelines by category

• Abbreviations
• Bias-Free Language
• Capitalization
• In-Text Citations
• Italics and Quotation Marks
• Paper Format
• Punctuation
• Research and Publication
• Spelling and Hyphenation
• Tables and Figures

Full index of topics