Bulletin Personality and Social Psychology

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin http://psp.sagepub.com/

The Effects of Stereotype Threat and Double-Minority Status on the Test Performance of Latino Women Patricia M. Gonzales, Hart Blanton and Kevin J. Williams Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2002 28: 659 DOI: 10.1177/0146167202288010 The online version of this article can be found at: http://psp.sagepub.com/content/28/5/659

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Society for Personality and Social Psychology

Additional services and information for Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin can be found at: Email Alerts: http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://psp.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://psp.sagepub.com/content/28/5/659.refs.html

>> Version of Record - May 1, 2002 What is This?

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CONNECTICUT on October 17, 2014

PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN Gonzales et al. / DOUBLE MINORITY

The Effects of Stereotype Threat and Double-Minority Status on the Test Performance of Latino Women Patricia M. Gonzales Hart Blanton Kevin J. Williams University at Albany, State University of New York might have on the individual, it should try and determine how different stereotypes combine to alter task performance. It is our argument that multiple group memberships can be linked to produce a double-minority effect on performance. The term double-minority is used to describe the psychological state created when two devalued identities interact to influence the individual in a way that is greater than the sum of the independent effects of those identities. This concept has received research attention in the past. For example, Chung and Katayama (1998) examined ethnic and sexual identity development of adolescents and Wooden, Kawasaki, and Mayeda (1983) have documented the lifestyle choices that contribute to the psychological well-being of gay Japanese American males. Both lines of research cover issues related to identity development and maintenance and each contributes to our understanding of issues relevant only to double-minority populations. However, neither study, nor any study of which we are aware, has examined the effects of double-minority status on performance. Thus, the current study investigates these

This study investigated the interactive influences of diagnosticity instructions, gender, and ethnicity as they related to task performance. In a laboratory experiment of 120 male and female, Latino and White college students, both a gender-based and an ethnicity-based stereotype-threat effect were found to influence performance on a test of mathematical and spatial ability. Closer inspection revealed that the gender effect was qualified by ethnicity, whereas the ethnicity effect was not qualified by gender. This suggests that the ethnicity of Latino women sensitized them to negative stereotypes about their gender, leading to a performance decrement in a context in which stereotype threat was activated. In contrast, it appeared that the gender of Latino women did not sensitize them to negative stereotypes about their ethnicity, because both male and female Latinos evidenced ethnicity-based stereotype threat. These findings have implications for the interplay between multiple group identities as they relate to concern for confirming negative stereotypes.

The past 10 years has seen a dramatic increase in the

research attention on the effects of and reactions to societal devaluation (Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998). A central theme in much of the current efforts is that individuals who are targets of a negative ability stereotype are at risk of doing poorly on tests of ability (e.g., Steele & Aronson, 1995). Although this research has revealed a large number of groups that are affected by negative ability stereotypes, it has yet to give detailed consideration to the manner in which similar stereotypes about different groups can interact to influence the task performance. This is an important issue because individuals often have membership in multiple groups, each of which associates them with negative ability stereotypes. For research to consider the full impact that societal devaluation

Authors’ Note: We would like to thank John Moricone for his assistance collecting the data and Diana Stone for her invaluable guidance and encouragement during the early stages of the project. We thank Diane Quinn for her comments on an earlier draft, and we thank Jim Jaccard for reassuring us throughout the review process that we were not crazy and that the analytic strategy we had developed actually was the appropriate way to test our predictions. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Patricia M. Gonzales or Hart Blanton, Department of Psychology, State University of New York at Albany, Albany, NY 12222; e-mail: [email protected] or hblanton@albany. edu. PSPB, Vol. 28 No. 5, May 2002 659-670 © 2002 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

659


660

PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN

effects in a sample of Latino and White, male and female college students. The purpose of this study is to determine if negative stereotypes about the intellectual ability of Latinos and women interact to influence performance.1 Stereotype Threat According to Steele and colleagues (1992, 1997; Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999; Steele & Aronson, 1995), culturally shared negative stereotypes about a group can create for its members the “risk of confirming, as a self-characterization, the negative stereotype about one’s group” (Steele & Aronson, 1995, p. 797). The fear of confirming negative stereotypes then leads to a performance pressure, which they term “stereotype threat,” and this can ultimately undermine task performance. Performance impairment is thought to occur in contexts in which a negative ability stereotype about one’s group has been activated or in contexts in which one’s membership in a negatively stereotyped group has been made salient. The first published study of the stereotype-threat hypothesis (Steele & Aronson, 1995) used samples of African American college students. They found that minor changes in testing situations produced significant differences in performance on an otherwise identical task. For instance (Study 1), when African American and White college students were given a difficult test of verbal ability presented as a measure of “verbal abilities and limitations” (p. 799), thus diagnostic of intellectual ability, African American students performed significantly worse than Whites, controlling for prior verbal Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores. However, when the identical test was presented as a test of “psychological factors involved in solving verbal problems” (p. 799), thus nondiagnostic of intellectual ability, there were no such differences. More recently, these findings have been extended to a range of negatively stereotyped groups, including Latinos (Aronson & Salinas, 1997), women (Inzlicht & Ben-Zeev, 2000; Spencer et al., 1999), and people low in socioeconomic status (Croizet & Claire, 1998). Multiple Threats Given the pervasiveness of stereotype-threat effects, and the many groups for which one might be negatively stereotyped, it is quite possible that one’s performance in a single ability domain can be linked to one’s membership in a variety of different groups. With this in mind, Shih, Pittinsky, and Ambady (1999) demonstrated that an individual’s performance on a task can be influenced in either a positive or a negative way, depending on the group stereotype that is activated. They found that Asian women performed either better or worse on math tasks, depending on whether their ethnicity or their gender

was made salient. This finding demonstrates that individuals can have multiple identities that are relevant to a single performance, with the more salient of these identities exerting the greatest influence on task performance (see also Stone, Lynch, Sjomeling, & Darley, 1999). These results also hint at a possibility that has not yet been studied. It may be that performance in a particular ability domain can be influenced by multiple group identities simultaneously, if more than one group identity is relevant to the performance. When more than one group identity is associated with a negative performance stereotype, it is possible that performance decrements will occur that are greater than those that would be expected when either of these memberships occurs in isolation. The current study examines this possibility by looking at the combined effects of ethnicity and gender on the performance of Latino women. Based on the combined results of Aronson and Salinas (1997), who demonstrate a stereotype-threat effect for Latinos, and the results of Spencer et al. (1999), who demonstrate a stereotypethreat effect for women, one should predict that Latino women would face an especially high risk of poor performance on a test of intellectual ability. Of importance, however, this prediction can be made without assuming a double-minority effect. Latino women would be at especially high risk of doing poorly if the two stereotypethreat effects simply combine with one another in additive fashion. To determine if a double-minority effect is operating, one must test a more complex patterning of results. To test a double-minority hypothesis, one must determine if a stereotype-threat effect due to membership in one group is augmented by membership in a second group. We predict that double-minority effects will occur. When individuals are stereotyped due to their membership in one group, we expect that this can sensitize them to situations in which they are being stereotyped due to their membership in other groups. As a result, we predict that Latino women will be at greater risk of experiencing stereotype threat due to their gender than White women and that Latino women will be at greater risk of experiencing stereotype threat due to their ethnicity than Latino men. The following section presents the methods and analytic tools needed to test these predictions. Methodological Considerations Activating multiple identities. To test for the interaction between different stereotype-threat effects, it is necessary to identify experimental procedures that can threaten multiple identities. Past work has focused on threats to single identities and these manipulations can be divided into two broad categories: specific and


Gonzales et al. / DOUBLE MINORITY general. Specific manipulations invoke stereotype threat by making explicit reference to a particular devalued group or to a specific group stereotype. Specific manipulations include instructional sets such as the one used by Spencer et al. (1999), in which experimental participants were led to believe that women perform worse than men at math. They also include race primes, such as those used by Steele and Aronson (1995, Study 4). General manipulations invoke stereotype threat without making explicit reference to a particular group or group stereotype. General manipulations include the testdiagnosticity procedure used in Steele and Aronson (1995, Study 1), in which participants were led to believe that the test they were taking was being used to diagnose their true abilities. This categorization scheme suggests that two methods might be adapted to evoke multiple identity threats. First, multiple specific manipulations could be used in conjunction with one another to activate multiple group identities (e.g., one could use both an ethnicity prime and a gender prime immediately prior to the administration of a math test). Alternatively, a general manipulation could be used in such a way that it implicitly activates concerns related to multiple group memberships. For simplicity, the current study uses the second method to potentially activate two stereotype-threat effects using a single manipulation. Specifically, test diagnosticity is used as a manipulation of stereotype threat in the context of performance on a test of mathematical and analytic ability. Statistical considerations. The current study will use a 2 (diagnosticity: diagnostic, nondiagnostic) × 2 (ethnicity: Latino, White) × 2 (gender: male, female) between-individual factorial design to test the effects of a general stereotype-threat manipulation on intellectual performance. With this design, planned comparisons can test for four effects relevant to stereotype-threat and doubleminority effects: (a) a stereotype-threat effect for ethnicity; (b) a stereotype-threat effect for gender; (c) a doubleminority effect, in which ethnicity influences the magnitude of the stereotype-threat effect for gender; and (d) a double-minority effect, in which gender influences the magnitude of the stereotype-threat effect for ethnicity. The first effect, the ethnicity stereotype-threat effect, will be tested by applying a planned contrast to the mean performance level, adjusted for prior ability (as in Aronson & Salinas, 1997; Spencer et al., 1999; Steele & Aronson, 1995). Specifically, it will test if Latinos in the diagnostic conditions perform worse than Latinos in the nondiagnostic conditions, Whites in nondiagnostic conditions, and Whites in the diagnostic conditions. This pattern of results would be consistent with stereotype threat because it would indicate that the diagnosticity instructions harm the performance of Latinos more

661

than Whites, controlling for prior ability (Aronson & Salinas, 1997). The second effect, the gender stereotypethreat effect, also will be tested by applying a planned contrast to the mean performance level, adjusted for prior ability. Specifically, it will test if women in the diagnostic conditions perform worse than women in the nondiagnostic conditions, men in nondiagnostic conditions, and men in the diagnostic conditions. This pattern of results would be consistent with stereotype threat because it would indicate that the diagnosticity instructions harm female performances more than male performances, controlling for prior ability (Spencer et al., 1999). These first two comparisons might appear to test conjointly for a double-minority effect but they do not. To test for a double-minority effect, it is necessary to test for the interactive influences of the two group memberships on performance. When a double-minority effect occurs in the context of stereotype threat, the magnitude of the stereotype-threat effect occurring due to membership in one group will vary as a function of membership in the other group. To illustrate, it may be that Latinos, being the target of negative ethnic stereotypes, will be especially aware of negative stereotypes related to gender. This could then cause them to experience greater gender-based stereotype-threat effects than Whites. Similarly, it may be that women, being the target of negative gender stereotypes, will be especially aware of negative stereotypes related to ethnicity. This could then cause them to experience greater ethnicity-based stereotypethreat effects than men. Thus, there are two independent effects in the current study that would demonstrate a double-minority effect on performance. The first would occur if the sample of Latinos experienced greater gender-based stereotype threat than the sample of Whites. The second would occur if the sample of women experience greater ethnicity-based stereotype threat than the sample of men. The current study tests for the presence of each of these double-minority effects. Predictions With respect to the two stereotype-threat main effects, we predicted both a Latino stereotype-threat effect and a gender stereotype-threat effect. Both of these findings would replicate prior work (Aronson & Salinas, 1997; Spencer et al., 1999; Steele & Aronson, 1995). In addition, we predicted that both double-minority effects would occur. Our double-minority predictions were based on the notion that membership in one negatively stereotyped group can sensitize an individual to stereotypes related to another group. The alternative to these hypotheses was that the study would replicate the two stereotype-threat main effects found in previous research but that we would fail to uncover evidence that


662


membership in one group influenced the magnitude of the stereotype-threat effect due to the other group. This view has been expressed in another context by Sidanius and Veniegas (2000), who argued that the disadvantaged statuses of women and of minorities typically do not interact to produce an especially disadvantaged status for minority women. The specific planned comparisons that are needed to test our predictions against this alternative are outlined in the Methods section, after a brief description of the study. METHOD

Design The experiment took the form of a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial design. The factors were ethnicity (Latino or White), diagnosticity (diagnostic, nondiagnostic), and gender. The primary dependent variable was performance on a test of intellectual ability, with prior scores on the SAT used as a covariate. Test performance on the Wonderlic Personnel Test (Wonderlic & Wonderlic, 1992) was the primary dependent measure. Participants Participants were 60 Latino undergraduate students and 60 White undergraduate students (n = 15 participants per condition) enrolled in either an introductory undergraduate psychology or Spanish class at the University at Albany (M age = 18.67, SD = 1.92 years, range = 17 to 35). For purposes of this study, Latino was defined as an individual of either Puerto Rican, Mexican, Cuban, or Central/South American descent (50% or greater) and who self-identifies as a member of the Latino ethnic group. Participation was voluntary and participants were given either class credit or research credit for their participation. The data from 6 participants were excluded from the analysis because they failed to provide their SAT scores. Procedure Participants were randomly assigned to the two diagnosticity conditions with the constraint that an equal number of participants were assigned per condition. At the start of the experimental session, the experimenter (a White man) explained to participants that they would work on a set of problems testing mathematical and analytic ability for 12 mins, after which they would answer some questions about their experiences with the task. The experimenter then explained the purpose of the study to the participants. In all conditions, the test was described as a very difficult test that included items testing both mathematical and spatial ability and that most students should not expect to get many items correct. This part of the description was the same for all

conditions. The diagnosticity manipulation directly replicated the procedure and wording from Steele and Aronson (1995). In the diagnostic condition, participants were told that the study was investigating personal factors involved in performance. Participants were asked to do their best to aid in the assessment of their true abilities. The level of difficulty of the test was justified as the best means of providing a “genuine test” of their “actual abilities and limitations.” In the nondiagnostic condition, no reference to ability was made. Instead, participants were told that the purpose of the research was to understand the psychological factors involved in solving problems. Participants were asked to do their best to aid in the analysis of “the problem-solving process.” The test difficulty was justified as the best means of providing an understanding of this process. To further differentiate the conditions, participants in the nondiagnostic condition were asked to try hard “even though we’re not going to evaluate your ability” (p. 799). After the instructions, participants were given 12 mins to complete the test. Following this, they completed a demographic form and several other related scales, after which they were provided with a written and oral debriefing explaining the purpose of the study. Measures The primary dependent measure was participants’ performance on a 50-item test, which was described as a measure of mathematical and spatial ability. The total number correct was analyzed. This test was adapted from the Wonderlic Personnel Test (Wonderlic & Wonderlic, 1992), which is a group-administered paper-and-pencil test that assesses both numerical and spatial ability. It is generally given with a 12-min time limit. Test-retest reliabilities range from .82 to .94 and parallel forms estimates of reliability, corrected for differences in degree of difficulty, range from .73 to .95. The final score is the number of correct answers. The Wonderlic is a wellestablished and researched instrument suitable when educationability or trainability is a job requirement. Large representative samples of men and women show no difference in total raw score on the test (Kramer & Conoley, 1992). Participants then completed the following: (a) a three-item self-report measure of their effort exerted on the Wonderlic Personnel Test (e.g., “I put forth a lot of effort on the test”); (b) a 22-item measure of cognitive interference frequently used in test-anxiety research, on which participants indicated the frequency of several distracting thoughts during the test (e.g., “I thought about how poorly I was doing”) (Sarason, 1978); (c) a 10-item measure assessing stereotype-threat concerns (e.g., “I believe that my test performance will confirm negative racial stereotypes about my racial group”); and (d) a


Gonzales et al. / DOUBLE MINORITY

Stereotype Threat Effects

Whites Latinos

Ethnicity-Based [Contrast 1.0] Nondiagnostic Diagnostic Condition Condition .333 .333 .333 –1

Men Women

Gender-Based [Contrast 2.0] Nondiagnostic Diagnostic Condition Condition .333 .333 .333 –1

Figure 1

663

Double-Minority Effects of Gender

Double-Minority Effects of Ethnicity

Gender Difference in Ethnicity-Based Stereotype Threat [Contrast 1.1] Nondiagnostic Diagnostic Condition Condition White Women .333 .333 Latino Women .333 –1 White Men –.333 –.333 Latino Men –.333 +1

Ethnic Difference in Gender-Based Stereotype Threat [Contrast 2.1] Nondiagnostic Diagnostic Condition Condition Latino Men .333 .333 Latino Women .333 –1 White Men –.333 –.333 White Women –.333 +1

Ethnicity-Based Stereotype Threat for Women [Contrast 1.2] Nondiagnostic Diagnostic Condition Condition White Women .333 .333 Latino Women .333 –1 White Men 0 0 Latino Men 0 0

Gender-Based Stereotype Threat for Latinos [Contrast 2.2] Nondiagnostic Diagnostic Condition Condition Latino Men .333 .333 Latino Women .333 –1 White Men 0 0 White Women 0 0

Ethnicity-Based Stereotype Threat for Men [Contrast 1.3] Nondiagnostic Diagnostic Condition Condition White Women 0 0 Latino Women 0 0 White Men .333 .333 Latino Men .333 –1

Gender-Based Stereotype Threat for Whites [Contrast 2.3] Nondiagnostic Diagnostic Condition Condition Latino Men 0 0 Latino Women 0 0 White Men .333 .333 White Women .333 –1

Contrast weights for the planned comparisons that test for two stereotype-threat effects and two double-minority effects.

40-item self-perceived task competence scale (Stone & Stone, 1984) (e.g., confident vs. not confident). The effort and stereotype-threat scales were measured on a 7point scale anchored by strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7). The cognitive inference scale was measured on a 5-point scale ranging from never (1) to very often (5). Selfperceived task competence was measured on a 7-point semantic differential scale. Planned Comparisons To test for either stereotype-threat effects or doubleminority effects, one must apply planned comparisons to test for predicted patterns in the results. Based on the analytic strategy in Aronson and Steele (1995), planned comparisons were conducted on the mean performance scores on the test, after adjusting for prior SAT. These values, along with the contrast weights used in the planned comparisons, are presented in the upper lefthand column of Figure 1. To test for stereotype-threat main effects, two planned comparisons were performed. First, a linear contrast tested for the presence of an ethnicity-based stereotype-threat effect. This planned comparison (Contrast 1.0 in Figure 1) tested if Latinos in the diagnosticity condition performed significantly worse than the other three groups (i.e., it compared the adjusted mean for Latinos in the diagnosticity condition against the adjusted means of the remaining three groups). A significant effect for this comparison would

replicate past research demonstrating stereotype-threat effects due to ethnicity (e.g., Steele & Aronson, 1995; Stone et al., 1999). Next, a linear contrast tested for the presence of a gender-based stereotype-threat effect. This planned comparison (Contrast 2.0 in Figure 1) determined if women in the diagnosticity condition performed significantly worse than the participants in the other three groups (i.e., it compared the adjusted mean for women in the diagnosticity condition against the adjusted means of the remaining three groups). A significant effect for this comparison would replicate past research demonstrating stereotype-threat effects due to gender (e.g., Inzlicht & Ben-Zeev, 2000; Spencer et al., 1999). Although these two contrasts determine if the diagnosticity manipulation exerted two stereotype-threat effects on performance, they do not test for doubleminority effects because they do not determine if gender and ethnicity interacted to influence stereotype threat. As already discussed, there are two possible doubleminority effects we can test. The first double-minority effect occurs if women experience greater ethnicitybased stereotype-threat effects than men. To test for this, planned comparisons were constructed to determine if the ethnicity-based stereotype-threat effect, revealed by Contrast 1.0, was significantly larger in the sample of women than in the sample of men. Using the methods described in Jaccard (1998), this prediction was tested



using Contrast 1.1. For descriptive purposes, this contrast can be augmented by analyzing two simple-effect contrasts that show the degree of ethnicity-based stereotype threat in just the sample of women (Contrast 1.2 in Figure 1) and in just the sample of men (Contrast 1.3 in Figure 1). The second double-minority effect occurs if Latinos experience greater gender-based stereotypethreat effects than Whites. To test for this, planned comparisons were constructed to determine if the genderbased stereotype-threat effect, revealed by Contrast 2.0, was significantly larger in the sample of Latinos than in the sample of Whites. This prediction was tested using Contrast 2.1. For descriptive purposes, this contrast can be augmented by analyzing two simple-effect contrasts that show the degree of gender-based stereotype threat in just the sample of Latinos (Contrast 2.2 in Figure 1) and in just the sample of Whites (Contrast 2.3 in Figure 1). In sum, the two stereotype-threat effects and the two double-minority effects can be tested through the use of the planned comparisons revealed in Figure 1. To control for experiment-wise error rates within families of contrasts, a modified Bonferroni procedure described in Jaccard (1998) was used. Four families of contrasts were defined: (a) the two contrasts for the traditional stereotype effects (Contrasts 1.0 and 2.0), (b) the two contrasts for the double-minority effects (Contrasts 1.1 and 2.1), (c) the two simple effects of gender within ethnicity (Contrasts 1.2 and 1.3), and (d) the two simple effects of ethnicity within gender (Contrasts 2.2 and 2.3). Thus, we followed common practice of defining a family as consisting of all simple effects within the overall effect being addressed (see Jaccard, 1998). We should note that even if one decided to group our four central contrasts into a single family and apply the modified Bonferroni correction across the four contrasts, the conclusions would not differ and the patterns of significance would maintain. RESULTS

Test Performance For descriptive purposes, the performance scores were first analyzed by performing a traditional 2 (diagnosticity) × 2 (ethnicity) × 2 (gender) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) on task performance, with selfreported SAT treated as the covariate. This analysis revealed a significant effect for the covariate, F(1, 111) = 33.53, p < .001, partial ε2 = .23; a main effect for the diagnosticity instructions, F(1, 111) = 7.41, p < .01, partial ε2 = .05; and a main effect of ethnicity, F(1, 111) = 31.12, p < .001, partial ε2 = .21. Participants in the nondiagnostic condition performed better (Madjusted = 27.08, SE = 0.53) than participants in the diagnostic condition (Madjusted = 25.05, SE = 0.53) and White participants performed

Nondiagnostic

Adjustted Performance

664

31 29 27 25 23 21 19 17 15

27.97

Diagnostic

29.08 26.19 21.03

White

Latino Ethnicity

Figure 2

Adjusted means for performance as a function of diagnosticity and ethnicity. NOTE: Scores can range from 0 to 50, with higher values indicating better performance.

better (Madjusted = 28.52, SE = 0.58) than Latino participants (Madjusted = 23.61, SE = 0.58). However, these main effects were qualified by a significant Ethnicity × Diagnosticity interaction, F(1, 111) = 17.49, p < .001, partial ε2 = .13 and a significant Gender × Diagnosticity interaction, F(1, 111) = 6.05, p < .02, partial ε2 = .04. The adjusted means that contribute to these effects are shown in Figures 2 and 3, respectively, but discussion on these patterns is held until the sections that follow. The three-way interaction between diagnosticity, ethnicity, and gender was not significant, F < 1. Stereotype-Threat Effects Ethnicity-based stereotype threat. To test for the substantive hypotheses, the adjusted means were analyzed using the planned-comparison weights presented in Figure 1. The first set of tests focused on ethnicity-based stereotype threat. Based on past research demonstrating a stereotype-threat effect for Latinos (e.g., Aronson & Salinas, 1997), it was hypothesized that the testdiagnosticity instructions would lead to depressed test scores for Latinos relative to Whites. In support of this, the planned contrast (Contrast 1.0) indicated that participants in the Latino diagnostic group performed significantly worse than the other three groups, F(1, 111) = 60.93, p < .01, partial ε2 = 0.35, after controlling for SAT. This pattern is revealed in Figure 2.2 These results replicate prior research indicating an ethnicity-based stereotype-threat effect. Gender-based stereotype threat. Based on past research demonstrating a stereotype-threat effect for women (e.g., Spencer et al., 1999), it was hypothesized that the test-diagnosticity instructions would lead to depressed test scores for women relative to men. In support of this, the planned contrast (Contrast 2.0) indicated that participants in the female diagnostic group performed significantly worse than the other three groups, F(1, 111) =


Gonzales et al. / DOUBLE MINORITY

31 29 27 25 23 21 19 17 15

26.57

Nondiagnostic

Diagnostic

27.60

26.39

23.72

Men

Women

Adjusted Performance

Adjusted Performance

Nondiagnostic

33 31 29 27 25 23 21 19 17 15

665

Diagnostic 30.51

28.05 27.65

27.15

27.89 25.24 22.26

19.79

Latino Women

White Women

Latino Men

White Men

Gender

Figure 3

Adjusted means for performance as a function of diagnosticity and gender. NOTE: Scores can range from 0 to 50, with higher values indicating better performance.

Figure 4 Adjusted means for performance as a function of diagnosticity, gender, and ethnicity. NOTE: Scores can range from 0 to 50, with higher values indicating better performance.

13.24, p < .01, partial ε2 = .10, after controlling for SAT. This pattern is revealed in Figure 3. These results replicate prior research indicating a gender-based stereotypethreat effect.

ethnic group. First (Contrast 2.2), Latinos exhibited a large and statistically significant gender-based stereotypethreat effect, F(1, 111) = 17.48, p < .001, partial ε2 = .13. In comparison (Contrast 2.3), Whites did not exhibit a statistically significant gender-based stereotype-threat effect, and any tendency in this direction was associated with a small effect size, F(1, 111) < 1.00, ns, partial ε2 ≤ .01. In summary, there was evidence of a double-minority effect in which Latinos experienced greater genderbased stereotype-threat effect than Whites.

Double-Minority Effects Double-minority effects of gender. Planned comparisons were then performed on the full 2 × 2 × 2 factorial to test for the double-minority effects. The adjusted means for the full factorial are shown in Figure 4. The first planned comparison of double-minority effects determined if there were gender differences in the ethnicity-based stereotype-threat effect shown in Figure 2. The relevant planned comparison (Contrast 1.1) was found not to be significant, F(1, 111) = 1.64, p > .20, partial ε2 ≤ .01. This indicated that there was no significant gender difference in the tendency to exhibit ethnicity-based stereotype threat. Consistent with this conclusion, the two contrasts that focused on the different genders in isolation showed that that both women (Contrast 1.2), F(1, 111) = 41.27, p < .001, partial ε2 = .27, and men (Contrast 1.3), F(1, 111) = 21.29, p < .001, partial ε2 = .15, exhibited a significant ethnicity-based stereotype threat. In summary, there was no evidence of a double-minority effect in which women experienced greater ethnicity-based stereotype-threat effects. Thus, both Latino men and women were at risk of depressed performance in the testdiagnosticity condition on account of their ethnicity. Double-minority effects of ethnicity. Planned comparisons were then performed to determine if there were ethnic differences in the gender-based stereotype-threat effect shown in Figure 3. Consistent with a double-minority effect, this comparison revealed a significant ethnic difference in the tendency to exhibit gender-based stereotype threat, F(1, 111) = 5.18, p < .02, partial ε2 = .04. The reason for this difference can be understood by looking at the effects of the diagnosticity instructions with each

Ancillary Analyses The previous analyses tested the degree to which gender and ethnicity influenced task performance in ways consistent with stereotype threat. To complement these, we conducted an ancillary set of analyses on the same adjusted means to determine the degree to which stereotype threat was being experienced within each gender and ethnic group. This was done by testing for simple main effects of test diagnosticity for Latino women, Latino men, White women, and White men. As would be expected from the previous analyses, these revealed a strong and significant tendency for Latino women to perform worse in the diagnosticity condition than in the nondiagnostic condition, F(1, 111) = 24.32, p < .001, partial ε2 = .17. This effect stands to reason given that Latino women were influenced by both ethnicity-based and gender-based stereotype threat. Analyses conducted on the Latino men showed a diagnosticity effect for this group as well, F(1, 111) = 24.31, p < .001. This effect was consistent with stereotype threat and also would be expected due to the fact that Latino men were influenced by ethnicity-based stereotype threat. Because Latino men were not influenced by gender-based stereotype threat as well, however, the diagnosticity effect in this sample was significantly smaller than that which was observed in the sample of Latino women, F(1, 111) = 4.31,


666


p < .04, partial ε2 = .03. In short, Latino women experienced greater stereotype threat than Latino men. Analyses of the two remaining groups showed that neither the White men nor the White women had a significant diagnosticity effect. This suggests an absence of stereotype threat in both groups. Of interest, however, the White men did show a small and nonsignificant tendency to do better in the diagnostic condition than in the nondiagnostic condition, F(1, 111) = 3.08, p < .08, partial ε2 = .02. This is not an unfamiliar pattern—others have found that participants who are not targeted by negative ability stereotypes often show nonsignificant tendencies to improve their performances in conditions designed to evoke stereotype threat in individuals who are targeted (see also Spencer et al., 1999; Steele & Aronson, 1995). Self-Report Measures The final analyses focused on the effects of condition, gender, and ethnicity on self-reports. These revealed no significant group effects on the reported effort, cognitive interference, and self-perceived task competence. There was a significant group effect in participants’ responses to the stereotype-threat scale, F(7, 119) = 6.89, p < .001. Modified Bonferroni tests revealed that Latino participants in all conditions thought they had experienced more stereotype threat than White participants in all conditions, except for the White women in the nondiagnostic condition, p < .05. These findings did not mediate any of the above effects. DISCUSSION

The aim of the present study was to examine the consequences of potentially activating two negative stereotypes in the context of one performance and to determine if these effects would combine in an interactive way to create double-minority effects. A general stereotype manipulation, test diagnosticity, was used to test for the presence of both an ethnicity-based and a gender-based stereotype-threat effect in a sample of Latino and White, male and female participants. First, illustrated in Figure 2, results showed support for an ethnicity-based stereotype-threat effect. Latinos exhibited depressed test performance in the diagnostic condition relative to controls, which is consistent with stereotype threat. To our knowledge, this is the first published demonstration of stereotype threat among Latinos. There is reason to expect that this finding is robust, however, because an unpublished study has shown similar results. In Aronson and Salinas (1995), Mexican Americans showed a drop in their test performance on a verbal Graduate Record Examination (GRE) test if they were reminded of the possibility that the test they were taking might be biased

against minorities. Our study reinforces this finding by showing a similar stereotype-threat effect using a diagnosticity manipulation and by showing that results can be obtained in both male and female Latino samples. This argues that the ethnicity-based stereotypethreat effect for Latinos is robust, although it argues against half of the double-minority effect that we had predicted. Results also supported a gender-based stereotypethreat effect. As shown in Figure 3, women exhibited depressed test performance in the test-diagnostic condition. This finding reinforces previous research showing stereotype threat for women using both general (Inzlicht & Ben-Zeev, 2000) and specific stereotypethreat manipulations (Spencer et al., 1999). Although our finding for the sample as a whole showed a pattern that was consistent with these studies, planned comparison revealed that it was only a partial replication of past work. We found that gender-based stereotype threat was qualified by ethnicity, such that it was significant in the sample of Latinos but not in the sample of Whites. It is not clear why the Whites did not experience genderbased stereotype threat in the current study. It is possible that the diagnosticity manipulation or other aspects of our procedure were less impactful than those that have targeted women in the past. As a result, the only group that experienced gender stereotype threat to a significant degree in the current study was the group that entered with the greatest overall risk, that is, Latinos. Other possibilities are discussed in sections that follow but, regardless, results still indicate an asymmetry between the effects of gender on ethnicity-based stereotype threat and the effects of ethnicity on gender-based stereotype threat. In short, the sample of women did not show a greater stereotype-threat effect for ethnicity than the sample of men, whereas the sample of Latinos did show a greater stereotype-threat effect for gender than the sample of Whites. The asymmetry of the doubleminority effect requires further explanation. Group Sensitization At the most basic level, it would seem that there is something about being a Latino that focuses an individual on group more generally, which then causes them to be affected by other relevant group stereotypes, such as those related to gender. In contrast, it appears that being a woman does not affect individuals in such a way that it then sensitizes them to their ethnicity. Or, to the extent that it does, the effect was small enough in magnitude that the current study was unable to detect it. Recall that this finding runs counter to our predictions. We predicted that both double-minority effects would be significant. Our predictions were based on the assumption that


Gonzales et al. / DOUBLE MINORITY when individuals are stereotyped due to their membership in one ingroup, they become more aware of similar stereotypes that target them due to their membership in other ingroups. The unexpected asymmetry requires an account of the difference between ethnicity and gender that would cause influence to flow from ethnicity to gender but not from gender to ethnicity. There are a number of possibilities that should be explored in future research. First, it seems likely that Latinos are chronically self-aware of their group because it is statistically distinct. The tendency for Latinos to then think of themselves as representatives of their group may then spillover into attention to other stereotyped groups that are not statistically distinct, such as their gender. In support of this, a great deal of evidence suggests that the statistical distinctiveness of a group leads members to represent the self in terms of group membership (Brewer, 1991; Brewer, Weber, & Carini, 1995; Levine & Moreland, 1987; McGuire & McGuire, 1982; Mullen, 1991). Moreover, there is a tendency for individuals to view their distinct attributes, such as their group memberships, as more centrally defining than common groups (Frable, 1993a, 1993b; Turnbull, Miller, & McFarland, 1990). When social groups have these two attributes, of being both statistically distinct and centrally defining, they take on what has been termed “master status” (Becker, 1963; Hughes, 1944). In terms of a double-minority effect, what we are proposing goes beyond the typical predictions for master status. We are suggesting that master status groups do not just provide a chronically accessible group identity but that they also create a chronic tendency to represent the self in terms of group more generally. Thus, Latinos at historically White colleges, being aware of the stereotypes for their ethnicity, are predicted to think of themselves in terms of their ethnicity more than Whites. As a result, they should then code their experiences in terms of negative stereotypes to a greater degree than Whites. From this, they are expected to be more attuned to negative stereotypes in general and thus to be more affected by gender-based stereotype threat. In contrast, gender should not cause generalization by these principles. Although there may be times when gender is statistically distinct, thus leading to awareness of the self as a member (e.g., Cota & Dion, 1986; Taylor & Fiske, 1978), this is not generally the case, and it was not the case on the coeducational college campus on which this study was conducted. Thus, it is not likely that women in this study typically experienced their gender as a master status group, and therefore, they should not have generalized experiences of their gender to experiences of other groups.

667

Although this explanation is tenable, it is admittedly preliminary and, therefore, mechanisms other than distinctiveness should be acknowledged. First, it is possible that Latinos, on average, simply face more discrimination and greater stigma than do women on average. In support of this, Latino participants in all conditions reported experiencing stereotype threat to a greater extent than White participants in all conditions (except White women in the nondiagnostic condition). This might suggest that Latinos experienced negative stereotypes to such a degree that Latino women were more conscious than White women of the negative stereotypes that affected them both as women. Another consequence of increased experience of discrimination and stigma may have been that Latinos categorize themselves as “different” from others more than Whites, thereby causing them to make more group-based distinctions between self and other (Frable, 1993a, 1993b). Finally, we must acknowledge that this pattern might not have been due to any particular psychological mechanism but rather to differences in social learning across White and Latino cultures. Socialization in Latino families in the United States may focus greater attention on gender differences than is typical for individuals socialized in White families in the United States, which could lead Latino women to experience greater gender-based stereotypethreat effects. Gender-Based Stereotype Threat Regardless of the reason for the current effects, we feel it is important to stress that we do not assume that gender-based stereotype-threat effects will never occur in studies using White samples. We are simply arguing that Latinos are at greater risk of gender-based stereotypethreat effects than Whites. As already mentioned, past research has shown gender-based stereotype-threat effects in convenience samples drawn from predominately White universities (e.g., Inzlicht & Ben-Zeev, 2000; Spencer et al., 1999). This would suggest that these effects can occur in all-White samples, even though our own study failed to find evidence for this. It is possible our study used a weaker manipulation of gender-based stereotype threat than past studies and so only the Latinos showed significant effects. For instance, test diagnosticity could be a relatively low-impact procedure relative to others used to obtain gender-based stereotype-threat effects. In contrast to our own procedure, Spencer et al. (1999) found stereotype-threat effects on a math test using samples of women who rated their math abilities as especially important to them. As a result, the women in their studies were probably highly invested in doing well and were probably especially threatened by aspects of the testing situation that evoked


668


stereotype threat. A similar analysis may apply to Inzlicht and Ben-Zeev (2000). They evoked stereotype threat by having female participants take a math test in the presence of a male comparison other. Our own research suggests to us that outgroup comparisons of ability can be quite threatening when negative ingroup stereotypes have been activated (Blanton, Christie, & Dye, in press; Blanton, Crocker, & Miller, 2000; see Blanton, 2001). Alternatively, it may be that our manipulation was strong enough but that our testing situation was weak. In this regard, it is important to note that the average performance of participants on the test we used was closer to the performance level found for participants in the easy condition of Spencer et al. (1999, Study 1) than in the hard condition. The easy condition was the one in which stereotype threat was neither predicted nor found. By providing an easy test, we therefore may have weakened the stereotype threat inherent to all participants, again making only those most at risk experience stereotype threat (Latinos in the diagnostic condition). Finally, it may be that we conducted a relatively strong manipulation and test of the stereotype-threat hypothesis but that we used test materials that were not valid for assessing gender-based stereotype threat among Whites. It is possible, for instance, that the test we used did not evoke concerns in participants with math and spatial performance but that it instead evoked concerns with more general aptitude. Although the instruction set we used emphasized math and spatial performance, the test itself was adapted from a measure that has not shown gender differences in performance in large and representative samples of men and women (Kramer & Conoley, 1992). It is thus possible that participants taking this test did not view their performances through the filter of gender stereotypes, as intended. This account could explain the lack of a diagnosticity effect for White women, but it fails to explain why the Latino women experienced greater diagnosticity effects than Latino men. It is certainly possible, however, that this increase was due to factors other than gender-based stereotype threat. In conclusion, the current study failed to replicate a gender-based stereotype-threat effect in the White subsample, but we are not arguing that such effects have not been or cannot be demonstrated. It is possible that the current study used either a manipulation or testing situation that was just above threshold for evoking stereotype threat, causing only the Latino women to show genderbased stereotype threat. If the impact of our procedures were to be increased, we would expect gender-based stereotype-threat effects in both White and Latino samples, and therefore, our double-minority effect might evaporate. Alternatively, our test may have lacked validity for testing gender-based stereotype threat in Latino sam-

ples. If so, the reason for this ethnic difference in test validity will need to be uncovered in future studies. Future Research on Dual-Identity Threats Up to this point, research has effectively demonstrated the ubiquity of stereotype threat across a range of both negatively and positively stereotyped groups. We believe that future research must move beyond the simple replication of these effects to an ever-increasing number of social groups. In the next stage of research, we would argue, theory in stereotype threat should be advanced by focusing on two primary questions. First, it should turn its attention to the underlying mediating mechanisms. One notable shortcoming of the current study was that various mediating mechanisms, including effort, cognitive interference, and self-perceived task competence, were identified but none of these were found to mediate the effects of test diagnosticity on test performance. Although it is unfortunate that we did not identify the mediator, few published studies have had success explaining mediation, and therefore, our study joins a growing list (Whaley, 1998; cf. Steele, 1998). The second needed direction, we believe, is to focus on the interplay between multiple group identities as they relate to performance. In this regard, we view as promising the current research programs demonstrating that an individual’s performance can be moved up or down, depending on the particular group or group stereotype that is activated (e.g., Shih et al., 1999; Stone et al., 1999). We hope that the results of our own study complement these efforts. To make stronger contributions to the literature, however, research is needed that replicates and extends these current findings using different double-minority populations. In particular, it should study groups that vary along the psychological attributes that are relevant to the proposed theoretical mechanisms thought to underlie the current findings. In this way, research can determine when membership in one group will exacerbate stereotype threat resulting from membership in a second group and when it will not. If research does consider this interplay between different identities as predictors, the operationalization of stereotype threat as an outcome variable will have to evolve as well. Although current theory has stressed the continuous nature of stereotype threat and the possibility that it can be experienced to varying degrees depending on the social context (Crocker et al., 1998), the research underlying this theory has used a dichotomous coding scheme to quantify stereotype threat. Groups are said to experience stereotype threat when their performances in experimental conditions are diminished in comparison to the performances of relevant controls. As we have shown, however, stereotyped groups can respond to testing situations with varying degrees of ste-


Gonzales et al. / DOUBLE MINORITY reotype threat. Research that continues in this tradition and treats stereotype threat as a continuous outcome may help identify other factors that influence threat magnitude. One promising area for future research might be to investigate the role of stereotype endorsement. Although it has been suggested that virtually all targets of negative stereotypes are aware of the cultural stereotypes for their groups and are thus at risk for experiencing stereotype threat (Steele & Aronson, 1995), research also has shown variability in stereotype endorsement as a function of childhood socialization (Eccles, Jacobs, & Harold, 1990; Frome & Eccles, 1998; Jacobs & Eccles, 1992). In a recent study using a convenience sample of college students, we found a great deal of variability in the extent to which college women believed the negative gender stereotypes about their abilities (Blanton et al., in press, Study 2). Although the modal response of the women in the sample was to state that there was no truth in the stereotypes that women have worse math and spatial abilities than men, 41% of the sample rated these stereotypes as having at least “some truth” and 17% gave a rating that was above the scale midpoint. It is possible that variability in either explicit measures such as these or in their implicit counterparts could help us identify those women who are at particular risk of experiencing gender-based stereotype threat. If so, research might also test for mediation of double-minority effects. For instance, we could test if White and Latino samples differ in their level of endorsement for gender stereotypes and if this difference, in turn, predicts the magnitude of gender-based stereotype threat in the two groups. In short, there is much work to do in this area. Some of the contributions of the current study, we hope, are methodological in nature and may help in these efforts. Specifically, we have introduced an analytic strategy that can pull apart the effects that different identities have on performance and that treats stereotype threat as a continuous outcome variable. In our method, the planned comparisons illustrated in Figure 1 test if multiple stereotype-threat effects are operating. We believe that future research can benefit from adapting the analytic strategy we have introduced as a means of investigating how multiple identities interact to influence performance. NOTES 1. Because women are not in the statistical minority, one might prefer the term double-stigmas or double-stereotyping to double-minority. Although it is true that women are not in the statistical minority, they are underrepresented in pursuits related to negative gender stereotypes. As an example relevant to the current study, women are targets of negative math stereotypes, which appears to lead to a process of disidentification with math (Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998). Perhaps as a result, they are then underrepresented in careers in math and the

669

sciences. It is for this reason that we find it useful to retain the term double-minority when speaking of Latino women. 2. The MSerror for the full ANCOVA was 16.67 and the error degrees of freedom was 111. With this information and the adjusted means reported in Figures 2, 3, and 4, readers who are interested in performing comparisons that we chose not to report can compute these by hand (see Jaccard, 1998).

REFERENCES Aronson, J., & Salinas, M. F. (1997, April). Stereotype threat: Is low performance the price of self-esteem for Mexican Americans? Paper presented to the Western Psychological Association Conference, Seattle, Washington. Becker, H. (1963). Outsiders. New York: Free Press. Blanton, H. (2001). Evaluating the self in the context of another: The three-selves model of social comparison assimilation and contrast. In G. B. Moskowitz (Ed.), Cognitive social psychology: The Princeton symposium on the legacy and future of social cognition (pp. 75-87) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Blanton, H., Christie, C., & Dye, M. (in press). Social-identity versus reference-frame comparisons: The moderating role of stereotype endorsement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Blanton, H., Crocker, J., & Miller, D. T. (2000). The effects of in-group versus out-group social comparison on self-esteem in the context of a negative stereotype. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 519-530. Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology, 17, 475-482. Brewer, M. B., Weber, J. G., & Carini, B. (1995). Person memory in intergroup contexts: Categorization versus individuation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 29-40. Chung, B. Y., & Katayama, M. (1998). Ethnic and sexual identity development of Asian-American lesbian and gay adolescents. Professional School Counseling, 1, 21-25. Cota, A. A. & Dion, K. L. (1986). Salience of gender and sex composition of ad hoc groups: An experimental test of distinctiveness theory. Journal of Personality and Social-Psychology, 50, 770-776. Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. In D. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Croizet, J., & Claire, T. (1998). Extending the concept of stereotype and threat to social class: The intellectual underperformance of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 588-594. Eccles, J. S., Jacobs, J. E., & Harold, R. D. (1990). Gender role stereotypes, expectancy effects, and parents’ socialization of gender differences. Journal of Social Issues, 46(2), 183-201. Frable, D. (1993a). Being and feeling unique: Statistical deviance and psychological marginality. Journal of Personality, 61, 85-110. Frable, D. (1993b). Dimensions of marginality: Distinctions among those who are different. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 370-380. Frome, P. M., & Eccles, J. S. (1998). Parents’ influence on children’s achievement-related perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 435-452. Hughes, E. (1944). Dilemmas and contradictions in status. American Journal of Sociology, 50, 353-359. Inzlicht, M., & Ben-Zeev, T. (2000). A threatening intellectual environment: Why females are susceptible to experiencing problemsolving deficits in the presence of males. Psychological Science, 11(5), 365-371. Jaccard, J. (1998). Interaction effects in factorial analysis of variance. Sage University Papers Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences (Series No. 07-118). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Jacobs, J. E., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). The impact of mothers’ genderrole stereotypic beliefs on mothers’ and children’s ability perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(6), 932-944. Kramer, J. J., & Conoley, J. C. (Eds.). (1992). Eleventh mental measurement yearbook. Lincoln, NE: The Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.


670


McGuire, W. J., & McGuire, C. V. (1982). Significant others in selfspace: Sex differences in developmental trends in the self. In J. Suls (Ed.), Social psychological perspectives on the self. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Mullen, B. (1991). Group composition, salience, and cognitive representations: The phenomenology of being in a group. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 297-323. Sarason, I. G. (1978). The test anxiety scale: Concept and research. In C. D. Speilberger & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Stress and anxiety (Vol. 5). Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Shih, M., Pittinsky, T. L., & Ambady, N. (1999). Stereotype susceptibility: Identity salience and shifts in quantitative performance. Psychological Science, 10, 80-83. Sidanius, J., & Veniegas, R. C. (2000). Gender and race discrimination: The interactive nature of disadvantage. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination: “The Claremont Symposium on Applied Social Psychology” (pp. 47-69). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Spencer, S., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4-28. Steele, C. M. (1992, April). Race and the schooling of Black Americans. Atlantic Monthly, 68-78. Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613629. Stone, E. F., & Stone, D. L. (1984). The effects of multiple sources of performance feedback and feedback favorability on self-per-

ceived task competence and perceived feedback accuracy. Journal of Management, 10, 371-378. Steele, C. M. (1998). Stereotype and its threat are real. American Psychologist, 53(6), 680-681. Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797-811. Stone, J., Lynch, C. I., Sjomeling, M., & Darley, J. M. (1999). Stereotype-threat effects on Black and White athletic performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1213-1227. Taylor, S.E., & Fiske, S.T. (1978). Salience, attention, and attribution: Top of the head phenomena. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 249-288). New York: Academic Press. Turnbull, W., Miller, D.T., & McFarland, C. (1990). Populationdistinctiveness, identity, and bonding. In J.M. Olson and M.P. Zanna (Eds.) Self-Inference processes: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 6, pp. 115-133). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Whaley, J. (1998). Issues of validity in empirical tests of stereotype threat theory. American Psychologist, 53(6), 679-680. Wonderlic, E. F., & Wonderlic, C. F. (1992). Wonderlic personnel test. Northfield, IL: E. F. Wonderlic. Wooden, W. S., Kawasaki, H., & Mayeda, R. (1983). Lifestyles and identity maintenance among gay Japanese-American males. Alternative Lifestyles, 5(4), 236-243. Received July 12, 2000 Revision accepted August 21, 2001
