MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Lingering Effects: Stereotype Threat Hurts More than You Think

2011· article· en· W1533243501 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Inzlicht, Alexa M. Tullett, Lisa Legault, Sonia K. Kang

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Issues and Policy Review · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStereotype threatPrejudice (legal term)PsychologySocial psychologyFeelingSpillover effectCoping (psychology)Stereotype (UML)Clinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Starting with the first realization that negative stereotypes can cause people to underperform in the stereotyped domain, an impressive body of work has documented the robust and wide‐ranging nature of stereotype and social identity threat. In this article, we look beyond the stereotyped ability domain and present evidence that coping with stereotypes and prejudice can linger, affecting a broad range of behaviors even in areas unrelated to the stigmatized ability. This stereotype threat spillover occurs because coping with negative stereotypes and prejudice leaves self‐control resources depleted for challenges that arise later, even in unrelated situations. We suggest a number of different ways that individuals can empower and hopefully inoculate themselves against spillover including shifting appraisals and adopting positive coping strategies. We also discuss societal changes, encouraging governments and other organizations to enact policy that will reduce the prevalence of stereotyping and cultivate feelings of intrinsic motivation to reduce prejudice.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.352 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations60
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Issues and Policy ReviewSame topicSocial and Intergroup PsychologyFrench-language works237,207