MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009184009 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0122207

Distracted by the Unthought – Suppression and Reappraisal of Mind Wandering under Stereotype Threat

2015· article· en· W2009184009 on OpenAlexaff
Carolin Schuster, Sarah E. Martiny, Toni Schmader

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMind wandering and attention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStereotype threatPsychologyStereotype (UML)Task (project management)CognitionSocial psychologyEthnic groupDevelopmental psychologyCognitive psychologyPolitical sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous research has found that subtle reminders of negative stereotypes about one's group can lead individuals to underperform on stereotype-relevant tests (e.g., women in math, ethnic minorities on intelligence tests). This so called stereotype threat effect can contribute to systematic group differences in performance that can obscure the true abilities of certain social groups and thereby sustain social inequalities. In the present study, we examined processes underlying stereotype threat effects on women's math performance, specifically focusing on the role of suppression of mind wandering (i.e., task-irrelevant thinking) in stereotype threat (ST) and no threat (NT) situations. Based on a process model of stereotype threat effects on performance, we hypothesized that women under stereotype threat spontaneously suppress mind wandering, and that this suppression impairs performance. An alternative regulation strategy that prevents suppression (i.e., reappraising task-irrelevant thoughts as normal) was predicted to prevent stereotype threat effects on performance. We manipulated stereotype threat (ST vs. NT) and cognitive regulation strategy (suppression, reappraisal, or no strategy) and measured women's performance on a math and a concentration task (N = 113). We expected three groups to perform relatively more poorly: Those in ST with either no strategy or suppression and those in NT with a suppression strategy. We tested the performance of these groups against the remaining three groups hypothesized to perform relatively better: those in NT with no strategy or reappraisal and those in ST with reappraisal. The results showed the expected pattern for participants' math performance, but not for concentration achievement. This pattern suggests that ineffective self-regulation by suppressing mind wandering can at least partly explain stereotype threat effects on performance, whereas a reappraisal strategy can prevent this impairment. We discuss implications for the understanding of processes underlying stereotype threat effects and the benefits of reappraising subjective experience under threat.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.148
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.135 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations34
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicMind wandering and attentionFrench-language works237,207