Stereotype threat contributes to poorer recall performance among undergraduate students with problematic drinking patterns.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stereotype threat occurs when individuals from stigmatized groups feel they are expected to conform to a negative stereotype associated with their group. Studies show that activating stereotype threat can impair performance on cognitive tasks in various marginalized groups. Individuals with problematic alcohol use are subject to stigmatized views related to cognitive abilities and socialization skills; thus, we examine for the first time whether eliciting stereotype threat impairs performance on a memory and a theory of mind task in undergraduate students with varying drinking patterns. We randomized 205 students to a neutral or a stereotype threat condition, which informed participants that the purpose of the study was to assess memory performance and theory of mind skills in relation to different patterns of alcohol consumption. In the stereotype threat group, individuals with problematic drinking patterns demonstrated significantly worse memory performance than nonproblematic drinkers and nondrinkers. The same was not true in the neutral condition, where memory recall did not differ significantly as a function of drinking status. Experimental group and drinking status failed to reveal significant effects on cognitive and affective theory of mind performance. Problematic alcohol use patterns were only associated with poorer memory when stereotype threat was elicited, which indicates that assessments of neurocognitive profiles may be biased, at least for memory performance, if stereotype threat is inadvertently elicited in substance users. Broader implications support the imperative to avoid stigmatization of problematic substance use in scientific communication and clinical settings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".