So many interesting studies and perspectives in here! I did find my attention wandering on occasion but that has more to do with me. ( )

This book defines stereotype threat and discusses the evidence that stereotype threat causes measurable differences in outcomes for those subject to negative stereotypes. It also discusses evidence that indicates that stereotype threat can be quite situational.

Steele starts with the discussion of identity contingencies. Identity contingencies are "the things you have to deal with in a situation because you have a given social identity." We are all subject to contingencies ("If you don't do your homework, you can't go out."). However, identity contingencies differ from other contingencies in that they are based on who you appear to be, implicit, and generally outside of your control ("If you are a woman, then you are probably bad at math.").

Steele argues that identity contingencies are negative. I tend to disagree -- for example, there are identity contingencies that associate masculinity with bravery. While these can be negative in so far as they imply that women may lack in bravery, the contingency itself is positive for the stereotyped group -- men, in this case. However, where Steele and I agree is that it is the negative contingencies that lead to stereotype threat.

Stereotype threat is the idea that a negative identity contingency causes people to perform worse on tasks when the stereotype is salient. And, as many studies in different settings show, evoking stereotypes leads to worse performance for the stereotyped group. Throughout the book, Steele relates enough studies using different methodologies in different domains that, even given the reproducibility crisis in experimental psychology, it seems fair to conclude that something is going on.

How does stereotype threat work? In Steele's model, lower performance isn't caused by personal factors (such as having internalized the negative stereotype). Rather, it's because of environmental factors. The mechanism by which stereotype threat impairs performance is that it induces anxiety which occupies the working memory with scanning for threats. That reduction of working memory leads, in turn, to reduced performance. This seems to happen even when people are not consciously aware of the anxiety caused by the stereotype threat.

Stereotype threat appears to be triggered by cues in the environment that evoke the stereotype. These cues need not be overt like hate speech or racism. Instead, they can take the form of indications that only a particular type of person belongs there or that particular types of people do not. They are indicators, not absolutes. If the cues point often enough in an unsettling direction, stereotype threat is likely to ensue. Some examples of cues that reduce stereotype threat include a critical mass of people with your identity, powerful people with your identity, how a setting is organized by identity (e.g. how friendships are grouped), signals of inclusiveness, and presence/absence of explicit prejudice.

There's a caveat to all of this. Stereotype threat does not explain the whole performance gap between groups. Rather, stereotype threat seems to be an effective way to explain performance differences between individuals who are motivated to succeed relative to those outside the stereotyped group who have the same overall skill and preparedness level.

Can stereotype threat be overcome? There are encouraging, although as of yet sparse, indications that it can. Various research teams have tested interventions to reduce stereotype threat. These fall into two broad categories. One category works to reduce the environmental cues that trigger identity threat. Another category works to increase the salience of an individual's personal identity so that it dominates over the stereotyped identity (e.g. by having folks right about values they think will be applicable in a particular class or emphasizing the importance of a growth mindset or having students from different groups talk about their shared problems to emphasize that identity isn't the cause).

Perhaps the most important thing that I took away from this book is that interventions may backfire if they evoke identity without providing visible evidence that people are valued and able to succeed. Without that evidence, such interventions merely make identity more salient without overcoming the contingency associated with the identity. To pull from a personal example, there's an important difference between hearing someone say "This class has a record number of women, one-third" and actually looking around and seeing other women succeed there. Sometimes, the line between these two outcomes is blurry, so it's important to proceed thoughtfully when working to counteract stereotype threat. ( )

WSU Tech staff who participated in the Spring '22 professional development DEI book club read Whistling Vivaldi and held weekly discussions. I think we all took ideas from the book that ranged from recognizing our own personal experiences to coming away with ideas to minimize stereotype threat as we work with students and colleagues.

Whistling Vivaldi is an easy, approachable read. If you've been unsure about diving into the literature surrounding race in the United States, this would be a great place to start. ( )

Steele describes years' worth of work with many research partners on the topic of what they call "stereotype threat": that when people are at risk of confirming a negative stereotype about their group, the stress of that negatively interferes with their performance. What can be done to alleviate this? Sometimes, reminders of positive role models who broke the stereotype help; a good working relationship with a respectful mentor with high expectations; and/or a critical mass of minorities in a setting.

Quotes/notes

We had to compare a group's intellectual performance when its members were stigmatized with their intellectual performance when they were not stigmatized. (30)

Analogy is often the best route to empathetic insight. (60)

The reality of stereotype threat also made the point that places like classrooms, university campuses, standardized-testing rooms...though seemingly the same for everybody, are, in fact, different places for different people. (60)

importance of social identity and the contingencies that go with them (61)

Identity threat is diffuse....A diffuse threat is preoccupying. (71)

"People often see themselves in terms of whichever one of their allegiances [identities] is most under attack." (Amin Maalouf, In the Name of Identity, 72)

Why do we discriminate so easily? ...the need for self-esteem [drives] in-group favoritism. (78)

...the person must care about the performance in question. That's what makes the prospect of confirming the negative stereotype upsetting enough to interfere with that performance. (98)

Disproving a stereotype is a Sisyphean task; something you have to do over and over again as long as you are in the domain where the stereotype applies. (111)

experiments on stereotype threat's physiological effects (132)

A central hope of our research is that identity-integrated settings can be made identity-safe for all students. (footnote, 171)

Prejudice between groups is still a major cause of group segregation throughout the world. [Teaching people to have learning goals when interacting with people from other groups] ...mistakes become just mistakes, not signs of immutable racism. (208)

A central policy implication of the research discussed here is that unless you make people feel safe from the risk of these identity predicaments in identity-integrated settings, you won't succeed in reducing group achievement gaps or enabling people from different backgrounds to work comfortably and well together. (215) ( )

This book was written in 2010 and covers how individual psychology affects society concerning race, gender, mental illness, age, and other differences. Its intended audience seems to consist primarily of Americans. However, it seems like the United States has travelled a long journey since 2010, since the beginning of the Obama era. That journey seems to have spanned places both on and off the beaten path towards social equality. After finishing this book, I’m left to wonder what Steele’s thoughts are concerning this journey.

None of this invalidates any of the research Steele presents from the field of social psychology. He writes about studies showing how the mere mention of a racial or gender category can elicit better-or-worse test scores in college students. He also writes about his personal journey in trying to raise academic achievement in minorities in the college setting. The historical chain of research – brilliant in its design, meticulous in its handling, and clear in its presentation – is still abundantly relevant.

The last chapter – a surmise on whether we’ve reached a “post-racial” society (Steele says no) – seems very dated. Racial discord seems high at the moment I write this in 2020. Most citizens would now laugh at the notion that America has reached post-racial status. Such an observation seems in line with the findings of Steele’s research. “Stereotype threat” is the anxiety that a stereotype of bad outcomes for a group will apply in one’s own specific case. It can be observed in all races, genders, etc. It says simply that one’s identity matters and will continue to matter. Feeling stereotype threat is an innate part of being human. Steele sees that the only way to better the situation is embracing that identity and seeing its positive benefits.

This work has obvious impact for students as well as educators. It also contains insight for social leaders. Americans, living in an acknowledged “melting pot” society, will recognize behaviors that their friends, neighbors, and even themselves have in response to stereotype threat. Steele’s treatment is helpful in slowing down the continual flow of thoughts about this issue in order to see it more cleanly. I, for one, will be more deliberate in how I deal with those of different identity than me in certain social settings. ( )