Development of the Domain Identification Measure: A Tool for Investigating Stereotype Threat Effects

By Jessi L. Smith, Paul H. White. 2001

120 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Gender Studies, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/616df91bf14fccc0a3cbea7fb0d66459054e1cb8

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Gender Studies

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

An Examination of Implicitly Activated, Explicitly Activated, and Nullified Stereotypes on Mathematical Performance: It's Not Just a Woman's Issue (2002, methodology): “The stereotype threat can be nullified, however, and performance can be optimal if the stereotype is made irrelevant, either by explicitly stating it does not apply (e.g., Spencer et al., 1999; Stangor et al., 1998) or by diminishing the person’s identification with the domain (e.g., Aronson et al.,”
The consequences of stereotype threat on the academic performance of White and non-White lower income college students (2006, methodology): “2.2.3. Domain Identification Measure All participants completed the Domain Identification Measure ( Smith & White, 2001 ), which is a 20-item scale that assessed how closely participants identify with school-related subjects.”
Implicit Social Cognitions Predict Sex Differences in Math Engagement and Achievement (2011, background): “…Aiken & Dreger, 1961; Betz & Hackett, 1983; Chipman, Nosek, Smyth Krantz, & Silver, 1992; Ethington, 1991; Fennema & Sherman, 1976; Hackett & Betz, 1981; Hyde, Fennema, Ryan, Frost, & Hopp, 1990; Smith & White, 2001)—beyond that accounted for by self-reports of gender-stereotypic associations.”
Trait beliefs that make women vulnerable to math disengagement (2010, background): “Domain identification is defined as perceiving a domain as attractive, important, and having favorable outcomes (Smith & White, 2001; Steele, 1997).”
Understanding the Process of Stereotype Threat: A Review of Mediational Variables and New Performance Goal Directions (2004, methodology): “effects are most detrimental to individuals who are identified with or who value the stereotype-relevant domain (i.e., see the domain as highly selfrelevant, important, and as having favorable outcomes; Aronson et al., 1999; Smith and White, 2001; Steele, 1997) or value the social group identity (Sc”
Discounting the Difficult: How High Math-Identified Women Respond to Stereotype Threat (2006, methodology): “A more developed and validated measure of domain identification (e.g., Smith & White, 2001 ) is recommended for future research.”
Effects of Salient Multiple Identities on Women's Performance Under Mathematics Stereotype Threat (2005, methodology): “Women differ in the extent to which they identify with the domain of mathematics ( Smith & White, 2001 ).”
New Trends in Gender and Mathematics Performance: A Meta-Analysis (2010, unknown): “…& Bauschlicher (1994) -0.34 0.96 Smees, Sammons, Thomas, & Mortimore (2002) -0.06 0.83 Smees, Sammons, Thomas, & Mortimore (2002) -0.03 1.02 Smith & White (2001) 0.70 1.06 Smith & White (2001) 0.35 0.69 Spencer, Steele, & Quinn (1999) 0.61 Spencer, Steele, & Quinn (1999) 0.53 Spencer,…”