An Examination of Implicitly Activated, Explicitly Activated, and Nullified Stereotypes on Mathematical Performance: It's Not Just a Woman's Issue

By Jessi L. Smith, Paul H. White. 2002

173 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Gender Studies, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6817e583963423fae1d4ee4df724b7bb86ee9f50

How researchers see this paper

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

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Gender Studies

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Feeling the Threat (2014, unknown): “However, research suggests that specific stereotypes pertaining to women in STEM need not be made explicit by men (Logel et al., 2009), nor must they be made explicit in a stereotype-related situation (Smith & White, 2002) to negatively influence women’s performance and experiences.”
Understanding the Process of Stereotype Threat: A Review of Mediational Variables and New Performance Goal Directions (2004, background): “Of the nine studies that have used this measure, eight did not find any sterotype threat experimental effects (Aronson et al., 1999, Study 2; Gonzales et al., 2002; Keller, 2002; Keller and Dauenheimer, 2003; Smith and White, 2002, Study 1 and Study 2; Steele and Aronson, 1995, Study 2; Stone et a”
Stereotype threat among schoolgirls in quasi-ordinary classroom circumstances (2007, background): “There is little doubt that this stereotype can be subtly or implicitly activated (see Smith, 2002), even in children (Ambady et al., 2001).”
Effects of Salient Multiple Identities on Women's Performance Under Mathematics Stereotype Threat (2005, background): “demonstrations that explicit mention of the stereotype induces performance deficits (e.g., Aronson et al., 1999; Keller, 2002; Keller & Dauenheimer, 2003; Leyens et al., 2000; Major et al., 1998; McIntyre et al., 2003; O’Brien & Crandall, 2003; Smith & White, 2002 ).”
An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance. (2008, background): “…to one’s stigmatized status in a domain (e.g., S. J. Spencer et al., 1999) and more subtle manipulations in which the researcher’s expectations for poor performance are less likely to be consciously primed (e.g., Inzlicht & Ben-Zeev, 2000; J. L. Smith & White, 2002; Stone & McWhinnie, in press).”
Stereotype Threat in Men on a Test of Social Sensitivity (2005, background): “These negative stereotypes include the superiority of Asians to Whites in mathematics (e.g., Aronson et al., 1999; Smith & White, 2002) and Blacks to Whites in athletic domains (e.g., Stone, Lynch, Sjomeling, & Darley, 1999).”
The Influence of Proactive Personality and Stereotype Threat on Women's Entrepreneurial Intentions (2007, methodology): “The article was modeled after Smith and White (2002) and pre-tested with a convenience sample of business doctoral students to ensure that the article appeared scientific and valid.”
Discounting the Difficult: How High Math-Identified Women Respond to Stereotype Threat (2006, background): “The cues to elicit stereotype threat, therefore, range from the explicit, such as statements about typical gender differences (Keller, 2002; Smith & White, 2002 ), to the implicit, such as testing conditions with peers of the other sex.”
Awareness of a gender stereotype, personal beliefs and self-perceptions regarding math ability: when boys do not surpass girls (2007, unknown): “For example, women’s performance on a mathematics task was found to be lower when the procedure activated the negative stereotype that women do not perform as well in math as men, than when the procedure did not (e.g., Smith and White 2002; Spencer et al. 1999).”
Implicit stereotypes and women ’ s math performance : How implicit gender-math stereotypes in X uence women ’ s susceptibility to stereotype threat (2005, unknown): “…and women's math performance: How implicit . . . , Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (2006), doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.08.004 which math tests are perceived to be diagnostic of math ability, women typically experience stereotype threat (Smith & White, 2002) and perform worse than men.”
The Costs of Accepting Gender Differences: The Role of Stereotype Endorsement in Women's Experience in the Math Domain (2004, background): “…ability to perform up to potential on tests of their mathematical ability (Inzlicht & Ben-Zeev, 2003; Quinn & Spencer, 2001; Schmader & Johns, 2003; Smith & White, 2002; Spencer et al., 1999), as well as their interest in pursuing mathematically oriented vocations (Davies, Spencer, Quinn, &…”
Why Are Some STEM Fields More Gender Balanced Than Others? (2017, unknown): “Though most research on stereotype threat has focused on performance (e.g., Good, Aronson, & Harder, 2008; P. R. Jones, 2011; J. L. Smith & White, 2002), stereotype threat has also been shown to prevent women from being interested in fields in which they feel negatively stereotyped (J. L. Smith et…”
Gender Differences in Mathematical Problem Solving Patterns: A Review of Literature. (2007, background): “Recent research (Keller, 2002; Spencer, Marx, Brown, and Steele, 1999; Shih, Pittinsky, and Ambady, 1999; Smith and White, 2002; Spencer, Steele and Quinn, 1999; Steele, 1999) has documented that stereotype threat interfered with girls’ performance on standardised mathematics tests.”
Differences between Men and Women in Opportunity Evaluation as a Function of Gender Stereotypes and Stereotype Activation (2013, methodology): “Following prior research (Smith & White, 2002), our manipulation for stereotype activation was contained in a one-page (fictitious) news article provided to participants in each experimental condition.”
The stereotyped task engagement process: The role of interest and achievement motivation. (2007, background): “Participants higher in achievement motivation were relatively more likely to adopt performance-avoidance goals under explicit or implicit stereotype threat than when the threat was nullified (Smith & White, 2002).”