Stereotype threat and lift effects on perceived ability and motor task performance of high school physical education students: The moderating role of stereotype endorsement and domain identification

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of stereotype threat and lift on perceived ability and motor task performance, and tested the moderating effects of stereotype endorsement and domain identification. One hundred and twenty French high school students were randomly assigned to control, stereotype threat, or stereotype lift conditions, in a 3 (condition) × 2 (sex) study design. The results revealed a stereotype lift effect on boys' performance moderated by domain identification and a stereotype threat effect on girls' perceived ability moderated by domain identification and stereotype endorsement. Perceived ability did not mediate the effects of stereotype threat and lift on performance. Theoretical implications are discussed.

Full text

1
Titre
Effet de menace et d’ascenseur du stéréotype sur l’habileté perçue et la performance motrice
d’élèves en éducation physique et sportive : le rôle modérateur de l’adhésion au stéréotype et
de l’identification au domaine.
Résumé
Cette étude investigue les effets de menace et d’ascenseur du stéréotype sur l’habileté perçue
et la performance motrice, et teste les effets modérateurs de l’adhésion au stéréotype et de
l’identification au domaine. Cent vingt élèves français ont été assignés aléatoirement dans
l’une des conditions suivantes : contrôle, menace du stéréotype, ou ascenseur du stéréotype,
selon un plan expérimental 3 (condition) x 2 (sexe). Les résultats révèlent un effet d’ascenseur
du stéréotype sur les performances des garçons modéré par l’identification au domaine, et un
effet de menace du stéréotype sur l’habileté perçue des filles modéré par l’identification au
domaine et l’adhésion au stéréotype. L’habileté perçue ne médiatise pas les effets de menace
ou d’ascenseur du stéréotype sur la performance. Les implications théoriques sont discutées.
Titre courant
Menace et ascenseur du stéréotype
Mots clés : menace du stéréotype, ascenseur du stéréotype, adhésion au stéréotype,
identification au domaine
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

2
Title
Stereotype threat and lift effects on perceived ability and motor task performance of high
school physical education students: The moderating role of stereotype endorsement and
domain identification.
Abstract
This study investigated the effects of stereotype threat and lift on perceived ability and motor
task performance, and tested the moderating effects of stereotype endorsement and domain
identification. One hundred and twenty French high school students were randomly assigned
to control, stereotype threat, or stereotype lift conditions, in a 3 (condition) x 2 ( sex) study
design. The results revealed a stereotype lift effect on boys’ performance moderated by
domain identification and a stereotype threat effect on girls’ perceived ability moderated by
domain identification and stereotype endorsement. Perceived ability did not mediate the
effects of stereotype threat and lift on performance. Theoretical implications are discussed.
Current title
Stereotype threat and lift
Key words
Stereotype threat, stereotype lift, stereotype endorsement, domain identification, motor task.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

3
Prior research has clearly shown that men participate in sports activities more often than
women (Chalabaev, Sarrazin, Fontayne, Boiché, & Clément-Guillotin, 2013; Fredricks &
Eccles, 2005; Papaioannou, Karastogiannidou, & Theodorakis, 2004). Male students are more
interested in physical education classes than female students (Chen & Darst, 2002) and, all in
all, they tend to perform better on many motor tasks (Bois, Sarrazin, Brustad, Trouilloud, &
Cury, 2002; Eccles & Harold, 1991). Researchers in social psychology have increasingly
emphasized the role of social stereotypes and stereotype threat effects to explain such sex
differences. Studies have consistently demonstrated that negative in-group stereotype salience
(stereotype threat) can decrease performance in testing situations (Steele & Aronson, 1995)
and that negative out-group stereotype salience (stereotype lift) can boost performance
(Walton & Cohen, 2003). Therefore, the main goal of this study was to investigate the
stereotype threat and lift effects on perceived ability and motor task performance, and to test
the moderating effects of stereotype endorsement and domain identification.
The stereotype threat and lift effects and their consequences have been widely studied
in cognitive tasks. Nevertheless, studies are needed to investigate their pervasiveness across
domains. The few studies that have examined the activation of a negative stereotype on motor
performance have found an effect on performance on a putting task in golf (Stone, Lynch,
Sjomeling & Darley, 1999), on force production (Chalabaev et al., 2013), on a rhythmic
motor skill (Huber, Seitchik, Brown, Sternad, & Harkins, 2015), on the time of completion of
a course in soccer and motivation to practice (Chalabaev, Sarrazin, Stone, & Cury, 2008), on
learning of a football task (Heidrich & Chiviacowsky, 2015; Martiny et al., 2015), on a motor
test of balance (Chalabaev, Stone, Sarrazin, & Croizet, 2008) and on performance in tennis
(Hively & El-Alayli, 2014) and basketball (Hively & El-Alayli, 2014; Krendl, Gainsburg &
Ambady, 2012; Laurin, 2013). Moreover, these studies have demonstrated a moderating effect
for task difficulty (Hively & El-Alayli, 2014), and domain identification (Stone et al., 1999)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

4
and a mediating effect for task involvement (Chalabaev, Stone et al., 2008a) and somatic
anxiety (Laurin, 2013). The common feature of all these studies is that participants were
strongly identified with the targeted domain. Thus, the first goal of our study was to determine
whether previous findings on motor tasks can be replicated in a population (high school
students) not necessarily identified with the sports domain. Few studies were published on
stereotype threat in school (Chalabaev, Dematte, Sarrazin, & Fontayne, 2014, Laurin, 2013),
and these studies did not consider the domain identification and stereotype endorsement of the
participants as potential moderators. Therefore, the second goal was to extend our
understanding of stereotype activation phenomena by targeting stereotype endorsement and
domain identification as key moderating variables.
As suggested by Steele and Aronson (1995), when a negative stereotype about a group
becomes a salient criterion for evaluating performance, individual group members may
become concerned that their performance will confirm the validity of the negative stereotype.
The increased concern imposed by stereotype threat adds an additional psychological burden
to the task, which in turn reduces the individual’s ability to perform up to his or her potential
(see Schmader, Johns, & Forbes, 2008, for a review). In contrast, stereotype lift is a boost to
performance caused by the awareness that an out-group is negatively stereotyped (Walton &
Cohen, 2003). A negative out-group stereotype improves performance because it encourages
downward social comparisons with the denigrated out-group. By comparing themselves with
a socially devalued group, people may increase their perceived ability, which, in turn, will
improve performance.
Numerous theoretical models have highlighted the role of perceived ability as a major
antecedent of behavior (e.g., Eccles, Wigfield, & Schiefele, 1998; Harter, 1982; Ryan & Deci,
2000). Although these frameworks differ in several ways, each proposes that individuals with
high perceptions of their ability in a particular achievement domain will demonstrate greater
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

5
levels of effort, perseverance, and affective characteristics in that domain. Specifically, higher
levels of perceived physical competence have been linked to young people’s interest and
desire to engage in physical activities and sports (e.g., Brustad, 1993, 1996; Feltz &
Petlichkoff, 1983) and appear to contribute to greater enjoyment (Scanlan, Stein, & Ravizza,
1989) and lower anxiety while involved in these activities (Passer, 1983; Scanlan &
Lewthwaite, 1985). An earlier study showed a stereotype lift effect mediated by self-
confidence (Chalabaev, Stone et al., 2008).
Self-confidence and perceived ability are two different constructs. Self-confidence is
an expectation of success depending on belief in both one’s personal skills and one’s
capability to mobilize them to reach a specific goal (Van der Bijl & Shortridge-Baggett,
2002). Perceived ability is a psychological construct based on self-evaluation of one’s
effectiveness in a specific context. It is defined as one’s awareness of abilities to be effective
in interactions with the environment (Boekaerts, 1991). Although self-confidence depends
necessarily on perceived ability, this distinction is not made in Chalabaev, Stone et al.’s study
(2008). However, this distinction seems important. Indeed, in an evaluative context, it allows
one to consider whether the activation of a negative stereotype influences perceived ability in
a specific domain or the perception of one’s capacity to mobilize this ability to reach a
specific goal. Therefore, because stereotype threat can lead people to appraise their experience
in a biased manner that produces negative thoughts, such as the feeling of being incompetent
(e.g., Kray, Thompson, & Galinsky, 2001; Stangor, Carr, & Kiang, 1998), it seems that
perceived ability is a variable that depends more on (or proximal to) stereotype activation
effects than self-confidence. Thus we expected that stereotype lift and threat effects on
performance would be mediated by perceived ability.
Moreover, domain identification and stereotype endorsement are known to be relevant
moderators of stereotype threat and lift effects (Schmader, Johns, & Forbes, 2008).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

6
Nevertheless, to the best of our knowledge, no study of stereotype threat and lift effects on
motor performance have simultaneously sought to control and test the effects of these
variables.
Domain identification is the incorporation of a particular domain into one’s self-
concept (Osborne, 1995; Smith & White, 2001). For people identified with a domain, the
domain is seen as highly self-defining and is a major ingredient in the global self-evaluation
process (Osborne, 1995, 1997). Identification with a domain can influence decisions and
behaviors (e.g., Fazio, 1995), and often leads to greater motivation and success in that area
(e.g., Finn, 1989). Domain identification can be viewed in terms of self-schemas (Markus,
1977), which can activate domain-related attitudes and affect. It is also an important factor in
understanding stereotype threat effects on an individual’s performance (Steele & Aronson,
1995).
The people who are most invested in a domain for which a stereotype exists about
their group are hypothesized to be more vulnerable to the potentially negative effects of the
stereotype on performance (Aronson, Quinn, & Spencer, 1998; Crocker, Major, & Steele,
1998). This prediction has received direct and indirect support in a number of achievement
domains (e.g., Aronson et al., 1999; Smith & White, 2001; Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999).
Similarly, Walton and Cohen (2003) concluded from their meta-analytic review that the effect
of stereotype lift is more pronounced for identified individuals because of their heightened
concern to do well; however, no study has directly tested this hypothesis. To our knowledge,
only the studies from Stone on racial stereotypes about Black and White athletes (Stone,
Lynch, Sjomeling, & Darley, 1999; Stone, 2002) have shown that the effect of stereotype
threat on motor performance is moderated by level of domain identification. We expected to
reproduce the results of Stone’s studies but on sex stereotype about girl and boys athletes.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

7
More precisely, it was hypothesized that stereotype lift and threat effects on motor
performance and perceived ability would be moderated by domain identification.
Another vulnerability factor appears to be what Pinel (1999) called "stigma
consciousness": the chronic awareness and expectation of one's stigmatized status. For some
individuals, past experience with prejudice can breed a persistent vigilance – that is, a cross-
situational tendency to be on the lookout for bias (e.g., Hughes & Chen, 1999). Such
individuals are more likely to underperform in stereotype threat situations when their
stigmatized status is activated (Brown & Lee, 2005; Brown & Pinel, 2003). However,
although one may have knowledge of a cultural stereotype, personal beliefs may or may not
be congruent with the stereotype (Devine, 1989).
According to Steele, Spencer, and Aronson (2002), the mere awareness that a
stereotype might be applied to one’s performance, and not the individual’s endorsement of the
stereotype, is the minimal condition for stigmatized individuals to experience stereotype
threat. Nevertheless, although someone might not need to endorse the stereotype to
experience stereotype threat, the extent to which individuals do endorse the stereotype about
their group can exacerbate the level of threat they experience. Previous research has
demonstrated that stereotype endorsement moderates stereotype threat among low-status
group members, with performance decrease generally being stronger for participants who
endorse stereotypes than for those who do not (Schmader, Johns, & Barquissau, 2004). Thus,
endorsing sex stereotypes might not come only at the cost of being less motivated to excel in
sport domains: it can also increase susceptibility to stereotype threat because of the negative
link between women and sports.
Contrary to stereotype threat, stereotype lift is little documented, certainly because of the
smallness of this effect. Walton and Cohen’s (2003) meta-analysis showed that nearly 30% of
the studies on stereotype threat did not report enhanced performance in the non-stereotyped
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

8
group. A possible explanation is that non-targets need “pushing” to activate their social
identity, and thus to experience stereotype lift. In line with this idea, several boundary
conditions of stereotype lift have been identified, including fixed views of ability (Mendoza-
Denton, Kahn, & Chan, 2008), motivation to maintain group dominance (Danso & Esses,
2001) and stereotype endorsement (Chatard, Selimbegovic, Konan, & Mugny, 2008). ́Indeed,
Chatard et al. (2008) showed that the more participants endorsed a stereotype, the better they
performed under high versus low salience conditions for negative out-group stereotypes.
None of these studies tested these assumptions on motor performance. It was expected that the
level of stereotype endorsement would moderate the stereotype threat effects among girls and
the stereotype lift effects among boys, on perceived ability and motor performance.
In the present study, girls and boys of a French high school had to perform an exercise
used to work on running technique. The participants carried out the exercise in a neutral,
stereotype lift or threat condition. Domain identification and stereotype endorsement items
were completed one week before the task and the perceived ability items just before the task.
It was hypothesized that the participants in neutral condition would have a lesser motor
performance and perceived ability than participants in stereotype lift condition and a better
motor performance and perceived ability than participants in stereotype threat condition.
Moreover, it was expected that these effects would be reinforced by the level of stereotype
endorsement and domain identification of the participants, and that stereotype lift and threat
effects on performance would be mediated by perceived ability.
Method
Sample and Design
The research was approved by the institutional review board and informed consent
was orally obtained from participants. Our sample was composed of 120 French high school
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

9
students in six single-sex physical education classes (three female classes and three male
classes) from the same school. It was a private school which is not forced, as in public
schools, to work with mixed classes. Sixty-one participants were females and 59 were males.
Their ages ranged from 16 to 18 years (M = 17.2, SD = 0.6). They participated in a study with
a two (sex: males vs. females) x three [condition: control, stereotype threat, stereotype lift]
between-subjects design.
Measures
Motor performance. The task was an exercise frequently used to work on running
technique. The participants were asked to perform stride jumps while jumping rope and to
cover the greatest possible distance. Distance measured in centimeters from the starting point
(marked off by two plots) to the contact point of the last stride. This task was chosen because
it requires as many masculine qualities, like strength, as feminine qualities, like coordination.
Participants had 15 minutes to train and everyone then performed three trials. The best
performance of each student was retained as the outcome measure.
Stereotype endorsement. Stereotype endorsement was assessed with an adaptation to
the sport context of Bonnot and Croizet’s (2007) measure (Boiché, Plaza, Chalabaev, Guillet,
& Sarrazin, 2014), which includes two items about the level of athletic performance that
students personally assigned to girls and boys (e.g., ‘‘Personally, I think that boys’ (girls’)
performance in athletics is’’) on a scale ranging from 1 (= very poor) to 7 (= very good). The
order of the two items was counterbalanced. The item for girls was reversed and the two items
were averaged, so that a score lower than 4 indicates a perception of athletics as feminine and
a score greater than 4, as masculine.
Domain identification. To assess domain identification, we used three items adapted
from the Importance to Identity subscale of the Collective Self-Esteem Scale (Luhtanen &
Crocker, 1992), “I think many things are more important than being good at athletics”, “I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

10
think being good at school is more important than being good at athletics” and “It is important
for me to be good at athletics”. Items were rated on a scale from 1(= strongly disagree) to 7 (=
strongly agree). The first and second items were reflected, and the three items averaged to
form a scale score (α =.75, 95% CI = .72 to .78).
Perceived ability. We used a three-item measure to assess perceived ability in the
stride jump (Duda & Nicholls, 1992) – “I feel that my level for stride jumps is ...”, “In
comparing myself with other students, I have a level for stride jumping...” and “For me, the
work of stride jumping is ...”. Items were rated on a scale from 1(= very weak or very
difficult) to 7 (= very high or very easy) and averaged to form a scale score (α =.81, 95% CI =
.79 to .83).
Procedure
We employed a two-step method. The first step consisted of collecting baseline
measures for all variables at the beginning of the study (T0); the second step consisted of
collecting measures for perceived ability and actual performance again one week later (T1),
after manipulating stereotype threat and lift. Thus, stereotype endorsement and domain
identification were measured only at T0, and we were able to control for group differences in
perceived ability and performance by considering differences between T1 and T0 measures.
As social settings vary in the degree to which they are threatening (Steele, 1997; Steele
et al., 2002), the two experimenters were of the opposite sex. At T0, instructions were as
follows: “We are conducting a study for the French Federation of Athletics about athletics in
schools. For this, we need to observe and collect information with questionnaires. We are
specialists of running technique so we would also like to observe you performing stride
jumps.” During the class, each participant was individually and randomly invited by the two
experimenters to complete the perceived ability items before performing the task. The task
was conducted next to running track so that each participant was relatively separated from the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

11
rest of the class. Moreover, participants were asked to not reveal their performance to the
others. At the end of the class, they completed the stereotype endorsement and domain
identification items. The order of the variables was counterbalanced.
At T1, we used an instructional manipulation. As at T0, each participant was
individually invited during the class to participate in the experiment and was randomly
assigned to one of the three conditions. We instructed participants in the control condition by
saying: “Previous studies on running technique have shown that successful stride jumping
requires as many masculine qualities, like strength and explosiveness, as feminine qualities,
like coordination and flexibility. I would like to continue observing you performing stride
jumps. I ask that you give 100% to the task so I can accurately measure your performance.”
To induce stereotype threat or lift, the following instructions were provided: “We need
to continue observing you and to collect some information from the questionnaire. Today we
would like to observe another performance of stride jump exercise. The results of last week
confirmed that girls (or boys) have more difficulty than boys (or girls) in this exercise. It
seems to be because this exercise requires strength and explosiveness (or flexibility and
coordination). So even though there may be sex differences on this test, I ask that you give
100% on the task so I can accurately measure your performance.” With the same sentence
pattern, a girl (or a boy) could be in a stereotype threat or lift condition just by changing the
name of the target group (girls or boys) and the supposed required skills. The participant then
was individually and randomly invited to complete the perceived ability items and to perform
the task before we debriefed and thanked him or her.
Results
Preliminary Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

12
To evaluate stereotype endorsement, we compared the sample mean for stereotype
endorsement (M = 4.48, SD = .83) with a score of 4 (= neutral). Results for this one-sample t-
test indicated that, on average, boys were considered to be better at athletics than girls, t (119)
= 6.34, p < .001, d = .58 [or eta-square = .08]. Moreover, 65% of the population reported a
score greater than 4.
Next, we assessed equivalence between groups at baseline using a 3 (condition) x 2
(sex) MANOVA on stereotype endorsement, domain identification, performance, and
perceived ability. Although there was no significant difference between stereotype conditions,
F (4, 112) = .98, ns, there was a significant main effect for sex, F (8, 224) =5.98, p <.001, ƞ²
= .09, and a significant sex x condition interaction, F (8, 224) =2.68, p =.03, ƞ² = .04.
More particularly, results did not reveal significant sex differences on stereotype endorsement,
F (1, 115) = 1.84, ns, ƞ² = .02, domain identification, F (1, 115) = 1.52, ns, ƞ² = .02, and
perceived ability, F (1, 115) = 1.01, ns, ƞ² = .01. However, they showed a significant
difference between boys’ (M =19.3, SD = .66) and girls’ performances at T0 (M =15.8, SD = .
64), F (1, 115) = 10.91, p <.001, ƞ² = .09. Furthermore, the analysis did not show a sex x
condition interaction effect on perceived ability, F (1, 115) = 0.81, ns, ƞ² = .01 and
performance, F (2, 115) = 1.94, ns, ƞ² = .03, but the interaction effect was significant on
domain identification, F (2, 115) = 3.92, p = .02, ƞ² = .06 and stereotype endorsement, F (2,
115) = 3.58, p = .03, ƞ² = .06. Specifically, HSD Tuckey post-hoc showed that females in the
threat condition (M = 4.34) reported significantly lower levels of domain identification than
did boys in lift condition (M = 5.01, p = .02). Moreover, boys in the threat condition (M =
4.21) reported significantly lower levels of stereotype endorsement than did boys in the lift
condition (M = 4.73, p = .04). The others means did not differ significantly from each other.
Although the groups were relatively homogeneous, for the boys, the intergroup difference on
the stereotype endorsement could reinforce the stereotype lift effect. Also, stereotype
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

13
endorsement and domain identification variables were controlled to test the stereotype lift and
stereotype threat hypotheses.
Primary Analysis
A multivariate general linear model was used to test the main and interaction effects of
categorical (test frame manipulation: control, threat and lift conditions; sex: female or male)
and continuous (stereotype endorsement and domain identification) variables on perceived
ability and performance scores variation between T1 and T0. A model testing the simple
effects and the sex*condition, sex *condition* endorsement stereotype and the sex*condition
*domain identification interactions effects was defined. Stereotype endorsement and domain
identification were centred at their means. This analysis was followed by planned contrasts to
test whether stereotype threat or stereotype lift occurred. All the results are presented in Table
1.
Perceived ability
There were no significant main effects for sex, condition, stereotype endorsement or
domain identification (all ƞ² < .02). However, there was a significant interaction between sex
and condition, F (2, 112) = 6.56, p = .002, ƞ² = .11. The score variation of girls' perceived
ability between control (M = .06) and stereotype threat (M= - .49) groups differ significantly,
F (1, 114) = 8.54, p =.004, ƞ² = .07, and do not between control and stereotype lift (M = .12)
groups. Contrary to expectations, threat and lift effects on perceived ability were not observed
for boys. Indeed, within- sex comparisons across conditions showed no significant difference
in the boys’ scores (F < 1). The stereotype threat effect was replicated (Steele & Aronson,
1995), but only for girls.
Furthermore, the analysis revealed a three-way interaction effect between sex,
condition and domain identification, F (2, 112) = 3.15, p = .04, ƞ² = .03, and a three-way
interaction effect between sex, condition and stereotype endorsement, F (2, 112) = 4.01, p
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

14
=.02, ƞ² = .04. Separate analyses on male and female scores showed a significant main effect
of the condition, F (2, 49) = 6.55, p =.003, ƞ² = .21, a significant condition x domain
identification interaction, F (2, 49) = 6.13, p =.004, ƞ² = .20, and a significant condition x
stereotype endorsement interaction, F (2, 49) = 4.07, p =.02, ƞ² = .14 for females, but no main
or interaction effects for males (ƞ² < .04). We conducted tests of the simple slopes of
condition at 1 standard deviation above and below the mean of domain identification and
stereotype endorsement for the females in the control and stereotype threat conditions (Aiken
& West, 1991). These analyses showed that the effect of the condition on perceived ability
was significant for females with the lower level of domain identification (β = .56, p = .03, ƞ²
= .12) but not for those with the higher level of domain identification (β = .24, p = .44, ²ƞ = .
01). Girls with a low level of domain identification showed, with regard to the baselines, a
decrease in their perceived ability in the stereotype threat condition (M = -.84), but not in
control condition (M =.16, t (29) = 2.73, p = .01). Such differences were not observed among
the girls with a higher level of domain identification (M =.17 and -.04 respectively).
Moreover, the effect of the condition on perceived ability was significant for females with the
higher level of stereotype endorsement (β =- .47, p = .04, ² = .11ƞ) but not for those with the
lower level of stereotype endorsement (β = .33, p = .11, ² = .04ƞ). Girls with a high level of
stereotype endorsement indicated a decrease in their perceived ability in stereotype threat
condition (M = -.61), but not in control condition (M = .17), t (29) = 2.95, p = .009. Such
differences were not observed among girls with a low level of stereotype endorsement (M = .
38 and .02 respectively).
Performance
As previously, there were no significant main effects for sex, condition, stereotype
endorsement or domain identification (all F < 1), but a significant interaction between sex and
condition, F (2, 112) = 4.02, p = .02, ƞ² = .07. The score variation of boys' performance
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

15
between control (M = -.06) and stereotype lift (M = 1 .94) groups differ significantly F (1,
114) = 6.78, p =.01, ƞ² = .07 and do not between control and stereotype threat (M = .17)
groups. Contrary to expectations, threat and lift effects on performance were not observed for
girls. Indeed, within- sex comparisons across conditions showed no significant difference in
the girls’ scores (F < 2). The stereotype lift effect was replicated (Steele & Aronson, 1995),
but only for boys.
Furthermore, the analyses revealed a three-way interaction effect between sex, condition and
domain identification, F (2, 112) = 3.41, p =.03, ƞ² = .05. Separate analyses on females and
males showed a significant main effect of condition, F (2, 47) = 3.21, p =.05, ƞ² = .12,
domain identification F (1, 47) = 4.48, p =.04, ƞ² = .09, and condition x domain identification
interaction for males, F (2, 47) = 3.41, p =.04, ƞ² = .13, but no main or interaction effects for
females (ƞ² < .04). As previously, tests of the simple slopes of condition at 1 standard
deviation above and below the mean of domain identification for males in the control and
stereotype lift conditions were conducted. They showed that the effect of the condition on the
performance was significant for boys with a lower level of domain identification (β = .39, p
=.05) and with a higher level of domain identification (β = .76, p = .01), but that the
difference between the control and stereotype lift conditions was significantly greater among
the boys with a higher level of domain identification (M = 0.04 and 2.63) than among those
with a lower level of domain identification(M = .-20 and 1.29), z = 1.91, p = .03.
Mediating effects of perceived ability
Before testing for a mediating effect of perceived ability on the condition
-performance relationship, we examined the correlations between these variables for males
and females. The results showed a positive and significant correlation between condition and
perceived ability variation for females (r = .38, p = .006) and performance variation for males
(r = .30, p =.02), but no significant correlation between perceived ability and performance for
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

16
females or males. According to these results, perceived ability was not a mediator of
stereotype threat or lift effects.
Discussion
The first goal of our study was to determine the effects of stereotype threat and
stereotype lift on a motor task performance. This is one of the first studies to examine
stereotype threat and lift effects in physical education classes. For both male and female
participants, we hypothesized stereotype lift effects when the out-group was threatening and
stereotype threat effects when the in-group was threatening. These effects were expected to be
observed with regard to their perceived ability and their performances. Our hypotheses were
partially validated.Our results showed a stereotype threat effect on girls’ perceived ability
(Kray, Thompson, & Galinsky, 2001; Stangor, Carr, & Kiang, 1998) but not on their motor
performances, and contrary to the results of Chalabaev, Stone et al. (2008), no stereotype lift
effects. Different results were observed for the boys. We did not find stereotype threat effects
on boys’ performances or perceived ability, but observed a stereotype lift effect on their
performances.
The finding that the girls (contrary to the boys) did not benefit significantly from an
explicit activation of negative out-group stereotypes may be explained by the perception that
athletics is a masculine activity. As suggested by Walton and Cohen (2003), people may
benefit from stereotype lift when the ability of an out-group is explicitly called into question,
but they may also benefit when the performance task is linked to a widely known negative
stereotype. Even though the manipulation was based on stereotypical traits widely shared and
assumed to facilitate task success, the stereotype of men as better than women in athletics
may be so pervasive that it is impervious to the activation of counter-stereotypical cues,
thereby explaining the absence of stereotype lift in the girls and its manifestation in the boys.
This corroborates results of Chalabaev, Stone et al. (2008), who showed stereotype lift but no
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

17
stereotype threat effects on boys and girls performance on a balance task and suggests that
there are contexts in which stereotype lift is more likely to occur than stereotype threat. The
pervasiveness of the stereotype of men as better than women in athletics might also explain
our observation that the stereotype lift in the boys affected their performances but not their
perceived ability. Indeed, our results showed that athletics was perceived as masculine and
that the stereotype endorsement level in these boys was positively related to their perceived
ability. Therefore, whatever the situation, the boys’ perceived ability for athletics changed
little and other psychological variables would thus explain the variability in their
performances. To overcome the pervasiveness of the stereotype, a task that does not refer to
any particular physical activity (such as a stabilometer motor task) would have been a better
choice, as in the study of Chalabaev, Stone et al. (2008).
Furthermore, our results showed a stereotype threat effect on the girls’ perceived
ability and no effect on their performances. To our knowledge, no studies have shown
stereotypes effects on perceived ability, which may be explained by the theoretical assumption
that stereotype threat mainly concerns people who feel confident in their ability in the
stereotyped domain (Schmader et al., 2008). Nevertheless, it is possible to consider that the
perceived ability of one’s group (with a medium perceived ability level) may have been
affected by the perception of a negative evaluation targeting one’s sex group. The stereotype
endorsement, which is strong in participants of this study, could increase stereotype
susceptibility and explain that the negative stereotype activation influenced the perceived
ability of one’s group. Others studies are necessary to confirm and explain this finding.
Moreover, why was an effect on perceived ability observed and not on performance?
This pattern of results was also observed by Kellow and Jones (2008) in an African-American
population evaluated on a spatial ability test. The authors explained their results by referring
to the timing of the study, which they suggested was such that the African-American students
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

18
did not feel sufficient pressure to perform at their best in the evaluative condition. This could
also partly explain our results. As it took place at the beginning of the school year, without
imminent prospect evaluation, our manipulation did not generate a sufficiently strong
evaluative pressure in girls.Our findings might also be explained by the type of task. Indeed,
motor and cognitive tasks involve different processes – automatic and controlled, respectively.
Motor task performance becomes impaired because individuals under threat become more
conscious of their performance, leading to controlled rather than automated behavior
regulation (Beilock et al., 2006). As suggested by the study from Beilock et al. (2006), the
addition of a cognitive load makes the individual unable to consciously monitor his or her
performance, which has the effect of enhancing performance under stereotype threat by
allowing automatic processes to guide behavior. In the natural context of our study (the task
was conducted next to running track), it was impossible to control all the variables that could
have influenced the findings, and it also seems possible that a concurrent cognitive load – i.e.,
dealing with the noise and movements of other students, etc. – was able to eliminate the effect
of threat on the girls’ motor performances.
We hypothesized that the stereotype threat and lift effects would be mediated by
perceived ability and moderated by stereotype endorsement and domain identification. The
results showed that the stereotype threat and lift effects in the boys and girls were manifested
on either performance or perceived ability and that these two variables were independent.
These results differ from the findings of Chalabaev, Stone et al. (2008), who showed that an
explicit downward comparison with a devalued out-group improved males’ self-confidence
and that this comparison contributed to the performance boost. In our study, it appeared that
perceived ability did not influence either the boys’ or the girls’ performances. However, as it
was specified previously, perceived ability and self-confidence are not the same constructs. In
an evaluative context, where a negative stereotype was activated, it is certainly more the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

19
perception to be able to mobilize its skill (self-confidence) than the perception of its skill
(perceived ability) which affects the motor performance. Also, self-confidence seems to be a
psychological state more predictive of motor performance than perceived ability (Chalabaev,
Stone et al., 2008).
Moreover, our study showed that the stereotype threat and lift effects on girls and
boys, respectively, were moderated by the level of domain identification. As suggested in
Walton and Cohen’s meta-analytic review (2003), comparison with a devalued group
increased the performances of those boys more strongly identified with athletics. This result is
particularly interesting because no study, to our knowledge, has ever shown the moderating
effect of domain identification on the mechanism of stereotype lift. However, contrary to our
expectations, the data suggest that the girls less identified with athletics were more vulnerable
to stereotype effects on perceived ability than girls more identified. People who are most
invested in a domain for which a stereotype exists about their group are hypothesized to be
most vulnerable to the negative effects of the stereotype (Aronson, Quinn, & Spencer, 1998;
Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998). Nevertheless, the stereotype threat effects in our study were
produced on a perceptive (perceived ability) and not a behavioral (performance) variable, and
these two variables are independent. Moreover, complementary analysis showed that for the
girls in “threat” situation, domain identification was correlated with perceived ability
variation (r (21) = .69, p<.001). In a situation threatening their athletic ability, the most
identified girls with athletics devalue less their perceived ability than the least identified girls.
We can suppose that the girls the most identified with the athletics set up a strategy of defense
of their athlete's identity by asserting their ability in this domain. It would be interesting to
test more specifically this assumption in future studies.
Last, we hypothesized that stereotype endorsement would moderate the stereotype
threat effects among girls and the stereotype lift effects among boys. Contrary to the results of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

20
Chatard et al. (2008), our data showed that, whatever the boys’ stereotype endorsement level,
the stereotype lift effect on their performance did not differ. The different characteristics of
the samples from these two studies seem to explain this contradiction. In contrast to our
sample (M = 4.52, SD = .75), in the Chatard et al. (2008) study, the stereotype endorsement
mean is low (M = 2.06) and the variance is large (SD = 1.33). In our study, the high level of
homogeneity of the sample (SD = .75) and the high level of stereotype endorsement (M =
4.52) certainly explain that the stereotype endorsement did not moderate the effect of
stereotype lift on performances. However, in accordance with the findings of Schmader et al.
(2004), the stereotype endorsement level of the low-status group members (i.e., the girls)
moderated the stereotype threat effect on their perceived ability. We can assume that the
extent to which girls endorsed the stereotype about their group increased the susceptibility to
stereotype threat because of the negative link between women and sports..
Limitations and conclusion
The main limitation of this study was the fact that experimenter was not blinded to the
condition or the hypothesis. This is an especially important issue in psychology and social
science research because the experimenter inevitably has an expectation of what the outcome
should be and thus may consciously or subconsciously influences the participants’ behavior.
Although it is difficult to implement, a double-blind experiment would be more appropriate in
future studies, with neither the participants nor the researchers knowing who belongs to the
control group or the experimental group. Furthermore, although the applied nature of this
study strengthens the social validity of our results, it also has disadvantages, including the
inability to control certain variables that may influence the performance and perceived ability
of the participants (e.g., the moment of passage of the participants, rather at the beginning or
at the end of the course, was able to influence their state of fatigue and thus their performance
level; it was also impossible to totally control the fact that the participants did not speak
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

21
between them of the task and their performance and therefore affect their perceived ability
before the instructions).
The present findings nevertheless contribute to the growing literature addressing
traditional stereotype threat and lift mechanisms. Our study shows that, in the motor domain,
the cues activating stereotype threat and lift situations may have psychological consequences
without affecting motor behavior and that depends on the status of the target group and the
individual levels of stereotype endorsement and domain identification. This confirms the need
in future studies to test explanatory models of the phenomena of stereotype threat and lift
specific to motor tasks.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

22
References
Aiken, L.S., & West, S.G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Newsbury Park, CA:Sage.
Aronson, J., Quinn, D., & Spencer, S. (1998b). Stereotype threat and the academic
underperformance of minorities and women. In J. Swim and C. Stangor (Eds.),
Prejudice: The target’s perspective (pp. 83-103). Academic Press.
Aronson, J., Lustina, M. J., Good, C., Keough, K., Steele, C. M., & Brown, J. (1999). When
White Men Can’t Do Math: Necessary and Sufficient Factors in Stereotype Threat.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 29-46.
Beilock, S.L., & McConnell, A.R. (2004). Stereotype threat and sport: Can athletic
performance be threatened? Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 26, 597–609.
Beilock, S. L., Jellison, W. A., Rydell, R. J., McConnell, A. R., & Carr, T. H. (2006). On the
causal mechanisms of stereotype threat: Can skills that don’t rely heavily on working
memory still be threatened? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1059–
1071.
Bois, J. E., Sarrazin, P. G., Brustad, R. J., Trouilloud, D. O., & Cury, F. (2002). Mothers’
expectancies and young adolescents’ perceived physical competence: A year-long
study. Journal of Early Adolescence, 22, 384–406.
Boekaerts, M. (1991). Subjective competence: Appraisals and self-assessments. Learning and
Instruction, 1, 1–17.
Boiché, J.C.S., Plaza, M., Chalabaev, A., Guillet, E., & Sarrazin, P.G. (2014). Social
antecedents, evolution and consequences of gender stereotypes relative to sport during
adolescence. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38, 259-274.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

23
Bonnot, V., & Croizet, J.-C. (2007). Stereotype internalization and women’s math
performance: The role of interference in working memory. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 43, 857–866.
Brown, R. P., & Pinel, E. C. (2003). Stigma on my mind: Individual differences in the
experience of stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 626-
633.
Brown, R. P., & Lee, M. N. (2005). Stigma consciousness and the race gap in college
academic achievement. Self & Identity, 4, 149–157.
Brustad, R.J. (1993). Who will go out and play? Parental and psychological influences on
children’s attraction to physical activity. Pediatric Science, 5, 210-223.
Brustad, R.J. (1996). Attraction to physical activity in urban school children: Parental
socialization and gender influences. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 67,
316-323.
Chalabaev, A.., Stone, J., Sarrazin, P., & Croizet, J.C. (2008). Investigating Physiological
and Self-Reported Mediators of Stereotype Lift Effects on a Motor Task. Basic and
Applied Social Psychology, 30, 18-26.
Chalabaev, A., Sarrazin, P., Stone, J., & Cury, F. (2008). Do achievement goals mediate
stereotype threat? An investigation on females’ soccer performance. Journal of Sport
& Exercise Psychology, 30, 143–158.
Chalabaev, A., Sarrazin, P., Fontayne, P., Boiché, J., & Clément-Guillotin, C. (2013). The
influence of sex stereotypes and gender roles on participation and performance in sport
and exercise: Review and future directions. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14,
136-144.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

24
Chalabaev, A., Brisswalter, J., Radel, R., Coombes, S. A., Easthope, C., & Clément-Guillotin,
C. (2013). Can stereotype threat affect motor performance in the absence of explicit
monitoring processes?: Evidence using a strength task. Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology, 35, 211-215.
Chalabaev, A., Dematte, E., Sarrazin, P., & Fontayne P. (2014). Creating regulatory fit under
stereotype threat: Effects on performance and self-determination among junior high
school students. International Review of Social Psychology, 27, 119-132.
Chatard, A., Selimbegović, L., Konan, P. N., & Mugny, G. (2008). Performance boosts in the
classroom: Stereotype endorsement and prejudice moderate stereotype lift. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1421–1424.
Chen, A., & Darst, P. W. (2002). Individual and situational interest: The role of gender and
skill. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 250–269.
Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, and G.
Lindzey (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology, (Vol. 2, pp. 504-553). Boston:
McGraw-Hill.
Danso, H. A., & Esses, V. M. (2001). Black experimenters and the intellectual test
performance of White participants: The tables are turned. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 37, 158–165.
Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5-18.
Duda, J.L., & Nicholls, J.G. (1992). Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork
and sport. Journal of Educational Psychology , 84, 290-299.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In W. Damon
(Series Ed.) and N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (5th ed., Vol.
III, pp. 1017–1095). New York: Wiley.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

25
Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1991). Gender differences in sport involvement: Applying the
Eccles’ expectancy-value model. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 3, 7–35.
Fazio, R. H. (1995). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations: Determinants, consequences,
and correlates of attitude accessibility. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude
strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 247-282). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Feltz, D.L., & Petlichkoff, L. (1983). Perceived competence among interscholastic sports
participants and dropouts. Canadian Journal of Applied Sports Sciences, 8, 231-235.
Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117-142.
Fredricks, J. A., & Eccles, J. S. (2005). Family socialization, gender, and sport motivation and
involvement. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 27, 3–31.
Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. Child Development, 53, 87-
97.
Heidrich, C., & Chiviacowsky, S. (2015). Stereotype threat affects the learning of sport motor
skills. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 18, 42-46
Huber, M. E., Seitchik, A. E., Brown, A. J., Sternad, D., & Harkins, S. G. (2015). The effect
of stereotype threat on performance of a rhythmic motor skill. Journal of
experimental psychology: human perception and performance, 41(2), 525
Hughes, D., & Chen, L. (1999). The nature of parents’ race-related communications to
children: A developmental perspective. In L. Balter & C. S. Tamis-Lemonda (Eds.),
Child psychology: A handbook of contemporary issues (pp. 467–490). Philadelphia:
Psychology Press.
Hively, K. & El-Alayli, A. (2014). “You throw like a girl:” The effect of stereotype threat on
women’s athletic performance and gender stereotypes. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 15, 48-55.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

26
Kellow, T. J., & Jones, B. D. (2008). The effects of stereotypes on the achievement gap:
Reexamining the academic performance of African American high school students.
Journal of Black Psychology, 34, 94-120.
Kray, L. J., Thompson, L., & Galinsky, A. D. (2001). Battle of the sexes: Gender stereotype
confirmation and reactance in negotiations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 80, 942–958.
Krendl, A., Gainsburg, I. & Ambady, N., 2012.The effects of stereotypes and observer
pressure on athletic performance. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 34, 3-15.
Laurin, R. (2013). Stereotype Threat and Lift Effects in Motor Task Performance: The
Mediating Role of Somatic and Cognitive Anxiety. Journal of Social Psychology, 153,
687-699.
Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one's
social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 302–318.
Markus, H.R. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 63-78.
Martiny, S. E., Gleibs, I. H., Parks-Stamm, E. J., Martiny-Huenger, T., Froehlich, L., Harter,
A. L., Roth, J. & Martiny, S. E. (2015). Counteracting negative stereotypes in sports:
examining the impact of multiple identities on sensorimotor tasks. Journal of Sport &
Exercise Psychology, 1-39.
Mendoza-Denton, R., Kahn, K., & Chan, W. Y. (2008). Can fixed views of ability boost
performance in the context of favorable stereotypes? Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 44, 1187-1193.
Osborne, J. W. (1995). Academics, self-esteem, and race: A look at the assumptions
underlying the Disindentification hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 21, 449-455.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

27
Osborne, J. W. (1997). Race and academic disidentification. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 89, 728-735.
Papaioannou, A., Karastogiannidou, C., & Theodorakis, Y. (2004). Sport involvement, sport
violence and health behaviours of Greek adolescents. European Journal of Public
Health, 14, 168–172.
Passer, M.W. (1983). Fear of failure, fear of evaluation, perceived competence, and self-
esteem in competitive trait-anxious children. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 172-188.
Pinel, E. C. (1999). Stigma consciousness: The psychological legacy of social stereotypes.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 114-128.
Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
Scanlan, T.K., & Lewthwaite, R. (1985). Social psychological aspects of competition for
male youth sport participants: III. Determinants of personal performance
expectancies. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 389-399.
Scanlan, T.K., Stein, G.L., & Ravizza, K. (1989). An in-depth study of former elite figure
skaters: II. Sources of enjoyment. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11, 65-
83.
Schmader, T., Johns, M., & Barquissau, M. (2004). The costs of accepting gender differences:
The role of stereotype endorsement in women's experience in the math domain. Sex
Roles, 50, 835–850.
Schmader, T., Johns, M., & Forbes, C. (2008). An integrated process model of stereotype
threat effects on performance. Psychological Review, 115, 336–356.
Smith, J. L., & White, P. H. (2001). Development of the domain identification measure: A
tool for investigating stereotype threat effects. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 61, 1040–1057.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

28
Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women's math
performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4-28.
Stangor, C., Carr, C., & Kiang, L. (1998). Activating stereotypes undermines task
performance expectations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1191-
1197.
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of
African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797–811.
Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and
performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613-629.
Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Aronson, J. (2002). Contending with group image: The
psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 34, 379–440.
Stone, J. (2002). Battling doubt by avoiding practice: The Effect of stereotype threat on self-
handicapping in white athletes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1667-
1678.
Stone, J., Lynch, C. I., Sjomeling, M., & Darley, J. M. (1999). Stereotype threat effects on
black and white athletic performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
77, 1213-1227.
Van der Bijl, J. J., & Shortridge-Baggett, L. M. (2002). The theory and measurement of the
self-efficacy construct. In E. A. Lentz & L. M. Shortridge-Baggett (Eds.), Self-efficacy
in nursing: Research and measurement perspectives (pp. 9-28). New York: Springer.
Walton, M. G., & Cohen, L. G. (2003). Stereotype lift. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 39, 456–467.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

29
Table 1
Mean Scores at T0 and T1 and Score Variations between T1 and T0
Conditions
Control
NGirl=20; NBoy=19
Threat
NGirl=21; NBoy=19
Lift
NGirl=20; NBoy=21
Variable Sex T0 T1 T1-T0 T0 T1 T1-T0 T0 T1 T1-T0
Stereotype
endorsement
Female 4.52
(.13) . . 4.43
(.12) . . 4.41
(.11) . .
Male 4.62
(.13) . . 4.21
(.11) . . 4.73
(.13) . .
Domain
identification
Female 4.91
(.22) . . 4.34
(.22) . . 4.62
(.21) . .
Male 4.64
(.22) . . 4.62
(.19) ..5.01
(.23) . .
Perceived ability
Female 3.97
(.23)
4.03
(.21)
.06
(.17)
4.08
(.24)
3.59
(.23)
-.49
(.17)
3.91
(.23)
4.03
(.24)
.12
(.15)
Male 4.52
(.22)
4.31
(.22)
-.21
(.17)
3.98
(.25)
3.99
(.22)
.01
(.15)
4.15
(.22)
4.13
(.22)
-.02
(.17)
Performance
Female 15.97
(1.06)
16.28
(.91)
0.35
(.58)
16.48
(.93)
17.49
(.86)
1.01
(.56)
15.02
(1.02)
16.28
(.89)
1.26
(.51)
Male 20.34
(1.05)
20.27
(.91)
-.07
(.58)
19.15
(0.92)
19.32
(.77)
.17
(.59)
18.66
(1.09)
20.61
(.93)
1.94
(.51)
Note: for instance, “16.48” is the performance of female in threat condition before the manipulation and “1.94”
is the difference of performance from boys in lift condition between before and after the manipulation.
Values for performance refer to meters
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11