Evaluative Feedback Expresses and Reinforces Cultural Stereotypes

Abstract

Evaluative feedback (praise and criticism) has a powerful influence on behavior, in part because it communicates what society values in and expects of an individual. Importantly, feedback often reflects values and expectations that are informed by the social group of the individual receiving feedback, and the stereotypes attached to it, rather than being based just on information specific to the individual. In this chapter, we first detail how group stereotypes affect the evaluative feedback given to stereotyped individuals. We then review the effects of stereotyped feedback, highlighting the role that such feedback plays in maintaining group disparities.

Full text

1
Evaluative Feedback Expresses and Reinforces Cultural Stereotypes
Andrea C. Vial
Andrei Cimpian
New York University
Acknowledgments
The writing of this chapter was supported in part by the Dream Gap Postdoctoral Fellowship
awarded to Andrea Vial and by National Science Foundation grant BCS-1733897 awarded to
Andrei Cimpian. We are grateful to Eddie Brummelman and the members of the Cognitive
Development Lab at New York University for helpful comments on previous drafts of this
chapter.
Please address correspondence to:
Andrea C. Vial
Department of Psychology
New York University
6 Washington Place
New York, NY 10003
Email: andrea.vial@nyu.edu
Vial, A. C., & Cimpian, A. (in press). Evaluative feedback expresses and reinforces
cultural stereotypes. In E. Brummelman (Ed.), Psychological Perspectives on Praise.
Abin
g
don, U
K
: Routled
g
e.

EVALUATIVE FEEDBACK AND STEREOTYPES 2
Abstract
Evaluative feedback (praise and criticism) has a powerful influence on behavior, in part because
it communicates what society values in and expects of an individual. Importantly, feedback often
reflects values and expectations that are informed by the social group of the individual receiving
feedback, and the stereotypes attached to it, rather than being based just on information specific
to the individual. In this chapter, we first detail how group stereotypes affect the evaluative
feedback given to stereotyped individuals. We then review the effects of stereotyped feedback,
highlighting the role that such feedback plays in maintaining group disparities.

EVALUATIVE FEEDBACK AND STEREOTYPES 3
Evaluative Feedback Expresses and Reinforces Cultural Stereotypes
When used appropriately, evaluative feedback (that is, praise and criticism) is a powerful
motivator (Yeager et al., 2014). Often, however, feedback fails to shape behavior as intended
(Brophy, 1981) or even causes harm (Brummelman et al., 2014). Here, we describe the harm that
emerges when feedback intersects with stereotypes: By giving voice to what society expects of
the members of various groups, feedback ultimately reinforces group stereotypes and contributes
to the maintenance of group disparities. We first describe how stereotypes influence the feedback
provided to stereotyped individuals. Our review focuses on stereotypes about gender and race
because most of the research does as well. We then describe how stereotyped feedback shapes
stereotyped individuals’ self-perceptions and ability to succeed in counter-stereotypical fields.
The Effects of Stereotypes on Evaluative Feedback
To clarify, we use the terms feedback, praise, and criticism to refer to an overt evaluation
of a behavior; in our terminology, an evaluation is a private judgment or attitude (e.g., X
approves of Y’s behavior) that is made public by the act of providing feedback (e.g., X says to Y,
“That was great!”). At a first pass, we might use two dimensions to predict the type of feedback
that an individual will receive for a behavior. The first dimension is the valence of the attribute
that is illustrated by the behavior (the x axis in Figure 1A). For instance, donating to charity
illustrates a positively-valenced attribute (namely, generosity), whereas punching someone
illustrates a negatively-valenced attribute (namely, aggression). The second dimension is the
level or degree to which the behavior illustrates the relevant attribute (the y axis). For instance,
donating $100 illustrates higher levels of generosity than donating $1. The midpoint on this
dimension represents the average perceived level of an attribute in the population.

EVALUATIVE FEEDBACK AND STEREOTYPES 4
Figure 1. Evaluative feedback for a behavior as a function of the valence of the attribute
illustrated by the behavior (x axis) and the level or degree to which the behavior demonstrates
that attribute (y axis). Praise is depicted by the solid areas, criticism by the hatched areas.
Feedback intensity is depicted via shading (darker shades = more intense feedback). Panel A
illustrates feedback in the absence of stereotypes. Panel B provides a specific example of the
effects of a negative stereotype on feedback (see “negative stereotype” column); the brackets and
labels on the right side of Figure 1B map onto this specific example.
On this simple analysis, behaviors that demonstrate high levels of a positively-valenced
attribute (e.g., generosity) will result in praise, whereas behaviors that demonstrate low levels of
the same attribute will result in criticism. This relation is reversed for negatively-valenced
attributes (e.g., aggression). The intensity of the feedback for a behavior (e.g., whether a person
receives lukewarm vs. effusive praise) depends both on the level and the valence of the attribute
displayed: The more extreme a behavior is on either dimension, the more intense the feedback
(as illustrated by darker shading in Figure 1A). For instance, a person will receive more effusive
praise for displaying a level of math skill far above the perceived average than just above

EVALUATIVE FEEDBACK AND STEREOTYPES 5
average.
Effects of Stereotypes on Whether a Behavior Is Evaluated Positively vs. Negatively
A stereotype is a generic belief about a social group (Bian & Cimpian, 2017; Hammond
& Cimpian, 2017). Most stereotypes assign a certain level (high or low) of an attribute (positive
or negative) to a certain group. For example, common stereotypes are that women are bad at
math (i.e., this group has low average levels of a positive attribute) or that Black people are
athletic (i.e., this group has high average levels of a positive attribute). By informing people’s
perceptions of the average level of an attribute for a group (see the “perceived group average”
line in Figure 1B), stereotypes set the standard relative to which evaluative feedback is provided
for individuals in that group (Biernat & Kobrynowicz, 1997). In turn, reliance on these
stereotype-based standards affects both the intensity and the type of feedback provided to
stereotyped individuals.
#1. Stereotype Effects on the Intensity of Feedback. Stereotypes affect the intensity of
the feedback provided to members of stereotyped groups. To illustrate, as a member of a group
that is negatively stereotyped in the domain of math, a woman who displays strong mathematical
skill—above both the perceived population average and the stereotype of her group—is likely to
receive more effusive praise than other individuals at the same skill level (see Figure 1B). This is
because her skill is more extreme relative to the (low) standard by which she is judged than
would be the case for a man. Similarly, this low stereotyped standard means that she might also
receive milder criticism for poor performance in math.
Several studies provide evidence for the effect of stereotypes on feedback intensity. For
example, negative stereotypes that men are unlikely to be altruistic lead individual men to
receive more effusive praise than women for behaving altruistically in the workplace (Heilman

EVALUATIVE FEEDBACK AND STEREOTYPES 6
& Chen, 2005; Kobrynowicz & Biernat, 1997). Other studies have found similar intensification
effects in contexts where women are negatively stereotyped, such as sports (Biernat & Vescio,
2002). Stereotypes about racial groups intensify evaluative feedback as well (Biernat &
Kobrynowicz, 1997; Biernat & Manis, 1994). For example, lower stereotype-based standards
lead participants to judge the standardized test performance of a Black student to be “better” than
the same performance by a White student (Biernat, Collins, Katzarska-Miller, & Thompson,
2009). (To clarify, the fact that members of negatively stereotyped groups sometimes receive
inflated praise does not mean that observers’ evaluation of the underlying attribute is inflated as
well. Despite the effusive praise, negatively stereotyped individuals are often assumed to display
lower levels of the underlying attribute than non-stereotyped individuals [Biernat & Vescio,
2002].) Comparable findings emerge for positive group stereotypes: People who endorse positive
stereotypes of athleticism for Black people tend to evaluate Black individuals’ athleticism less
positively, especially when the standard of comparison is the stereotypic average for this group
(Biernat & Manis, 1994; see Heilman & Chen, 2005, for a gender-relevant example).
#2. Stereotype Effects on the Type of Feedback. Stereotypes can affect the type of
feedback (praise vs. criticism) received by an individual (see Figure 1B). For instance, as a
member of a group that is negatively stereotyped in the domain of math, a woman who performs
better than would be expected given the stereotypes of her gender may receive praise even if her
performance is below the perceived population average (which includes men). Thus, a behavior
that might have been criticized in others is now met with praise. Similarly, members of
negatively stereotyped groups are sometimes spared criticism for poor performance compared to
other groups—and may even receive praise: White students showed a positivity bias when giving
feedback on a poor-quality essay ostensibly written by a Black (vs. White) student (Harber,

EVALUATIVE FEEDBACK AND STEREOTYPES 7
1998), as did White teachers when giving feedback on Black and Latinx (vs. White) students’
essays (Harber et al., 2012).
Effects of Stereotypes on Evaluative Feedback: Beyond Positivity vs. Negativity
The two effects described above address only how stereotypes influence the degree to
which a behavior is evaluated positively or negatively. But stereotypes also affect (#3) causal
attributions for behavior and, in some cases, (#4) global evaluations of the feedback recipient, as
well as (#5) the frequency of feedback in a stereotyped domain. We describe each of these
effects below.
#3. Stereotype Effects on Causal Attributions. Feedback can convey information about
how observers explained the behavior under evaluation (Cimpian, Arce, Markman, & Dweck,
2007; Mueller & Dweck, 1998), and stereotypes have systematic effects on this aspect of
feedback: Whether a group is stereotyped positively or negatively, feedback for an individual’s
stereotype-consistent behavior (e.g., a Black person’s excellent athletic performance) is more
likely to reference the individual’s inherent traits or properties as an explanation, in part because
stereotypes are generally understood as describing the inherent attributes of group members
(Cimpian & Salomon, 2014; Hammond & Cimpian, 2017). In contrast, feedback for an
individual’s stereotype-inconsistent behavior (e.g., a woman’s excellent math performance) is
more likely to explain that behavior in ways that reconcile it with the stereotype and portray the
individual or the circumstances as unusual (e.g., “she worked really hard,” “she got lucky”; see
Richards & Hewstone, 2001). Indeed, teachers praise boys for the intellectual quality of their
work more often than they praise girls (Dweck, Davidson, Nelson, & Enna, 1978), which is as
expected given that high-level intellectual ability is a male-stereotypic trait (Bian, Leslie, &
Cimpian, 2018; Gálvez, Tiffenberg, & Altszyler, 2019; Leslie, Cimpian, Meyer, & Freeland,

EVALUATIVE FEEDBACK AND STEREOTYPES 8
2015). Conversely, teachers systematically attribute girls’ good performance to hard work (J.
Cimpian, Lubienski, Timmer, Makowski, & Miller, 2016).
#4. Stereotype Effects on Global Impressions of the Person. Many stereotypes are
descriptive beliefs about the members of a group. When people believe that women are bad at
math or that Black people are athletic, they are endorsing descriptive stereotypes. They do not
typically think that women should be bad at math or that Black people should be athletic.
However, some stereotypes—particularly about gender—have a normative element as well,
dictating what people in a group should be like; these are known as prescriptive stereotypes
(Burgess & Borgida, 1999). When people believe that it is desirable for women in particular to
be modest or for men in particular to be ambitious, they are endorsing prescriptive stereotypes
(Smith & Huntoon, 2014). Beyond influencing feedback intensity/type for specific behaviors (as
described above), prescriptive stereotypes also affect an observer’s global evaluation of the
person. For example, several studies have shown negative global evaluations of successful
female targets, who are often perceived to violate gender prescriptions when they project
ambition and confidence (Heilman & Okimoto, 2007; Phelan, Moss-Racusin, & Rudman, 2008).
When a woman brags about her accomplishments or fails to act in altruistic ways, criticism of
her behavior is often tinged with dislike for her as a person (Heilman, 2001). Similarly, male
targets who violate gender prescriptions by being modest about their accomplishments often
elicit negative global feedback (Moss-Racusin, Phelan, & Rudman, 2010).
#5. Stereotype Effects on Frequency of Feedback. The value-laden layer of
prescriptive stereotypes has another important effect: It makes feedback more likely to be
provided in the first place. Individuals are more likely to be praised or criticized for behaviors
that conform or fail to conform, respectively, to a prescriptive stereotype than a merely

EVALUATIVE FEEDBACK AND STEREOTYPES 9
descriptive stereotypic standard. This is likely because observers care more about prescriptive
stereotypic standards, and may also assume that individuals being evaluated care more about
these standards as well and would thus benefit from the feedback. Illustrating this phenomenon,
women are more likely to be praised or complimented for their appearance than men (Eckert &
McConnell-Ginet, 2003), whereas men are more frequently praised for their skills and abilities
(Holmes, 1988; Parisi & Wogan, 2006; Rees-Miller, 2011).
The Effects of Stereotyped Evaluative Feedback
Evaluative feedback that is influenced by stereotypes contributes to the maintenance of
the societal status quo, (re)producing inequality in several ways, as we describe next. Due in part
to their effects on praise and criticism, stereotypes are ultimately self-reinforcing—they bring
about, and maintain, the version of reality they project.
Stereotyped Feedback Shapes Self-Concepts
Stereotyped feedback reinforces the status quo by shaping stereotyped individuals’ self-
concepts (i.e., what they value, what they think they are good at) from a young age (Block,
Gonzalez, Schmader, & Baron, 2018). A child who is often praised (or criticized) for displaying
(or failing to display) an attribute stereotypically associated with their group might over time
begin to value that attribute themselves—to incorporate it as part of their self-concept. This
effect follows from general principles of operant conditioning (Domjan, 2000): There are few
reinforcers as powerful as the perception that others approve of us, and few punishers as
effective as the prospect of social disapproval (Tomasello, 2014; though see Brummelman,
2018). Differentially reinforcing (with praise) and punishing (with criticism) the behavior of
certain groups (e.g., girls) with respect to certain attributes (e.g., being altruistic) is likely to
modulate the behaviors and attitudes associated with those attributes. Ultimately, these

EVALUATIVE FEEDBACK AND STEREOTYPES 10
developmental processes can be observed in the way that adults sort themselves into stereotype-
congruent careers (e.g., women choose more communally-oriented careers; Diekman, Brown,
Johnston, & Clark, 2010). The fact that self-selection among adults occurs seemingly free from
external influence—people choose the careers they want—is in part a function of prior shaping
of an individual’s desires by stereotype-driven evaluations from parents, teachers, and peers
(Sullivan, Moss-Racusin, Lopez, & Williams, 2018; Thomas & Blakemore, 2013).
Stereotyped praise and criticism shape not just what individuals want but also what they
believe they can achieve, another key facet of the self-concept. For example, praising the success
of negatively stereotyped groups (e.g., girls doing well in math) in terms of their effort, while
potentially beneficial in some respects (Mueller & Dweck, 1998), might also lead members of
these groups—as well as observers—to infer that their effort compensates for a lack of ability
(Amemiya & Wang, 2018; Meyer, 1992). In turn, this inference is likely to trigger concerns
about belonging and undermine persistence in members of stigmatized groups (Graham &
Taylor, 2014; Smith, Lewis, Hawthorne, & Hodges, 2013).
Stereotyped Feedback Creates Obstacles
Stereotyped feedback reinforces the status quo not just by changing how members of
stigmatized groups think about themselves but also by creating external barriers that keep
individuals out of domains that are not stereotypically associated with their group (Gaddis, 2015;
Heilman, 2001). Some of these effects are direct and obvious: Evaluating individuals through the
lens of their group membership carries the risk of failing to appropriately recognize and reward
their good performance. For example, women who excel in a male-typed career are often viewed
as highly competent but “cold,” which is a violation of gender prescriptions. As a result, women
who are successful in male-typed domains often receive fewer organizational rewards than

EVALUATIVE FEEDBACK AND STEREOTYPES 11
comparable men (Heilman et al., 2004). More generally, there is evidence that the stereotyped
expectations and evaluations of those in positions of authority deprive individuals from
stigmatized groups of opportunities to show their abilities and further their careers (Bian, Leslie,
& Cimpian, 2018; Biernat & Vescio, 2002; Moss-Racusin, Dovidio, Brescoll, Graham, &
Handelsman, 2012).
Beyond the direct effects that stereotyped feedback can have on the opportunities
afforded to stigmatized groups, stereotyped feedback can—more indirectly and subtly—
undermine their motivation and success. An individual who perceives that others are evaluating
them in light of a certain stereotype is likely to experience a sense of psychological threat even if
they reject that stereotype (Schmader, Johns, & Forbes, 2008; Steele, 2013). As a result of this
threat, the individual may experience uncertainty about whether they belong in that context,
decreased trust, and other psychological states that are not conducive to success (Bian, Leslie,
Murphy, & Cimpian, 2018; Emerson & Murphy, 2015; Walton & Cohen, 2007). Thus,
stereotyped feedback can set into motion a set of processes within the recipient that ultimately
limit their success in a counter-stereotypical domain, thereby reinforcing the status quo.
Conclusion
Whether we are aware of it or not, the feedback we give to others is not just a function of
their behavior (i.e., the objective stimulus). Critically, others’ perceived social identities
influence the standard we use to evaluate their behavior and, as a result, the feedback we give
them. The evidence reviewed here suggests stereotypes affect multiple aspects of feedback, from
its positivity and frequency to the factors that we think explain the person’s behavior, and these
effects are themselves consequential. Much like a self-fulfilling prophecy, the recipients of
stereotyped feedback often end up conforming to society’s perceptions of their groups, thereby

EVALUATIVE FEEDBACK AND STEREOTYPES 12
“validating” these biased perceptions and perpetuating social inequality.

EVALUATIVE FEEDBACK AND STEREOTYPES 13
References
Amemiya, J., & Wang, M. T. (2018). Why effort praise can backfire in adolescence. Child
Development Perspectives, 12(3), 199-203.
Bian, L., & Cimpian, A. (2017). Are stereotypes accurate? A perspective from the cognitive
science of concepts. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, e3.
Bian, L., Leslie, S. J., & Cimpian, A. (2018). Evidence of bias against girls and women in
contexts that emphasize intellectual ability. American Psychologist, 73(9), 1139-1153.
Bian, L., Leslie, S. J., Murphy, M. C., & Cimpian, A. (2018). Messages about brilliance
undermine women's interest in educational and professional opportunities. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 76, 404-420.
Biernat, M., Collins, E. C., Katzarska-Miller, I., & Thompson, E. R. (2009). Race-based shifting
standards and racial discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(1),
16-28.
Biernat, M. & Kobrynowicz, D. (1997). Gender- and race-based standards of competence: Lower
minimum standards but higher ability standards for devalued groups. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 72(3), 544-557.
Biernat, M., & Manis, M. (1994). Shifting standards and stereotype-based judgments. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 66(1), 5-20.
Biernat, M., & Vescio, T. K. (2002). She swings, she hits, she’s great, she’s benched:
Implications of gender-based shifting standards for judgment and behavior. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(1), 66-77.
Block, K., Gonzalez, A. M., Schmader, T., & Baron, A. S. (2018). Early gender differences in
core values predict anticipated family versus career orientation. Psychological Science,

EVALUATIVE FEEDBACK AND STEREOTYPES 14
29(9), 1540-1547.
Brophy, J. (1981). Teacher praise: A functional analysis. Review of Educational Research, 51(1),
5-32.
Brummelman, E. (2018). Praise. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of lifespan
human development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brummelman, E., Thomaes, S., Orobio de Castro, B., Overbeek, G., & Bushman, B. J. (2014).
“That’s not just beautiful—that’s incredibly beautiful!”: The adverse impact of inflated
praise on children with low self-esteem. Psychological Science, 25, 728-735.
Burgess, D., & Borgida, E. (1999). Who women are, who women should be: Descriptive and
prescriptive gender stereotyping in sex discrimination. Psychology, Public Policy, and
Law, 5(3), 665-692.
Cimpian, A., Arce, H. M. C., Markman, E. M., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Subtle linguistic cues
affect children's motivation. Psychological Science, 18(4), 314-316.
Cimpian, A., & Leslie, S. J. (2017). The brilliance trap. Scientific American, 317(3), 60-65.
Cimpian, A., & Salomon, E. (2014). The inherence heuristic: An intuitive means of making
sense of the world, and a potential precursor to psychological essentialism. Behavioral
and Brain Sciences, 37(5), 461-480.
Cimpian, J. R., Lubienski, S. T., Timmer, J. D., Makowski, M. B., & Miller, E. K. (2016). Have
gender gaps in math closed? Achievement, teacher perceptions, and learning behaviors
across two ECLS-K cohorts. AERA Open, 2(4), 1-19.
Diekman, A. B., Brown, E. R., Johnston, A. M., & Clark, E. K. (2010). Seeking congruity
between goals and roles: A new look at why women opt out of science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics careers. Psychological Science, 21(8), 1051-1057.

EVALUATIVE FEEDBACK AND STEREOTYPES 15
Domjan, M. (2000). The essentials of conditioning and learning. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Dweck, C. S., Davidson, W., Nelson, S., & Enna, B. (1978). Sex differences in learned
helplessness: II. The contingencies of evaluative feedback in the classroom and III. An
experimental analysis. Developmental Psychology, 14(3), 268-276.
Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (2013). Language and Gender. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Emerson, K. T., & Murphy, M. C. (2015). A company I can trust? Organizational lay theories
moderate stereotype threat for women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
41(2), 295-307.
Gaddis, S. M. (2015). Discrimination in the credential society: An audit study of race and college
selectivity in the labor market. Social Forces, 93(4), 1451-1479.
Gálvez, R. H., Tiffenberg, V., & Altszyler, E. (2019). Half a century of stereotyping associations
between gender and intellectual ability in films. Sex Roles. Advance online publication.
Graham, S., & Taylor, A. Z. (2014). An attributional approach to emotional life in the classroom.
In R. Pekrun & L. Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.), International handbook of emotions in
education (pp. 96-119). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Hammond, M. D., & Cimpian, A. (2017). Investigating the cognitive structure of stereotypes:
Generic beliefs about groups predict social judgments better than statistical beliefs.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146(5), 607-614.
Harber, K. D. (1998). Feedback to minorities: Evidence of a positive bias. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 74(3), 622-628.
Harber, K. D., Gorman, J. L., Gengaro, F. P., Butisingh, S., Tsang, W., & Ouellette, R. (2012).

EVALUATIVE FEEDBACK AND STEREOTYPES 16
Students' race and teachers' social support affect the positive feedback bias in public
schools. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 1149-1161.
Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women's
ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 657-674.
Heilman, M. E., & Chen, J. J. (2005). Same behavior, different consequences: reactions to men's
and women's altruistic citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 431-
441.
Heilman, M. E., & Okimoto, T. G. (2007). Why are women penalized for success at male tasks?
The implied communality deficit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 81-92.
Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tamkins, M. M. (2004). Penalties for success:
reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89(3), 416-427.
Holmes, J. (1988). Paying compliments: A sex-preferential politeness strategy. Journal of
Pragmatics, 12(4), 445-465.
Kobrynowicz, D., & Biernat, M. (1997). Decoding subjective evaluations: How stereotypes
provide shifting standards. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33(6), 579-601.
Leslie, S. J., Cimpian, A., Meyer, M., & Freeland, E. (2015). Expectations of brilliance underlie
gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science, 347(6219), 262-265.
Meyer, W-U. (1992) Paradoxical effects of praise and criticism on perceived ability. European
Review of Social Psychology, 3(1), 259-283.
Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012).
Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 109(41), 16474-16479.

EVALUATIVE FEEDBACK AND STEREOTYPES 17
Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Rudman, L. A. (2010). When men break the gender rules:
Status incongruity and backlash against modest men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity,
11(2), 140-151.
Muller, C., & Dweck, C. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children’s motivation and
performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 33-52.
Parisi, C., & Wogan, P. (2006). Compliment topics and gender. Women and Language, 29(2),
21-28.
Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, E. (2002). What women and men should be, shouldn't be, are
allowed to be, and don't have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4), 269-281.
Rees-Miller, J. (2011). Compliments revisited: Contemporary compliments and gender. Journal
of Pragmatics, 43, 2673-2688.
Richards, Z., & Hewstone, M. (2001). Subtyping and subgrouping: Processes for the prevention
and promotion of stereotype change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(1), 52-
73.
Rudman, L. A., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Glick, P., & Phelan, J. E. (2012). Reactions to vanguards:
Advances in backlash theory. In P. Devine & A. Plant (Eds.), Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, 45 (pp. 167-227). Burlington, VT: Academic Press.
Schmader, T., Johns, M., & Forbes, C. (2008). An integrated process model of stereotype threat
effects on performance. Psychological Review, 115(2), 336-356.
Smith, J. L., & Huntoon, M. (2014). Women’s bragging rights: Overcoming modesty norms to
facilitate women’s self-promotion. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38(4), 447-459.
Smith, J. L., Lewis, K. L., Hawthorne, L., & Hodges, S. D. (2013). When trying hard isn’t

EVALUATIVE FEEDBACK AND STEREOTYPES 18
natural: Women’s belonging with and motivation for male-dominated STEM fields as a
function of effort expenditure concerns. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
39(2), 131-143.
Steele, C. M. (2011). Whistling Vivaldi: How stereotypes affect us and what we can do. New
York, NY: WW Norton.
Sullivan, J., Moss-Racusin, C., Lopez, M., & Williams, K. (2018). Backlash against gender
stereotype-violating preschool children. PLOS ONE, 13(4), e0195503.
Thomas, R. N., & Blakemore, J. E. O. (2013). Adults’ attitudes about gender nonconformity in
childhood. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42(3), 399-412.
Tomasello, M. (2014). The ultra‐social animal. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(3),
187-194.
Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2007). A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and
achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 82-96.
Yeager, D. S., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Garcia, J., Apfel, N., Brzustoski, P., Master, A., ... & Cohen,
G. L. (2014). Breaking the cycle of mistrust: Wise interventions to provide critical
feedback across the racial divide. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(2),
804-824.