Monitor on Psychology - October 2011 - (Page 27)

Boosting minority achievement New research points to ways to help minority students reach greater academic heights, said Claude Steele in his APA 2011 Annual Convention keynote address. BY LEA W INERM A N • Monitor staff M ost good theories start with a practical problem, according to social psychologist Claude Steele, PhD. The theory that has become Steele’s greatest contribution to psychology began with a problem he encountered at the University of Michigan in the late 1980s. As a new minority faculty member, he found himself placed on the student recruitment and retention committee. On their first day, committee members were handed a stack of material that included a disturbing chart. It showed the average grades of Michigan students, graphed as a function of their SAT or ACT scores. Not surprisingly, on average, students with higher test scores earned higher grades. But a different trend jumped out at Steele. At every level of SAT or ACT score, black students got lower grades than white students — even though they entered college with the same skills, at least according to the tests. “That was a surprise,” said Steele, who in September became dean of the Stanford University School of Education. Eventually, the data led him to a series of experiments that crystallized his theory of “stereotype threat.” He showed that when people in a negatively stereotyped group — such as blacks in academia or women in math and science — are about to take a test, the subconscious worry that they might confirm those negative stereotypes undermines their performance by draining their cognitive resources away from the exam. So, even black students who came to Michigan well-prepared for college got lower grades than similarly prepared white students. Since then, experiments by Steele and others have demonstrated the effects of stereotype threat on minority groups and have tested ways teachers and other educators can lessen stereotype threat’s effects. The interventions, he said, are based on the premise that what makes stereotype threat a strong or weak force is all about the context in which a test or other task is performed. “Being under stereotype threat is like having a snake in the house,” said Steele. “You don’t know what would happen, or when it would happen, or where it would happen. But you can’t quite relax because something could happen. And so you need some assurance … to help you downgrade the probability that something bad could happen to you based on your identity.” That assurance can come in different forms. In one study, for example, Steele gave a group of men and women a difficult math test. Normally, women do worse than men with similar math backgrounds on standardized math tests, he’d found. But when Steele and his colleagues simply told the women that on this particular test women do better than men, the reinforcement boosted the women’s confidence — and the women performed as well as the men. Other studies, by Stanford University professor Geoffrey Cohen, PhD, among others, have shown that interventions to reduce stereotype threat can have even bigger, longer-lasting results. In his most well-known research, Cohen found that an intervention that boosted black junior high school students’ sense of self-worth — by asking them to reflect on a personal value that’s important to them — improved their GPAs by almost half a point over two years. “What’s impressive to me is the notion that in real-world academic settings, these [stereotype threat] processes are not just a small part of the problem, but are turning out to be a major part of the problem,” Steele said. And now, through his work and that of others, understanding stereotype threat may turn out to be a part of the solution. n For more on interventions to beat stereotype threat, read the article “How to Close the Achievement Gap” in the September 2011 Monitor. To watch Steele’s full address, click here. OCTOBER 2011 • MONITOR ON PSYCHOLOGY 27

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Monitor on Psychology - October 2011

Monitor on Psychology - October 2011
President’s Column
Subtle and stunning slights
Contents
From the CEO
Live science on the showroom floor
Zimbardo re-examines his landmark study
Ready, set, mentor
Attention students and ECPs: Self-care is an ‘ethical imperative’
Suicide risk is high among war veterans in college, study finds
Psychotherapy is effective and here’s why
From toilet to tap: getting people to drink recycled water
What’s ahead for psychology practice?
A push for more accountability is changing the accreditation process
Peer, parental support prove key to fighting childhood obesity
Popular media’s message to girls
Bullying may contribute to lower test scores
A consequence of cuckoldry: More (and better) sex?
Manatees’ exquisite sense of touch may lead them into dangerous waters
Building a better tomato
How will China’s only children care for their aging parents?
‘Spice’ and ‘K2’: New drugs of abuse now on the market
Many suspects don’t understand their right to remain silent
In Brief
Boosting minority achievement
Where’s the progress?
And social justice for all
Helping new Americans find their way
Segregation’s ongoing legacy
A new way to combat prejudice
Retraining the biased brain
Suppressing the ‘white bears’
How to eat better — mindlessly
Protect your aging brain
Must babies always breed marital discontent?
Outing addiction
Flourish 2051
The danger of stimulants
Keys to making integrated care work
Is technology ruining our kids?
Facebook: Friend or foe?
The promise of Web 3.0
NIMH invests in IT enhanced interventions
Science Directions
Science Directions
PsycAdvocates work to safeguard key programs
The psychology of spending cuts
APA’s strategic plan goes live
Visionary leaders
Bravo!
Vote on bylaws amendments

Monitor on Psychology - October 2011