Relations of Ethnic Stereotype Threat and Mindset to Achievement Goals in Science

Transcription

1 Relations of Ethnic Stereotype Threat and Mindset to Achievement Goals in Science Despite efforts to increase the persistence and achievement of underrepresented minority (URM) students in STEM, these students continue to fall behind their White and Asian peers (Musu-Gillette et al., 2016). Recent efforts to understand these racial differences has widely focused on stereotype threat; the anxiety of confirming the negative stereotypes against one s group (Aronson et al., 2002; Steele & Aronson, 1995), which may be one mechanism affecting URM students motivation and achievement in STEM. Stereotype threat decreases achievement via heightened performance goals (Brodish & Devine, 2009). However, the negative impact of stereotype threat was buffered by having an incremental theory of intelligence (i.e., growth mindset; Aronson et al., 2002; Cadinu et al., 2006). Based on conceptual and empirical evidence of possibility of a multidimensional construct of implicit theories (Dai & Cromley, 2014), we explored the relation of stereotype threat to achievement goals and considered whether this relation varied as function of incremental and entity beliefs. This study has implications for the potential protective role of incremental theories to stem the negative effects of stereotype threat among URM students. Method As part of a larger study from undergraduate students (N = 1,669) enrolled in an introductory chemistry course at a Midwestern university, we used a sub-set of URM students (N = 181; 50.8% Black, 27.6% Multiracial URM, 17.1 % Hispanic, 4.4 % Native American). Students reported ethnic stereotype threat, implicit theories of intelligence, and achievement goals in Week 8 of a semester (see Table 1). Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted for each construct including a two-dimensional structure of implicit theories (Table 2). To test interaction effects of stereotype threat and implicit theories, we performed six separate multiple regression analyses depending on the type of implicit theory and achievement goal. 1

2 Results and Discussion Descriptive statistics and correlations are presented in Table 3 and regression results are in Table 4. Ethnic stereotype threat positively predicted performance-approach ( s =,. ) and performance-avoidance goals ( s =.22,.26), but did not significantly predict masteryapproach goals. Incremental theories positively predicted mastery-approach goals ( =.29), but not performance goals. Entity theories positively predicted performance-avoidance goals ( =.18), but did not significantly predict mastery-approach or performance-approach goals. Surprisingly, there was no statistically significant interaction between stereotype threat and implicit beliefs in predicting achievement goals, suggesting that implicit beliefs did not alter the relation of stereotype threat to achievement goals. The current findings provide a new understanding of how stereotype threat and implicit theories of intelligence relate to achievement goals. Consistent with prior research (Brodish & Devine, 2009; Musu-Gillette et al., 2016), our results suggest that stereotype threat predicts increased performance goals, which may be a factor in the persistent achievement gap in STEM fields. Implicit beliefs predict achievement goals as expected; however, the two dimensions (incremental, entity) relate differently suggesting that implicit beliefs may be multidimensional (Dai & Cromley, 2014). Unexpectedly, there was no moderating role of mindsets, perhaps because we did not experimentally manipulate stereotype as was done in prior research. Word count: 495 2

3 References Aronson, J., Fried, C. B., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, doi: /jesp Brodish, A. B. & Devine, P. G. (2009). The role of performance-avoidance goals and worry in mediating the relationship between stereotype threat and performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, doi: /j.jesp Cadinu, M., Maass, A., Lombardo, M., & Frigerio, S. (2006). Stereotype threat: The moderating role of locus of control beliefs. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, doi: /ejsp.303 Dai, T. & Cromley, J. G. (2014). Changes in implicit theories of ability in biology and dropout from STEM majors: A latent growth curve approach. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39, doi: /j.cedpsych Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. New York, NY US: Psychology Press. Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K. E., et al. (2000). Manual for the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Musu-Gillette, L., Robinson, J., McFarland, J., Kewal-Ramani, A., Zhang, A., & Wilkinson- Flicker, S. (2016). Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2016 (NCES ). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC. Retrieved 11/16/2018 from 3

4 Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of personality and social psychology, 69, 797. Steele, J., James, J. B., & Barnett, R. C. (2002). Learning in a man's world: Examining the perceptions of undergraduate women in male-dominated academic areas. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26,

5 Table 1 Measures and Sample Items Construct Sample Item Items Likert scale Implicit theories of Incremental theory: No matter 4 1 to 6.88 intelligence (Dweck, 1999) who you are, you can significantly change your intelligence level. Entity theory: Your intelligence is something you can t change very much. 4 1 to 6.88 Ethnic stereotype threat (Steele, James, & Barnett, 2002) Achievement goals (Midgley et al., 2000) If you do poorly on a test, people will assume that it is because of your ethnicity. Mastery approach: It s important to me that I learn a lot of new concepts in science. Performance approach: It s important to me that other students think I am good at science. Performance avoidance: It s important to me that I don t look stupid in science. 8 1 to to to to

6 Table 2 Confirmatory Factor Analyses for Stereotype Threat, Implicit Theories of Intelligence, and Achievement Goals χ 2 (df) CFI ΔCFI RMSEA [90% CI] ΔRMSEA SRMR Standardized factor loadings Ethnic Stereotype Threat (1 factor) (20) [.159,.216] Implicit Theories 1-Factor a (20) [.257,.312] Factor (19) [.074,.137] Achievement Goals (3 factors) (74) [.066,.099] Note. All chi-square values were statistically significant, p <.001. CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation. a Reversed scores of the items for incremental theory were used. 6

7 Table 3 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations 1. Incremental Theories N M SD Entity Theories *** Ethnic Stereotype Threat * Mastery Approach ** Performance Approach *.24 **.26 ** Performance Avoidance **.25 ** *** -- Note. Measures 1-2 were rated on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 3 = mostly disagree, 6 = strongly agree) and measures 3-6 were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). * p <.05, ** p <.01, *** p <

8 Table 4 Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Achievement Goals: Results from Six Different Models Mastery Approach Performance Approach Performance Avoidance b SE R 2 b SE R 2 b SE R 2 Incremental Theories Models.10 ***.06 **.07 ** 1. Ethnic Stereotype Threat (EST) ** ** 2. Incremental Theories (INC) *** EST X INC Entity Theories Models **.09 ** 1. Ethnic Stereotype Threat (EST) ** ** 2. Entity Theories (ENT) * 3. EST X ENT * p<.05, ** p <.01, *** p <