We examined the hypothesis that stereotype threat disrupts reflexive cuing of the default self-concept and instead evokes a more reflective process of self-definition. Across two studies, a reaction time measure of math schematicity assessed prior to a math test was predicted by baseline math schematicity among men (Study 1) and women in a nonthreatening condition (Study 2). However, among women under stereotype threat, math schematicity measured prior to a diagnostic math test was unrelated to baseline math schematicity and was instead associated with explicit endorsement of math. These effects occurred for math and not language self-schemas, suggesting that under threat, the working self-concept might be derived from conscious reflection rather than automatic activation.

We examined the hypothesis that stereotype threat disrupts reflexive cuing of the default self-concept and instead evokes a more reflective process of self-definition. Across two studies, a reaction time measure of math schematicity assessed prior to a math test was predicted by baseline math schematicity among men (Study 1) and women in a nonthreatening condition (Study 2). However, among women under stereotype threat, math schematicity measured prior to a diagnostic math test was unrelated to baseline math schematicity and was instead associated with explicit endorsement of math. These effects occurred for math and not language self-schemas, suggesting that under threat, the working self-concept might be derived from conscious reflection rather than automatic activation.

In an effort to identify effective strategies for reducing prejudice, this research tested whether stigmatized individuals can evoke a common identity to deflect discrimination. In an initial survey, gay/lesbian/bisexual participants reported a preference for evoking common identity in intergroup interactions. In two experiments, straight male perceivers in a managerial role-playing paradigm were more likely to select a gay man for an interview if he had primed a common identity. Evoking a common identity did not similarly benefit straight candidates. Findings suggest that integrating prejudice reduction and persuasion research can identify strategies that empower targets to effectively cope with prejudice.

Past research has examined women’s subjective satisfaction in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM), but the actual events that correlate with disengagement have not been identified. In this study, workplace conversations of 45 female and male STEM faculty were sampled using the Electronically Activated Recorder, a naturalistic observation method, coded for research or socializing content, and correlated with self-reported job disengagement. Both men and women were less likely to discuss research in conversations with female as compared to male colleagues, and when discussing research with men, women were rated as less competent than men. Consistent with the idea that women in STEM experience social identity threat, discussing research with male colleagues was associated with greater disengagement for women, whereas socializing with male colleagues was associated with less disengagement. These patterns did not hold for men. These findings point to the unique challenges women face in STEM disciplines.

Two experiments tested the prediction that stigmatized individuals can avoid backlash when they confront others about bias if they first ask questions designed to activate self-affirmation processes. Experiment 1 showed that compared to a no-strategy control condition, highly prejudiced perceivers tended to express less desire to meet an Arab-American when he asked them to take his perspective on prejudice, but they expressed more desire to meet him when he asked self-affirming questions prior to making the perspective-taking request. Experiment 2 replicated this effect with a different affirmation and revealed that asking self-affirming questions reduced perceptions that the target was being confrontational when asking others to take his perspective. Together, these studies show that stigmatized targets can effectively challenge prejudiced individuals to reduce their biases if they first use a subtle strategy that reduces defensiveness.

Two studies examined how ambivalent gender ideologies, measured by the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI) and Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory (AMI), relate to the perceived legitimacy and stability of gender hierarchy. Study 1 showed simple correlations of each ASI and AMI subscale with the perceived legitimacy of gender hierarchy, but only Hostility Toward Men (HM: A traditional, but unflattering view of men as domineering) predicted the perceived stability of gender hierarchy. In Study 2, experimentally priming HM (but not other gender ideologies) increased perceptions of the stability of gender hierarchy. Although HM derides men for acting in a domineering manner, it characterizes men as designed for dominance. By reinforcing the perceived stability of gender hierarchy, HM may undermine women’s motivation to seek change.

Letters of recommendation are central to the hiring process. However, gender stereotypes could bias how recommenders describe female compared to male applicants. In the current study, text analysis software was used to examine 886 letters of recommendation written on behalf of 235 male and 42 female applicants for either a chemistry or biochemistry faculty position at a large U.S. research university. Results revealed more similarities than differences in letters written for male and female candidates. However, recommenders used significantly more standout adjectives to describe male as compared to female candidates. Letters containing more standout words also included more ability words and fewer grindstone words. Research is needed to explore how differences in language use affect perceivers’ evaluations of female candidates.