Stigma Consciousness
Running head: STIGMA CONSCIOUSNESS
Stigma Consciousness and Academic Achievement: The Role of Self-Regulatory Processes
Paper submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for EDRS 821 Advanced Quantitative
Methods
Faye Huie
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
George Mason University
Fairfax VA
Dimiter Dimitrov, PhD, Instructors
Summer 2010
1
Stigma Consciousness
2
Stigma Consciousness and Academic Achievement: The Role of Self-Regulatory Processes
Stereotypes are defined as gross overgeneralizations of groups of people (Steel &
Aronson, 1995) and function as a means through which people use to understand and categorize
people and society (Aronson & Steele, 2005). These generalizations have a strong influence on
how people behave and can cause the stereotyped group to be treated and perceived differently
(Aronson & Steele, 2005) by teachers (Tyson, 2003), peers (Aronson & Good, 2002), and even
parents (Aronson & Steele, 2005). Consequently, research has found that students who are
stigmatized tend to achieve lower than students who are not stigmatized (Pinel, 1999) however,
the mediators of this effect are ambiguious (Brown & Pinel, 2003). This may be due to the nature
of stereotypes in that not all stigmatized individuals experience stigma in the same way and
effects of those experiences may also vary. Stigma consciousness, which is defined as the degree
to which a person expects to be stereotyped by others or how aware individuals are of their
stigmatized status (Pinel, 1999) takes into account within-group variability of stereotypes and
does not assume that all individuals within the same stigmatized group experience, react to, or
are affected by the stigma in the same way. The purpose of this study was to then examine how
social cognitive variables such as motivation and self-regulation can moderate the relationship
between stigma consciousness and achievement.
Stigma consciousness is a concept that was recently identified and operationalized by
Pinel (1999). Specifically, stigma consciousness refers to how self-conscious people are of their
stigmatized status at the individual level. Specifically, stigma consciousness refer to how
individuals focus in on the stereotypes that they expect others would inflict on them as opposed
to how aware individuals are of their group stereotypes (Pinel, 1999). Individuals within the
same group have different expectations as well as focus on different stereotypes. Additionally,
Stigma Consciousness
3
individuals will also differ in the degree to which they expect to be stereotyped (Pinel, 2004).
Stigma consciousness has been found to negatively influence achievement (Brown & Lee, 2005)
as well as social cognitive variables such as attributions (Pinel, 2004). These studies suggests
that stigma consciousness plays a significant and negative role in academic achievement.
However, self-regulatory processes may influence and mitigate the negative effects of stigma
consciousness.
Self-Regulation Processes
Self-regulation refers to how students systematically and purposefully utilize different
strategies and cognitions to achieve a certain goal (Zimmerman, 2008). Through the lens of
social-cognitive theory, achievement is the result of how the environment shapes the cognitions
(e.g, motivation) and behaviors (e.g., self-regulation) that students engage in while learning. In
other words, students achieve to the extent to how motivated and self-regulated they are to
achieve and learn. Zimmerman (1989) describes self-regulation as a three-phase model, where
the first phase is the forethought phase (e.g., the cognitions that students go through before
engaging in the task), the performance phase (e.g., the behaviors that students engage in to
complete the task), and the self-reflective phase (e.g., the reflections that students go through
after completing the task). Zimmerman suggests that these phases are not mutually exclusive, but
are cyclically interrelated.
Overall, self-regulatory processes are influenced by environmental and personal factors
that help students learn effectively (Zimmerman, 1989). Therefore, if motivation and selfregulation and products of the social environment, how do ones stereotype consciousness, which
are also social in nature, influence how motivation and self-regulation interact to influence
achievement? These next sections will discuss the implications of the stereotype literature on the
Stigma Consciousness
4
social-cognitive factors of learning and achievement. Although very little research has been done
that examined these relationships, few recent studies do suggest that there may be a link.
Self-Efficacy
Different stereotypes, especially negative stereotypes, may act to influence the level of
perceived self-efficacy. For example, a Black student who perceives that the stereotype against
his/her ethnic background is that they are not as capable of achieving well in school may
influence the competency beliefs that he/she may have on a certain task or even domain. HollinsSawyer and Sawyer (2008) argue that stereotype threat should take into consideration ones
confidence in their test taking ability and examine it in terms of self-efficacy. However, prior
research has found inconsistent results in terms of self-efficacy. For example, Spencer, Steele,
and Quinn (1999) found that students’ level of self-efficacy did not mediate the differences in
achievement across stereotype threat conditions. Conversely, Hollins-Sawyer and Sawyer (2008)
found evidence that partially supported the hypothesis that low stereotype threat may have
caused an increase in self-efficacy and Schumader, Johns, and Barissque (2004) found that
females who viewed gender stereotypes as legitimate in mathematics had lowered competence
beliefs in their mathematics skills than females who rejected those stereotypes. Furthermore,
Aronson and Inzlicht (2004) found that Blacks who were more vulnerable to stereotypes reported
stronger fluctuations of self-efficacy than Blacks who were less vulnerable to stereotypes. Some
of these finding suggests that participants who are more likely to be affected by stereotype threat
(e.g., through exposure to the threat or through stereotype consciousness) experience a less stable
sense of efficacy.
Metacognitive self-regulation
Stigma Consciousness
5
Prior research by Schmader, Johns, and Forbes (2008) as well as Inzlicht, McKay and
Aronson (2006) suggest that the cognitive processes of self-regulation and metacognition are
limited when one perceives that he/she is negatively stigmatized. Specifically, both Schmader et
al. (2008) and Inzlicht et al. (2006) rationalized that since stereotype threat has been found to
impair working memory and if working memory consists of an attentional regulation component,
then the capacity to self-regulate would also be impaired as well. For example, a person who is
worried about the negative stereotypes against him/her would be too busy thinking about that
anxiety while also trying to complete an examine. The person would have to control both the
negative anxieties and their working memory in order to efficiently retrieve the learned material
to complete the test. This balancing act serves as a regulatory or metacognitive component.
Schmader et al. (2008) provides a model of understanding how self-regulation may impact the
processes in stereotype threat that hinder performance. Specifically, Schmader et al. (2008) argue
that students who experience stereotype threat are constantly monitoring their environment and
situational cues to understand what is implied about the self and/group. Additionally, Schmader
et al. (2008) suggest that working memory is required for one to effectively self-control or selfregulate their behaviors and cognitions. Therefore, if working memory is hindered, the ability to
self-regulate and to metacognitively reflect about the task is also hindered. Furthermore, Inzlicht
et al. (2006) found that the more stereotype vulnerable the students were the less likely they felt
confident that they would be able to successfully self-regulate their learning behaviors. However,
this relationship is not clear, considering that prior research primarily focuses on working
memory, not metacognitive self-regulation specifically. Nevertheless, there is evidence to
suggest that there may be a link between stereotypes and its effects on metacognition.
Stigma Consciousness
6
Overall, the research suggests that there may be a link between stereotypes and selfefficacy (Hollins-Sawyer and Sawyer, 2008; Spencer et al., 1999), and learning strategies
(Inzlicht et al. 2006). However, no research to date have examined these variables altogether to
explain how stereotype threat may impact achievement. Studying these variables as mediators of
stereotype threat and achievement may provide new insight on how stereotype influences
achievement.
Effort regulation
Prior research about effort and stereotypes have generally concluded that effort plays an
insignificant role in stereotype threat effects (Aronson & Salinas, 2001; Aronson & Steele,
2005). That is, the negative effects of stereotype threat are still present even when participants
devoted a high amount of effort into completing the task. However, these studies examined effort
as a variable that was independent of other influences and was forced upon through
manipulation. Specifically, participants were told that a sufficient amount of effort must be
devoted to the task in order to complete the experiment (Aronson & Salinas, 2001) and was
measured through biological responses, however, through the perspective of self-regulation,
effort is a natural cognitive and behavioral response that is influenced by other constructs such as
self-efficacy and task value. Therefore, examining effort in the context of self-regulation and the
three phase model may provide insight as to how effort is related to stigma consciousness and
achievement.
Help seeking
Help seeking is a social behavior that is an adaptive strategy to adopt when students are
experiencing difficulties in successfully completing tasks. However, help seeking has social
costs when perceived as a maladaptive behavior (Newman, 2008). Specifically, students may
Stigma Consciousness
7
avoid seeking help to appear competent. This idea has significant implications for stereotype
consciousness. Specifically, if a student feels that he/she is affected by negative stereotypes,
he/she will be less likely to ask for help in an attempt to not confirm the stereotype. Additionally,
research suggests that help-seeking behaviors are significantly related to stereotypes.
Specifically, Bogart (1998) found that students who viewed Asian Americans as mathematical
and introverted had judged the Asian American source of help more stereotypically than the
White source of help and sought help from the Asian American than the White source of help.
However, students who did not view Asian Americans stereotypically were less confident in the
Asian American source of help in terms of the effectiveness of help and prolonged the time to
decide whether to seek help. Therefore, stereotypes affect how much confidence students has in
the source of help’s ability to provide effective help. However, this study only examined the
judgments that the student made regarding the source of help. More research is necessary to
understand how students act to seek or refrain from seeking help in the face of stereotypes.
Overall, the literature on stereotype threat indicates that negative stereotypes that are
socially inflicted upon ones ability to achieve actually impede achievement (Aronson & Inzlicht,
2004; Aronson & Steele, 2005; Steele & Aronson, 1995; Steele, 1997). Since the inception in
1995 by Steele and Aronson, the theory of stereotype threat has been one of the most popularly
studied phenomenons in the field of social psychology (Schmader et al., 2008). However, the
mechanisms that impact this relationship have yet to be clearly understood (Ryan & Ryan, 2005)
and no research to date have examined this effect holistically through the lens of social cognitive
theory. This may be due to the fact that the idea of stereotype threat was coined a little over a
decade ago and researchers are still trying to understand the nature of this social occurrence.
Therefore, the purpose of this present study was to examine five main research questions:
Stigma Consciousness
8
1) Can self-regulatory processes moderate the differences in high and low stigma
consciousness students?
2) Are high stigma consciousness students different from low stigma consciousness students
on final grades controlling for target grade?
3) Are the two high and low stigma consciousness groups different on a set of selfregulatory processes and which underlying dimensions (if any) provide the best
separation of the groups?
4) What are the underlying factors of stigma consciousness?
Methods
Participants
Data was collected from a total of 149 students enrolled in an introductory mathematics
class. The university that data was collected in is nationally recognized as one of the most
diverse schools in the nation. In terms of the self-reported ethnic breakdown of the sample,
51.7% was Caucasian, 17.5% was Asian American, 8.1% was Hispanic, 7.4% was African
American, 7.4% was Middle Eastern, 1.3% was Indian, and 6.7% were of Mixed decent.
Females made up 53.7% of the sample. The average age of students who completed surveys
were 23.68 (SD = 6.47). A total of 4% of the students were freshmen, 21.5% were sophomores,
28.9% were juniors, and 43.6% were seniors.
Materials
Demographics Questionnaire. Gathers information on student name, email, ethnic
background, gender, age, and target GPA.
The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ: Pintrich et al., 1993). The
MSLQ is a self-report measure that utilizes a 7-point Likert scale (1 = not at all true of me, and
Stigma Consciousness
9
7= very true of me) to evaluate student motivation and application of learning strategies by
college students. This instrument used the metacognitive self-regulation subscale (12 items, “If
course materials are difficult to understand, I change the way I read the material, α =.81) effort
regulation subscale (4 items, “I work hard to do well in this class even if I don’t like what we are
doing” α =.76) and help seeking subscale (4 items, “I ask the instructor to clarify concepts I
don’t understand well.” α =.66) to assess students’ use of learning strategies.
The Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scale (PALS: Midgley et al., 1998). The Patterns for
Adaptive Learning Scale assesses student motivation by using achievement goal theory as a
theoretical framework. Students respond on a five point Likert scale (1 = “Not at all true,” and 5
= “Very true”). Midgley et al. (1998) developed the PALS scale to assess academic self-efficacy
(5 items, “Even if the work is hard, I can learn it.” α =.84).
Stigma Consciousness Questionnaire for Race (SCQ-R. Pinel, 1999). SCQ-R. To examine
stigma consciousness, students completed the SCQ-R which is a modified version of the original
SCQ measure of gender to assess stigma consciousness in terms of race with ten items (i.e.,
“Most people have a problem viewing members of my ethnic group as equals”) measured on a
Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Reliability coefficients
indicated strong internal consistency between items (α =.81).
Self and Task Perception Questionnaire (STPQ: Eccles & Wigfield, 1995). The perceived
task value subscale of the STPQ will be used to assess students perceived task attainment value
(3 items, “How important is it to you to get good grades in math?”), and intrinsic interest (2
items, “How much do you like doing math?”). The original scale was used to measure high
school students perceived task value in mathematics. Therefore, the questions will be
transformed to fit the purposes of this study. Specifically, “high school math” will be changed to
Stigma Consciousness 10
“this mathematics class” to provide a more context specific responses. The responses measured
on a Likert scale from 1 to 7. Depending on the question, the labeling of the anchor items are
from 1 = “Very Boring” or “Not Very Much” to 7 = “Very Interesting” or “Very Much”. The
reliability coefficients indicate strong internal consistency for both the attainment value subscale
(α =.72) as well as the intrinsic interest subscale (α =.89).
Achievement. Final GPA for the math course will be collected from University records.
Additionally, to examine student achievement goals, self-reported target grade for mathematics
will also be examined as a measure of achievement.
This measure of achievement is not a holistic approach to examining achievement. First,
there are issues with assessing student self-report measures of grades. Prior research shows that
the accuracy of student reported grades vary in terms of various personality factors and that
students who achieve higher generally are more accurate than those students who do not achieve
as high (Kuncel, Credé, & Thomas, 2005). However, global measures of achievement such as
cumulative GPA, SAT scores, and GRE scores have been widely used in achievement research
as well as domain specific measures of achievement such as mathematics final grade (Kuncel et
al., 2005). Therefore, although this measure of achievement is a limitation of this study, previous
research shows that it is still important to consider and that it can used as a measure of
achievement.
Procedure
Instructors of introductory mathematics courses were contacted and permission to recruit
students from their classes was obtained. Before administering the survey, a trained graduate
research assistant described the directions and informed the student that participation in this
study was completely voluntary and that their responses were confidential. The research assistant
Stigma Consciousness 11
then described that participation in this study would enter the student in a raffle of a $50.00 gift
certificate to a store/restaurant of their choosing. After directions and all relevant information
was presented to the students, the research assistant then administered the survey to the students
during class time after consent was obtained. To lessen the impact of group administration,
students were given a blank sheet of paper to cover responses. The survey, on average, took
students approximately 15-20 minuets to complete. Students were thanked for their participation
upon completion.
Results
In terms of the first research question, a moderated regression/regression with interaction
was utilized to examine how the relationship between achievement and self-regulation varied
across levels of stigma consciousness. Although it is commonly suggested to not artificially
dichotomize continuous variables, this process was required to examine this moderation
hypothesis. In order to dichotomize stigma consciousness, students who scored one standard
deviation above the mean were considered as high stigma consciousness students while students
who scored one standard deviation below the mean were considered as low stigma
consciousness. Following, several sets of hierarchical moderated regressions were run with the
dichotomized (hi vs low) stigma consciousness variable. In the first step, the dichotomous stigma
consciousness variable was entered along with the each of the self-regulatory and motivational
variable. In the second step, the interaction term was entered by crossing the stigma
consciousness variable with the relevant self-regulatory variable. Moderation was achieved by
observing a significant R2 change in the second interaction step which would suggest that adding
the residualized interaction explained variance above and beyond its individual components (e.g.,
Stigma Consciousness 12
self-regulation and achievement predictors individually). This procedure was followed for each
of the self-regulation variable.
The results revealed that none of the motivation or self-regulation variables acted as
moderators of the relationship between stigma consciousness and target grade for the nonminority students. However, in terms of the minority students, metacognitive self-regulation (t =
-2.90, p = .005), effort regulation (t = -2.88, p = .006), and self-efficacy (t = -2.38, p = .02)
were found to significantly moderate the relationship between stigma consciousness and target
grade. This indicates that self-regulation and motivation impacts the relationship between stigma
consciousness and the target grades that minority students set, but not for non-minority students.
In order to assess the specific relationship between stigma consciousness and target grade,
separate correlations were run with the minority students only in terms of high stigma
consciousness and low stigma consciousness. Correlations run separately within the minority
group indicated that metacognitive self-regulation was more strongly (and positively) related to
target grade for low stigma consciousness students (r = .13) than for high stigma consciousness
students (r = .05) and that effort regulation was more positively related to target grade for low
stigma consciousness students (r = .52) but was unrelated to target grade for high stigma
consciousness students (r = .08). Self-efficacy was also more positively related to target grade
for low stigma consciousness students (r = .49) than for high stigma consciousness students (r =
.21). See Table 1 for the correlation matrices for both high and low stigma consciousness
students.
For the second research question, an ANCOVA was performed to examine if students
final mathematics grades differed across levels of stigma consciousness while controlling for
target grade. Specifically, preliminary analyses showed that although student final math grades
Stigma Consciousness 13
were not found to be significantly related to stigma consciousness, student target grades were (r
= -.18, p < .05), where the more stigma conscious the student was, the lower his/her target grade
tended to be. Therefore, student target grades were entered as the covariate with stigma
consciousness as the grouping variable and final math grades were entered as the dependent
variable. Additionally, to examine if homogeneity of regression slopes were met, a regression
with interaction was utilized. The results detected no significant interaction effect between target
grades and final grades. The ANCOVA results revealed that even while controlling for target
grade, student final grades do not differ according to stigma consciousness levels, F(1,65) = .47,
p = .50. See Appendix A for the SPSS output regarding this analysis.
The third research question asked whether the two stigma consciousness groups differed
on a set of underlying dimensions of self-regulation. Using a MANOVA with discriminate
analysis, the omnibus MANOVA results showed that overall, no significant differences in selfregulatory processes were detected (Λ = .87). This suggests that the engagement in selfregulatory processes do not differ between students with high or low stigma consciousness. See
Appendix B for the SPSS output of this analysis.
Finally, for the fourth research question, an exploratory principal components factor
analysis was run to examine the factor structure of the stigma consciousness scale. Although this
scale is a validated instrument, Pinel (1999) never validated this instrument using factor analysis.
Instead, content validity was determined by correlating scores from this scale with other
comparable constructs. Therefore, in an attempt to empirically validate this scale, all of the 10
items in this measure was entered into a factor analysis with varimax rotation. Three factors with
eigenvalues over 1.00 emerged. Specifically, the first factor with four items explained 39% of
the variance with coefficients ranging from .64 to .80. The second factor with three items
Stigma Consciousness 14
explained 13% of the variance with coefficients ranging from .54 to .84. Finally, the third factor
with 3 items explained 11% of the variance with coefficients ranging from -.56 to .77. The
communalities table shows that the items explain a significant amount of variance in the factors
ranging from 39% to 73%. In total, the three emergent factors explained 64% of the variance in
responses. The matrix of item coefficients can be seen in Table 2.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine how self-regulation can impact the relationship
between stigma consciousness and achievement. To examine this, four research questions were
formulated. Each of the research questions will be addressed in the following sections.
Partial support was found in terms of the first hypothesis. Specifically, a series of
moderated regressions showed that generally, self-regulation had significantly moderated the
relationship between stigma consciousness and target grade in minority students only. This
confirms the findings that minorities are more impacted by stigma consciousness than nonminority students. In terms of differences between high and low stigma consciousness students,
there were several interesting group differences in the way self-regulated learning variables were
related to target grade. Specifically, metacognitive self-regulation, effort regulation, and selfefficacy were more positively and strongly related to target grade for low stigma consciousness
minority students than for high stigma consciousness minority students. This study shows that
these variables had a stronger impact on achievement when minority students have low levels of
stigma consciousness than when students have high levels of stigma consciousness. Specifically,
prior research suggest that individuals who are sensitive to stereotype threat effects have trouble
regulating the cognitive components of self-regulated learning as a result of the anxiety that
accumulates from attempting to avoid being stereotyped negatively (Schmader, 2008). This
Stigma Consciousness 15
results in the stigmatized student being less able to engage in metacognitive learning strategies.
These results also align with Aronson and Inzlicht (2004) in terms of self-efficacy, where
students more susceptible to the effects of stereotypes had more variation in their self-efficacy
than students who were less susceptible to the effects of stereotypes. The findings from this study
showed that, perhaps students who are less self-conscious about their stigmatized status
experience more positive feelings about their abilities which allow them to apply more effort into
engaging in effective learning strategies such as metacognition as opposed to people who are
more self-conscious about their stigmatized status.
In terms of the second research question, an ANCOVA was performed to examine the
extent to which final grades differed between high and low stigma consciousness students while
controlling for target grades. Although the results showed that final grades were not significantly
different between both groups even while controlling for target grade, it shows that stereotypes
impacts the academic goals that students make more so than how they actually achieve.
However, this finding seems to make sense conceptually due to the fact that stereotypes and
goals are both a cognitive construct while performance is an outcome variable.
The third research question examined specifically which self-regulatory variables defined
the differences between high and low stigma consciousness students. Interestingly, no
differences were detected. This suggests that both high and low stigma consciousness students
tended to engage in the same self-regulatory processes and do not differentiate between high and
low stigma consciousness students.
Finally, the last research question addressed the potential factors underlying the stigma
consciousness scale. A factor analysis was performed and a total of three factors emerged. The
first factor involved items that queried students’ feelings about how their ethnic background
Stigma Consciousness 16
impacted how others treated them. The second factor included items that measured students’
perceptions of equality and social justice and the third factor included items that questioned how
students’ believed that they were personally impacted by stereotypes. This result showed that
stigma consciousness is a construct that is multifaceted and should be broken into smaller
subscales to more accurately measure stigma consciousness.
Educational Implications
The main finding of this study is that self-regulation processes can, in fact, moderate the
achievement goal differences between high and low stigma consciousness students. Although
there is little educators can do in terms of changing stereotypic views and beliefs, self-regulation
is amenable through intervention. Therefore, interventions designed to improve student
engagement in successful self-regulation may be important combatants to the negative
consequences of stereotypes. It may be especially important to improve these skills in students
whose ethnic backgrounds are socially stigmatized (e.g., African American students) to reduce
the achievement gap. Additionally, due to the finding that target grade had an important impact
on stigma consciousness, it is also important for educators to help students set realistic and
attainable academic goals that would increase their chances for actual success. The evidence
provided in this paper suggests that improving student academic self-regulation would
significantly alleviate the negative impact of stigma consciousness on achievement outcomes.
Limitations
There are several limitations to note within this proposed study. First, the generalizability
of these findings will be severely limited, considering the high diversity of the area that data is
being collected. Specifically, the university that data was collected in is nationally recognized as
one of the most diverse universities in the nation. Therefore, the generalizability of these findings
Stigma Consciousness 17
may only be attributable to those in similar contexts. In terms of power, the sample size may be
significantly increased if data were being collected throughout the school year as opposed to
during the summer semester. Finally, although analyses show that target grade is highly and
positively related to final grade in mathematics, the use of target grade as the measure of
achievement is not a holistic view of achievement and learning. Therefore caution must be used
when interpreting the results.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study attempted to use self-regulatory processes to explain the achievement
differences between students with high and low stigma consciousness. The link that was
established in this paper provides some evidence regarding the role that self-regulation plays in
alleviating the academic pitfalls of students who are stigmatized. However, the findings in this
study are mixed, where self-regulation was found to moderate the achievement differences
between high and low stigma consciousness students, but was not found to differentiate high and
low stigma consciousness students. Therefore, future research should collect more data to
attempt to replicate the findings of this study or examine additional variables such as motivation.
Additionally, the measure of stigma consciousness should also be re-examined. Specifically, in
this study, this measure was factor analyzed with all students, both minority and non-minority to
increase the power of the test. However, future studies should collect data from larger samples to
factor analyze this measure separately for minorities and non-minorities to determine if the factor
structure differed across ethnic background.
Stigma Consciousness 18
Table 1
Correlations target grade and self-regulation between high and low stigma consciousness
students
Target Grade
Self-Regulatory Variable
High Stigma
Low Stigma
Metacognitive Self-Regulation
.05
.13
Effort Regulation
.08
.52
Help Seeking
.42
.34
Self-Efficacy
.21
.49
* p < .05
Stigma Consciousness 19
Table 2
Coefficients of Items on the Stigma Consciousness Scale
Item
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
My race/ethnicity does not influence how people act with me
.79
.16
.26
My race/ethnicity does not influence how Whites act with me
.79
.24
.15
I almost never think about my race/ethnicity when I interact
.74
.12
.25
.64
.34
.07
.06
.84
-.002
.16
.82
.07
.31
.52
.14
.32
.04
.76
.38
.11
.74
.52
-.06
-.56
with Whites
Most Whites do NOT judge people of my race/ethnicity on the
basis of their race/ethnicity
Most Whites have a lot of racist thoughts than they actually
express
Most Whites have a problem viewing people of my
race/ethnicity as equals
When interacting with Whites, I feel like they interpret all my
behaviors in terms of my race/ethnicity
Stereotypes about people of my race/ethnicity have not affected
me personally
I never worry that my behaviors will be viewed as stereotypical
of people of my race/ethnicity
I often think that Whites are unfairly accused of being racist
Stigma Consciousness 20
Appendix A
Univariate Analysis of Variance
[DataSet1] H:\Stigma Consciousness Study\Data\SCS_Cleaned.sav
MinorityStatus = White
Between-Subjects Factorsa
Value Label
Stigma Consciousness
Dichotomous
N
1.00
Lo Stigma
47
2.00
Hi Stigma
23
a. MinorityStatus = White
Tests of Between-Subjects Effectsb
Dependent Variable:Student final mathematics grade
Type III Sum of
Source
Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
213.928a
2
106.964
21.375
.000
7.981
1
7.981
1.595
.211
209.359
1
209.359
41.838
.000
2.126
1
2.126
.425
.517
Error
335.272
67
5.004
Total
5256.000
70
549.200
69
Corrected Model
Intercept
Target_Grade
Stigma_Dich
Corrected Total
a. R Squared = .390 (Adjusted R Squared = .371)
b. MinorityStatus = White
MinorityStatus = Minority
Stigma Consciousness 21
Between-Subjects Factorsa
Value Label
Stigma Consciousness
Dichotomous
N
1.00
Lo Stigma
29
2.00
Hi Stigma
39
a. MinorityStatus = Minority
Tests of Between-Subjects Effectsb
Dependent Variable:Student final mathematics grade
Type III Sum of
Source
Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
330.190a
2
165.095
38.935
.000
10.965
1
10.965
2.586
.113
325.494
1
325.494
76.762
.000
1.989
1
1.989
.469
.496
Error
275.619
65
4.240
Total
4815.000
68
605.809
67
Corrected Model
Intercept
Target_Grade
Stigma_Dich
Corrected Total
a. R Squared = .545 (Adjusted R Squared = .531)
b. MinorityStatus = Minority
Stigma Consciousness 22
Appendix B
Manova
[DataSet1] H:\Stigma Consciousness Study\Data\SCS_Cleaned.sav
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The default error term in MANOVA has been changed from WITHIN CELLS to
WITHIN+RESIDUAL. Note that these are the same for all full factorial
designs.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * A n a l y s i s
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
67
0
12
2
o f
V a r i a n c e * *
cases accepted.
cases rejected because of out-of-range factor values.
cases rejected because of missing data.
non-empty cells.
1 design will be processed.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CELL NUMBER
1
2
Variable
Stigma_D
1
2
Cell Means and Standard Deviations
Variable .. FinalGrade Student final mathematics grade
FACTOR
CODE
Mean Std. Dev.
percent Conf. Interval
Stigma_D
Lo Stigm
7.068
9.277
Stigma_D
Hi Stigm
6.599
8.664
For entire sample
7.127
8.605
N
8.172
2.904
29
7.632
3.140
38
7.866
3.030
67
95
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Variable .. Target_Grade
FACTOR
CODE
Mean Std. Dev.
N
95
percent Conf. Interval
Stigma_D
Lo Stigm
9.997
11.590
Stigma_D
Hi Stigm
9.649
11.403
For entire sample
10.051
11.233
10.793
2.094
29
10.526
2.669
38
10.642
2.423
67
Stigma Consciousness 23
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Variable .. MetaCog Metacognitive Self-Regulation
FACTOR
CODE
Mean Std. Dev.
N
95
percent Conf. Interval
Stigma_D
Lo Stigm
3.998
4.698
Stigma_D
Hi Stigm
4.265
4.814
For entire sample
4.244
4.669
4.348
.920
29
4.539
.835
38
4.456
.871
67
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Variable .. EffrtReg Effort Regulation
FACTOR
CODE
Mean Std. Dev.
N
95
percent Conf. Interval
Stigma_D
Lo Stigm
4.397
4.947
Stigma_D
Hi Stigm
4.525
5.041
For entire sample
4.551
4.919
4.672
.723
29
4.783
.785
38
4.735
.755
67
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Variable .. HelpSeek Help Seeking
FACTOR
CODE
Mean Std. Dev.
N
95
percent Conf. Interval
Stigma_D
Lo Stigm
3.610
4.580
Stigma_D
Hi Stigm
3.608
4.497
For entire sample
3.751
4.390
4.095
1.275
29
4.053
1.352
38
4.071
1.310
67
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Variable .. SelfEff Self-Efficacy
FACTOR
CODE
Mean Std. Dev.
N
95
percent Conf. Interval
Stigma_D
Lo Stigm
3.903
4.511
Stigma_D
Hi Stigm
4.001
4.399
For entire sample
4.035
4.371
4.207
.799
29
4.200
.604
38
4.203
.690
67
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Variable .. Avoidance Performance Avoidance Goal Orientation
FACTOR
CODE
Mean Std. Dev.
N
95
percent Conf. Interval
Stigma Consciousness 24
Stigma_D
Lo Stigm
1.799
2.494
Stigma_D
Hi Stigm
2.203
2.955
For entire sample
2.132
2.651
2.147
.913
29
2.579
1.144
38
2.392
1.064
67
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Variable .. IntrinsicTskVal Intrinsic Task Value
FACTOR
CODE
Mean Std. Dev.
N
95
percent Conf. Interval
Stigma_D
Lo Stigm
3.214
4.579
Stigma_D
Hi Stigm
3.367
4.528
For entire sample
3.495
4.356
3.897
1.795
29
3.947
1.766
38
3.925
1.765
67
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Variable .. AttainmentTskVal Attainment/Importance Task Value
FACTOR
CODE
Mean Std. Dev.
N
95
percent Conf. Interval
Stigma_D
Lo Stigm
4.440
5.514
Stigma_D
Hi Stigm
4.810
5.646
For entire sample
4.795
5.444
4.977
1.411
29
5.228
1.271
38
5.119
1.329
67
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Variable .. Approach Performance Approach Goal Orientation
FACTOR
CODE
Mean Std. Dev.
N
95
percent Conf. Interval
Stigma_D
Lo Stigm
1.641
2.428
Stigma_D
Hi Stigm
1.762
2.491
For entire sample
1.825
2.348
2.034
1.035
29
2.126
1.110
38
2.087
1.071
67
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Variable .. Mastery Mastery Goal Orientation
FACTOR
CODE
Mean Std. Dev.
N
95
percent Conf. Interval
Stigma_D
3.559
4.317
Stigma_D
3.787
4.381
Lo Stigm
3.938
.997
29
Hi Stigm
4.084
.904
38
Stigma Consciousness 25
For entire sample
3.791
4.250
4.021
.941
67
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Univariate Homogeneity of Variance Tests
Variable .. FinalGrade
Student final mathematics grade
Cochrans C(33,2) =
(approx.)
Bartlett-Box F(1,12039) =
.53900, P =
.656
.19017, P =
.663
.61893, P =
.169
1.78850, P =
.181
Variable .. Target_Grade
Cochrans C(33,2) =
(approx.)
Bartlett-Box F(1,12039) =
Variable .. MetaCog
Metacognitive Self-Regulation
Cochrans C(33,2) =
(approx.)
Bartlett-Box F(1,12039) =
Variable .. EffrtReg
Cochrans C(33,2) =
(approx.)
Bartlett-Box F(1,12039) =
Variable .. Avoidance
Cochrans C(33,2) =
(approx.)
Bartlett-Box F(1,12039) =
Variable .. IntrinsicTskVal
Cochrans C(33,2) =
(approx.)
Bartlett-Box F(1,12039) =
Variable .. AttainmentTskVal
.29606, P =
.586
.54070, P =
.642
.20709, P =
.649
.52914, P =
.739
.10622, P =
.744
.63602, P =
.114
2.47615, P =
.116
Help Seeking
Cochrans C(33,2) =
(approx.)
Bartlett-Box F(1,12039) =
Variable .. SelfEff
.581
Effort Regulation
Cochrans C(33,2) =
(approx.)
Bartlett-Box F(1,12039) =
Variable .. HelpSeek
.54824, P =
Self-Efficacy
Performance Avoidance Goal Orientation
.61099, P =
.200
1.55378, P =
.213
Intrinsic Task Value
.50807, P =
.927
.00818, P =
.928
Attainment/Importance Task Value
Stigma Consciousness 26
Cochrans C(33,2) =
(approx.)
Bartlett-Box F(1,12039) =
Variable .. Approach
.552
.34468, P =
.557
Performance Approach Goal Orientation
Cochrans C(33,2) =
(approx.)
Bartlett-Box F(1,12039) =
Variable .. Mastery
.55201, P =
.53464, P =
.692
.15005, P =
.698
Mastery Goal Orientation
Cochrans C(33,2) =
(approx.)
Bartlett-Box F(1,12039) =
.54916, P =
.574
.30767, P =
.579
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cell Number .. 1
Determinant of Covariance matrix of dependent variables =
LOG(Determinant) =
.00745
-4.89894
- - - - - - - - - Cell Number .. 2
Determinant of Covariance matrix of dependent variables =
LOG(Determinant) =
.65337
-.42562
- - - - - - - - - Determinant of pooled Covariance matrix of dependent vars. =
LOG(Determinant) =
.39402
-.93135
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Multivariate test for Homogeneity of Dispersion matrices
Boxs M =
F WITH (66,11612) DF =
Chi-Square with 66 DF =
92.38064
1.13950, P =
75.73194, P =
.206 (Approx.)
.193 (Approx.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * A n a l y s i s
Design
1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
o f
V a r i a n c e --
EFFECT .. Stigma_Dich
Multivariate Tests of Significance (S = 1, M = 4 1/2, N = 26 1/2)
Stigma Consciousness 27
Test Name
DF
Sig. of F
Value
Pillais
.14543
55.00
.592
Hotellings
.17018
55.00
.592
Wilks
.85457
55.00
.592
Roys
.14543
Note.. F statistics are exact.
Exact F
Hypoth. DF
.85091
11.00
.85091
11.00
.85091
11.00
Error
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - EFFECT .. Stigma_Dich (Cont.)
Univariate F-tests with (1,65) D. F.
Variable
MS
FinalGra
9.24585
Target_G
5.94204
MetaCog
.76150
EffrtReg
.57553
HelpSeek
1.74148
SelfEff
.48306
Avoidanc
1.10312
Intrinsi
3.16284
Attainme
1.77790
Approach
1.16245
Mastery
.89321
Hypoth. SS
Error SS
F
Sig. of F
4.81101
.52034
1.17068
.19702
.60489
.79435
.20076
.34883
.02929
.01682
.00078
.00162
3.07517
2.78770
.04247
.01343
1.03671
.58311
.13871
.11932
.35194
.39402
600.98004
.473
386.23230
.659
49.49730
.376
37.40931
.557
113.19646
.897
31.39862
.968
71.70281
.100
205.58439
.908
115.56362
.448
75.55920
.731
58.05880
.532
Hypoth. MS
Error
4.81101
1.17068
.60489
.20076
.02929
.00078
3.07517
.04247
1.03671
.13871
.35194
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Abbreviated
Name
Extended
Name
Attainme
Avoidanc
FinalGra
Intrinsi
Stigma_D
Target_G
AttainmentTskVal
Avoidance
FinalGrade
IntrinsicTskVal
Stigma_Dich
Target_Grade
Stigma Consciousness 28
Stigma Consciousness 29
Stigma Consciousness 30
References
Aronson, J., Fried, C., & 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, 113-125.
Aronson, J., & Good, C. (2002). The development and consequences of stereotype vulnerability
in adolescents. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Adolescence and education. New York:
Information Age.
Aronson, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2004). The ups and downs of attributional ambiguity. Psychological
Science, 15(12), 829-836.
Aronson, J., & Steele, C. M. (2005). Stereotypes and the fragility of academic competence,
motivation, and self-concept. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of
competence and motivation. (pp. 436-456). New York: Guilford Press.
Aronson, J., & Salinas, M. F. (2001). Stereotype threat, attributional ambiguity, and Latino
underperformance. Unpublished manuscript, New York University, New York.
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.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation of thought and action: A social-cognitive view.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
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(1), 180-185.
Stigma Consciousness 31
Bogart, L. M. (1998). The relationship of stereotypes about helpers to help-seeking judgments,
preferences, and behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(12), 12641275.
Brown, R. P., & Lee, M. (2005). Stigma consciousness and the race gap in college academic
achievement. Self and Identity, 4, 149-157.
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.
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development.
Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis.
Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and
reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267–285.
Eccles, J., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescents’
achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 21, 215-225.
Hollis-Sawyer, L. A., & Sawyer, T. P. (2008). Potential stereotype threat and face validity effects
on cognitive-based test performance in the classroom. Educational Psychology, 28(3),
291-304.
Inzlicht, M., McKay, L., & Aronson, J. (2006). Stigma as ego depletion: How being the target of
prejudice affects self-control. Psychological Science, 17(3), 262-269.
Kellow, T., & Jones, B. (2008). The effects of stereotypes on the achievement gap: Reexamining
the academic performance of African American high school students. Journal of Black
Psychology, 34(1), 94-120.
Stigma Consciousness 32
Kuncel, N., Credé, M., & Thomas, L. (2005). The validity of self-reported grade point averages,
class ranks, and test scores: A meta-analysis and review of the literature. Review of
Educational Research, 75, 63-82.
Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., Middleton, M., Maehr, L. M., Urdan, T., Anderman, E., & Roeser, R.
(1998). The development and validation of scales assessing students’ achievement goal
orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology 23, 113-131.
Newman, R. S. (2008). The motivational role of adaptive help seeking in self-regulated learning.
In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds), Motivation and self-regulated learning:
Theory, research, and applications (pp. 315-338). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Pinel, E. C. (1999). Stigma consciousness: The psychological legacy of social stereotypes.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 114-128.
Pinel, E. C. (2004). You’re just saying that because I’m a woman: stigma consciousness and
attributions to discrimination. Self and Identity, 3, 39-51.
Pinel, E. C., Warner, L. R., & Chua, P. (2005). Getting there is only half the battle: Stigma
consciousness and maintaining diversity in higher education. Journal of Social Issues,
61(3), 481-506.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. (1993). Reliability and predictive
validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801-813.
Ryan, K. E., & Ryan, A. M. (2005). Psychological processes underlying stereotype threat and
standardized math test performance. Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 53-63.
Stigma Consciousness 33
Schumader, T., Johns, M., & Barquissau, M. (2004). The costs of accepting gender differences:
The role of stereotype endjorsement in women’s experience in the math domain. Sex
Roles, 50(11/12), 835-850.
Schmader, T., Johns, M., & Forbes, C. (2008). An integrated process model of stereotype threat
effects on performance. Psychological Review, 115(2), 336-356.
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 19, 460-465.
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling,
Second edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., Meece, J. L. (2008). Motivation in Education: Theory research,
and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson-Merrill Prentice Hall.
Seibt, B., & Förster, J. (2004). Stereotype threat and performance: How self-stereotypes
influence processing by inducing regulatory foci. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 87(1), 38-56.
Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women's math
performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 4-28.
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of
African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5),
Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and
performance. American Psychologist, 52(6), 613-629.
Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Stigma Consciousness 34
Tyson, K. (2003). Notes from the back of the room: problems and paradoxes in the schooling of
young black students. Sociology of Education, 76(4), 326-343.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy‑value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68‑81.
Zimmerman, B. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 81(3), 329-339.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background,
methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research
Journal, 45(1), 166-183.