Stereotype threat and metastereotypes
419
A Tale of Two Theories: Stereotype
Threat and Metastereotypes
ELORA VOYLES AND LISA FINKELSTEIN
Northern Illinois University
EDEN KING
George Mason University
Kalokerinos, von Hippel, and Zacher
(2014) highlighted an area of industrial–
organizational (I–O) research that demands
attention: the possible inter- and intrapersonal outcomes for workers who may be
targets of stereotypes. We agree with the
authors that the experience of perceiving
that other groups hold a stereotype for
one’s own group could influence career
decision making and decrease motivation,
among other things. However, we argue
that this belief of “what other people think
of my group” is not in and of itself stereotype threat, but is rather metastereotyping.
Two parallel literatures—that of stereotype
threat and metastereotyping—have developed over the years, rarely crossing paths.
In this commentary, we briefly discuss
Correspondence concerning this article should be
addressed to Elora Voyles.
E-mail: [email protected]
Address: Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL
60115
how this lack of integration across these
two literatures may be leading to construct
confusion and unnecessarily slowing our
progress in understanding, and thereby
helping remedy, some of the workplace
effects described in the focal article.
Similar to the vast body of literature on
stereotyping process, the smaller body of
literature on metastereotyping originated in
social psychology. According to Vorauer,
Main, and O’Connell (1998), a metastereotype is “a person’s beliefs regarding the
stereotype that out-group members hold
about his or her own group” (p. 917).
Stereotyping, then, is a process describing
the generalized beliefs and expectations
we have of other groups, but metastereotyping shifts the focus—What do we think
others think of us? The metastereotype is a
belief—a cognition.
Anything resulting from that cognition, be it an emotional reaction (e.g.,
anxiety), or a behavior (e.g., lower task
420
performance, avoidance of interactions
with group members, withdrawal), constitutes consequences of metastereotyping
(Gómez, 2002). The problem that we see
is that the separate components of this
process are often confused and combined
in a discussion of stereotype threat. Conflation of the terms stereotype threat and
metastereotypes obscure the nature of the
process, including the antecedents of, the
threatening (or not) reaction to, and the
consequences of perceived stereotypes in
the workplace. Without a clear articulation of each discrete step in the process,
it will become harder to pinpoint how to
reduce the negative outcomes discussed
in this commentary. Figure 1 maps out this
process; we discuss the links below.
Metastereotypes as Cognitive
Structures
Metastereotypes must be present to start the
ball rolling in the process that is referred
to as stereotype threat. In other words, a
person must first experience the cognition
that another social group has a stereotype
about his or her own social group. Just as
described in the stereotype threat literature
(and in this commentary), certain contextual
factors can elicit and make salient a particular metastereotype. This may come from a
work environment (e.g., being a solo status)
or be manipulated “acutely” in an experimental design. It is what happens subsequently that may or may not be “threat.”
The authors define threat up front as “the
concern of confirming or being reduced
to a negative stereotype about one’s own
group.” It seems that concern, or worry
as it is referred to in other places in this
commentary, is where the threat itself lies.
Metastereotypes can and do produce worry,
or fear of being “reduced to a stereotype,”
but they don’t have to.
Metastereotypes need not be negative—
for example, young people may believe
that older people think that younger people are technologically savvy (Finkelstein,
Ryan, & King, 2012). Positive outcomes
can result from feeling empowered by a
E. Voyles, L. Finkelstein, and E. King
positive metastereotype. A source of this
confusion is that measures purportedly
capturing stereotype threat are actually
measuring metastereotypes. The item cited
in the focal paper: “some of my colleagues
feel I’m not as committed because of my
age (gender)” is not a measure of stereotype
threat, it is a measure of metastereotype
content for age (gender). A measure of
threat would need to capture worry and
concern about that metastereotype and its
potential negative implications for the target. Performance decrements, interpersonal
avoidance, and the host of other negative
outcome variables described as stereotype
threat effects likely are the consequences
of threat. Importantly, however, even when
metastereotypes are negative, they are not
always perceived as a threat; they may be
perceived as a challenge or opportunity,
producing motivating effects.
Motivating Reactions
to Metastereotypes
The authors of the focal article do indeed
describe research on “positive responses to
stereotype threat.” It seems more logical to
say that they are having positive responses
to the triggered metastereotype, and thus
they are not actually feeling threatened
at all—they are feeling motivated and
energized. Put plainly, feeling threatened
is the only one possible perception of a
metastereotype, and positive responses
actually would indicate lack of (meta)
stereotype threat, even when a metastereotype is activated. On the flip side, positive
metastereotypes could also produce threat
if a person feels pressure to live up to
expectations he or she may not believe are
achievable.
Metastereotyping occurs when a person
becomes aware of a stereotype concerning their group. How one reacts to a
metastereotype likely depends in part to the
strength and valence of that metastereotype,
the context, and individual differences.
Some research has begun to tease apart
this process. For example, Kray, Thompson,
and Galinsky (2001) demonstrated that the
Stereotype threat and metastereotypes
421
Figure 1. The process of metastereotyping and potential for stereotype threat.
explicitness of (meta)stereotype information, a contextual factor, contributed to
whether women reacted with empowerment or threat in a negotiation situation.
Ryan, King, and Finkelstein (2011) found
that younger workers varied in their level
metastereotype consciousness, an individual difference variable that captures chronic
concern with others’ stereotypes, and that
metastereotype consciousness related to
feelings about and interactions with older
people in their workplace.
Consequences of Metastereotypes
and Reactions
As noted by the focal article, stereotype
threat literature in I–O was instigated by
Steele’s laboratory work (e.g., Steele &
Aronson, 1995) finding performance decrements that manifested for members of
commonly stereotyped groups when their
group membership was made salient and
when the performance of interest was
in a domain relevant to the stereotype
being elicited. Subsequently, the potential
discovery of the causes of performance
differences in work-relevant tasks between
social groups became the (very worthwhile) goal of I–O psychologists working
in this area. Stereotype threat seemed to
be used synonymously with performance
decrements, although the mechanisms that
operated to produce those decrements
(e.g., anxiety, distraction) were often not
clearly measured, and results have been
both mixed and controversial. One of the
goals of the focal article is to bring to
light many of the other potential workplace impacts of stereotype threat beyond
performance decrements. We applaud the
attention brought to these outcomes associated with stereotypes and the literature that
has begun to support them, but we believe
that the concept of metastereotyping plays
an important role in the process and has
been ignored.
Implications of Viewpoint
for Prevention
The focal article authors conclude by
discussing primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention of stereotype threat. Their
notion of primary prevention involved the
reduction of threat—or negative responses
to stereotypes. Broadening our view of the
process as originating from the elicitation
of a metastereotype, primary prevention could actually begin with efforts to
reduce activation of the metastereotype
in the first place. Secondary prevention,
then, would have to do with discovering
conditions that could prevent the threat
response to a metastereotype once activated (the focal authors current primary
prevention suggestion), or to even produce positive (motivating effects). Tertiary
prevention would then involve treating
early stages, and now undoing negative consequences would be quaternary
prevention. Thus, this viewpoint underscores an even earlier stage at which we
may work toward prevention if we merge
422
knowledge about metastereotyping into this
conversation.
Conclusion
Some may argue that quibbling over terminology is an exercise in navel gazing and
overly academic discourse, but we contend that construct cleanup at this stage can
only broaden the base of knowledge from
which to draw insights, improve the precision of our theories and our measures,
and serve the very practical purpose of producing evidence-based knowledge that can
be used to improve inter- and intrapersonal
outcomes in the workplace for all groups.
References
Finkelstein, L. M., Ryan, K. M., & King, E. B. (2012).
What do the young (old) people think of me? Content and accuracy of age-based metastereotypes.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22(6), 633–657.
L.Y. Dhanani and A.M. Wolcott
Gómez, A. (2002). If my group stereotypes others,
others stereotype my group … and we know.
Concept, research lines and future perspectives
on meta-stereotypes. Revista de Psicología Social,
17(3), 253–282.
Kalokerinos, E. K., von Hippel, C., & Zacher, H. (2014).
Is stereotype threat a useful construct for organizational psychology research and practice? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives
on Science and Practice, 7(3), 381–402.
Kray, L. J., Thompson, L., & Galinsky, A. (2001). Battle
of the sexes: Gender stereotype confirmation and
reactance in negotiations. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 80(6), 942.
Ryan, K., King, E., & Finkelstein, L. (2011, April).
Younger workers’ meta-stereotypes in relation
to impression management behaviors. Paper
presented at the 21st Annual Conference of
the Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Chicago, IL.
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat
and the intellectual test performance of African
Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797.
Vorauer, J. D., Main, K. J., & O’Connell, G. B. (1998).
How do individuals expect to be viewed by members of lower status groups? Content and implications of meta-stereotypes. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 75(4), 917–937.