Making socioeconomic identity salient or presenting a test as diagnostic of intelligence leads low-SES students to perform significantly worse and report lower self-confidence than low-SES participants in non-threatening conditions¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r? · q3
Currency · newest study 2007 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? When socioeconomic identity is made salient before a test, or the test is presented as diagnostic of intelligence, low-SES students perform significantly worse than low-SES participants in non-threatening conditions. → Spencer 2007 q3 i? Under those threatening conditions low-SES students also report much lower self-confidence than low-SES participants in non-threatening conditions. → Spencer 2007

Evidence¶

Spencer 2007¶

Spencer, B; Castano, E (2007). Social class is dead, long live social class! Stereotype threat among low-socioeconomic individuals. Social Justice Research. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11211-007-0047-7

q3 · i? · causal · r?

Experimental study in which "Participants were placed in one of four conditions that varied in level of ''threat'' related to socioeconomic status." The article reports that threatened low-SES students "perform significantly worse, and report much lower self- confidence"; no effect size is printed.

"Results show that when socioeconomic identity is made salient before taking a test, or when the test is presented as diagnostic of intelligence, low-SES students perform significantly worse, and report much lower self- confidence, than low-SES participants in the non-threatening conditions."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Low-SES students, but not high-SES students, generate stereotype-consistent inferences linking targets' social class and memory ability — related
• Negative stereotype salience combined with high ethnic self-identification inhibits academic performance, while positive stereotypes facilitate it — related
• When threatening conditions converge, low-SES students' performance is at its worst level — related
• White men performed measurably worse on tests of innate athletic ability when under stereotype threat — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Experimental stereotype threat effects in SLD samples are heterogeneous (Hedges's g 0.06–1.16), with effects more robust for motivation-related psychological outcomes than for cognitive or academic performance outcomes — related
• The authors interpret stereotype threat as a partial explanation for the standardized-test achievement gap between low- and high-SES students — a broader claim this one bears on
• Stereotype threat compromises the test performance of learners whose group is the target of a negative stereotype — a broader claim this one bears on