We've Moved!
Visit SDSU’s new digital collections website at https://digitalcollections.sdsu.edu
Description
Minorities are often stereotyped negatively, and research on stereotype threat has documented the negative effects stereotype threat has on creativity while simultaneously boosting analytical thinking. A parallel line of research in the apparent stereotype-free context has documented just the opposite. The present research aimed to reconcile these seemingly inconsistent findings by suggesting that valence of stereotype moderates the effects of numerical status on creativity and analytical thought. Drawing from the two prior lines of research, it was expected that minorities would be more creative than majorities, and a positive stereotype would boost creativity for a minority but cause little change for a majority. Correspondingly, a negative stereotype was expected to cause little change above baseline minority creativity, but cause majority creativity to decrease. For analytical thinking, minorities were expected to have higher levels of analytical thought than majorities, and a negative stereotype was expected to exacerbate this difference. Correspondingly, a positive stereotype was expected to diminish analytical thinking for a minority, but cause little change for a majority. One hundred ninety-four undergraduate students were randomly assigned to conditions in a 2 (numerical status: majority/minority) X 3 (stereotype valence: positive/negative/control) factorial design. Creativity—conventionally embodying qualities such as novelty, unconventionality, and persistence—was measured with a word-fragment completion task to tap into verbal creativity, in addition to a visual-based task. Analytical thinking—characterized by attention to detail and a high degree of logical consistency—was measured with analytical thinking questions from the LSAT. To examine the hypotheses a 2 (Numerical status) X 3 (Stereotype valence) X 2 (type of thought) mixed-model ANOVA was performed with type of thought (creative versus analytical) as a within-subject variable. The analyses revealed no significant effects or interactions for visual creativity, verbal creativity, or analytical thinking. A post-hoc analysis was conducted to probe the high stereotype valence manipulation check failure rate, replacing assigned stereotype valence condition with participant reported (perceived) stereotype valence condition. These linear regression analyses failed to reach significance, suggesting that the null findings are not due to a failure of this manipulation check. Suggested modifications and directions for future research are discussed.
