We've Moved!
Visit SDSU’s new digital collections website at https://digitalcollections.sdsu.edu
Description
Social comparison research shows that when people compare themselves with successful and unattainable others (i.e., engage in an upward comparison), they feel worse about themselves. However, very little social comparison research has looked specifically at how people who are already threatened (e.g., those who are negatively stereotyped) may feel after exposure to unattainable and successful others. Accordingly, the current study directly explores how attainability affects performance under stereotype threat and non-threat conditions. Stereotype threat is the phenomenon by which members of a stereotyped group underperform on certain tasks due to concerns about confirming a group-relevant stereotype. Prior research has found that in stereotype threat situations, threatened individuals perform better following upward comparisons with an ingroup role model -- a successful other who shares an important identity (such as gender or race) with the threatened individual. Because of their counter-stereotypical nature, role models are thought to buffer the performance of those experiencing stereotype threat. Although researchers have begun to establish some of the necessary qualities that enable role models to effectively neutralize the effects of stereotype threat, researchers have yet to test whether a role model's accomplishments must be considered attainable. The current study investigated the effects of role model attainability on performance within a novel stereotype threat paradigm. Participants were 99 SDSU undergraduates. To manipulate stereotype threat, participants were reminded of the negative academic reputation associated with students at their school compared to students at a nearby school (i.e., UCSD). The current study used a 2 (Test Description: threat, no threat) x 3 (Role Model Exposure: no exposure, attainable role model, unattainable role model) betweenparticipants design. It was hypothesized that when individuals were not exposed to a role model, performance would be better in the no threat condition compared to the stereotype threat condition. This hypothesis was supported, suggesting that stereotype threat can be triggered based on school affiliation. In the stereotype threat conditions, it was hypothesized that exposure to either of the role models would increase performance compared to the no role model, threat condition. Moreover, it was expected that the unattainable role model would boost performance even more than the attainable role model. It was found that average performance of the two role model conditions was significantly higher than that of the threat, no role model condition; however, performance did not differ between the two role model conditions. It was hypothesized that in the no threat conditions, exposure to the attainable role model would increase performance relative to the no threat, no role model control condition, whereas exposure to the unattainable role model would decrease performance. Contrary to the hypothesis regarding the performance of those in the attainable condition, it was found that in the no threat conditions, exposure to both the attainable and the unattainable role models decreased performance. As a whole the results demonstrate that role models are most effective when they are attainable, and that the potential benefits of role model exposure depend on whether the situation at hand is one that is "stereotyped" or not.
