Cited by 64Education, Achievement, and GiftednessSocial and Intergroup PsychologyCareer Development and Diversity

Do performance avoidance goals moderate the effect of different types of stereotype threat on women’s math performance?

Open access
Finnigan, Katherine M., Corker, Katherine S.·2016·Journal of Research in Personality

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Stereotype threat is considered to be a robust effect that explains persistent gender gaps in math performance and scientific career trajectories. Some evidence suggests stereotype threat effects are buffered by adoption of performance avoidance goals (Chalabaev, Major, Sarrazin, & Cury, 2012). With 590 American female participants, we closely replicated Chalabaev et al. (2012). Results showed no significant main or interaction effects for stereotype threat or performance avoidance goals, despite multiple controls. We conclude that effects of stereotype threat might be smaller than typically reported and find limited evidence for moderation by avoidance achievement goals. Accordingly, stereotype threat might not be a major part of the explanation for the gender gap in math performance, consistent with recent meta-analyses (Flore & Wicherts, 2015).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jrp.2016.05.009

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Since Hough et al. (2001), a sizable body of evidence has supported the effects of stereotype threat, but it is recognised that stereotype threat does not fully explain group mean score differences, and some research suggests its effects are overstated.

    “Since then, whilst a sizable body of evidence has supported the effects of stereotype threat, it is recognised that it does not fully explain group mean score differences (e.g., Kirnan et al., 2009) and some research suggests effects are overstated (e.g., Finnigan & Corker, 2016).”
  • Initial studies on stereotype threat found statistically significant effects, but subsequent re-analyses and other studies failed to replicate them.

    “even though the initial studies on stereotype threat found statistically significant effects (Nguyen and Ryan [2008]), subsequent re-analyses (Zigerell [2017]), and other studies failed to replicate them (Finnigan and Corker [2016]; Flore et al. [2019]).”

    From Science Communication and the Problematic Impact of Descriptive Norms (2023) · cites this paper as Finnigan and Corker [2016]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Finnigan, K. M., & Corker, K. S.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • Kenyon College (US)
Corresponding author
Corker, Katherine S.
Venue
Journal of Research in Personality
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-08
Volume
63
Pages
36-43
ISSN
0092-6566 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2368350941
Cited by
64
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 1
FWCI
11.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Research in Personality (publishedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Career Development and Diversity
Keywords
stereotype threat, performance-avoidance goals, achievement goals, women in science, moderation, replication, gender differences

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review