Cited by 60Social and Intergroup PsychologyEducation, Achievement, and GiftednessCareer Development and Diversity

Enhancing a brief writing intervention to combat stereotype threat among middle-school students.

Bowen, Natasha K., Wegmann, Kate M., Webber, Kristina C.·2013·Journal of Educational Psychology

Abstract

Experimental research has demonstrated both the deleterious effects of negative stereotypes about ability on academic performance and the relative ease with which stereotypes can be countered in educational settings. The extent to which stereotypes contribute to the achievement gap between American students from dominant social and economic groups and students from other groups is not precisely known, but the potential of brief, inexpensive interventions targeting stereotype threat to reduce the gap is worthy of further examination. Although researchers studying brief social psychological interventions sometimes mention the importance of the context in which interventions occur, they have not included manipulations of the environment in their interventions. In the current experimental study, a test of the effects of a brief self-affirming writing assignment was conducted in a new sample of middle-school students (n = 132), and an environmental enhancement to the writing exercise was tested (n = 274). Consistent with previous findings, the self-affirming intervention reduced the average decline in Social Studies grades over the school year compared with a neutral condition (effect size, ES, .57). The combination of the affirming writing assignment with an environmental enhancement had superior effects to the writing assignment alone (ES .53).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0031177

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • A number of other studies of values affirmation have shown more nuanced effects or none at all.

    “Crucially, a number of other studies of values affirmation have shown more nuanced effects or none at all (Borman, Grigg, & Hanselman, 2016;Bowen, Wegmann, & Webber, 2013;Bratter, Rowley, & Chukhray, 2016;Dee, 2015;Hanselman et al., 2017;Hayes, Zinner, Wise, & Carton, 2019;E. O. Jones & Huey, 2020;Protzko & Aronson, 2016)”

    From Tackling Educational Inequalities with Social Psychology: Identities, Contexts, and Interventions (2021) · cites this paper as Bowen, Wegmann, & Webber, 2013

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bowen, N. K., Wegmann, K. M., & Webber, K. C.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Venue
Journal of Educational Psychology
Published
2013-05
Volume
105
Issue
2
Pages
427-435
ISSN
  • 0022-0663 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2176
OpenAlex
W2156316949
Cited by
60
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 7
FWCI
10.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Educational Psychology (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of North Carolina
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Career Development and Diversity
Keywords
stereotype threat, self-affirmation, junior high school students, achievement gap, environmental improvement, academic performance

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