As I have mentioned before in my blogs I have played sports
for the majority of my life. As a child I played soccer, tennis, and basketball
(as embarrassing as it is, I also played on my high school bowling team). As such, I have played in many
important or clutch games with many spectators throughout my life. It is hard
for me to do (and I hope I do not come off arrogant when I say this) but I was
good at the sports I played (with the exception for basketball – I am not very
tall – as such, this is my justification for not being good J). However, I am good
at both tennis and soccer. Specifically, when I was younger soccer dominated my
life. This notion, in combination with the fact that I was one of the better
players on the team, I had a lot of playing time. To this point, there was
always added pressure for me to do well especially during important games.
However, for me this was never really an issue. When my coach needed me to
score a goal, the majority of the time I came through and did what was asked of
me.
This notion is in line with the concept of social facilitation. This
concept basically says that in the presence of others or spectators we become
aroused (not sexually!!) and this arousal enables a dominant response that will
either hurt or help the individual (Zajonc, 1965). Basically this means that,
in the presence of others, people will react to specters basted on their
dominant response with respect to the activity (Zajonc, 1965). The dominate
response in this situation is basically how easy, comfortable, or good you at
the activity or ‘how well learned it is’ (Zajonc, 1965). That is, if you have
an audience and you are performing a new challenging task or activity your
dominant response that is elicited will lead you to not do as well; in contrast,
if you are performing in front of an audience, completing a task or activity
you are good at, then your dominant response will lead you to be more
successful based on the presence of the audience (Zajonc, 1965). So for me, in
the presence of others or a large audience when I play soccer or other
activities that I am good at, I perform better. That’s why when I played soccer
and it was our final game that I actually tended to play better because of the
added number of spectators that usually come to such important games.
(n=428)
Zajonc, R.B. (1965). Social Facilitation. Science, 149, 269-274.
Being one of the various students
in our Social Psychology class who also took research methods with Dr.
Giuliano, I knew in advance that I would be required to choose a trade book to
read for class. I was very interested in picking a book that interested me. In
addition to a psychology major I am a sociology minor and have always been
interested in issues of race, stereotypes and prejudice. Specifically, I took a
great interest in this topic while abroad.
While abroad I took a
cross-cultural psychology course and one of the activities we did in class
sparked my interest in stereotypes. The activity required everyone in the class
to write down a one-word stereotype that they believe they are ‘held to’ (e.g.,
women, athlete, Latina, Jewish, etc.). From here we all walked around in order
to see what everyone had written down, as we had taped the slips of paper with
the written stereotypes to our shirts. Next, we then turned the paper over and
wrote one sentence describing the one-word stereotype (e.g., I’m an athlete so
I can’t be smart). Once this step was complete we then whet around the room and
discussed our written stereotypes and after we have given our personal accounts
of our stereotypes, our professor then asked if anyone knew a individual or was
friend with anyone who was ‘grouped’ into these stereotypes but did not
necessarily conform to the stereotype that they were ‘associated’ with. I
thought this was a wonderful exercise because I believe that it helped everyone
to see that, yes there are categories that we are all grouped into based on one
thing or another, however we all had personal experience with individuals that
did not fulfill their associated stereotypes (this making even more sense when
we learned about the contact
hypothesis (Allport, 1954)).
The lasting impact of the activity
I was involved in while abroad was what made me want to choose the trade book
about stereotypes as soon as I read the title and synopsis online. As such, I
choose the book Whistling Vivaldi: How
Stereotypes Affect Us and What We Can Do by Claude M. Steele. Steele’s
book basically goes into the concept of stereotype
threat (Steele, 1997, 2010). Specifically, Steele uses personal
accounts of his research and experiences to explain or show how common and wide
spread stereotypes are and how they can affect us in everyday aspects of life.
He dives into deep detail of his research at Michigan and Stanford and talks
about the many other social psychologists that contributed along the way. Steele starts off with personal examples
of racism he has experienced in his life then seamlessly goes into what
stereotype threat is and his research to asses the extent to which stereotype
threat exists in specific groups (i.e., academic achievement and race; women
and math). From here Steel does a good job of giving more examples of
stereotype threat in a few other groups; he notes that if it stereotype threat
does exist within women and math, race and academic achievement and his
research is correct, it should, in theory, be seen in various other stereotyped
groups.
After noting the various
stereotypes and their strengths and how the threat is elicited and their affect
(i.e., identity threat (Steele,
2010)), Steele does leave the reader with a glimmer of hope. After feeling
helpless due to the adverse effects of stereotypes, to which the reader has
little control, Steele does finally leave the reader with solutions or as he
calls it, “a new hope” (Steele, 2010).
Steele leaves the reader with some take home points with reference to
how to reduce the stereotype threat as it would affect them within their own
lives. This is an especially important segment of the book because as we have
learned, the fear and
salience that the stereotype threat elicits within the reader is only effective
in so far as solutions are given, which Steele does (Steele, 2010; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986).
Was the book a good
choice and whom would I recommend it to:
Upon completion of my trade book, I
believe that this book was a good choice. I acknowledge that I have lived a
very fortunate life, I have grown up in a time where being a white women born
to a middle class family affords me certain privileges. As such, I think
reading this book has helped me to fully understand not only how pervasive
stereotypes and stereotype threat are but also the negative effects that they
can elicit. I think reading this book was a good choice because I now have
better understanding of what others go through, even today, when many see
racism and stereotypes as a thing of the past (which it is not). I have heard
that to walk in another man’s shoes is to understand his position, and by
choosing this book I think that I have been able to do this, even if only
through Steele and other’s personal examples. The information and real life
examples I have gained through reading this trade book helped to reassure me
that I made the correct decision in choosing my book.
Taking these notions into account I
believe that I would love to recommend this book. Specifically, I would
recommend the book to everyone who wants a better understanding of the
pervasiveness of stereotypes and stereotype threat. However, I would make sure
to note that this book can be psychology heavy at times. That is, although
Steele does a wonderful job of explaining everything in terms your grandma
could understand, most of the time, he can sometimes focus on the research side
so much that it can be easy to get lost and thus it becomes necessary to reread
the information a second time to ensure true comprehension. I would not
recommend this book to those that have little background or knowledge of
research, due to the fact that some of the nuances or strengths of Steele’s
research and findings may then become lost – because I think some of the most
significant findings result from the disparities and congruencies with
replications and comparisons to other research. I think that this is a great
book for Social Psychology because we did not delve too deeply into the
specific concept of stereotype threat and as such this book can be a great
component to lecture when covering prejudice, stereotypes and discrimination.
How applicable was
this book to everyday life?
When
I was first reading this book (i.e., before getting halfway through the book) I
thought this book was dull and had very little relevance to my life, because I
was white and I was not involved in the field of math. However, after
continuing to read I was pleasantly surprised and found myself finding more and
more ways that I related to the book. Specifically, I first started to question
my aversion to math related courses despite my ability related to math. I have
always been good at math; it is something that has always clicked for me
(unlike vocabulary, grammar, and literature). While reading this book, Steele
explicitly lays out how women may feel stereotype threat related to math
because our culture tends to condition or lead men towards the fields of math
and science while conditioning women towards the fields relating to humanities.
As such, while reading this book I became overtly conscious of why I decided to
not peruse math. In my head I was thinking, well, it is because I do not enjoy
math – then I got to thinking is this just how I rationalized the notion that
as a woman I should not be in the field of math? As such, did I resolved this dissonance by telling myself
that I did not enjoy math (Festinger, 1957)? Although I have post-decision dissonance related
to my choice in psychology rather than the field of math and or science, Steele
still make many good points that made me question my own life decisions (Festinger,
1957).
Furthermore,
in reading this book and reading Steele’s many examples of stereotype threat I
began to think about the stereotypes I think I am associated with and how
stereotype threat may directly affect me. For example, I was raised Jewish. As
such, I think I have heard every Jew joke imaginable and almost every
stereotype associated with this identity. I have been asked if my father and or
mother are doctors or lawyers. People assume I can always pay for them, since I
am Jewish I must have lots of money. When people see me, and they find out that
I am Jewish they ask, if you are Jewish then why do you not have a big nose? I
have seen and heard almost everything; this notion in combination with reading
Steele’s book has made me think of certain situations in my life and question
whether I acted a certain way because I wanted to or did I do so for fear of
adhering to stereotypes associated with me.
This notion of stereotype threat for
me was specifically difficult because the stereotypes related to Jews (i.e.,
the ones I feel are mostly associated with me) are not always negative – so it
became harder for me to relate stereotype threat, as Steele referenced within
his book, to my life. However, I can remember this one time when I was younger
and my friends wanted to go out to the movies and dinner. The place they chose
for dinner was very nice, to the point that I wasn’t sure if I had enough money
to just spend on food (from a very young age I was given an allowance and was
told I had to budget my money). However, because I was Jewish they all assumed
I was just being a ‘penny pinching Jew’ because there was no way I just did not
have the money (because they had told me/eluded to this notion before). Not
wanting to be confrontational and being aware of this, I made up an excuse not
to go out with my friends in order to avoid this ordeal altogether. Although
this may not be exactly what Steele had in mind when he wrote this book, this is
what it elicited in my mind. These few examples were as close as I could get to
applying the principles of the book to my personal life.
About the Author:
Claude
M. Steele is currently the Dean for The School of Education at Stanford
University, however he has worked at many prestigious universities including
the University of Washington, University of Michigan, and Stanford (Steele,
2010). He has a Masters and PhD in Social Psychology from Ohio State University
and honorary degrees from the University of Michigan, the University of
Chicago, Yale University, Princeton University, and from the University of
Maryland, Baltimore County (Steele, 2009). I believe that Steele is an expert
on the issues not only because of his personal experiences, but because he has
published some of the foremost articles in the field relating to stereotype
threat. This book is not only creditable but also scholarly. Steele mentions
many of the other scholars he worked with within the book, citing that even
though they were undergrads or graduate students at the time they themselves
are also now some of the leading psychologists in their respective fields. The
sheer volume of research cited within Steele’s novel would be enough for an individual
who is processing centrally
to be convinced of his position, but in addition, the credentials of those who
conducted the research with Steele add to the validity of the work (Petty &
Cacioppo, 1986).
What I did and did
not like about the book:
What
I liked about the book and what I found most useful was the amount of examples
used within the book. Although at times I felt the book was getting very
research heavy, there was always a real world example to back it up (whether it
related to Steele or another individual). I think from a psychology student
standpoint the books greatest strength was the research backing up each of the
arguments. However, other individuals, who are different from me, might find
the way he chose to organize the book its greatest strength. The way it is
organized helps to the reader to first understand what stereotype threat is,
how pervasive the problem is, how it relates to identity threat and its related
effects and finally solutions for this issue; such that, even if the research
does start to get overwhelming, the organization can help to keep the reader
afloat.
What
I liked least about the book what the sole focus on race. I will concede that
stereotype threat is a major issue especially relating to those of various
races, however I think the book could have been stronger if Steele had gone
into more detail about how stereotype threat can affect more than just those of
a different race. To this point, most of the research Steele references to
revolves around race and it would have been nice to see more research relating
to stereotype threat and sexuality and other stereotypes (i.e., being an
athlete, nerd, part of an exclusive organization [sorority/fraternity] etc. –
these examples being explicitly pertinent to myself).
Take home point:
If
I could narrow it down to just one thing and I had to come up with the take
home point or message of this book, I think it would be that stereotype threat
is a real issue that effects or can effect anyone and it is only through
acknowledging this that we can help to improve its pervasiveness; as such,
through changing critical feedback, improving a group’s critical mass in a
setting, fostering intergroup conversations, and by promoting affirmations
relating to a sense of self we can work on reducing the phenomenon of
stereotype threat (Steele, 2010).
(n= 2,278)
**Because this blog is longer than most, here are two videos to cheer you up...well cheer you up or offend you, who's to say**
I have always known that I am a gullible individual. To this
point, so does my family; they will not let me watch infomercials, the ads for
the SPCA (with the sad accompaniment), or anything else of that nature. After
thinking back overs some of the decisions I have made I have come to realize
that I am very likely to succumb to compliance
(Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004; Cialdini, 2007). That is, compliance can be seen as doing something or agreeing to do
something without a direct request (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004; Cialdini,
2007). Through looking at this concept in more detail in terms of my life, I
have come to realize that I have fell prey and committed (or used) many
different compliance
techniques. Specifically, I use
the door-in-the-face
technique on my parents quite often (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004; Cialdini,
2007). This techniques basically says that we can get people to comply to our
wants by initially asking for something that is so large, that it is out of the
realm of possibility and get told no (or rejected), which is then subsequently
followed by asking for something smaller that is most likely granted or agreed
upon (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004; Cialdini, 2007).
As a child (and I have to admit, even to this day) I have
been an argumentative child. I have always been told I should go into
litigation or law because of my ability to keep arguing no matter what (my
father even has stated I should go into politics and utilize my skills for
filibusters – because I keep on talking). In line with this notion, whenever my
siblings or friends wanted to get something, or gain approval/permission to do
something, they would ask for my help. My skills specifically came in handy
when my sisters and I had had enough and it was time to finally convince my
parents to get a dog. Although most individuals might go the with the foot-in-the-door technique which
entails initially asking for a small request, which is then followed by later
asking for an even bigger request (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004; Cialdini,
2007); thus we would just ask to go pet the dogs, walk them, ogle at them,
etc. and then later ask for the
dog. However, my parents were more attuned to the foot-in-the-door technique (i.e., they can pick up on it),
so I usually decided to go with the huge exaggeration, followed by a smaller
request (it proved to work for my family) (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004;
Cialdini, 2007). That is, when it came time for a dog, I had all of my friends
come over and bring all of their dogs. When my parents then came home, I said
look mom and dad aren’t all these dogs so cute (there were about 10 -my friends
all owning multiple dogs). I then promptly stated, “I think we should get three
so that they can keep each other company”, (fully knowing that they would not
go for one let alone three very easily). My parents both had a petrified look
on their fact. Being attuned to this look, I promptly asked my friends to go
upstairs and wait for me while I talked to my parents. I turned to my parents
and they said that there was no way I could get three dogs. So I looked at them
and said, “That’s fine, but wouldn’t it be nice to have at least JUST ONE dog.
It would be easier to take care of one rather than three .” With this thought
in my parents head, they discussed and my sisters and I were able to get a dog.
He is the love of my life – and although my mom says it’s the biggest mistake
she has ever made, he is the best thing to happen to our family!
(n=640)
*** and for the weekly video*** (thanks to a friend...)
