Implicit Identification with Academic Achievement among Latino ...

BASIC AND APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 29(3), 293–310 Copyright # 2007, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Implicit Identification with Academic Achievement among Latino College Students: The Role of Ethnic Identity and Significant Others Thierry Devos and Jose A. Cruz Torres San Diego State University

Two studies were conducted to test the hypothesis that identification with academic achievement among Latino college students was related to the extent to which their ethnic group and significant others were linked to academic achievement. Participants completed a series of implicit association tests measuring the interrelations among academic achievement, self, and ethnic groups (Study 1) or significant others (Study 2). Study 1 revealed that the more college students identified with Latinos (relative to Caucasians) and stereotyped Latinos as low academic achievers (relative to Caucasians), the less they identified with academic achievement. Study 2 showed that the more Latino college students identified with significant others and viewed these significant others as high academic achievers, the more they identified with academic achievement. These findings are consistent with principles of cognitive consistency and stress the socio-relational facets of the academic self-concept.

Although Latinos represent the largest ethnic minority group in the United States, various indicators demonstrate that they are one of the most disadvantaged and underrepresented ethnic groups in the educational system (Pew Hispanic Center Fact Sheet, 2002; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2005). Despite an increase in their college enrollment rate (American Council on Education, 2002), Latinos continue to underachieve academically. For example, Latino college students are less likely to obtain their bachelor’s degree than White Americans (Fry, 2004; U.S. Bureau of Census, 2004). The experiences of Latino college students are shaped by myriad forces including socioeconomic barriers (Castillo & Hill, 2004; Rodriguez, 1996), perceptions of the college environment (Gloria, Castellanos, & Orozco, 2005; Hutardo, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, & Allen, 1998), lack of social support (Castillo, Conoley, & Brossart, 2004; Gloria, Castellanos, Lopez, & Rosales, 2005), and cultural values that do not emphasize education (Fuligni, Tseng, & Lam, 1999; Niemann, Romero, & Arbona, 2000; Phinney, Ong, & Madden, 2000). Correspondence should be addressed to Thierry Devos, Department of Psychology, San Diego State University, 5500 Campanile Drive, San Diego, CA 92182-4611. E-mail: [email protected]

The aim of the present research was to document important facets of the academic self-concept of Latino college students by capitalizing on recent theoretical and methodological developments in the study of implicit social cognitions. Our work begins with the assumption that identification with the academic domain is an important ingredient for academic success and persistence (Osborne, 1997; Steele, 1997). However, negative expectations about the scholastic abilities of Latinos in general (Gonzales, Blanton, & Williams, 2002; Schmader & Johns, 2003) may make it difficult for individual Latinos to develop or sustain such an identification. The concepts of disidentification and psychological disengagement capture defensive reactions, which allow individuals to protect their self-regard when faced with such stereotyped negative expectations (Major, Spencer, Schmader, Wolfe, & Crocker, 1998; Steele, 1997). For example, members of groups that are negatively stereotyped tend to regard attributes or dimensions on which their group is expected to fare relatively poorly as less personally important or central to their self-concept (Crocker & Major, 1989). By devaluing the academic domain or by discounting the validity of evaluations received, academic outcomes are seen as unrelated to how the self is evaluated (Schmader, Major, &

294

DEVOS AND CRUZ TORRES

Gramzow, 2001). In other words, individuals may protect their self-esteem by not including or reducing the importance of the academic domain in their selfconcept (Steele, 1997; Steele, Spencer, & Aronson, 2002). Ethnic differences in academic identification have typically been explored by examining the relationships between academic outcome variables (e.g., Grade Point Average (GPA)) and measures of self-esteem such as the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Inventory (Rosenberg, 1965). A positive correlation between self-esteem and academic performance is indicative of academic identification because it suggests that academic pursuits form a basis for self-evaluation. Conversely, a decline in this correlation over time has been defined as evidence for academic disidentification (Osborne, 1997). This approach has generated many insights into the experiences of ethnic minorities in educational settings (Cokley, 2002; Finn, 1989; Griffin, 2002; Hansford & Hattie, 1982; Schmader et al., 2001). However, a tacit assumption of previous research on this topic is that self-definitions are accessible to introspection and that individuals are willing to report self-knowledge or self-evaluations. Self-report measures depend on respondents’ ability and readiness to report privately held beliefs or attitudes. Thus, self-report measures have important limitations when respondents are unable to report or when responses are influenced by impression management considerations or demand characteristics. Recent theoretical and methodological advances have greatly facilitated the study of thoughts and feelings that are not available to introspection or that cannot be consciously controlled (Devos, in press; Fazio & Olson, 2003). New paradigms are now available to investigate facets of the self that are marked by a lack of conscious awareness, control, or intention (for reviews, see Devos & Banaji, 2003; Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). From this perspective, the self can be conceptualized as a network of associations that are not necessarily available to consciousness or under volitional control. The present research examined, for the first time, the extent to which the concept of academic achievement was incorporated into the self-concept of Latino college students, using the Implicit Association Test (IAT, Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998) to bypass the limitations of self-reports. This technique is based on the assumption that the direction and strength of associations between various concepts can be revealed by the ease with which individuals categorize stimuli representing these concepts under different conditions. It is important to stress that type of measures should not be equated with type of processes. Responses on self-report measures and performances on reaction-time techniques often reflect a mix of automatic and controlled processes (Payne, Jacoby, & Lambert, 2005; Sherman, 2006; Wegener & Petty, 1997). This being said, there is ample

evidence that individuals have much less control over their responses on the IAT than on self-report measures (Greenwald & Nosek, 2001; Nosek, Greenwald, & Banaji, 2006). The controllability of IAT performances is minimal when individuals have limited experience with the technique and are not provided specific instructions on how to modify their IAT score (Kim, 2003). In line with contemporary approaches to the self (Forgas & Williams, 2002; Sedikides & Brewer, 2001), an important goal of the present research was to stress the social and relational aspects of the academic selfconcept. Research stemming from the social identity tradition focuses on the collective aspects of the self (Brewer, 1991; Deaux, 1993; Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). A core idea is that self-definitions are derived from memberships in large collectives or social categories. Prototypic examples of these collective social identities are defined in terms of such criteria as ethnicity, nationality, gender, age, or occupation. A somewhat different perspective emphasizes the importance of interpersonal relationships in defining the self-concept (Andersen & Chen, 2002; Aron & Aron, 1996; Baldwin, 1992). In these models the emphasis is on aspects of the selfderived from relations with specific individuals. Examples of such interpersonal identities include parent-child relationships, family ties, or close friendships. Both collective and interpersonal identities are social extensions of the self, but differ in that the connections are impersonal ties based on a common identification with a social group or category in the first case and more personalized bonds with specific individuals in the second case (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). Several investigators have used reaction-time techniques to reveal how social categories and significant others become key referents for the self. For instance, adapting a paradigm developed by Aron, Aron, Tudor, and Nelson (1991), Smith and Henry (1996) examined psychological ties to significant ingroups. Participants were asked to rate themselves, an ingroup, and an outgroup on a list of traits. Next, they indicated, as quickly and accurately as possible, whether each trait was self-descriptive or not. Self-descriptiveness judgments were faster for traits on which participants matched their ingroup than for traits on which they mismatched. No such facilitation effects were observed for traits rated as matching or mismatching the outgroup. These results support the idea of a mental fusion of the self and ingroups (see also Coats, Smith, Claypool, & Banner, 2000; Smith, Coats, & Walling, 1999). In sum, important aspects of the selfconcept are embedded both within relationships and within the wider social context. Although collective and interpersonal identities differ in many ways, similar underlying psychological processes can be expected. For example, principles of cognitive

IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SELF-CONCEPT

consistency should apply equally to both types of identities. Revisiting classic socio-psychological theories (Abelson, Aronson, McGuire, Newcomb, Rosenberg, & Tannenbaum, 1968), Greenwald, Banaji, Rudman, Farnham, Nosek, and Mellott (2002) proposed an integrative framework accounting for consistencies among constructs such as implicit attitudes, stereotypes, selfesteem, and self-concept. These authors developed a Balanced Identity Design (BID) that can be used to examine the interrelations among triads of concepts such as self, some defined group, and an attribute (see also Aidman & Carroll, 2003; Devos, Diaz, Viera, & Dunn, 2007; Rudman & Goodwin, 2004). According to the balance-congruity principle, if an individual strongly identifies with a group, attributes associated with this group should also be associated with the self. More precisely, identification with the attribute (self-attribute link) should develop in proportion to the product of the strengths of the self-group and group-attribute links. For example, the more individuals identify with men and link the concept math with men rather than with women (gender stereotypes), the more they identify with math. Conversely, the confluence of identification with women and gender stereotypes (math ¼ 6 women) is related to a weaker identification with math (Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald, 2002). In the present research, we used this framework and paradigm to examine consistencies in extended selfdefinitions. An important contribution of the present research was to test the balance-congruity principle for both a collective identity (ethnic identification in Study 1) and an interpersonal identity (identification with significant others in Study 2). In both cases the goal was to account for the strength of implicit identification with academic achievement. We predicted that evidence for cognitive consistency would emerge from data obtained using the IAT. We did not expect to find support for our hypotheses based on self-reports because introspective limits and self-presentational concerns may partially obscure the operation of consistency processes (see also Greenwald et al., 2002). Indeed, individuals may not be consciously aware of the interconnections between associative knowledge about themselves and the groups they belong to or important persons in their lives. In addition, they may be motivated to tailor their responses for personal or social purposes (Devos, in press; Nosek, 2005). For example, college students participating in a study conducted on campus might be unwilling to express thoughts and feelings that come to mind about their academic goals, aspirations, and experiences because they either do not want other people to know about it (e.g., ‘‘It will make me look bad if I acknowledge that I don’t care about earning good grades’’) or they do not consciously accept or deliberately endorse these responses (e.g., ‘‘It is

295

against my personal standards to make general statements about the academic abilities of people based on their ethnicity’’). That is, individuals may be tempted to deceive others by not reporting their spontaneous thoughts or they may reject automatic reactions because they do not fit with their principles or values. Internally or externally motivated attempts to tailor beliefs or attitudes can be more easily incorporated in deliberative responses (Plant & Devine, 1998). At least under some circumstances, weakened consistencies between selfreported beliefs about self and ethnic groups or significant others will result. This will be the case particularly when these factors do not operate uniformly on the constructs assessed. For example, self-presentational concerns are more likely to inflate identification with academic achievement and to minimize expressed differences about the academic abilities of various ethnic groups, but such concerns are less likely to shape the strength of ethnic identification. By definition, implicit measures are less vulnerable to social desirability, impression management, or demand characteristics. As a result, they are more likely to reveal the overlap between associative knowledge about self and ethnic groups or significant others.

STUDY 1: ACADEMIC SELF-CONCEPT AND ETHNIC IDENTITY Using a BID (Greenwald et al., 2002), Study 1 examined the interrelations among the following triad of concepts: self, ethnicity, and academic achievement. We hypothesized that the self-academic achievement association (academic self-concept) should be a multiplicative function of the self-ethnicity association (ethnic identification) and the ethnicity-academic achievement association (ethnic stereotypes). Although no systematic investigation has been conducted on beliefs about the academic abilities of Latinos, there is some evidence that Latinos are stereotyped as being less intelligent than Caucasians (Fairchild & Cozens, 1981; Weyant, 2005). Based on these findings, we expected that Latinos would be implicitly conceived of as low academic achievers in comparison to Caucasians. According to the balancecongruity principle, the propensity to differentiate Latinos and Caucasians along those lines should account for a weaker identification with academic achievement among individuals who identify with Latinos. This prediction could be stated as ‘‘If academic achievement is weakly linked to Latinos and I strongly identify with Latinos, then I should weakly identify with academic achievement.’’ In contrast, ethnic stereotypes should be positively correlated with academic identification among individuals who identify with

296


Caucasians. Given the correlational nature of the data, these predictions do not imply a specific causal flow across the associative links. These predictions are also consistent with the notion of self-stereotyping. According to self-categorization theory (Turner et al., 1987), categorizing oneself as a group member leads to a shift in self-conceptualization that brings the self-concept in line with the defining characteristics of the ingroup and distinct from the relevant outgroup. Previous studies providing evidence for self-stereotyping have relied almost exclusively on measures tapping deliberate processes: individuals were asked to report to what extent they viewed themselves either as possessing attributes stereotypical of their group (Biernat, Vescio, & Green, 1996; Pickett, Bonner, & Coleman, 2002; Simon & Hamilton, 1994; Sinclair, Hardin, & Lowery, 2006) or as similar to the group prototype (Spears, Doosje, & Ellemers, 1997; Verkuyten & Nekuee, 1999). Such techniques assume that selfdefinitions are accessible through introspection and capture responses that are under volitional control. Recently, several studies have documented forms of implicit self-stereotyping. For example, men and women automatically linked attributes stereotypical of their gender to the self (Greenwald & Farnham, 2000; Rudman, Greenwald, & McGhee, 2001). Capitalizing on these findings, the goal of Study 1 was to examine consistencies between knowledge about one’s ethnic group and self-knowledge produced when conscious control is relatively unavailable.

METHOD Participants Participants were 83 undergraduate students at San Diego State University. Forty-three participants were Latinos (24 women and 19 men) and 40 were Caucasians (21 women and 19 men). Participants received partial course credit for their participation. Participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 31 years old; the median age was 19. Latino and Caucasian participants clearly differed in terms of parents’ education level. For Latinos, more than 45% of the parents (46.5% of fathers and 55.8% of mothers) had not attended or graduated from high school; these proportions were much lower for Caucasian participants (respectively, 5.0% and 2.5%). More than 40% of Caucasian parents were college graduates (40% of fathers and 50% of mothers); the proportions of college graduates were less than 15% for Latino parents (respectively, 11.7% and 14.0%). The two groups also differed in terms of socioeconomic status. When asked to indicate the approximate annual family income of their parents’ household, 69.8% of Latino

participants gave estimates lower than $40,000. Only 15% of Caucasian participants provided estimates in the same range. Annual incomes of more than $80,000 were reported by 50% of Caucasian participants, but by only 14% of Latino participants. These data are based on self-reports and cannot be checked for accuracy, but they are consistent with well-documented ethnic disparities. Finally, Latino participants reported a lower GPA (M ¼ 2.84, SD ¼ 0.51) than Caucasian participants (M ¼ 3.20, SD ¼ 0.56), t(80) ¼ 3.02, p < .005, d ¼ 0.68. Procedure Participants were seated individually in front of a desktop computer in a small room with four computers. The computers were separated by partitions to ensure privacy. After giving their informed consent, participants completed implicit and explicit measures administered on PCs running Inquisit (Draine, 1998). In the present study, we deemed it most appropriate to administer the implicit measures first because participants were asked to complete three IATs. The opposite order might have produced more noise in the implicit data (e.g., increase of error rates) due to fatigue. For each IAT, stimuli were presented sequentially at the center of the computer screen. Participants were asked to categorize, as quickly as possible, each stimulus by pressing a key that was either toward the left or the right of the keyboard. Response times were recorded from the onset of a stimulus to its correct classification. Correct responses terminated a trial and the inter-trial interval was 400-ms. Labels for the concepts were positioned at the top left and top right of the screen to indicate the requested pairing. If a stimulus was incorrectly classified, a red ‘‘X’’ appeared below the stimulus. Participants then had to provide the correct answer to move on to the next trial. The single categorization blocks included 20 trials. Each double categorization block included 60 trials with a brief message appearing after the first 20 trials to remind participants to go fast. Stimuli were selected alternately from each pair of concepts. Participants completed three IATs assessing the following constructs: ethnic identification, ethnic stereotypes, and academic self-concept. The pairs of concepts combined in each IAT are presented in Table 1. The order of the IATs and the order of the critical blocks for each IAT were counterbalanced across participants. Given that the different steps of an IAT have been described systematically in many publications (Greenwald et al., 1998; Greenwald & Nosek, 2001; Nosek et al., 2006), the description provided below focuses on the two critical blocks of trials for each task (double categorization blocks).


297

TABLE 1 Implicit Association Tests: Pairs of Concepts Combined, Studies 1 and 2 Implicit Association Tests Study 1 Ethnic identification Ethnic stereotypes Academic self-concept Study 2 Identification with significant others Academic achievement – significant others Academic self-concept

Pair 1

Pair 2

Self Latino Self

Others Caucasian Others

Latino High achievement High achievement

Caucasian Low achievement Low achievement

Self Significant person Self

Others Acquaintance Others

Significant person High achievement High achievement

Acquaintance Low achievement Low achievement

Implicit ethnic identification. This IAT was devised to measure the strength of ethnic identification. As is customary (Greenwald & Farnham, 2000; Nosek et al., 2002), pronouns or terms that were self-relevant (self, I, me, my, mine) and pronouns or terms that designate other people (others, they, them, their, it) were used to represent, respectively, the concepts ‘‘self’’ and ‘‘others.’’ Common last names were used to represent ethnic categories. For the category ‘‘Latino,’’ we used the ten following last names: Gonzalez, Lopez, Perez, Sanchez, Garcia, Rodriguez, Mendoza, Hernandez, Camacho, and Herrera. For the category ‘‘Caucasian,’’ the ten last names were Johnson, Taylor, Campbell, McArthur, Patterson, Jameson, Sullivan, McCarthy, Ferguson, and Hamilton. In one block of trials, participants were asked to pair, as quickly as possible, ‘‘self’’ words with Latino last names and ‘‘others’’ words with Caucasian last names. In another block of trials, the opposite pairing was presented: ‘‘self’’ words were combined with Caucasian last names and ‘‘others’’ words were paired with Latino last names. Implicit ethnic stereotypes. To detect implicit stereotypes about the academic abilities of Latinos and Caucasians, we created an IAT assessing the direction and strength of associations between the concepts ‘‘Latino’’ vs. ‘‘Caucasian’’ and the concepts ‘‘high achievement’’ vs. ‘‘low achievement.’’ The sets of last names listed above were used to represent ethnic categories. Terms capturing high achievement (honors, Dean’s list, top 5%, success, A þ , 4.0 GPA, 1500 SAT) and low achievement (probation, drop out, bottom 5%, failure, D-, 1.0 GPA, 450 SAT) served as stimuli for the attribute dimension. In one block of trials, participants sorted, as fast as possible, Latino last names and ‘‘high achievement’’ stimuli on one side and Caucasian last names and ‘‘low achievement’’ stimuli on the other side. In another block of trials, Latino last names and ‘‘low achievement’’ stimuli were combined and contrasted to Caucasian last names and ‘‘high achievement’’ stimuli. Implicit academic self-concept. This measure combined the concepts ‘‘self ’’ vs. ‘‘others’’ with the concepts

‘‘high achievement’’ vs. ‘‘low achievement.’’ It assesses the strength of participants’ identification with academic achievement. In one block of trials, participants sorted, as fast as possible, ‘‘self ’’ and ‘‘high achievement’’ stimuli on one side and ‘‘others’’ and ‘‘low achievement’’ stimuli on the other side. In another block of trials, the opposite pairing was proposed: ‘‘self ’’ and ‘‘low achievement’’ stimuli were opposed to ‘‘others’’ and ‘‘high achievement’’ stimuli.

Explicit measures. Next, participants completed a series of explicit measures. To assess participants’ explicit beliefs about the academic performance of Latinos and Caucasians, they completed the following item (once with Latinos as the target group and once with Caucasians as the target group): ‘‘In comparison to all other ethnicities, how well do you think most Latinos= Caucasians do in college in terms of academic achievement?’’ Answers were provided on 5-point scales labeled as follows: (1) Poorly, (2) Below average, (3) Average, (4) Above average, and (5) Excellent. To measure ethnic identification, participants were asked to indicate to what extent they identified with ‘‘Latinos’’ and ‘‘Caucasians.’’ Responses were provided on 10point scales ranging from (1) Not at all to (10) Completely. To assess participants’ academic self-concept, they were asked to report to what extent they identified with the concept of academic achievement and to what extent they had ‘‘cold’’ or ‘‘warm’’ feelings toward this concept. In both cases, responses were provided on 10-point scales, with higher values reflecting a stronger identification or more favorable feelings.

Demographic information. Participants completed a short demographic questionnaire that included items such as ethnicity, gender, age, and GPA. They also reported the level of education of their parents (father and mother) and the approximate annual family income of their parents’ household. Finally, participants were debriefed and thanked for their participation.

298

DEVOS AND CRUZ TORRES TABLE 2 Means and Standard Deviations for Implicit and Explicit Measures, Study 1 Latino (n ¼ 41)

Participants’ Ethnic Identity Implicit Association Tests Ethnic identification Ethnic stereotypes Academic self-concept Explicit ethnic identification Identification with Latinos Identification with Caucasians Explicit belief about academic performance Academic performance of Latinos Academic performance of Caucasians Explicit academic self-concept Identification with academic achievement Attitude toward academic achievement

Caucasian (n ¼ 39)

M

SD

M

SD

0.40 0.07 0.52

0.39 0.37 0.34

0.34 0.38 0.49

0.30 0.44 0.29

8.85 5.85

1.48 2.77

5.92 9.28

2.16 0.89

3.07 3.54

0.76 0.64

2.97 3.59

0.43 0.55

8.59 8.44

1.16 1.69

8.72 8.64

1.15 1.25

RESULTS Data Preparation IAT data were analyzed following the algorithm recommended by Greenwald, Nosek, and Banaji (2003). Data from three participants were discarded because they responded at a rate faster than 300 ms on more than 10% of the trials, leaving 80 participants for analysis. Data from these participants were also discarded for analyses conducted on the explicit measures. For each IAT, the difference between the mean response latency for the two critical blocks of trials, divided by its associated pooled standard deviation, was computed. This quotient was computed separately for the first 20 trials and the last 40 trials; the two values were then averaged. As recommended by Greenwald et al. (2003), statistical analyses were always performed on this index. First, we compared the direction and strength of the implicit associations obtained for Latino and Caucasian participants. Means and standard deviations for each IAT are reported in Table 2. Implicit Ethnic Identification As expected, there was a significant difference between Latino and Caucasian participants in terms of ethnic identification, t(78) ¼ 9.41, p < .001, d ¼ 1.07. Latino participants displayed a strong self þ Latino association (M ¼ 0.40, SD ¼ 0.39, t[40] ¼ 6.56, p < .001, d ¼ 1.03), whereas a strong self þ Caucasian association was found for Caucasian participants (M ¼ 0.34, SD ¼ 0.30, t[38] ¼ 6.98, p < .001, d ¼ 1.13).1 1 Seven Latino participants and one Caucasian participant had a last name included in the list of stimuli. We were unable to determine whether it had an impact on their responses because the procedure ensured that participants’ identity could not be matched with their data (confidentiality of responses).

Implicit Ethnic Stereotypes Ethnic differences also emerged on the measure of ethnic stereotypes, t(78) ¼ 4.94, p < .001, d ¼ 0.56. Caucasian participants clearly conceived Latinos as low academic achievers in contrast to their own ethnic group (M ¼ 0.38, SD ¼ 0.44, t[38] ¼ 5.42, p < .001, d ¼ 0.88). Latino participants did not reliably differentiate the two groups on the academic achievement dimension (M ¼ 0.07, SD ¼ 0.37, t[40] ¼ 1.14, p > .25, d ¼ 0.18). Implicit Academic Self-Concept No significant difference between Latino and Caucasian participants emerged on the task assessing identification with academic achievement, t(78) ¼ 0.40, p > .65, d ¼ 0.09. A strong self þ high achievement association was displayed by Latino participants (M ¼ 0.52, SD ¼ 0.34, t[40] ¼ 9.70, p < .001, d ¼ 1.53), and Caucasian participants (M ¼ 0.49, SD ¼ 0.29, t[38] ¼ 10.57, p < .001, d ¼ 1.71).

Balanced Identity Analysis To test our hypothesis, we used the 4-test regression method described by Greenwald et al. (2002; see also Greenwald, Rudman, Nosek, & Zayas, 2006). Given that our goal was to understand factors related to the strength of identification with academic achievement, the implicit academic self-concept was used as the criterion variable and was regressed on implicit ethnic identification, implicit ethnic stereotypes, and their interaction. The predictors were centered and the interaction term (cross-product of the separate predictors) was computed following standard practice (Aiken & West, 1991; Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). The unified theory posits that only the interaction term


should be significantly related to the criterion variable. To test this proposition, the interaction term is entered in Step 1 and the main effects are entered in Step 2. According to the theory, the interaction term should account for a significant proportion of variance in Step 1 and should be positive in sign (Test 1). The estimate of the interaction term should also be positive in Step 2 (Test 2). The inclusion of the separate predictors in Step 2 should have negligible effects. That is, the increment in proportion of variance explained (between Step 1 and Step 2) should not be statistically significant (Test 3). In addition, the estimates for the separate predictors should not differ significantly from zero in Step 2 (Test 4). Blanton and Jaccard (2006) criticized this 4-test regression method on various grounds and recommended the use of the standard simultaneous multiple regression method for testing multiplicative models (Aiken & West, 1991; Cohen et al., 2003). According to this method, the crucial test for a multiplicative model is the test of significance of the interaction term in a regression analysis that includes the multiplicative predictor along with the two separate predictors. According to Greenwald et al. (2006), this method does not afford the opportunity to distinguish a pure multiplicative model from other multiplicative models. Settling this debate is beyond the scope of the present paper. To increase the comparability of our findings with those of other published BID studies (e.g., Devos et al., 2007; Greenwald et al., 2002; Rudman & Goodwin, 2004) and because the crucial test for Blanton and Jaccard (2006) is readily available in Step 2 of the approach advocated by Greenwald et al. (2002), we followed the 4-test regression method, but we put an emphasis on the test of significance of the interaction term when the separate predictors are factored in. When the strength of identification with academic achievement was regressed on the interaction between implicit ethnic identification and implicit ethnic stereotypes (Step 1), a significant proportion of variance was accounted for, R2 ¼ .08, F(1, 78) ¼ 6.77, p < .02, and the interaction term was positive in sign (b ¼ þ.28). The inclusion of the separate predictors (implicit ethnic identification and implicit ethnic stereotypes) in Step 2 did not significantly increase the proportion of variance explained, DR2 ¼ .01, F(2, 76) ¼ 0.19, p > .80, and did not affect the predictive power of the interaction (b ¼ þ.28, p < .02). Neither the effect of implicit ethnic identification (b ¼ þ.04, p > .75), nor the effect of implicit ethnic stereotypes (b ¼ .08, p > .50) were significant. To aid in interpreting the interaction we examined simple slopes for values 1 SD above and below the mean on the implicit ethnic identification and implicit ethnic stereotypes measures (see Figure 1). Expectations of lower academic performances for Latinos (relative to Caucasians) were related to a weaker self þ high

299

FIGURE 1 Study 1: Implicit academic self-concept as a function of implicit ethnic identification (Latino Identity vs. Caucasian Identity) and implicit ethnic stereotypes (Weak vs. Strong Ethnic Stereotypes).

achievement association for participants identified with being Latino (b ¼ .38, p < .04), whereas a non significant trend in the opposite direction (stronger self þ high achievement association) emerged for participants identified with being Caucasian (b ¼ þ.22, p > .20). These regression analyses were directly relevant to the aims of the present research because they examined the role of a psychological construct (ethnic identification). When ethnicity (Latino vs. Caucasian participants) was introduced in the regression analyses instead of ethnic identification, very similar results emerged. More precisely, the interaction between ethnicity and implicit ethnic stereotypes was significant (b ¼ þ.40, p < .04) and simple slopes analyses revealed that expectations of lower academic performances for Latinos (relative to Caucasians) were related to a weaker academic self-concept among Latino participants (b ¼ .27, p < .06), but did not predict academic self-concept for Caucasian participants (b ¼ þ.17, p > .30). The balance-congruity principle was also tested separately on the Latino and Caucasian samples. The interaction was in the expected direction for Latino participants, but it did not reach the traditional significance level (b ¼ þ.26, p < .11). This could be attributed to a lack of variance on the ethnic identification measure. As reported previously, Latino participants displayed a strong implicit identification with their ethnic group. A larger and more diverse sample would be needed to detect the predicted interaction. For Caucasian participants, there was no evidence for an interactive pattern (b ¼ .00, p > .95), suggesting that their implicit selfconcept was not strongly tied to implicit associations about the academic orientation of ethnic groups. Explicit Measures Means and standard deviations for the explicit measures are reported in Table 2. An analysis of variance

300


performed on the ethnic identification items revealed a highly significant interaction between participants’ ethnic identity and target group, F(1, 78) ¼ 99.60, p < .001, g2 ¼ .56. Not surprisingly, pairwise comparisons indicated that Latino participants identified more strongly with Latinos than with Caucasians, and an effect in the opposite direction emerged for Caucasian participants. In a second analysis of variance we examined participants’ explicit beliefs about the academic performance of these two ethnic groups. This analysis revealed a highly significant main effect of target group, F(1, 78) ¼ 31.60, p < .001, g2 ¼ .29. This effect was not qualified by participants’ ethnic identity, F < 1. Both Latino and Caucasian participants assumed that Latino college students perform more poorly than Caucasian students. These data could be seen as evidence for a cultural stereotype, but it could also be argued that these perceptions reflect a kernel of truth in that, even with this specific sample, Latino students reported a lower GPA than Caucasian students. Despite ethnic differences in academic performances, Latino and Caucasian participants did not differ in terms of their reported identification with academic achievement, t(78) ¼ 0.51, p > .60, d ¼ 0.12, or attitude toward academic achievement, t(78) ¼ 0.61, p > .50, d ¼ 0.14. For both groups, the concept was strongly incorporated into their selfconcepts and elicited highly positive feelings. These two items were positively correlated for both Latino participants (r ¼ þ.41, p < .01) and Caucasian participants (r ¼ þ.68, p < .001). Following the steps described for the implicit measures, hierarchical regression analyses were used to test the balance-congruity principle on the explicit data. To parallel the format of the IAT analysis, difference scores were computed for ethnic identification and beliefs about academic performance. The predictors were centered and the interaction term was computed following standard practice. The interaction term was positive (b ¼ þ.13), but it did not account for a significant portion of variance in Step 1, R2 ¼ .02, F(1, 78) ¼ 1.43, p > .20. The inclusion of the separate predictors (explicit ethnic identification and explicit beliefs about academic performances) in Step 2 did not significantly increase the proportion of variance explained, DR2 ¼ .04, F(2, 76) ¼ 1.77, p > .15.

Correlations between Implicit and Explicit Measures The previous sections describe different patterns of responses on implicit and explicit measures. The correlations between implicit and explicit measures of the same construct should be interpreted with caution because the small sample size prevented us from correcting for measurement error (Cunningham, Preacher, & Banaji,

2001). Implicit and explicit measures of academic self-concept were not reliably correlated (rLatinos ¼ þ.09, p > .55 and rCaucasians ¼ þ.29, p < .08). Implicit ethnic stereotypes were not significantly correlated with beliefs about the academic performances of Latinos and Caucasians (rLatinos ¼ þ.06, p > .70 and rCaucasians ¼ þ.08, p > .60). The only reliable correlation was between implicit and explicit ethnic identification among Latino participants (rLatinos ¼ þ.34, p < .04). This correlation was not significant for Caucasian participants (rCaucasians ¼ .20, p > .20). Overall, these correlations suggest that responses reflecting more controlled processes were distinct from responses produced when conscious control was relatively unavailable. It is also worth reporting that the correlations between GPA and both implicit (rLatinos ¼ þ.02, p > .90 and rCaucasians ¼ þ.13, p > .40) and explicit (rLatinos ¼ þ.11, p > .45 and rCaucasians ¼ þ .29, p < .09) measures of academic self-concept were not significant. This study sheds light on the interconnections among ethnic identification, expectations about the academic abilities of ethnic groups, and identification with academic achievement. Consistent with the balancecongruity principle, implicit assessments reveal that the confluence of ethnic identification and ethnic stereotypes predicts the strength of identification with academic achievement. The more participants identified with being Latino and held the stereotype that Latinos, as a group, are low academic achievers, the less they identified with academic achievement. In other words, negative expectations about one’s group are linked to a weaker identification with academic achievement among those who strongly identify with that group. From the perspective of participants identified with being Caucasian, in contrast, the combination of ethnic identification and ethnic stereotypes regarding academic achievement accounts for a stronger identification with academic achievement. These relationships were found when we examined individual rather than group differences. Overall, Latino participants did not display implicit negative expectations about the scholastic abilities of their group (relative to Caucasians). Implicit beliefs about the abilities of Latino and Caucasian college students are not the same across ethnic groups. In addition, mean scores indicated that both ethnic groups strongly and equally identified with academic achievement. Yet, the pattern of interrelations among measures did reveal that stereotypical beliefs accounted for the strength of identification with academic achievement. Finally, as expected, evidence for cognitive consistency did not emerge from self-report measures, suggesting that other factors shaping responses based on more deliberate or controlled processes might obscure consistency processes. We can assume that individuals


301

participating in a study conducted on campus are somewhat motivated to make a good impression (e.g., ‘‘I should define myself as someone who cares about academic achievement, getting good grades, etc.’’). In addition, even if Latino students are willing to express the idea that their group perform less well academically than Caucasians (cultural stereotype), they might be motivated to distance themselves from these negative expectations. These motivational dynamics are more likely to shape self-reports than performances on the IAT. As a result, consistencies in self-reports should be weakened. Based on the shifting standards model (Biernat & Manis, 2007), one could also make the case that selfassessments among Latino college students involve a comparison with other Latinos they knew growing up or who are currently attending college. Even though Latino participants identify with their ethnic group and believe that Latinos perform less well in school, the standard used to define the self might boost their identification with the academic domain (e.g., ‘‘Compared to other Latinos, I am a high academic achiever’’). Given that all the explicit measures included only one or two items for each construct, it is also possible that these measures are less reliable than the IATs and, as a result, are less likely to reveal patterns of cognitive consistency. At least to some extent, the differences emerging between explicit and implicit measures could be attributed to differences in reliability of measurement.

Study 1, we examined the interrelations among the following triad of concepts: self, significant others, and academic achievement. Based on the balance-congruity principle, we hypothesized that the self-academic achievement association (academic self-concept) should be a multiplicative function of identification with significant others and the extent to which significant others are linked to academic achievement. More precisely, we tested the idea that the more Latinos identified with significant people in their lives, and associated these individuals with academic achievement, the more they should identify with academic achievement. This idea is also consistent with the notion of academic role models. Although the empirical literature on role models is scarce, several lines of research suggest that role models can provide important benefits. For example, comparing oneself to similar and outstanding others (role models) enhanced self-evaluations and academic aspirations when the achievement domain was self-relevant and the level of achievement was seen as attainable (Lockwood & Kunda, 1997). In addition, role models can buffer members of minorities or underrepresented groups against the adverse effects of stereotypes on performance (Marx & Roman, 2002). Role models are most likely to have a beneficial impact on the academic self-concept and performances when individuals can easily identify with them (Lockwood, 2006; Lockwood & Kunda, 1999; Zirkel, 2002).

STUDY 2: ACADEMIC SELF-CONCEPT AND SIGNIFICANT OTHERS

METHOD

Relations with significant others play a crucial role in self-definitions. A significant other is ‘‘an individual who is or has been deeply influential in one’s life and in whom one is or once was emotionally invested’’ (Andersen & Chen, 2002, p. 619). Parents, siblings, spouse, and close friends fit this definition. According to the interpersonal social-cognitive theory of the self (Andersen & Chen, 2002; Andersen, Chen, & Miranda, 2002), knowledge about the self is linked with knowledge about significant others. In interpersonal encounters or even when others are not present, selfdefinitions can be shaped by knowledge about significant others and the relationship to them (Andersen & Glassman, 1996). In a similar vein, Baldwin (1992) proposed that the sense of self could be derived from well-learned scripts of interpersonal evaluations. Interestingly, these relational schemas can influence self-definitions even when they are primed outside of conscious awareness (Baldwin, 1994; Baldwin, Carrell, & Lopez, 1990). Study 2 was designed to tackle a slightly different dynamic. Using an approach similar to that used for

Participants Participants were 51 Latino undergraduate students (38 women and 13 men) at San Diego State University. Participants received partial course credit for their participation. Participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 29 years old; the median age was 19. More than 45% of the parents (45.1% of fathers and 52.9% of mothers) had not attended or graduated from high school. The proportion of college graduates was 27.5% for fathers and 19.7% for mothers. When asked to indicate the approximate annual family income of their parents’ household, 43.1% of participants gave estimates lower than $40,000. Annual incomes of more than $80,000 were reported by 15.7% of participants. Participants’ averaged GPA (M ¼ 3.02, SD ¼ 0.50) was slightly higher than what Latino participants had reported in Study 1. Procedure After giving their informed consent, participants completed the tasks in a small room equipped with four computers.

302


Generating significant others and acquaintances. The study began by asking participants to think of significant others. More precisely, they were asked to provide the names of five persons who play a significant role in their life. The exact phrasing of the instructions was: ‘‘In this study, the first thing we would like you to do is to provide the names of five people who play a significant role in your life. These individuals may have any relationship to you. The most important thing is that these people have an impact on your goals and your life in general.’’ Participants were prompted to enter the names one at a time in provided spaces. They were told that the order was not important and that they should enter the name they use on a regular basis to refer to these individuals. They were ensured that the names provided would remain confidential. Next, it was necessary to ask participants to generate the names of five persons who could be contrasted to significant others. We referred to these individuals as acquaintances. To generate these names, participants read the following instructions: ‘‘We will now ask you to provide the names of five acquaintances. Acquaintances are people who you may interact with on occasion but do not know well. These people should not have an impact on your life (whether negatively or positively). The most important thing is that these people be minimally associated with your life and your goals.’’ Once again, they were prompted to enter the names one at a time in provided spaces. Participants were then asked to complete three IATs. The technical parameters of these tasks were identical to those described for Study 1. The pairs of concepts combined in each IAT are presented in Table 1. The order of the IATs and the order of the combined blocks were counterbalanced across participants.

Implicit identification with significant others. This IAT measured the strength of identification with significant others (relative to acquaintances). As in Study 1, pronouns or terms that were self-relevant (self, I, me, my, mine) and pronouns or terms that designate other people (others, they, them, their, it) were used to represent the concepts ‘‘self’’ and ‘‘others.’’ The five names that participants entered during the preliminary phase of the study were used to represent the concept ‘‘significant person.’’ Similarly, the five names of acquaintances were used to represent the concept ‘‘acquaintance.’’ In one block of trials, participants were asked to pair, as quickly as possible, ‘‘self’’ words with names of significant persons and ‘‘others’’ words with names of acquaintances. In another block of trials, the opposite pairing was presented: ‘‘self’’ words were combined with names of acquaintances and ‘‘others’’ words were paired with names of significant persons.

Implicit academic achievement-significant others association. Participants also completed an IAT measuring the extent to which significant persons (relative to acquaintances) were associated with academic achievement. The names provided by participants represent the concepts ‘‘significant person’’ vs. ‘‘acquaintance’’ and defined the first pair of concepts. The terms used in Study 1 served to represent the academic achievement dimension. In one block of trials, participants responded, as fast as possible, to names of significant persons and ‘‘high achievement’’ stimuli on one side and names of acquaintances and ‘‘low achievement’’ stimuli on the other side. In another block of trials, names of significant persons and ‘‘low achievement’’ stimuli were combined and contrasted to names of acquaintances and ‘‘high achievement’’ stimuli. Implicit academic self-concept. This measure combined the concepts ‘‘self’’ vs. ‘‘others’’ with the concepts ‘‘high achievement’’ vs. ‘‘low achievement.’’ It was identical to the task used in Study 1. Explicit measures about significant others and acquaintances. Next, participants completed a series of explicit measures. Some of these measures assessed the explicit counterparts of the IATs. The purpose of other measures was to document whom participants defined as significant persons vs. acquaintances. To measure the extent to which participants identified with these individuals, the name of each person was presented, one at a time, and they indicated how close they felt toward each of those individuals. Responses were made on 7-point scales ranging from (1) Not at all to (7) Very much. Using a similar procedure, participants also indicated to what extent they associated each person with academic achievement. Next, they indicated for each person the highest level of education that he or she had completed. The response options were: (1) Not a high school graduate, (2) High school graduate, (3) Some college, (4) College graduate (bachelor’s degree), (5) Some graduate level training (after receiving at least a bachelor’s degree), (6) Master’s degree or higher, and (7) I don’t know. Participants were also asked to indicate the ethnicity of each person and the relationship they had with each person. Responses to these last two series of questions were provided using an open-ended format. Explicit academic self-concept. Participants also completed a scale assessing their explicit academic selfconcept. This measure was developed specifically for this research. Many items were adapted from a scale assessing aspirations to attend graduate school (Battle & Wigfield, 2003). Sample items included: ‘‘When I think about getting a college degree I feel good about


myself;’’ ‘‘Doing well in school is important to my self-esteem;’’ ‘‘I believe it is very important that I do well in school;’’ and ‘‘I don’t need a college degree to fulfill my potential’’ (reversed item). Responses were provided on 5-point scales ranging from (1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree. The scale included 18 items. The order of the items was randomized across participants. Demographic information. As was the case in Study 1, participants completed a short demographic questionnaire. They were then debriefed and thanked for their participation.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Information about Significant Others First, descriptive information about significant others and acquaintances selected by participants will be presented. For each participant, we computed separately the proportions of significant others and acquaintances fitting a specific profile (e.g., the proportion of significant others who were college graduates). Means and standard deviations are presented in Table 3. In terms of level of education, only one-fifth of significant others were college graduates. This proportion is significantly higher than the proportion of college graduates among acquaintances, t(48) ¼ 2.24, p < .03, d ¼ 0.32. On average, four out of five significant others were Latinos. This proportion is about twice that observed for acquaintances, t(48) ¼ 7.36, p < .001, d ¼ 1.06. A very straightforward picture emerged from data capturing the nature of the relationships between participants and the persons listed as significant others. Parents accounted for approximately a third of the significant others. Siblings and spouses accounted for another third of the cases. Other family members were also listed with some frequency. Parents, siblings, and spouse were never listed among acquaintances. More than half of the persons listed as

303

acquaintances were friends or classmates. Only a tenth of the significant others were in that category, t(48) ¼ 5.63, p < .001, d ¼ 0.81. Implicit Identification with Significant Others IAT data were analyzed following the steps described for Study 1. Data from two participants were discarded because they responded at a rate faster than 300 ms on more than 10% of the trials, leaving 49 participants for analysis. As expected, there was a significant difference between significant others and acquaintances in terms of identification (M ¼ 0.60, SD ¼ 0.32, t[48] ¼ 12.89, p < .001, d ¼ 1.86). It was easier for participants to pair ‘‘self ’’ words with the names of significant others than with the names of acquaintances. Implicit Academic Achievement-Significant Others Association A significant IAT D effect also emerged on the task assessing the extent to which significant others and acquaintances were associated with academic achievement (M ¼ 0.64, SD ¼ 0.29, t[48] ¼ 15.38, p < .001, d ¼ 2.22). It was easier for participants to combine ‘‘high achievement’’ words with the names of significant others than with the names of acquaintances. Implicit Academic Self-Concept In line with the findings of Study 1, a strong self þ high achievement association was displayed by participants (M ¼ 0.45, SD ¼ 0.40, t[48] ¼ 7.93, p < .001, d ¼ 1.14). Balanced Identity Analysis Following the steps described for Study 1, we used hierarchical regression analysis to test our hypothesis. Implicit academic self-concept was regressed on implicit association between academic achievement and significant others, implicit identification with significant

TABLE 3 Means and Standard Deviations for Explicit Measures about Significant Others and Acquaintances, Study 2 Significant Others

Proportion of college graduates Proportion of Latinos Proportion of parents Proportion of siblings and spouse Proportion of other family members Proportion of friends-classmates Proportion of teachers-mentors Explicit identification Explicit association with academic achievement

Acquaintances

M

SD

M

SD

0.20 0.80 0.31 0.33 0.12 0.22 0.01 6.26 5.31

0.20 0.27 0.13 0.19 0.17 0.23 0.05 0.65 1.17

0.11 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.02 2.33 3.11

0.22 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.34 0.07 0.98 1.51

304


others, and their interaction. As was the case in Study 1, the predictors were centered and the interaction term was computed following standard practice. As predicted, the interaction term accounted for a significant proportion of variance in Step 1, R2 ¼ .14, F(1, 47) ¼ 7.38, p < .01, and was positive in sign (b ¼ þ.37). The inclusion of the separate predictors (implicit identification with significant others and implicit association between academic achievement and significant others) in Step 2 increased the proportion of variance explained, DR2 ¼ .16, F(2, 45) ¼ 5.15, p < .02. The effect of identification was not significant (b ¼ þ.19, p > .15), but the effect of the academic achievement—significant others association was reliable (b ¼ þ.32, p < .03). Most important, the interaction term remained significant (b ¼ þ.26, p < .05) in Step 2. To interpret the interaction, we examined simple slopes for values 1 SD above and below the means (see Figure 2). A stronger association between significant others and academic achievement was related to a stronger self þ high achievement association for participants who strongly identified with significant others (b ¼ þ.58, p < .005). This path was non significant for participants who weakly identified with significant others (b ¼ þ.06, p > .75). As hypothesized, the more Latino participants identified with significant persons in their lives and associated these persons with academic achievement, the more they identified with academic achievement. The fact that the pattern did not reflect a crossover interaction is not surprising given the observed distributions of the two predictors. When the range of at least one variable in the BID is restricted, the data often reveal a linear relationship between the other two variables and the interaction term is not necessarily statistically significant (Greenwald et al., 2002). In the present case, the distributions of the IATs assessing the strength of

FIGURE 2 Study 2: Implicit academic self-concept as a function of implicit identification with significant others (Weak vs. Strong Identification with Significant Others) and implicit academic achievementsignificant others association (Weak vs. Strong Association between Academic Achievement and Significant Others).

identification with significant others and the extent to which significant others were linked to academic achievement were polarized toward the high end. Despite these polarized distributions, the interaction term was significant even when the separate predictors were included in the equation. As such, the data are consistent with the balance-congruity principle. Future studies on this topic should include a more diverse sample to ensure greater variability on the constructs of interest. Explicit Measures Means and standard deviations for the explicit measures are reported in Table 3. Responses on the measures of identification (a ¼ .86 for significant others and a ¼ .91 for acquaintances) and association with academic achievement (a ¼ .75 for significant others and a ¼ .87 for acquaintances) were aggregated. Not surprisingly, participants identified more strongly with individuals listed as significant others than with individuals mentioned as acquaintances, t(48) ¼ 23.54, p < .001, d ¼ 3.40. These two types of individuals were also differentiated explicitly on the academic achievement dimension with significant others being more strongly linked to academic achievement than acquaintances, t(48) ¼ 9.01, p < .001, d ¼ 1.30. Responses provided on the academic self-concept scale were aggregated (a ¼ .83, M ¼ 4.29, SD ¼ 0.42). Hierarchical regression analyses were also used to test the balance-congruity principle on the explicit data. To parallel the format of the IAT analysis, difference scores were computed for the identification with significant others vs. acquaintances, and for the association between academic achievement and significant others vs. acquaintances. The predictors were centered and the interaction term was computed following standard practice. The interaction term was positive (b ¼ þ.10), but it did not account for a significant proportion of variance in Step 1, R2 ¼ .01, F(1, 47) ¼ 0.47, p > .45. The inclusion of the separate predictors (explicit identification and explicit association with academic achievement) in Step 2 did not significantly increase the proportion of variance explained, DR2 ¼ .07, F(2, 45) ¼ 1.81, p > .15. These regression analyses assessed the potential role of significant others relative to that of acquaintances (difference scores). We also examined the pattern obtained when explicit identification with significant others and explicit associations between academic achievement and significant others were considered without factoring in responses provided for acquaintances. In line with the findings reported above, the interaction term was positive (b ¼ þ.22), but it did not account for a significant proportion of variance in


Step 1, R2 ¼ .05, F(1, 47) ¼ 2.43, p > .12. The inclusion of the separate predictors (explicit identification and explicit association with academic achievement) in Step 2 did not significantly increase the proportion of variance explained, DR2 ¼ .05, F(2, 45) ¼ 1.35, p > .25. Correlations between Implicit and Explicit Measures As before, we also examined the relationships among implicit and explicit measures. Once again, implicit and explicit measures of academic self-concept were not reliably correlated (r ¼ þ.07, p > .60). Implicit associations between academic achievement and significant others were not significantly correlated with their explicit counterparts whether acquaintances were used as a point of comparison (r ¼ þ.17, p > .20) or not (r ¼ þ.19, p > .15). Similarly, implicit identification with significant others was not reliably correlated with explicit identification with significant others whether assessed relative to acquaintances (r ¼ .14, p > .30) or not (r ¼ .18, p > .20). These correlations suggest a clear distinction between responses reflecting relatively deliberate processes and responses that are less consciously controllable. In line with the results of Study 1, correlations between GPA and both implicit (r ¼ þ.02, p > .85) and explicit (r ¼ .01, p > .90) measures of academic self-concept were negligible. As predicted, the confluence of strong identification with significant others and the propensity to link these significant others to academic achievement accounts for the strength of identification with academic achievement. In other words, identification with significant others predicts identification with academic achievement when significant others are strongly linked to academic achievement. Once again, we found support for this hypothesis based on implicit assessments of these associative links, but not based on explicit measures. Impression management and demand characteristics are most likely to affect self-reported identification with academic achievement and, as a result, to reduce consistencies among self-knowledge and knowledge about significant others.

GENERAL DISCUSSION The present research establishes the usefulness of measures that avoid reliance on introspection and that are less susceptible to self-presentational biases in the study of the academic self-concept of individuals belonging to a minority or underrepresented group. Indirect assessments of academic self-concept have the potential of shedding light on dynamics that would not be revealed by more traditional tools. An important contribution of the present research is to stress the socio-relational

305

aspects of the academic self-concept. The data provide firm evidence for the idea that the academic self-concept is defined in relation to group memberships and significant others. In line with contemporary approaches to the self, the academic self-concept is grounded in meaningful social identities and interpersonal relations. The socio-relational facets of the academic selfconcept can be easily integrated in a conceptualization of the self as a network of associations. This rich associative structure would include social categories and other individuals. In the present research, our goal was to demonstrate that identification with academic achievement could be predicted by the confluence of associative links involving external entities (ethnicity and significant others). Study 1 shows that, for Latinos, the strength of the link between the self and academic achievement is a function of ethnic identification and associations about the academic abilities of Latinos (relative to Caucasians). Study 2 reveals that identification with significant others and the association between significant others and academic achievement account for the extent to which the self is connected to academic achievement. These findings indicate that distinct associative links are organized in a coherent way. Self-knowledge and knowledge about group memberships or significant others are structured according to a basic principle of cognitive consistency. In sum, associations operating outside of conscious control provide a basis for highlighting the socio-relational aspects of the academic self-concept. A dominant feature of the IAT is that it captures the relative associations between two pairs of concepts. A technique assessing relative associations is particularly useful when the contrasting categories are carefully selected to operationalize a specific theoretical construct. Given the goals of the present research, it seemed appropriate to contrast concepts such as high achievement vs. low achievement, Latinos vs. Caucasians, or significant others vs. acquaintances. The findings suggest that setting up the IAT as we did in Studies 1 and 2 was a suitable approach. It would nevertheless be of some interest to ask if the findings could be replicated by minimizing these contrasting comparisons. Several techniques have been developed to provide more absolute assessments of associations (e.g., Carlston & Skowronski, 1994; De Houwer, 2003; Karpinski & Steinman, 2006; Nosek & Banaji, 2001). These techniques would allow the isolation of the role of associations about the self vs. others, Latinos vs. Caucasians, or significant others vs. acquaintances. It is possible that some of the effects documented using the IAT are driven to a greater extent by some associations than by others. It should be stressed that this issue is not solely an empirical question. It has also important conceptual implications. For example, should academic identification be

306


conceptualized as a preferential association towards the self? Does a strong identification with academic achievement necessarily imply a weak association between others and academic achievement? At both theoretical and methodological levels, we deliberately put an emphasis on the comparative and relational nature of the academic self-concept. Drawing on several influential theoretical models, we stressed that the self takes meaning in relation to other entities (social categories or individuals). As such, there is a strong affinity between the theoretical background of the present research and the tools used to test this framework. This being said, future studies should test more directly some assumptions about the role of social comparisons in processes of academic identification. The distinction between explicit and implicit operation of self-knowledge is particularly interesting when it reveals that these two modes function differently (Devos & Banaji, 2003; Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). In both studies and in line with previous investigations based on the BID (Greenwald et al., 2002), data obtained with the IAT conformed to the pattern of cognitively consistent associations, whereas data obtained with explicit measures of the same associations did not reveal such consistency. These findings further emphasize the need to distinguish between implicit and explicit assessments. The interpretation of self-report measures is complex because responses on these measures may be influenced by a number of confounding factors. Introspective limits, demand characteristics, and evaluation apprehension might, each in their own way, obscure the consistency between self-knowledge and knowledge about ethnic groups or significant others. The present data suggest that principles of cognitive consistency do not imply or rely on deliberate or conscious thought processes. In these studies, we examined the extent to which implicit academic identification is a function of other, implicitly assessed, constructs. Selecting academic identification as the dependent variable reflects an attempt to better understand factors that may potentially undermine or strengthen academic success among members of minorities or underrepresented groups. This being said, the empirical tests of our hypotheses were strictly correlational. The data do not provide evidence for a specific causal path. Experimental or longitudinal studies are needed to establish the impact of associations about ethnic groups or significant others on the academic self-concept. Although the correlational nature of the studies prevents us from asserting causation, the interrelations among the constructs point to the potentially crucial role that ethnic identity and significant others may play in shaping academic identification. The findings of Study 1 are consistent with the idea that negative stereotypes in the academic domain can impede

academic identification (Steele, 1997; Steele et al., 2002). On a brighter note, the results of Study 2 fits with the idea that significant others or role models can contribute to strengthening academic identification (Zirkel, 2002). Taken together, the present data suggest that positive role models may help counteract the detrimental impact of negative stereotypes on the implicit academic self-concept of Latino students. The present research draws attention to the interactive forces that may undermine or strengthen the ability to link the self to the academic domain. The findings clearly illustrate that ethnic identification and ethnic stereotypes, considered in isolation, do not predict academic identification. Their combined effect is critical. The extent to which an individual identifies with a group does little to account for his or her identification with academic achievement if one does not simultaneously take into account the extent to which academic achievement is associated with this group. When the self is associated with a group that is weakly tied to academic achievement, strengthening social identification could weaken the selfacademic achievement linkage. If academic achievement is strongly associated with a group, identification with that group should promote an academically oriented self-definition. Following the same logic, significant others do not univocally strengthen the academic self-concept. They are more likely to play a beneficial role if individuals can identify with them and, at the same time, associate them with the academic domain. The role that significant others can potentially play in shaping the academic self-concept might be relatively general and is likely to operate for various underrepresented groups. Future research should test similar predictions with other ethnic groups (e.g., African Americans). At the same time, one could make the case that significant others are likely to have particularly potent influences on Latino youth. Beliefs and practices that promote close relationships, family support, and interdependence among family members have been described as core aspects of the Latino culture (Falicov, 1998; Marıń & Marıń, 1991). Attachment to family relations is often contrasted with attachment to school. This should not obscure the fact that significant others can also strengthen educational ambitions and academic motivation. Recent research shows that perceived social or family support is a predictor of academic persistence and adjustment to college among Latino undergraduates (Gloria et al., 2005; Schneider & Ward, 2003). An important goal for future research is to demonstrate that implicit measures of academic self-concept predict meaningful academic outcomes. In both studies, correlations between self-reported GPA and implicit (and explicit) measures of academic self-concept were negligible. Although self-reported GPA has been used as an index of academic performances in previous research on academic identification (Cokley, 2002; Schmader et al., 2001), it is


probably not the most relevant criterion variable to establish the predictive validity of an implicit measure of academic identification among students who, in most cases, were completing their freshman year. Despite the fact that implicit measures of social cognition have been introduced only recently, a compelling body of work shows that these measures account for judgments, decisions, and behaviors in subtle but systematic ways (Devos, in press; Poehlman, Uhlmann, Greenwald, & Banaji, 2005). For example, implicitly assessed attitudes predict relatively spontaneous, uncontrollable, or unconscious behaviors (Dasgupta & Rivera, 2006; Dovidio, Kawakami, & Gaertner, 2002). In particular when individuals lack the processing capacities or the motivation to override automatic responses, behaviors are likely to stem from automatic associations (Fazio, 2001). In academic settings, many behaviors evade strategic or conscious control and several factors may undermine the cognitive resources or motivation necessary to not succumb to the effects of automatic self-evaluations. Under these circumstances, academic disidentification may leak out in subtle ways and affect perceptions of assignments, selfassessments of abilities, performances on tests, and even interactions with peers and instructors. Implicitly held beliefs or attitudes also play a role in the initiation of deliberate or controllable behaviors (Poehlman et al., 2005). Thus, implicit self-knowledge may shape academic motivation and study habits. Although the present work was directly inspired by a theoretical framework that has received empirical support in a number of studies (Aidman & Carroll, 2003; Devos et al., 2007; Greenwald et al., 2002; Rudman & Goodwin, 2004), it also extends this line of research in important ways. First, our research sheds light on an important social issue, namely academic identification among Latino college students. To the best of our knowledge, it is the first time that this issue has been tackled using techniques recently developed to study implicit social cognition. Understanding the factors that could weaken or strengthen academic identification among ethnic minorities is a pressing and important goal. We hope that this work will inspire more scientists to use this framework and these tools to gain a better understanding of the psychosocial dynamics contributing to the relative under-achievement of Latinos in academic settings. Second, our work makes an original contribution to the literature on the implicit self. In Study 2, we successfully adapted the BID to document the interconnections between associations about the self and significant others. Previous research had examined exclusively the interconnections between associations about the self and social categories. Thus, the present work further demonstrates the heuristic value of the theoretical framework developed by Greenwald et al. (2002). In addition, Study 2 represents a valuable methodological contribution by showing that the IAT can be

307

used to assess implicit associations about individuals who play a crucial role in people’s life instead of associations about broad social categories (based on ethnicity, gender, or other dimensions). Using techniques such as the IAT to tap associative knowledge about specific individuals and defining the concepts in an idiosyncratic way open a realm of possibilities for future research. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research was supported in part by the Minority Access to Research Careers Program (MARC=NIH – No 5T34GM08303) and the McNair Scholars Program (U.S. Department of Education, TRIO Programs - No P217A030016) at San Diego State University. Portions of this research were presented at the 5th Annual Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Austin, Texas, January 2004. We thank Jeff Bryson and Roger Dunn for their helpful comments on a previous draft.

REFERENCES Abelson, R. P., Aronson, E., McGuire, W. J., Newcomb, T. M., Rosenberg, M. J., & Tannenbaum, P. (Eds.). (1968). Theories of cognitive consistency: A sourcebook. Chicago: Rand-McNally. Aidman, E. V., & Carroll, S. M. (2003). Implicit individual differences: Relationships between implicit self-esteem, gender identity, and gender attitudes. European Journal of Personality, 17, 19–36. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. American Council on Education. (2002). Minorities in higher education: Nineteenth annual status report. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Andersen, S. M., & Chen, S. (2002). The relational self: An interpersonal social-cognitive theory. Psychological Review, 109, 619–645. Andersen, S. M., Chen, S., & Miranda, R. (2002). Significant others and the self. Self and Identity, 1, 159–168. Andersen, S. M., & Glassman, N. S. (1996). Responding to significant others when they are not there: Effects on interpersonal inference, motivation, and affect. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition (Vol. 3, pp. 262–321). New York: Guilford Press. Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1996). Self and self-expansion in relationships. In G. J. O. Fletcher & J. Fitness (Eds.), Knowledge structures in close relationships: A social psychological approach (pp. 325–344). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 241–253. Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 461–484. Baldwin, M. W. (1994). Primed relational schemas as a source of self-evaluative reactions. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 13, 380–403. Baldwin, M. W., Carrell, S. E., & Lopez, D. F. (1990). Priming relationship schemas: My advisor and the Pope are watching me from the back of my mind. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 435–454.

308


Battle, A., & Wigfield, A. (2003). College women’s value orientations toward family, career, and graduate school. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 56–75. Biernat, M., & Manis, M. (2007). Stereotypes and shifting standards: Assimilation and contrast in social judgment. In D. A. Stapel & J. Suls (Eds.), Assimilation and contrast in social psychology (pp. 75–97). New York: Psychology Press. Biernat, M., Vescio, T. K., & Green, M. L. (1996). Selective selfstereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1194–1209. Blanton, H., & Jaccard, J. (2006). Tests of multiplicative models in psychology: A case study using the unified theory of implicit attitudes, stereotypes, self-esteem, and self-concept. Psychological Review, 113, 155–165. Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475–482. Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this ‘‘We’’? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83–93. Carlston, D. E., & Skowronski, J. J. (1994). Savings in the relearning of trait information as evidence for spontaneous inference generation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 840–856. Castillo, L. G., Conoley, C. W., & Brossart, D. F. (2004). Acculturation, White marginalization, and family support as predictors of perceived distress in Mexican American female college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 151–157. Castillo, L. G., & Hill, R. D. (2004). Predictors of distress in Chicana college students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 32, 234–248. Coats, S., Smith, E. R., Claypool, H. M., & Banner, M. J. (2000). Overlapping mental representations of self and ingroup: Reaction time evidence and its relationship with explicit measures of group identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 304–315. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression=correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Cokley, K. O. (2002). Ethnicity, gender and academic self-concept: A preliminary examination of academic disidentification and implications for psychologists. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 8, 378–388. Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608–630. Cunningham, W. A., Preacher, K. J., & Banaji, M. R. (2001). Implicit attitude measures: Consistency, stability, and convergent validity. Psychological Science, 12, 163–170. Dasgupta, N., & Rivera, L. M. (2006). From automatic antigay prejudice to behavior: The moderating role of conscious beliefs about gender and behavioral control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 268–280. De Houwer, J. (2003). The extrinsic affective Simon task. Experimental Psychology, 50, 77–85. Deaux, K. (1993). Reconstructing social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 4–12. Devos, T. (in press). Implicit attitudes 101: Theoretical and empirical insights. In W. D. Crano & R. Prislin (Eds.), Attitudes and persuasion. New York: Psychology Press. Devos, T., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Implicit self and identity. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 153–175). New York: Guilford. Devos, T., Diaz, P., Viera, E., & Dunn, R. (2007). College education and motherhood as components of self-concept: Discrepancies between implicit and explicit assessments. Self and Identity, 6, 256–277.

Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., & Gaertner, S. L. (2002). Implicit and explicit prejudice and interracial interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 62–68. Draine, S. C. (1998). Inquisit. Seattle [Computer Software]. WA: Millisecond Software. Fairchild, H. H., & Cozens, J. A. (1981). Chicano, Hispanic, or Mexican American: What’s in a name? Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 3, 191–198. Falicov, C. (1998). Latino families in therapy: A guide to multicultural practice. New York: Guilford Press. Fazio, R. H. (2001). On the automatic activation of associated evaluations: An overview. Cognition & Emotion, 15, 115–141. Fazio, R. H., & Olson, M. A. (2003). Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their meaning and uses. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 297–327. Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117–142. Forgas, J. P., & Williams, K. D. (Eds.). (2002). The social self: Cognitive, interpersonal, and intergroup perspectives. New York: Psychology Press. Fry, R. (2004). Latino youth finishing college: The role of selective pathways. Retrieved August 7, 2006, from http://pewhispanic.org/files/ reports/30.pdf. Fuligni, A. J., Tseng, V., & Lam, M. (1999). Attitudes toward family obligations among American adolescents with Asian, Latin American, and European backgrounds. Child Development, 70, 1030–1044. Gloria, A. M., Castellanos, J., Lopez, A. G., & Rosales, R. (2005). An examination of academic nonpersistence decisions of Latino undergraduates. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 27, 202–223. Gloria, A. M., Castellanos, J., & Orozco, V. (2005). Perceived educational barriers, cultural fit, coping responses, and psychological well-being of Latina undergraduates. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 27, 161–183. Gonzales, P. M., Blanton, H., & Williams, K. J. (2002). The effects of stereotype threat and double-minority status on the test performance of Latino women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 659–670. Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4–27. Greenwald, A. G., Banaji, M. R., Rudman, L. A., Farnham, S. D., Nosek, B. A., & Mellot, D. S. (2002). A unified theory of implicit attitudes, stereotypes, self-esteem, and self-concept. Psychological Review, 109, 3–25. Greenwald, A. G., & Farnham, S. D. (2000). Using the implicit association test to measure self-esteem and self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 1022–1038. Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480. Greenwald, A. G., & Nosek, B. A. (2001). Health of the implicit association test at age 3. Zeitschrift Fuer Experimentelle Psychologie, 48, 85–93. Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the implicit association test: 1. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197–216. Greenwald, A. G., Rudman, L. A., Nosek, B. A., & Zayas, V. (2006). Why so little faith? A reply to Blanton and Jaccard’s (2006) skeptical view of testing pure multiplicative theories. Psychological Review, 113, 170–180. Griffin, B. W. (2002). Academic disidentification, race, and high school dropouts. High School Journal, 85, 71–81. Hansford, B. C., & Hattie, J. A. (1982). The relationship between self and achievement=performance measures. Review of Educational Research, 52, 123–142.

IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SELF-CONCEPT Hutardo, S., Milem, J. F., Clayton-Pedersen, S. R., & Allen, W. R. (1998). Enhancing campus climates for racial=ethnic diversity; educational policy and practice. The Review of Higher Education, 21, 279–302. Karpinski, A., & Steinman, R. B. (2006). The single category implicit association test as a measure of implicit social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 16–32. Kim, D.-Y. (2003). Voluntary controllability of the Implicit Association Test (IAT). Social Psychology Quarterly, 66, 83–96. Lockwood, P. (2006). ‘Someone like me can be successful’: Do college students need same-gender role models? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 36–46. Lockwood, P., & Kunda, Z. (1997). Superstars and me: Predicting the impact of role models on the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 91–103. Lockwood, P., & Kunda, Z. (1999). Increasing the salience of one’s best selves can undermine inspiration by outstanding role models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 214–228. Major, B., Spencer, S. J., Schmader, T., Wolfe, C. T., & Crocker, J. (1998). Coping with negative stereotypes about intellectual performance: The role of psychological disengagement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 34–50. Marıń, G., & Marıń, B. V. (1991). Research with Hispanic populations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Marx, D. M., & Roman, J. S. (2002). Female role models: Protecting women’s math test performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1183–1193. Niemann, Y. F., Romero, A., & Arbona, C. (2000). Effects of cultural orientation on the perception of conflict between relationship and education goals for Mexican American college students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 22, 46–63. Nosek, B. A. (2005). Moderators of the relationship between implicit and explicit evaluation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 565–584. Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2001). Measuring implicit social cognition: The go=no-go association task. Social Cognition, 19, 625–666. Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002). Math ¼ male, me ¼ female, therefore math 6¼ me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 44–59. Nosek, B. A., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (2006). The Implicit Association Test at age 7: A methodological and conceptual review. In J. A. Bargh (Ed.), Automatic processes in social thinking and behavior (pp. 265–292). New York: Psychology Press. Osborne, J. W. (1997). Race and academic disidentification. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 728–735. Payne, B. K., Jacoby, L. L., & Lambert, A. J. (2005). Attitudes as accessibility bias: Dissociating automatic and controlled processes. In R. R. Hassin, J. S. Uleman, & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The new unconscious (pp. 393–420). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Pew Hispanic Center Fact Sheet (2002). U.S.-born Hispanics increasingly drive population developments. Los Angeles: Annenburg School for Communication, University of Southern California. Phinney, J. S., Ong, A., & Madden, T. (2000). Cultural values and intergenerational value discrepancies in immigrant and non-immigrant families. Child Development, 71, 528–539. Pickett, C. L., Bonner, B. L., & Coleman, J. M. (2002). Motivated selfstereotyping: Heightened assimilation and differentiation needs result in increased levels of positive and negative self-stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 543–562. Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. G. (1998). Internal and external motivation to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 811–832. Poehlman, T.A., Uhlmann, E., Greenwald, A.G. & Banaji, M.R. (2005). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III.

309

Meta-analysis of predictive validity. Manuscript submitted for publication. Rodriguez, N. (1996). Predicting the academic success of Mexican American and White college students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 18, 329–342. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Rudman, L. A., & Goodwin, S. A. (2004). Gender differences in automatic in-group bias: Why do women like women more than men like men? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 494–509. Rudman, L. A., Greenwald, A. G., & McGhee, D. E. (2001). Implicit self-concept and evaluative implicit gender stereotypes: Self and ingroup share desirable traits. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1164–1178. Schmader, T., & Johns, M. (2003). Converging evidence that stereotype threat reduces working memory capacity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 440–452. Schmader, T., Major, B., & Gramzow, R. H. (2001). Coping with ethnic stereotypes in the academic domain: Perceived injustice and psychological disengagement. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 93–111. Schneider, M., & Ward, D. (2003). The role of ethnic identification and perceived social support in Latinos’ adjustment to college. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 25, 539–554. Sedikides, C., & Brewer, M. B. (Eds.). (2001). Individual self, relational self, collective self. New York: Psychology Press. Sherman, J. W. (2006). On building a better process model: It’s not only how many, but which ones and by which means. Psychological Inquiry, 17, 173–184. Simon, B., & Hamilton, D. L. (1994). Self-stereotyping and social context: The effects of relative in-group size and in-group status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 699–711. Sinclair, S., Hardin, C. D., & Lowery, B. S. (2006). Self-stereotyping in the context of multiple social identities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 529–542. Smith, E. R., Coats, S., & Walling, D. (1999). Overlapping mental representations of self, ingroup, and partner: Further response time evidence and a connectionist model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 873–882. Smith, E. R., & Henry, S. (1996). An ingroup becomes part of the self: Response time evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 635–642. Spears, R., Doosje, B., & Ellemers, N. (1997). Self-stereotyping in the face of threats to group status and distinctiveness: The role of group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 538–553. Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613–629. Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Aronson, J. (2002). Contending with group image: The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 379–440). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. U.S. Bureau of the Census (2004). Educational attainment in the United States: Table 1a. Percent of high school and college graduates of the population 15 years and over, by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin: 2004. Retrieved August 7, 2006, from http://www.census.gov/ population/www/socdemo/education/cps2004.html.

310


U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2005). The condition of education 2005, NCES 2005–094, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Verkuyten, M., & Nekuee, S. (1999). Ingroup bias: The effect of self-stereotyping, identification and group threat. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 411–418. Wegener, D. T., & Petty, R. E. (1997). The flexible correction model: The role of naı¨ve theories of bias in bias correction. In. M. P. Zanna

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 141–208). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Weyant, J. M. (2005). Implicit stereotyping of Hispanics: Development and validity of a Hispanic version of the implicit association test. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 27, 355–363. Zirkel, S. (2002). Is there a place for me? Role models and academic identity among white students and students of color. Teachers College Record, 104, 357–376.