Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2026 Mar 19;61(2):e70203. doi: 10.1002/ijop.70203

The Effect of Stereotype Threat on Aggressive Reactions

Lisa Fourgassie 1,2,✉, Baptiste Subra 1, Rasyid Bo Sanitioso 3
PMCID: PMC13003166  PMID: 41858093

ABSTRACT

Two studies investigated the impact of stereotype threat on aggressive reactions. Female participants performed a working memory task under a stereotype threat or a control condition. Following this task, they had the opportunity to display aggression towards a simulated partner (Study 1) or the experimenter (Study 2). Study 2 also included a measure of aggressive thought accessibility. Findings showed heightened indirect verbal, but not indirect physical, aggression among threatened participants. Threatened participants also performed worse on the memory task, suggesting depleted executive resources as a potential driver of their aggressive reactions in the absence of differences in the accessibility of aggressive thoughts.

Keywords: aggression, executive control, gender, stereotype threat, working memory

In their seminal work, Steele and Aronson (1995) introduced the concept of stereotype threat, shedding light on the detrimental consequences of being at risk of confirming negative stereotypes about one's social group. Over the past three decades, this concept has been applied to various social groups and contexts, primarily focusing on consequences on performance‐related domains (Lewis and Sekaquaptewa 2016). However, the broader consequences of stereotype threat have received less attention. Beyond impairing performance, stereotype threat may also elicit a range of negative behaviours with significant social implications (Lewis and Sekaquaptewa 2016). In this research, we extend the scope of stereotype threat outcomes by examining its potential role as an antecedent of aggressive behaviour, employing the GAM as a framework.

1. Stereotype Threat and Aggression

According to the General Aggression Model (GAM; Anderson and Bushman 2002) aggression results from the interplay between person (e.g., personality traits) and situations (e.g., provocation, frustration), which influences the person's internal states (affect, cognition and arousal). These internal states can subsequently lead to aggressive behaviours through appraisal and decision processes. Crucially, the GAM predicts that aggression is more likely to occur when the situation is appraised as hostile and when the individual lacks the resources or motivation to inhibit aggression.

Within the GAM framework, stereotype threat can be considered a situational input as it constitutes a form of identity threat that targets one's competence and social identity simultaneously. This dual threat to both personal and group identity may elicit aggression as a defensive or restorative response, similar to other ego‐threatening situations documented in the aggression literature (e.g., Bushman and Baumeister 1998). This may in turn trigger aggression via modifications of the individual's internal states and decision processes. Indeed, although traditionally studied in relation to performance, the mechanisms by which stereotype threat operates align closely with those identified as antecedents of aggression by the GAM (Anderson and Bushman 2002; Pennington et al. 2016).

First, aggression is thought to occur following a modification of internal states, notably by activating cognitions and affects related to hostility and aggression (Anderson and Bushman 2002). Along the affective route proposed by the GAM, stereotype threat elicits negative effects such as anxiety (Pennington et al. 2016) and also aggression‐related affects such as anger (Chateignier et al. 2011), likely due to the perception of unfairness and disrespect that often accompany the perceived threat (Belmi et al. 2015). Through the cognitive route, stereotype threat may lead to the emergence of hostile cognitions. Indeed, previous studies have shown that stereotype threat increases intrusive negative thoughts (Cadinu et al. 2005). Beyond task‐related doubts, the perception of injustice and the associated anger may trigger hostile cognitions, which can facilitate aggressive responses (Anderson and Bushman 2002).

Second, the GAM proposes that the internal states influence the appraisal of the situation, which may lead to impulsive aggression. However, reappraisal can occur, allowing the individual to inhibit aggression, but only if they have sufficient motivation and/or resources (Anderson and Bushman 2002). Stereotype threat, by inducing negative internal states can jeopardise this reappraisal process. Attempts to regulate negative thoughts and feelings, for instance through suppression strategies, deplete executive control (Schmader et al. 2008). This depletion not only hinders performance on the focal task (Schmader and Johns 2003), but also reduces the capacity or motivation for subsequent self‐regulation (Inzlicht et al. 2011). Because executive control is central to the inhibition of aggressive impulses (Dewall et al. 2007; Finkel 2014), stereotype threat may increase aggression either by amplifying internal triggers but also by impairing the individual's ability to regulate these reactions, or both. Aggression under stereotype threat may thus serve both affective and instrumental functions. It can arise from negative emotions such as frustration or perceived injustice, but also acts as a means of restoring control, self‐worth, or social standing in the face of identity threat (e.g., Krizan and Johar 2015). These responses may be facilitated by a temporary depletion of executive control (Inzlicht and Kang 2010). This functional perspective supports the relevance of examining aggression as a meaningful outcome of stereotype threat.

Although empirical evidence directly linking stereotype threat to aggression remains scarce, a few studies have hinted at this potential link. For example, Belmi et al. (2015) found that stereotype threat increases individuals' intentions to engage in antisocial behaviours, such as spreading rumours or damaging property. Relatively more direct evidence comes from Inzlicht and Kang (2010), who conducted an experiment in which female participants completed a maths test under stereotype threat, with or without an effective coping strategy (i.e., not based on suppression) being provided. The findings showed that women participants who experienced stereotype threat without effective coping strategy later exhibited more aggressive behaviour. However, this study did not include a control condition (i.e., non‐threatening situation) which limits the ability to conclude on the effect of stereotype threat on aggression.

Building on these foundations, the current research aims to directly test the hypothesis that stereotype threat increases aggressive behaviour among women experiencing stereotype threat in mathematics, a domain where women face well‐documented negative stereotypes (Picho et al. 2013; Lewis and Michalak 2019). Focusing on women allows us to test whether aggression is a general consequence of stereotype threat, independent of aggression‐related stereotypes. Unlike populations for whom aggression is part of their stereotypes, women are not typically stereotyped as aggressive. Therefore, observing aggressive responses among women under stereotype threat would suggest that aggression represents a broader response to identity threat rather than a mere stereotype‐conformitory response. We also explored whether stereotype threat influenced aggression‐related cognitions and working memory performance, the latter being conceptually related to executive control. Drawing on the GAM, these variables are theoretically relevant to understanding the mechanisms by which stereotype threat can lead to aggression. Specifically, we predicted that, compared to a control condition, participants experiencing stereotype threat would (H1) exhibit greater aggressive behaviour, (H2) show reduced working memory performance, and (H3) demonstrate greater accessibility of aggressive thoughts (Study 2). This research thus bridges the literature on aggression and stereotype threat, proposing that stereotype threat can represent a precursor to aggression and expanding its effects beyond the performance outcomes that have characterised extant stereotype threat research (Shapiro and Neuberg 2007).

2. Overview of the Present Research

In two experiments, we activated the stereotype linking women to poor maths abilities by altering the framing of a working memory task (Schmader and Johns 2003). The task was presented either as a measure of maths ability (a domain negatively stereotyped for women) in the stereotype threat condition or as a test of mental flexibility (unrelated to the stereotype) in the control condition. Based on the GAM and prior findings, we hypothesised that participants in the stereotype threat condition would (a) exhibit greater aggressive behaviour, (b) show greater accessibility of aggressive thoughts (Study 2) and (c) perform worse on the memory task than those in the control condition.

3. Study 1

3.1. Method

3.1.1. Participants

We recruited 140 female university students (M Age = 19.98, SDAge = 3.10) mostly enrolled in STEM fields (e.g., mathematics, biology, computer sciences). Participants were paid 15€ for their participation. A sensitivity analysis indicated that, with 140 participants, the minimum effect size detectable with 80% power and an alpha level of 0.05 was d = 0.48.

3.1.2. Material and Procedure

Participants were tested individually but were led to believe that each session involved two participants. They were informed that the study aimed to explore factors influencing cognitive functioning and began by completing a questionnaire on food preferences, presented as preparation for the second part of the experiment. In this questionnaire, participants rated their liking for various types of food (i.e., sweet, spicy, sour and bitter) on a 21‐point scale (1 = I hate to 21 = I love).

Participants next complete a working memory task, the operation span task (OSPAN; Schmader and Johns 2003). For participants randomly assigned to the stereotype threat condition, the task was framed as assessing math abilities. For participants in the control condition, it was presented as evaluating mental flexibility. To enhance the threat induction, participants in the threat condition were asked to indicate their gender before starting the test.

The OSPAN task required participants to solve mathematical equations while memorising letters for later recall. Each equation began with a division or a multiplication, followed by an addition or subtraction (e.g., (60/12) + 5 = 10). Participants pressed the key ‘1’ if they thought the response was correct, or ‘3’ if incorrect. The task comprised 16 sets of three to five equation/letter trials (totalling 64 letters and 64 equations). Although the letters and equations within each set remained fixed, the order of presentation was randomised within and across sets. Each set began with an equation displayed for up to 10 s or until the participant responded, followed by a letter displayed in the centre of the screen for 1000 ms. After all equations and letters in a set were presented, participants were asked to recall the letters in the correct order. If they were unable to recall a letter, they pressed ‘*’ to fill in the blank. A 3‐s blank display separated each set. No performance feedback was given to the participants.

After completing the working memory task, participants moved on to a new task, presented as a food‐tasting exercise. In reality, this task measured aggression based on the amount of hot sauce (in milligrams) participants added to a drink meant for a fictitious person (see Muller et al. 2012 for a similar procedure). Participants were told they would prepare a beverage for the alleged other participant, who had received the same instructions but with a different ingredient. All participants drew ‘spicy’ as their ingredient in a bogus draw. They began by drinking a glass of tomato juice mixed with baking soda, allegedly prepared by the other participant, which was meant to be unpleasant to justify aggressive retaliation. 1 They then proceeded to prepare a second glass of tomato juice by adding as much or as little Tabasco sauce as they wished. During this, participants had access to the food preference form presumably filled out by the other participant, indicating a strong dislike for spicy food (rated 3 out of 21).

After the participants finished preparing their beverage, the experimenter pretended to bring it to the other participant. Meanwhile, participants answered questions about their experience of the situation. 2 They were then probed for suspicion regarding the existence of the other participant and the true purpose of the study, were thanked, debriefed and paid.

3.2. Results

3.2.1. Aggressive Behaviour

Because of skewness, data were log‐transformed. 3 We excluded data from three participants: one because she did not drink the entire beverage and two because of outlier data. The two‐outlier participants poured 8970 and 13,990 mg of Tabasco, resulting in standardised scores of 5.07 and 8.17, which significantly exceeded the critical threshold of 3.29 (Tabachnick et al. 2007). To test H1, we conducted a regression analysis on the remaining 137 participants. The analysis did not reveal higher aggression scores for participants in the stereotype threat condition (M = 741.01 mg, SD = 1184.50) than those in the control condition (M = 504.41 mg, SD = 560.01), t(135) = −0.43, p = 0.67, d = 0.07, 95% CI [−0.26, 0.41]. 4

3.2.2. Working Memory

We analysed the absolute span score by summing the number of correctly recalled letters from complete sets. Participants earned three points if they accurately recalled all three letters in a set in correct order; otherwise, they received no points for that set. As predicted (H2), participants in the stereotype threat condition (M = 30.53, SD = 12.59) obtained a lower score than participants in the control condition (M = 35.49, SD = 10.42), t(138) = 2.54, p = 0.01, d = 0.43, 95% CI [0.09, 0.76].

3.3. Discussion

The results of Study 1 replicated the findings of Schmader and Johns (2003), showing that women under stereotype threat performed worse on a working‐memory task compared to those in the control group (H2). However, the study did not provide evidence indicating that stereotype threat increases aggressive behaviour (H1). A possible explanation may be the measure used, the hot sauce paradigm that assesses overt physical aggression. Prior research suggests that women are more likely to engage in verbal and covert forms of aggression, such as spreading rumours, rather than physical aggression (Archer 2004; Richardson and Green 1999). Additionally, making gender salient in the stereotype threat condition may have primed the social norm discouraging female participants from displaying aggressive, counter‐normative behaviour. To address this limitation, we used an indirect relational form of verbal aggression measure in Study 2.

Study 2 also included measures of accessibility of aggressive thoughts, to that we think could underlie the stereotype‐threat aggression link. Previous research suggests that stereotype threat can trigger intrusive thoughts (Logel et al. 2009). It is possible that these thoughts could be related to aggression, either as a response to the perceived unfairness of the situation (Belmi et al. 2015), to the identity threat (DeWall et al. 2009; Konopka et al. 2017), or as a result of negative emotions provoked by stereotype threat (Berkowitz 1990). By increasing the accessibility of aggressive thoughts, stereotype threat may indirectly lead to aggressive behaviour (Anderson and Bushman 2002).

4. Study 2

4.1. Method

4.1.1. Participants

Ninety‐two female students, enrolled in a broad range of academic fields, voluntarily participated in this experiment. A sensitivity analysis indicated that with 92 participants, the minimum effect size detectable was d = 0.59 for an alpha level of 0.05 and with 80% power. We excluded the data from two participants who failed to complete the experiment, leaving a sample of 90 participants (M Age = 22.21, SDAge = 4.62).

4.1.2. Material and Procedure

Participants were tested individually and began with the OSPAN task, framed as a maths (stereotype threat) or a mental flexibility (no threat) task, as in Study 1.

Next, participants performed a go/no‐go lexical decision task to assess the accessibility of aggressive thoughts. They were instructed to press the spacebar if a string of letters formed a French word. The task included 45 pseudowords, 15 neutral words (e.g., walk), 15 aggressive words (e.g., insult) and 15 negative but non‐aggressive words (e.g., vomit). Negative words were included to rule out the possibility that aggressive thoughts accessibility was in fact an increase in negative thoughts accessibility (Bösche 2010). Words were pretested for valence and aggression‐related content. Each trial began with a 500 ms fixation cross at the centre of a 21″ screen, followed by a string of letters (Arial, size 25) displayed for 1600 ms or until a response was given. A 600 ms blank screen separated each trial. Each string was presented twice, resulting in 180 trials, preceded by 10 practice trials using neutral and pseudo words.

After the lexical decision task, participants were shown an alleged error message stating ‘Unknown error: failure in saving data’ and informed by the experimenter that the task would have to be repeated (see Subra et al. 2010). Although the experimenter pretended to fix the issue, participants responded to the same complementary questions used in Study 1. After some time, the experimenter told the participants that their data had been saved after all. Finally, participants anonymously rated the experimenter, allegedly for the purpose of recruitment in the laboratory. Negative evaluation represents a classic (McCarthy and Elson 2018) and widely used measure of aggression (e.g., DeWall et al. 2009; Subra et al. 2010), as it can harm the person evaluated by damaging their reputation in the eyes of a third party and, consequently, impeding them from obtaining a desirable outcome. Participants rated the experimenter on three items (a) ‘Did the experimenter guide you properly during the experiment?’ (1 = not at all to 7 = totally), (b) ‘Globally, what grade would you give to the experimenter?’ (1 = very bad to 7 = very good) and (c) ‘Would you recommend this experimenter for future studies?’ (1 = not at all to 7 = strongly). Responses were reverse‐scored and aggregated to create an aggression score (ω = 0.69). Thus, the higher the score, the higher the level of aggression.

4.2. Results

4.2.1. Aggressive Behaviour

As expected (H1), participants in the stereotype threat condition (M = 1.76, SD = 0.69) showed more aggression towards the experimenter than participants in the control condition (M = 1.42, SD = 0.51), t(88) = −2.67, p = 0.01, d = 0.56, 95% CI [0.13, 0.99]. 5

4.2.2. Aggressive Thoughts Accessibility

Only reaction times on words for correct trials were analysed. Reaction times shorter than 300 ms and longer than 1500 ms were excluded (less than 1% of trials). The remaining data were log‐transformed to correct for skewness and were analysed using a 2 (condition: stereotype threat vs. control) × 3 (word type: aggressive vs. negative vs. neutral) mixed ANOVA. The ANOVA revealed a main effect of word type F(2, 176) = 33.03, p < 0.001, η 2  = 0.27, IC 90% [0.18, 0.35] but failed to reveal the expected interaction effect, F(2, 176) = 2.09, p = 0.13. Contrary to expectations (H3), contrast analyses did not reveal differences in reaction times for aggressive words (−2) compared to negative (1) and neutral words (1) across conditions (see Table 1), t(88) = −0.04, p = 0.97, d = 0.01, 95% CI [−0.40, 0.42]. However, the difference between negative (−1) and neutral words (1) was smaller for participants in the stereotype threat than for participants in the control conditions (see Table 1), t(88) = −2.03, p = 0.04, d = 0.43, 95% CI [0.01, 0.85]. No significant effects were found on accuracy (all ts < 1.20, ps > 0.24).

TABLE 1.

Mean reaction times (ms) and accuracy (%) to aggressive, negative and neutral words as a function of experimental condition.

Word type C1 C2
Aggressive Negative Neutral
Reaction times (ms)
Stereotype threat 596 (85) 608 (92) 585 (85) −0.5 23
Control 604 (80) 624 (82) 587 (74) −1.5 37
Accuracy (%)
Stereotype threat 98.59 (0.03) 97.78 (0.04) 98.89 (0.03) 0.25 1.11
Control 97.70 (0.04) 96.81 (0.05) 98.96 (0.02) −0.19 2.1
Open in a new tab

Note: Standard deviations are indicated in parentheses. C1 refers to the difference between the mean of negative and neutral words and the mean of aggressive words. C2 refers to the difference between neutral and negative words.

4.2.3. Working Memory

Contrary to expectations (H2), the difference between the stereotype threat (M = 27.67, SD = 13.68) and the control condition (M = 32.13, SD = 12.32) on the working memory performance did not reach the conventional level of significance, t(88) = 1.63, p = 0.11, d = 0.34, 95% CI [−0.07, 0.76].

4.3. Discussion

The results of Study 2 support the hypothesis that stereotype threat causes aggression (H1). Notably, this study used a measure of indirect active verbal aggression, aligning with the notion that physical aggression is less commonly observed among women (Archer 2004). Yet, no difference in the accessibility of aggressive thoughts was observed across conditions (H3), suggesting that this mechanism is unlikely to underlie the stereotype threat‐aggression link. The results did reveal a relatively higher accessibility of general negative thoughts among threatened participants, consistent with past findings (Cadinu et al. 2005). Finally, the pattern of results for the working‐memory task was similar to that observed in Study 1, albeit it did not reach significance (H2). This could be due to low statistical power, as the effect size decreased from Study 1 (d = 0.43) to Study 2 (d = 0.34).

5. Meta‐Analysis

To address the issue of low statistical power, we conducted two small‐scale meta‐analyses on effect sizes (Cohen's d) for working memory performance and aggressive behaviours across both studies. We used a fixed‐effect approach, and the mean effect size was weighted by the inverse variance. This meta‐analysis revealed an overall significant effect of stereotype threat on working memory performance, Md = 0.40, Z = 2.96, p = 0.003, 95% CI [0.13, 0.66], two‐tailed. This confirms that lack of statistical power could account for the absence of significance in Study 2. The meta‐analysis on aggressive behaviour revealed only a marginal effect of stereotype threat, Md = 0.26, Z = 1.94, p = 0.052, 95% CI [−0.02, 0.52], two‐tailed. This may be due to the heterogeneity of the aggression measures used across the studies.

6. General Discussion

Two experiments tested the hypothesis that stereotype threat triggers aggressive behaviours (H1). Although Study 1 found no effect on indirect physical aggression, Study 2 showed that stereotype threat increased indirect verbal aggression among women. This pattern may reflect the gender norms that discourage physical aggression among women (Archer 2004), activated among our threatened participants having indicated their gender at the outset of the studies. The use of an indirect verbal measure of aggression in Study 2 was thus more appropriate to capture aggression in women experiencing stereotype threat. Although gender norms may discourage the expression of certain forms of aggressive behaviour, we believe that studying women is both theoretically and empirically relevant in the context of stereotype threat and aggression. Most research in this area has examined stereotype threat among women, especially in academic performance such as mathematics (e.g., Lewis and Michalak 2019). Building on this literature allowed us to explore whether stereotype threat can influence outcomes beyond performance, which has been far less studied. Importantly, our goal was not to examine stereotype‐confirming behaviours, but rather to test whether aggression could emerge as a broader consequence of stereotype threat. Women, who are not typically associated with aggressive stereotypes, therefore provided an appropriate population to test this hypothesis and ruled out the likelihood that the observed aggression simply reflected conformity to activated stereotypes.

Finally, even if gender norms influence how aggression may be expressed, they are unlikely to suppress the internal processes leading to aggression described in the GAM. Although social norms may favour indirect over direct aggression, they do not necessarily alter internal experiences of anger or hostility. This is supported by research showing no consistent gender differences in self‐reported anger (Archer 2004). This distinction justified the inclusion of cognitive indicators linked to aggression, which may reveal effects of stereotype threat even when behavioural responses are socially constrained. Contrary to our expectations (H3), we did not find greater accessibility of aggressive thoughts under stereotype threat in Study 2. However, we observed an increase in negative thought accessibility, which is consistent with previous studies (Cadinu et al. 2005). This does not support the idea that aggresion‐related thoughts underlie the link between stereotype threat and aggressive behaviours. Non‐aggressive negative words (e.g., despair, fail) may have been detected faster due to their relevance to the testing situation and feelings of dejection commonly associated with stereotype threat (Keller and Dauenheimer 2003).

Our meta‐analysis instead supports the notion that stereotype threat reduces working memory capacity (H2; Schmader and Johns 2003). Replicating this effect is particularly important given the recent scepticism surrounding stereotype threat, with meta‐analyses and failed replications raising concerns about its existence or robustness (Lewis and Michalak 2019). Moreover, these results align with the idea that stereotype threat impairs executive control (Inzlicht and Kang 2010; Schmader et al. 2008), suggesting that its impact on aggression may be better explained by reduced self‐control (Inzlicht and Kang 2010; Inzlicht et al. 2011). Indeed, executive control is central to the inhibition of aggression. For instance, participants who completed a Stroop task with incongruent trials which required executive control resources subsequently exhibited more aggression in response to an insult than those who did not undertake the incongruent task (Dewall et al. 2007).

6.1. Limitations and Future Research

Several limitations of the present research should be acknowledged. First, the primary objective of our studies was to examine the link between stereotype threat and aggression. However, as Shapiro and Neuberg (2007) proposed, stereotype threat is multifaceted and may take different forms, targeting either an individual's personal reputation or their group's. Different types of threats may thus vary in their likelihood to trigger aggressive reactions. Identity threats targeting the self are thought to trigger more anger and derogation towards the source of the threat compared to group‐based threats (Gaertner et al. 1999; Shapiro and Neuberg 2007). Thus, threats to the self could elicit stronger aggression than threats to the group. Future research should examine how these different types of threats impact aggression and whether the mechanisms underlying their effects differ.

Second, while our findings demonstrate that stereotype threat can increase indirect verbal aggression among women, the specific mechanisms driving this effect remain unclear. Although our meta‐analysis seems to point to the role of impaired executive control (see Inzlicht et al. 2011), we did not directly test whether these cognitive deficits mediate the relationship between stereotype threat and aggression.

Third, while we focused on behavioural and cognitive measures of aggression, we did not systematically assess emotional responses such as anger. Given that the GAM emphasises the role of affective states in aggressive behaviour, future research should include an assessment of emotional experiences under stereotype threat. This would help clarify whether the pathway from stereotype threat to aggression operates primarily through cognitive depletion, emotional arousal, or an interaction of both processes.

Finally, future research should investigate whether similar patterns emerge among other stereotyped groups, particularly those for whom aggression is part of the stereotype itself. Examining such groups would help clarify whether stereotype threat amplifies stereotype‐consistent aggressive behaviours or whether it triggers aggression more broadly as a response to identity threat, regardless of stereotype content.

Author Contributions

Lisa Fourgassie: conceptualisation, investigation, data curation, analysis, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing. Baptiste Subra: conceptualisation, funding acquisition, supervision, writing – review and editing. Rasyid Bo Sanitioso: conceptualisation, funding acquisition, supervision, writing – review and editing.

Funding

This work was supported by a research grant from the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR‐16‐CE41‐0009).

Disclosure

The present research was carried out in the context of the first author's doctoral work. During the preparation of this work, the authors used ChatGPT to enhance readability and language. The authors carefully reviewed and edited the content as necessary and take full responsibility for the final version of the published article.

Ethics Statement

The authors also confirm that this research adheres to ethical guidelines specified in the APA Code of Conduct as well as the Helsinki declaration its later amendments.

Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual adult participants included in the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgements

We thank Marie Saubade and Georges Boudin for their participation in data collection. Open access publication funding provided by COUPERIN CY26.

Endnotes

1

Participants rated their level of appreciation for the drink they consumed on a 9‐point scale (1 = ‘I hate’ to 9 = ‘I love’). The drink was considered as unpleasant as shown by the mean overall satisfaction rating of the participants (M = 3.41, SD = 1.94). This mean score was tested against the scale midpoint (i.e., five, the lower the score, the less the drink is considered pleasant) and the analysis confirmed that the drink was unpleasant (seven data were lacking), t(131) = −3.47, p < 0.001, dz = 0.30, 95% CI% [0.13, 0.47]. No difference in the overall satisfaction was found between the stereotype threat (M = 3.46, SD = 1.86) and the control condition (M = 3.37, SD = 2.06), t(131) = −0.26, p = 0.80.

2

Further details regarding these analyses can be found at https://osf.io/9ypaf/?view_only=90f9449d174045fa8a16798a43491706.

3

For ease of reading, untransformed means are presented in the text. The effect of stereotype threat on aggression remained non‐significant when non‐transformed data were analysed, t(135) = −1.49, p = 0.14, d = 0.25, 95% CI [−0.09; 0.59].

4

Three participants declared suspicion regarding the presence of another participant. Since results did not change when these participants were excluded, t(132) = −0.50, p = 0.62, d = 0.09, 95% CI [−0.25, 0.43], we decided to retain these data in the sample.

5

One participant suspected that the computer crash was bogus, and another was an outlier (RSS > 4). Data from these two participants were kept in the analysis since their exclusions did not change the results, t(86) = −2.74, p = 0.01, d = 0.58, 95% CI [0.16, 1.01].

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in OSF at https://osf.io/9ypaf/?view_only=90f9449d174045fa8a16798a43491706.

References

  1. Anderson, C. A. , and Bushman B. J.. 2002. “Human Aggression.” Annual Review of Psychology 53, no. 1: 27–51. 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135231. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Archer, J. 2004. “Sex Differences in Aggression in Real‐World Settings: A Meta‐Analytic Review.” Review of General Psychology 8, no. 4: 291–322. 10.1037/1089-2680.8.4.291. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Belmi, P. , Barragan R. C., Neale M. A., and Cohen G. L.. 2015. “Threats to Social Identity Can Trigger Social Deviance.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 41, no. 4: 467–484. 10.1177/0146167215569493. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Berkowitz, L. 1990. “On the Formation and Regulation of Anger and Aggression. A Cognitive‐Neoassociationistic Analysis.” American Psychologist 45, no. 4: 494–503. 10.1037//0003-066x.45.4.494. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bösche, W. 2010. “Violent Video Games Prime Both Aggressive and Positive Cognitions.” Journal of Media Psychology 22, no. 4: 139–146. 10.1027/1864-1105/a000019. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bushman, B. J. , and Baumeister R. F.. 1998. “Threatened Egotism, Narcissism, Self‐Esteem, and Direct and Displaced Aggression: Does Self‐Love or Self‐Hate Lead to Violence?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75, no. 1: 219–229. 10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.219. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cadinu, M. , Maass A., Rosabianca A., and Kiesner J.. 2005. “Why Do Women Underperform Under Stereotype Threat?: Evidence for the Role of Negative Thinking.” Psychological Science 16, no. 7: 572–578. 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01577.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Chateignier, C. , Chekroun P., Nugier A., and Dutrévis M.. 2011. “Femme au Volant: Effet de la Menace du Stéréotype et de la Colère Sur Les Performances Des Femmes à une Tâche Liée à la Conduite Automobile.” L'Année Psychologique 111, no. 4: 673–700. [Google Scholar]
  9. Dewall, C. N. , Baumeister R. F., Stillman T. F., and Gailliot M. T.. 2007. “Violence Restrained: Effects of Self‐Regulation and Its Depletion on Aggression.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43, no. 1: 62–76. 10.1016/j.jesp.2005.12.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. DeWall, C. N. , Twenge J. M., Gitter S. A., and Baumeister R. F.. 2009. “It's the Thought That Counts: The Role of Hostile Cognition in Shaping Aggressive Responses to Social Exclusion.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96, no. 1: 45–59. 10.1037/a0013196. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Finkel, E. J. 2014. “The I3 Model: Metatheory, Theory, and Evidence.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 49, 1–104. Academic Press. 10.1016/B978-0-12-800052-6.00001-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Gaertner, L. , Sedikides C., and Graetz K.. 1999. “In Search of Self‐Definition: Motivational Primacy of the Individual Self, Motivational Primacy of the Collective Self, or Contextual Primacy?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76, no. 1: 5–18. 10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Inzlicht, M. , and Kang S. K.. 2010. “Stereotype Threat Spillover: How Coping With Threats to Social Identity Affects Aggression, Eating, Decision Making, and Attention.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 99, no. 3: 467–481. 10.1037/a0018951. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Inzlicht, M. , Tullett A. M., Legault L., and Kang S. K.. 2011. “Lingering Effects: Stereotype Threat Hurts More Than You Think.” Social Issues and Policy Review 5, no. 1: 227–256. 10.1111/j.1751-2409.2011.01031.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Keller, J. , and Dauenheimer D.. 2003. “Stereotype Threat in the Classroom: Dejection Mediates the Disrupting Threat Effect on Women's Math Performance.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 29, no. 3: 371–381. 10.1177/0146167202250218. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Konopka, K. , Rajchert J., and Dominiak‐Kochanek M.. 2017. “The Influence of Aggression‐Evoking Cues on Aggressive Cognitions in Males and Females: Different Procedures–Similar Effects.” Current Psychology 39, no. 1: 14. [Google Scholar]
  17. Krizan, Z. , and Johar O.. 2015. “Narcissistic Rage Revisited.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 108, no. 5: 784–801. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Lewis, N. A. , and Michalak N. M.. 2019. “Has Stereotype Threat Dissipated Over Time? A Cross‐Temporal Meta‐Analysis.” 10.31234/osf.io/w4ta2. [DOI]
  19. Lewis, N. A. , and Sekaquaptewa D.. 2016. “Beyond Test Performance: A Broader View of Stereotype Threat.” Current Opinion in Psychology 11: 40–43. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Logel, C. , Iserman E. C., Davies P. G., Quinn D. M., and Spencer S. J.. 2009. “The Perils of Double Consciousness: The Role of Thought Suppression in Stereotype Threat.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45, no. 2: 299–312. 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.07.016. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. McCarthy, R. J. , and Elson M.. 2018. “A Conceptual Review of Lab‐Based Aggression Paradigms.” Collabra: Psychology 4, no. 1: 4. 10.1525/collabra.104. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Muller, D. , Bushman B. J., Subra B., and Ceaux E.. 2012. “Are People More Aggressive When They Are Worse Off or Better Off Than Others?” Social Psychological and Personality Science 3, no. 6: 754–759. 10.1177/1948550612436984. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Pennington, C. R. , Heim D., Levy A. R., and Larkin D. T.. 2016. “Twenty Years of Stereotype Threat Research: A Review of Psychological Mediators.” PLoS One 11, no. 1: e0146487. 10.1371/journal.pone.0146487. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Picho, K. , Rodriguez A., and Finnie L.. 2013. “Exploring the Moderating Role of Context on the Mathematics Performance of Females Under Stereotype Threat: A Meta‐Analysis.” Journal of Social Psychology 153, no. 3: 299–333. 10.1080/00224545.2012.737380. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Richardson, D. R. , and Green L. R.. 1999. “Social Sanction and Threat Explanations of Gender Effects on Direct and Indirect Aggression.” Aggressive Behaviour 25, no. 6: 425–434. 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1999)25:6<425::AID-AB3>3.0.CO;2-W. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Schmader, T. , and Johns M.. 2003. “Converging Evidence That Stereotype Threat Reduces Working Memory Capacity.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85, no. 3: 440–452. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Schmader, T. , Johns M., and Forbes C.. 2008. “An Integrated Process Model of Stereotype Threat Effects on Performance.” Psychological Review 115, no. 2: 336–356. 10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.336. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Shapiro, J. R. , and Neuberg S. L.. 2007. “From Stereotype Threat to Stereotype Threats: Implications of a Multi‐Threat Framework for Causes, Moderators, Mediators, Consequences, and Interventions.” Personality and Social Psychology Review 11, no. 2: 107–130. 10.1177/1088868306294790. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Steele, C. M. , and Aronson J.. 1995. “Stereotype Threat and the Intellectual Test Performance of African Americans.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69, no. 5: 797–811. 10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Subra, B. , Muller D., Bègue L., Bushman B. J., and Delmas F.. 2010. “Automatic Effects of Alcohol and Aggressive Cues on Aggressive Thoughts and Behaviours.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 36, no. 8: 1052–1057. 10.1177/0146167210374725. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Tabachnick, B. G. , Fidell L. S., and Ullman J. B.. 2007. Using Multivariate Statistics. Vol. 5, 481–498. Pearson. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in OSF at https://osf.io/9ypaf/?view_only=90f9449d174045fa8a16798a43491706.

Articles from International Journal of Psychology are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES