You and your best friend finally get into your most anticipated class together: cultural psychology. As you scramble into your seats, the lecture kicks off with a discussion on how different cultural groups perform on standardized tests. The professor insists that racialized students consistently underperform. Immediately after, a surprise quiz is handed out. While you walk out of the lecture hall, your friend confides in you that she couldn’t focus as her mind kept circling back to the professor’s words. When the results come in, her score is unusually low as she usually aces all her tests, and she wonders aloud if it was the stereotype threat that got to her.

Stereotype threat is the fear of confirming a negative stereotype about one’s identity group. This fear can impair performance and behavior, even when the stereotype isn’t explicitly mentioned, and may result in a self-fulfilling prophecy. These negative stereotypes may be related to many aspects of identity, such as race, ethnicity, gender, culture, or other intersections. Stereotype threat can result in higher stress, anxiety, and cognitive load, reducing the mental capacity that someone has for focusing on academics, work performance, or even their ability to foster relationships.¹ In other words, stereotype threats make people question their sense of belonging and whether they are valued in a given space.

There are a handful of common places where the effects of stereotype threats are seen, due to situational, not personality-based differences. Stereotype threat has been observed in settings like standardized testing, job interviews, athletic performance, and even in seeking mental health care,² though it is key to emphasize that it can occur in any setting where identity and evaluation intersect. Let’s look at what types of scenarios have the potential to activate stereotype threat:²

Some of the classic contexts for stereotype threat are likely from groups you’ve heard about before, providing us with a possible explanation of why vulnerable groups may perform worse when negative stereotypes are under the magnifying glass. While two of the most studied groups with stereotype threat are racial minorities in academic settings and women in STEM,³ let’s take a closer look at several other important examples of groups who may be negatively affected by stereotype threat and how:²

It is critical to note that stereotype threat is a constantly evolving concept, and the list of possible victims above is by no means exhaustive. As the notion of intersectionality continuously changes, it is important to be thoughtful of how modern negative stereotypes may shape self-identity or the identity of those close to you. How can we cope with this dilemma? One way is to understand implicit bias, which can serve as an umbrella solution yet also be tailored to the unique situation, regardless of who is being negatively stereotyped.

The Role of Implicit Bias in Stereotype Threat

Even subtle cues like checking a box for gender or race can activate stereotype threat and affect outcomes. Over time, this can compound disadvantages and reinforce systemic bias. Some of these subtler, or even invisible, cues are related to implicit bias, which are unconscious attitudes we all have that impact our perception of others and the behaviors we have with different groups of people. Implicit biases may be a reflection of how your assumptions, interpersonal actions, and decision-making are related to your cultural upbringing and social conditioning.¹ Returning to the common example of stereotype threat in academic contexts, here are some reasons why implicit bias is important to consider in education:

• Implicit bias influences our expectations. It impacts how you’re assessed, receive feedback, or interact in the classroom with both teachers and other students.
• Implicit bias influences inequalities and disadvantages. If biases aren’t addressed, students with existing vulnerabilities may continue to have fewer opportunities and more limitations. 
• Implicit bias has an impact on student confidence and self-efficacy. When students hear about negative expectations, these may be internalized and lead to poor performance or an inability to perform.

How Behavioral Science Helps with Stereotype Threat and Implicit Bias

When it comes to remedies for stereotype threat and related issues like implicit bias, insights from behavioral science may help. An idea from behavioral science that can be applied here is the concept of nudges, helping us understand how we can nudge our biases—especially those that are unconscious—as a part of how we perceive others’ identity. Just as we may nudge other behaviors in the right direction for more prosocial, effective, or informed decision-making, the same can be done when acknowledging stereotype threat. 

One example of this is in the legal industry, where stereotype threat impacts who goes into legal professions and how they act depending on unconscious biases.⁴ In this case, inducing inclusion nudges into regular conversations during the hiring phase may assist with onboarding a more versatile group of candidates. We also need to consider the specific biases that come into these situations, such as the risk of affinity bias—a bias toward others more like you with in terms of interests, passions, and profession. This is key not only because stereotype threat can hinder performance or limit the advancement of marginalized people in such places, but because it can lead to the outright exclusion of those who are different from the hiring manager themselves in several roles, such as women in executive positions.

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: A psychological cycle where expectations influence behavior in ways that cause the expectations to come true, central to how stereotype threat undermines performance.⁵ In stereotype threat, the fear of confirming a stereotype can actually lead people to perform in line with it.

Cognitive Load: The mental burden that occurs when stereotype threat uses up working memory, reducing focus, problem-solving ability, and task performance. Stereotype threat eats up mental bandwidth and strains cognitive load, leaving less room for focus, memory, and clear thinking.

Sense of Belonging: The feeling that you truly belong in a space, whether it’s a classroom, workplace, or community, that boosts confidence and performance. Stereotype threat increases in environments where people feel like outsiders, with vulnerable folks in the space feeling a diminished sense of belonging.

Identity Salience: The degree to which a person’s social identity (e.g., gender, race, mental health status) is made prominent in a given context, which can trigger stereotype threat. When that identity is linked to a stereotype, it can trigger threats and undercut performance.

Implicit Bias: Unconscious attitudes or stereotypes that affect how we perceive and interact with others, often without realizing it. These snap judgments and stereotypes that we carry ignorantly can lead to environments where stereotype threat is more likely to be present.

Social Conditioning: The messages we get from society, ranging from media to school to family, that shape how we see ourselves and others. These learned norms, which are highly dependent on culturally-bound factors, fuel stereotypes and prime the ground for stereotype threat.

Affinity Bias: The notion that we tend to favor people who remind us of ourselves in terms of background, interests, appearance, or other factors. This bias can unintentionally exclude others and reinforce prime conditions for the development of stereotype threat.

Achievement Gap: The persistent difference in outcomes (like grades or test scores) between groups, often along racial, gender, or economic lines. Stereotype threat is one hidden driver that helps explain why these gaps don’t just reflect differences in ability.

Code-Switching: Adjusting how you speak, act, or present yourself to fit into a dominant culture.⁶ It’s often a survival strategy in spaces where people feel they’re being judged through a stereotyped lens. 

While the experience of stereotype threat has likely long been around before the term was coined, it was in the 1970s and 1980s that social psychology research began exploring how group-based stereotypes influenced behavior.⁷ Social psychologists Joshua Aronson and Claude Steele built on this foundation by looking at how stereotypes affect academic performance, especially among minority groups, in the decades to follow. 

In 1995, Steele and Aronson published their landmark study on stereotype threat, flipping the script on how we understand performance gaps.⁷ In their experiment, African American students who were subtly reminded of their race before taking a standardized test scored significantly lower than those who weren’t, despite having equal ability. The implication that followed was that it wasn’t differences in intelligence that affected their test performance; it was about context. Steele and Aronson found that the simple act of highlighting identity created enough pressure to disrupt performance. Their findings helped shift the conversation from why some students can’t perform to what environments we are creating in the classroom, and who they are geared towards. 

Today, Steele and Aronson’s work continues to shape research on achievement, bias, and how small cues can have outsized effects. Following their initial study, other psychologists looked into how the concept of stereotype threat applied to other groups, including women in math and older adults in memory tasks. Researchers like Toni Schmader explored the cognitive mechanisms behind stereotype threat, such as working memory depletion.⁷ At the same time, scholars like Geoffrey Cohen began developing targeted interventions, such as values affirmation exercises, to reduce stereotype threat and boost performance, based on his discovery that stereotype threats are of collective nature, as there is worry about how ingroup members’ behaviors can reinforce the threat.⁸ 

By the mid-2000s, stereotype threat became a recognized factor in educational inequality, prompting interventions in schools and universities. Psychologist Mary Murphy played a key role in this shift by exploring situational cues: the subtle features of classrooms, testing environments, and workplaces that can signal whether an identity is welcome or at risk.⁹ Her work emphasized that stereotype threat is not just internal but also environmental, shaped by the design of institutions and interactions with others. We can take Murphy’s influence far beyond the classroom, connecting stereotype threat to local customs, society at large, and culture itself.

Stereotype threat has been critiqued for its replication challenges, with some studies failing to corroborate early results, a fact we’ll soon dive into further. Yet, researchers like Murphy and others have continued refining the theory, showing how environmental design and belonging interventions can decrease threats across domains. The concept has expanded into fields like workplace dynamics, health care, and mental health services—all settings where identity-related stressors still shape outcomes in discrete but powerful ways.

Today, stereotype threat is recognized not just as a static psychological effect but as a dynamic interplay between identity, context, and societal expectations. While debates around its scope continue, its core insight is that the mere awareness of stereotypes, especially negative ones, can shape behavior, remaining influential in shaping policy, practice, and public understanding.

Claude Steele

A pioneering social psychologist and emeritus professor at Stanford, Steele co-developed the concept of stereotype threat in the 1990s and demonstrated how it impairs academic performance among stigmatized groups, especially African American students.

Joshua Aronson

An American social psychologist and collaborator of Steele, Aronson helped conduct foundational experiments showing that subtle cues about race or gender can significantly affect test performance, particularly in education settings.

Toni Schmader

A social psychologist and leading researcher in gender and identity-based threat, Schmader explored the underlying cognitive mechanisms of stereotype threat, such as working memory depletion, and its long-term effects on performance and belonging.

Geoffrey Cohen

A social psychologist and professor at Stanford University whose research explores how identity and belonging shape behavior, motivation, and achievement. He’s best known for pioneering value-affirmation interventions that reduce stereotype threat and close achievement gaps in education.

Mary Murphy

A professor of psychological and brain sciences at Indiana University, specializing in how social contexts influence motivation and performance. Her research on “ambient belonging” reveals how subtle cues in environments, such as who is represented or what is on the walls, can activate stereotype threat.

Stereotype threat doesn’t just affect individual moments, it can shape long-term outcomes in subtle but powerful ways. We can take a closer look at these impacts that ripple across various types of performance, aspects of mental health, and broader systems of inequality.

Reduced Academic and Work Performance

Stereotype threat can lead individuals to underperform in areas where they are at risk of confirming negative stereotypes, such as in standardized tests, school assignments, or work tasks. We may think about this not only in terms of individual performance, but also for entire groups or society overall.¹⁰ At an individual level, stereotype threat may lead to fear of confirming these negatives about yourself, leading to spending energy on proactively disproving the stereotypes or disengagement from fields they would otherwise be interested in. 

One way to summarize this outcome is the achievement gap, where there are discrepancies in academic performance or in acquiring education in general relative to group membership.¹⁰ A common example is a female student pursuing a math-oriented major or career in STEM who may be anxious about performance in school and her possible workplace compared to male students and colleagues. Many other female students may have the same experience, creating a cumulative effect of fewer women in STEM fields. Stereotype threat and the achievement gap go beyond the initial educational setting, following individuals throughout their career—affecting which jobs someone applies to, if they ask for promotions, or how they perform overall.

More Stress, Anxiety, and Unhealthy Interactions

The fear of confirming stereotypes can lead to chronic stress, anxiety, and emotional exhaustion. This not only affects immediate performance but can also have long-term consequences on mental health. This has been suggested by key thinkers on stereotype threat, including Schmader’s model,¹¹ which suggests an integrated model of how stress and anxiety result via three joint mechanisms—a physical stress response (e.g., higher cortisol), anxiety over performance monitoring (e.g., overthinking during a test), and issues with emotional regulation (e.g., less working memory capacity). Taken together, these factors tax an individual’s executive functions, lessening how effectively tasks are done. 

Aronson similarly investigated how stereotype threat contributes to stress and anxiety, especially in healthcare settings for vulnerable groups.¹² It is here that the hyper awareness of negative stereotypes during interactions with healthcare providers results in higher stress and anxiety in groups like racialized minorities or women. Beyond the heightened stress and anxiety, this can also decrease trust in medical services and increase reluctance to pursue treatment. When we look at the bigger picture, we can see how stereotype threat broadly lessens comfort around interactions with services that may otherwise be beneficial. 

Reinforcement of Social Inequality 

Stereotype threat reinforces social inequalities by subtly undermining performance in high-stakes settings like medicine.¹¹ When people anticipate being judged based on a negative group stereotype—such as assumptions about race, gender, or socioeconomic status—they experience heightened stress, anxiety, and self-monitoring. This drains cognitive resources and disrupts performance, especially in domains where their group is underrepresented.¹¹ Over time, repeated exposure to these situations can lead individuals to disengage from academic, professional, or healthcare environments, limiting upward mobility and reinforcing systemic barriers.

In healthcare, stereotype threat can silently widen disparities by impairing patient-provider communication and eroding trust. Burgess et al. (2010) found that racial minorities experiencing stereotype threat during medical encounters may report lower satisfaction and less confidence in their providers.¹³ These reactions aren’t irrational—they’re expected behavioral responses resulting from a history of exclusion and bias. When people feel unseen or stereotyped, they are less likely to access care or follow through with treatment, deepening the very inequities that systems aim to resolve.

While stereotype threat has been influential in understanding the interplay of bias and performance, it's not without its critics. Researchers have pointed out several limitations that shape how we interpret and apply the concept, such as issues with replication, the influence of context, and too much attention on individual differences.

Replication Challenges 

Like many discoveries in the field of psychology, some studies have struggled to replicate the original findings of stereotype threat, raising questions about its consistency across different settings, populations, and experimental designs. This casts doubt on the validity of such an important concept that impacts vulnerable groups, causing us to question if the research was ill-informed in the first place, or whether something is missing from the study design. Many researchers have attempted to study stereotype threat without avail—a disappointment both to researchers and the marginalized group being studied alike.⁷

While early studies on stereotype threat showed striking effects, this field has faced scrutiny and doubt about the validity due to failed replications. With meta-analyses continuing to show inconsistent findings, uncertainty about the robustness of the phenomenon across different contexts and populations persists. Part of the issue lies in publication bias: journals tend to favor studies with significant, novel results, while null findings remain unpublished. This skews the evidence base and inflates effect sizes.¹⁴ To move forward, researchers must prioritize transparency, preregistration, and replication to better understand when and for whom stereotype threat truly matters.

Context is Everything, so are Cues and Culture

As with other areas of social psychology, context matters. Stereotype threat effects are highly sensitive to situational cues such as subtle reminders of identity or the framing of a task, which can make it difficult to generalize findings or predict when and how the threat will emerge. These cues, like being the only student of one’s identity in class or seeing stereotyped imagery, can signal that a negative stereotype is relevant, heightening the risk of stereotype threat. Research shows that even subtle environmental signals like being asked about demographics or posters with stereotyped images in class can activate group-based anxieties, undermining performance and sense of belonging.¹⁵

It is not only situational cues that matter in the context of stereotype threats, but the broader societal factors that impact the formation, presence, and persistence of negative stereotypes in general. A wider factor that we can bring to the conversation is culture itself: individual susceptibility to stereotype threat, or even the acceptance of negative stereotypes, has a great deal of variation. For instance, age-based stereotypes for older folks may be more prevalent in some cultures than others, such as France relative to India, as previous research has shown that older individuals in Western cultures are more prone to such generalizations.^{16, 17} Other culturally-bound factors like expectations of achievement, how intelligence is defined, or the importance of social status may all come into play, too. For these reasons, we must remember that the possible threat of a negative stereotype is never black and white. 

Overfocus on Individual Psychology 

The concept of stereotype threat often focuses on internal cognitive processes rather than the structural and systemic factors that create stereotypes in the first place, potentially overlooking broader interventions needed for equity. This is not to say that individual issues and experiences with stereotype threat don’t matter; rather, that an emphasis on personal performance, like test scores or anecdotal experiences, takes away from the significance of institutional bias, socioeconomic disparities, or other large-scale equity issues. 

Let’s explain this limitation using the example of students with low-income backgrounds being evaluated on their intelligence, based on the negative stereotype that poorer students are less smart. This can lead to compounding stress, along with other factors, like attending schools with limited resources, financial instability, and receiving less support at home. If we only look at the stereotype of an individual-oriented, psychological response, these other structural barriers are ignored. Some research confirms that schools that affirm (instead of neglect) the socioeconomic status of students paired with supportive educational contexts may lead to increased academic motivation.¹⁸ In this sense, looking into both the mentality and material inequities behind stereotype threat makes long-lasting systemic change more feasible.

Women in STEM 

Throughout the study of stereotype threat, women in STEM have been central to the research and its value. Women in STEM fields often navigate environments where subtle cues like being outnumbered by male figures or facing implicit biases can trigger stereotype threat. Since the mid-1990s, when stereotype threat was first introduced by Aronson and Steele, this group has continued to be important to look into.

A 2019 study by van Veelen and colleagues looked into masculine work contexts to assess the cumulative impact of gender identity threat for women in comparison to their male counterparts who work in STEM. Surveying a sample of over 150 women, the authors found that women working in male-dominated STEM sectors experienced heightened gender identity threat, leading to decreased work engagement and career confidence.¹⁹ This "double trouble" of both numerical and normative male dominance creates a challenging landscape for women striving to advance in STEM careers, as they face different pressures from their male counterparts.

There are reasons to be hopeful for our female friends and colleagues in STEM, as interventions aimed at mitigating stereotype threat have shown promise. A 2023 study by González-Pérez et al. sampled 340 engineering students, about half of whom were women, to investigate whether activating stereotypes about women’s lower math abilities impacted their performance.²⁰ After an implicit association test (IAT), the research demonstrated that informing female engineering students about stereotype threat helped buffer its negative effects, leading to improved math performance and increased self-confidence. Such educational strategies can empower women to better navigate stereotype-laden environments. ​

Despite these efforts in research and practice, stereotype threat remains a significant barrier for women in STEM. Addressing this issue requires systemic changes, including identifying unconscious biases, addressing stereotypes for women in professional settings, and implementing supportive policies such as female mentorship. By tackling both the psychological and structural dimensions of stereotype threat, we can create environments where all individuals have the opportunity to thrive in STEM fields.

Stereotyping Schizophrenia: The Threat of Social and Cognitive Deficits

Stereotype threat may often highlight groups of people that are otherwise neglected or misunderstood in society, one such group being those who are living with schizophrenia. Individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia often contend with pervasive societal stereotypes that depict them as unpredictable, socially inept, or simply “crazy.” While negative perceptions can lead to stereotype threat in general, the fear of confirming such stereotypes when labelled as “mentally ill” adversely affects one's behavior and cognitive performance. This psychological burden can exacerbate existing challenges, hindering social interactions and cognitive functioning, when these behaviors may be difficult to self-regulate.​ Let’s take a closer look at the connection between stereotype threats and schizophrenia. 

A study by Henry, von Hippel, and Shapiro explored this phenomenon by observing 30 individuals with schizophrenia during social interactions when stereotyped as “mentally ill.”²¹ These participants engaged in conversations either believing their diagnosis was known to their conversation partner (stereotype threat condition) or believing it was not known (control condition). The observers rated participants with schizophrenia as exhibiting poorer social skills in the stereotype threat condition, despite these participants' self-assessments remaining consistent across both scenarios. This suggests that the mere perception of being stereotyped by disclosing a “mentally ill” label can impair social performance.​

Stereotype threat not only impacts social behavior but also cognitive abilities, too. While direct studies on cognitive deficits due to stereotype threat in schizophrenia are limited, the broader literature indicates that stereotype threat can consume cognitive resources, such as working memory and attention.²² This cognitive load may exacerbate existing challenges in individuals with schizophrenia, potentially leading to further impairments in cognitive performance. This indicates that stereotype threat not only affects observable social interactions, but it also impairs underlying cognitive processes essential for everyday functioning. 

Further research highlights the need to better understand how stereotype threat affects individuals with schizophrenia. Factors like stress, anxiety, and defeatist beliefs that are often triggered by an overemphasis on diagnosis and labeling may impair cognitive performance in this population.²³ These findings underscore the detrimental effects of stereotype threat on individuals with schizophrenia, affecting both social interactions and cognitive processes. Addressing stereotype threat through interventions aimed at reducing stigma surrounding mental health, especially of diagnosed mental illnesses, may be a crucial step. By lessening the impact of negative stereotypes, we can enhance social functioning and overall well-being for those affected by schizophrenia. 

How Diversity Statements Backfire—and What Organizations Can Do About It

Nowadays, diversity statements are seen in any job posting. While the intentions behind these statements are good, especially with being more inclusive of those who are too often negatively stereotyped and left out, they can inadvertently be harmful. In this piece, TDL columnist Jeffrey To breaks down common issues with diversity statements and some possible solutions.

Stereotype Content Model

The judgments we make of people we encounter inform how we behave toward them, including the way we judge particular groups when forming stereotypes. In this article, TDL columnist Jeffrey To explains the stereotype content model, its quadrants for stereotype formation, and its outcomes. 

1. Stereotype Threat. (n.d.). University of Colorado Boulder. https://www.colorado.edu/center/teaching-learning/inclusivity/stereotype-threat
2. Stroessner, S., & Good, C. (n.d.). STEREOTYPE THREAT: AN OVERVIEW EXCERPTS AND ADAPTATIONS FROM REDUCING STEREOTYPE THREAT.ORG. reducingstereotypethreat.org. https://dept.math.lsa.umich.edu/~jchw//StroessnerGood.pdf
3. Stereotype Threat. (n.d.). UBC Social Identity Lab. https://socialidentitylab.psych.ubc.ca/research/stereotype-threat/
4. Nalty, K. (2017). Interrupt unconscious bias through inclusion nudges. For the Defense, 59(5), 16–21. Retrieved from https://www.iadclaw.org/assets/1/7/18.1-_Nalty-_Interrupt_Unconscious_Bias_Through_Inclusion_Nudges.pdf
5. Schaedig, D. (2024, February 13). Self-Fulfilling Prophecy In Psychology: Definition & Examples. SimplyPsychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/self-fulfilling-prophecy.html
6. Cooks-Campbell, A. (2022, March 1). What is code switching and how does it impact teams? BetterUp. https://www.betterup.com/blog/code-switching
7. Pennington, C. R., Heim, D., Levy, A. R., & Larkin, D. T. (2016). Twenty years of stereotype threat research: A review of psychological mediators. PLOS ONE, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146487
8. Cohen, G. L., & Garcia, J. (2005). "I am us": Negative stereotypes as collective threats. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(4), 566-582. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.4.566
9. Murphy, M. C., & Taylor, V. J. (2012). The role of situational cues in signaling and maintaining stereotype threat. In M. Inzlicht & T. Schmader (Eds.), Stereotype threat: Theory, process, and application (pp. 17–33). Oxford University Press.
10. Heaning, E. (2023, October 10). Stereotype Threat: Definition and Examples. SimplyPsychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/stereotype-threat.html
11. Schmader, T., Johns, M., & Forbes, C. (2008). An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance. Psychological Review, 115(2), 336–356. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.336
12. Aronson, J., Burgess, D., Phelan, S. M., & Juarez, L. (2013). Unhealthy interactions: The role of stereotype threat in health disparities. American Journal of Public Health, 103(1), 50-56. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2012.300828
13. Burgess et al. (2010): Burgess, D. J., Warren, J., Phelan, S., Dovidio, J., & van Ryn, M. (2010). Stereotype threat and health disparities: What medical educators and future physicians need to know. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 25(Suppl 2), S169–S177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-009-1221-4
14. Flore, P. C., & Wicherts, J. M. (2015). Does stereotype threat influence performance of girls in stereotyped domains? A meta-analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 53(1), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.10.002
15. Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Aronson, J. (2002). Contending with group image: The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 379–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(02)80009-0
16. Nicolas, P., Régner, I., & Lemaire, P. (2021). Cultural differences in susceptibility to stereotype threat: France versus India. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 76(7), 1329-1339. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbaa087
17. Barber, S. J. (2017). An examination of age-based stereotype threat about cognitive decline: Implications for stereotype-threat research and theory development. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(1), 62–90. doi:10.1177/1745691616656345
18. Destin, M., Hanselman, P., Buontempo, J., Tipton, E., & Yeager, D. S. (2019). Do student mindsets differ by socioeconomic status and explain disparities in academic achievement in the United States? AERA Open, 5(3), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419857706​:contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}
19. Van Veelen, R., Derks, B., & Endedijk, M. D. (2019). Double trouble: How being outnumbered and negatively stereotyped threatens career outcomes of women in STEM. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00150
20. Sebastián-Tirado, A., Félix-Esbrí, S., Forn, C., & Sanchis-Segura, C. (2023). Are gender-science stereotypes barriers for women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics? Exploring when, how, and to whom in an experimentally-controlled setting. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1219012
21. Henry, J. D., Von Hippel, C., & Shapiro, L. (2010). Stereotype threat contributes to social difficulties in people with schizophrenia. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 49(1), 31-41. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466509x421963
22. Drače, S., Dolarević, V., & Šašić, E. (2024). How stereotype threat influences cognitive performance: It all depends on how you feel! International Review of Social Psychology, 38(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.976
23. Moritz, S., Silverstein, S. M., Beblo, T., Özaslan, Z., Zink, M., & Gallinat, J. (2021). Much of the neurocognitive impairment in schizophrenia is due to factors other than schizophrenia itself: Implications for research and treatment. Schizophrenia Bulletin Open, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/schizbullopen/sgaa034