Group Processes & Intergroup

Relations
http://gpi.sagepub.com/

A naturalistic study of stereotype threat in young female chess players

Hank Rothgerber and Katie Wolsiefer
Group Processes Intergroup Relations 2014 17: 79 originally published online 25 June 2013
DOI: 10.1177/1368430213490212

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://gpi.sagepub.com/content/17/1/79

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Group Processes & Intergroup Relations can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://gpi.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://gpi.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://gpi.sagepub.com/content/17/1/79.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Dec 25, 2013

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Jun 25, 2013

What is This?

Downloaded from gpi.sagepub.com at Ondokuz Mayis Universitesi on November 6, 2014

490212
2013
17110.1177/1368430213490212<italic>Group Processes & Intergroup Relations</italic>Rothgerber and Wolsiefer

G
Group Processes & P
Intergroup Relations I
Article R

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

A naturalistic study of stereotype

2014, Vol 17(1) 79­–90
© The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
threat in young female sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1368430213490212
chess players gpir.sagepub.com

Hank Rothgerber1 and Katie Wolsiefer2

Abstract
The present research sought to determine whether young female chess players would demonstrate
stereotype threat susceptibility in a naturalistic environment. Data from 12 scholastic chess
tournaments indicated that females performed worse than expected when playing against a male
opponent, achieving 83% of the expected success based on their own and their opponent’s prerating.
These effects were strongest for the youngest players in lower elementary school but also present for
those in upper elementary. Stereotype threat susceptibility was most pronounced in contexts that could
be considered challenging: when playing a strong or moderate opponent and when playing someone
in a higher or the same grade. As evidence of disengagement, those most vulnerable to stereotype
threat were less likely to continue playing in future chess tournaments. These results were not found in
a matched comparison male group suggesting the outcomes were unique to stereotype threat and not
universal to young chess players.

Keywords
chess, stereotype threat, stereotype threat development
Paper received 18 September 2012; revised version accepted 9 April 2013.

What has made stereotype threat such a fruitful Perhaps in recognition that chronic stereotype
area for researchers is also what makes it such threat may become self-perpetuating and highly
a stubborn social problem. Stereotype threat resistant to change, some researchers have sought
is wide-reaching: It is indiscriminate in curs- to determine when individuals initially experience
ing any group for which a negative stereotype stereotype threat. We share the belief that
applies, and it does so across a range of domains
from intellectual (Cadinu, Maass, Rosabianca, 1
Department of Psychology, Bellarmine University, USA
& Kisener, 2005; Steele & Aronson, 1995) to 2
Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, University of
physical (Chalabaev, Sarrazin, Stone, & Curry, Colorado, USA
2008; Stone, Lynch, Sjomeling, & Darley, 1999).
Corresponding author:
What is also so striking and debilitating about the Hank Rothgerber, Department of Psychology, Bellarmine
phenomenon is how seemingly easily stereotype University, 2001 Newberg Rd, Louisville, KY 40205, USA.
threat can be activated. Email: hrothgerber@bellarmine.edu

Downloaded from gpi.sagepub.com at Ondokuz Mayis Universitesi on November 6, 2014

80 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 17(1)
successful intervention may be predicated upon
understanding the developmental aspects of stere-
otype threat susceptibility in children. The current
research specifically examines whether stereotype
threat susceptibility occurs in young populations
and distinct from the literature, examines them not
in a lab but in natural environments.
A few researchers have moved away from
studying stereotype threat in the traditional popu-
lation of college students and begun investigating
younger participants. Experimental manipula-
tions in these studies have included diagnostic
versus nondiagnostic testing conditions for eth-
nic stereotypes (McKown &Weinstein, 2003),
priming gender identity before a math test
(Ambady, Shih, Kim, & Pittinsky, 2001; Neuville
& Croizet, 2007), informing females that a geo-
metrical problem measured ability in geometry as
opposed to ability in drawing (Huguet & Regner,
2007), exposing females to vignettes about
famous mathematicians (mostly male) before a
math test (Muzzatti & Agnoli, 2007), and leading
females to believe that their chess opponent was
male as opposed to female (Wolsiefer &
Rothgerber, 2013).
Overall, the limited research on stereotype
threat susceptibility in children is not entirely
consistent, but there are a few generalizations
that can be drawn. Children in lower elementary
school—as young as 5—seem vulnerable to ste-
reotype threat (Ambady et al., 2001; McKown &
Weinstein, 2003; Wolsiefer & Rothgerber, 2013).
Among females living in the USA anyway, those
in upper elementary school seem less vulnerable
to stereotype threat (Wolsiefer & Rothgerber,
2013) and in some cases, there actually appears to
be a rebound effect whereby exposure to the ste-
reotype boosts performance (Ambady et al.,
2001). As postulated by Steele (1997), personal
endorsement of the stereotype does not seem to
predict stereotype threat susceptibility (e.g.,
Huguet & Regner, 2007), but awareness of the
stereotype seems necessary to produce underper-
formance effects (McKown &Weinstein, 2003;
Wolsiefer & Rothgerber, 2013).
The present research sought to examine some
of these issues in a more realistic context. One
Downloaded from gpi.sagepub.com at Ondokuz Mayis Universitesi on November 6, 2014
criticism of stereotype threat research focuses on
whether the mostly lab-based findings are gener-
alizable to real-world settings. For example,
Cullen, Hardison, and Sackett (2004) used archi-
val data to assess the degree to which the
Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) predicted aca-
demic performance of women and Blacks in
math and the Armed Services Vocational Battery
predicted military performance among Blacks in
the domain of technical proficiency. Contrary to
stereotype threat predictions, only linear test–
performance relationships were found as were
equivalent effects for women, men, and Blacks.
In a second study, Cullen, Waters, and Sackett
(2006) also examined stereotype threat suscepti-
bility with a large dataset in a natural setting. SAT
math scores of women intending to major in
math or a related field did not underpredict per-
formance in a separate area (i.e., English grades)
compared to women not identified with math, at
least any more so than they did with men. This
runs counter to predictions that individuals most
highly identified with a domain are more suscep-
tible to stereotype threat.
One of the reasons that stereotype threat
effects may be absent or less prominent in these
real-world examples is that there may be stronger
incentives for success in the natural environment
than in laboratory examples, heightening effort
and motivation. It is known that when monetary
incentives are present, stereotype threat suscepti-
bility dissipates, whether on a cognitive ability test
(McFarland, Lev-Arey, & Ziegert, 2003; Nguyen,
O’Neal, & Ryan, 2003) or a retail management
selection test (Ployhart, Ziegert, & McFarland,
2003).
If external validity concerns are present in
studies of stereotype threat among adult college
students, they certainly are not diminished when
studying younger populations. None of the stud-
ies assessing stereotype threat susceptibility in
younger participants have been conducted in real-
world settings. Rather, the typical situation con-
sists of a researcher capturing participants’
attention, controlling all factors except the threat
manipulation, and introducing a test of perhaps
limited importance to the children.
Rothgerber and Wolsiefer 81
Elaborating on these concerns in reverse
order, there are simply few, if any, negative exter-
nal consequences for poor performance or posi-
tive external consequences for good performance
by these young participants. Although in the real
world positive math performance relates to
higher grades, scholarships, recognition, parental
praise, etcetera, and chess performance results in
an increased rating, trophies, recognition, etcet-
era, in these studies such rewards were absent. In
one study (McKown & Weinstein, 2003), the
tasks were probably so unusual to participants
that it is difficult to evaluate how seriously they
considered their performance. Even if partici-
pants were highly motivated, these studies may
overestimate the impact of stereotype threat sus-
ceptibility by creating an unrealistic environment
in which it was highly likely that participants
would attend to the threat activation. In Ambady
et al. (2001), for example, older participants expe-
rienced threat by answering questions about the
relevant identity, and in Wolsiefer and Rothgerber
(2013), the threat manipulation involved either
displaying a face of a male or female picture to
participants. In the real world of course, many
other factors are present that may distract young-
sters from noticing or thinking about these threat
concerns. That is, these laboratory studies may be
creating conditions where gender or race is made
particular salient, and stereotype threat may be
less likely in the absence of such explicit manipu-
lations. In short, in the real world, situational fac-
tors promoting stereotype threat may be less
salient, or even if attended to, may be remedied
by incentives provided in a natural context.
It is possible, then, that experimental research
examining when stereotype threat susceptibility
develops may be distorting how readily such
effects are actually evoked in the real world and
may be encouraging researchers to conclude that
these effects are more common than they really
are in children as young as 5. Besides the theo-
retical importance of addressing how stereotype
threat susceptibility develops in a natural con-
text, practically, such information is important in
helping concerned individuals better understand
when the critical age is for interventions designed
Downloaded from gpi.sagepub.com at Ondokuz Mayis Universitesi on November 6, 2014
to eliminate or unsettle the effects of stereotype
threat.
In the present research, we attempted to clar-
ify some of these issues by studying the develop-
ment of stereotype threat in young female chess
players in a natural setting. Chess is widely
believed to be a male game, most commonly
played and mastered by men. For example, in a
1963 interview, future world champion Bobby
Fisher remarked that women were “terrible chess
players” and thought they lacked the intellectual
capacity for the game. In one study, when experi-
enced, expert female chess players were told their
Internet opponent was male as opposed to
female, they were much more likely to lose
(Maass, D’Ettole, & Cadinu, 2008). Stereotype
threat may offer one explanation for why females
tend to be less prominent among chess elites. In
fact, of the top 100 chess players in the world,
only one is female (www.fide.com). It is possible
that the disidentification that results from nega-
tive stereotype threat effects may cause female
chess players to no longer identify themselves as
competent chess players. As a result, females may
be less likely to play chess or to stay with it at
higher levels. From our perspective, there are cer-
tain benefits to studying chess players (see
Wolsiefer & Rothgerber, 2013). One advantage is
that there are officially rated United States Chess
Federation (USCF) tournaments occurring regu-
larly throughout the USA allowing a rich data set
of performance outcomes.
Stereotype Awareness
Before data collection for the main study, we
sought to assess whether young females were
aware of chess-related gender stereotypes. To
measure stereotype awareness, an 11-item verbal
questionnaire was administered as part of a larger
study to 77 female chess players enrolled in after-
school chess programs in metropolitan Louisville,
Kentucky, USA. Participants were distributed
evenly from ages 6–11. Sample items included: (a)
“Have you heard that good chess players are usu-
ally boys?” (b) “Have you heard that girls are sup-
posed to be good at chess?” (reverse scored).
82 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 17(1)
Responses of Yes were coded as 2, Maybe as 1, and
No as 0. Stereotype awareness was operationally
defined as the total sum of all response scores on
the questionnaire; thus the range of scores was
0–22 with 22 indicating a high level of stereotype
awareness. The reliability of the items was rea-
sonable (α = .76). Overall, the average female
reported stereotype awareness above the mid-
point of the scale, M = 13.03, SD = 4.05; stereo-
type awareness was uncorrelated with age, r = .11,
ns. Thus, it appears that even young females have
been moderately exposed to ideas that chess is a
male activity.
Having shown that young females have some
awareness of chess-related gender stereotypes,
we next moved on to examine whether they
would be affected by such stereotypes. To assess
whether stereotype threat susceptibility was pre-
sent among a young population in a real-world
setting, the researchers examined USCF tourna-
ment records of female chess players from
Kindergarten to ninth grade. We measured their
general performance against males along with
their performance in certain conditions that
should provoke greater threat, such as playing
against an older or higher rated opponent.
Because the research on the presence of stereo-
type threat among adults in natural settings is
mixed, it was unclear whether previous findings
showing stereotype threat susceptibility in lower
elementary school females and stereotype lift
among upper elementary school females would
hold. Additionally, we measured the extent to
which these female chess players continued to
play in chess tournaments following our study of
them. To the extent that our female sample would
show evidence of stereotype threat, we expected
that those experiencing it the most would disen-
gage from chess and play in fewer future
tournaments.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Data were collected from 12 chess tournaments
held in Louisville, KY from November 2006 to
Downloaded from gpi.sagepub.com at Ondokuz Mayis Universitesi on November 6, 2014
January 2008. The tournaments were restricted to
elementary, middle, and high school participants,
with individuals competing in one of four sepa-
rate sections based on their grade. The tourna-
ments were all officially rated by the USCF,
meaning that each participant had a prerating and
a postrating. Participants competed in five games
during each tournament under G/30 time con-
trols (i.e., each player had 30 minutes for the
game), typical for scholastic tournaments in the
USA. For each tournament, several local tourna-
ment directors provided information about each
player’s grade and sex. Initially, there were a few
discrepancies, but further inquiry resolved these
cases. In the end, 219 females ranging from kin-
dergarten age to ninth grade participated in the
selected tournaments. The specific breakdown
was as follows: 13 were enrolled in kindergarten;
47 in first grade; 33 in second grade; 45 in third
grade; 28 in fourth grade; 20 in fifth grade; 13 in
sixth grade; 9 in seventh grade; 8 in eighth grade;
and 2 in ninth grade. Participants’ mean USCF
rating was 357.7 (SD = 280.3), with grade break-
downs as follows: kindergarten M = 123, SD =
44; first grade M = 187, SD = 116; second grade
M = 332, SD = 225; third grade M = 305, SD =
181; fourth grade M = 417, SD = 215; fifth grade
M = 300, SD = 250; sixth grade M = 716, SD =
216; seventh grade M = 798, SD = 420; eight
grade M = 901, SD = 105; ninth grade M = 900,
SD = 320.
To control the possibility that all young chess
players generally perform worse than expected,
worse under certain difficult circumstances such
as playing a strong opponent, or worse when spe-
cifically playing against boys, we included a male
comparison group whose performance against
other males was assessed. Every female partici-
pant in the study was matched with a male of
similar chess rating and grade who played in the
same tournament. The decision rule in choosing
a male counterpart was to select the male com-
petitor of the same grade who was closest in rat-
ing to the female participant. If a male participant
within 100 rating points of a female participant
could not be located, a similarly rated male one
grade higher or lower than the female participant
Rothgerber and Wolsiefer 83
was chosen. In some cases, no appropriate coun-
terpart could be found. In the end, 195 males
were chosen for the study. Their average rating
(M = 356.3; SD = 274.5) was nearly identical to
that of the female participants as was the specific
rating breakdown by grade. Additionally, the aver-
age grade of the male participants (M = 2.96;
SD = 2.03) was highly similar to that of female
participants (M = 3.13; SD = 2.12).
In addition to determining if there was an
overall stereotype threat effect when playing
against males, the study examined whether more
challenging circumstances would activate
stronger threat. To assess this, a continuous
measure of relative opponent strength was cal-
culated for each opponent by subtracting the
opponent’s rating from the participant’s prerat-
ing. Opponents 1 SD above the mean on relative
strength were labeled strong, at the mean level of
opponent strength as moderate, and 1 SD below
the mean on opponent strength as weak. The
male opponent’s grade level relative to the par-
ticipant’s was also recorded. In this case, divi-
sions were made for opponents of a higher grade,
opponents of the same grade, and opponents of a lower
grade than participants.
Measures
Pre/post rating difference.  For each game that the
participants played against a male, their prerating
was compared with their postrating, as calculated
by the researchers. To calculate postratings, we
used a rating estimator worksheet provided by the
USCF (available at http://www.glicko.net/rat-
ings/approx.pdf). Details on the complex algo-
rithm used to calculate ratings can be found in a
report by Glickman and Doan (2011), “The
USCF Rating System” available on the USCF
website (Glickman & Doan, 2011). Simply stated,
an individual’s postrating is based on the outcome
of the match (i.e., win, loss, or a draw), their pre-
rating, and their opponent’s prerating. Beating a
stronger opponent will increase one’s rating more
than beating a weaker opponent, and losing to a
weaker opponent will decrease one’s rating more
than losing to a stronger opponent.
Downloaded from gpi.sagepub.com at Ondokuz Mayis Universitesi on November 6, 2014
Expected/obtained winning percentage difference. Rat-
ing differences may not always be the most sensi-
tive measure of performance because when one
plays a much lower or much higher rated oppo-
nent and performs as expected, there will be little
rating fluctuation. From information provided by
the USCF, we also calculated an expected winning
percentage for each game played by the partici-
pants in the study and compared it to their
obtained winning percentage. The expected win-
ning percentage was obtained through the follow-
ing formula: We (R, R1) = 1/1 + 10-(R-R1)/400,
where We is the standard winning expectancy
between a player rated R and their opponent
rated R1. The obtained winning percentage was
defined as 100% for a win, 50% for a draw, and
0% for a loss. Similar to pre/post rating differ-
ences, the expected winning percentage is based
on the preratings of the two competitors. A low-
ered obtained relative to expected winning per-
centage could not be explained simply as an
outcome of playing stronger opponents, for the
formula takes this into account. Rather, a lower
obtained winning percentage would be evidence
of something disrupting an individual’s normal,
baseline chess ability.
Continued engagement with chess.  Several measures
were used to determine how much participants
stayed engaged with chess following the tourna-
ment in which we examined them. Using the
United States Chess Federation website (http://
uschess.org/) which provides participation data
for every USCF-rated tournament and allows
searches to be made by player, the researchers
computed the number of tournaments played in the
year following the tournament in which we stud-
ied them. We also computed how many months (0–
12) passed until they played in their next
tournament that year from the time we studied
them. These two items were negatively correlated
(r = −.33, p < .001).
Results
To account for nonindependence due to par-
ticipants who played multiple games, multilevel
84 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 17(1)

models allowing the intercept and effect of Table 1.  Expected/obtained winning percentage
within-subjects predictors (i.e. opponent differences by gender and opponent type.
strength and opponent grade level) to vary were
Gender Exp/obt win% T
used to analyze these data1 (for further details
see Singer, 1998). The analysis followed the fol- Females
lowing form: first, the interactions between   Strong opponent .09/.05 −4.47***
gender and overall measures (i.e., pre/post rat-   Moderate opponent .39/.32 −4.70***
  Weak opponent .71/.59 −0.77
ing and expected/obtained winning percentage   Older opponent .37/.27 −3.78***
difference) were calculated; then, overall per-   Same opponent .41/.34 −5.63***
formance effects were calculated for each gen-   Younger opponent .42/.36 −2.00+
der separately. Following the overall analysis, we  Overall .41/.34 −5.52***
examined whether participants were affected by Males
the contextual variables (i.e., rating level and   Strong opponent .09/.19 4.93***
grade level of opponent) that may activate ste-   Moderate opponent .38/.46 4.89***
  Weak opponent .70/.73 2.40*
reotype threat. After assessing the interaction in   Older opponent .32/.36 1.21
each condition, analysis was conducted on each   Same opponent .37/.44 4.89***
gender. Once the overall and contextual effects   Younger opponent .38/.50 3.73***
were determined for all participants, the analy-  Overall .37/.44 4.88***
sis explored these effects in different age Note. Because opponent strength was treated as a continuous
groups. In trying to approximate divisions in predictor, performance versus a strong, moderate, and weak
U.S. schools, participants were divided into opponent refers to the expected and obtained winning per-
three groups based on grade level: lower ele- centages at 1 SD above the mean relative opponent strength,
at mean relative opponent strength and at 1 SD below the
mentary, K–2; upper elementary, 3–5; and mid- mean relative opponent strength respectively.
dle school, 6–8. Ninth graders were included +p<.10, *p <.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001.
with the middle school grouping. Results were
highly similar between pre/post rating differ- differences between males and females when
ences and expected/obtained winning percent- opponent strength and grade level were taken into
ages for performance effects and correlations account2 (stronger: b = −.07, t(790) = −5.26, p <
between performance and continued engage- .001; moderate: b = −.07, t(370) = −7.33, p < .001;
ment with chess; for brevity, only winning per- weaker: b = −.08, t(754) = −5.45, p < .001; higher:
centage will be further discussed. b = −.08, t(243) = −3.59, p < .001; same: b = −.08,
t(398) = −7.43, p < .001; lower: b = −.08, t(305) =
−4.13, p < .001. Female failure to achieve expected
Overall Effects outcomes was true for a variety of contexts that
The Gender x Winning Percentage interaction could be perceived as particularly threatening:
reached statistical significance, t(394) = −7.34, p when playing a strong and moderate opponent,
< .001. Table 1 presents means and t/p values for and when competing against an opponent from a
the overall study effects. Overall, the obtained higher grade, the same grade and marginally, even
winning percentage for female participants in the from a younger grade. Males exceeded expecta-
study failed to measure up to their expected win- tions in all contexts except when playing an oppo-
ning percentage. Male participants actually per- nent from a higher grade level, and in this case,
formed better than expected. there was no effect.

Opponent Strength and Grade Level Effects Grade Effects

Every two-way interaction was significant when Table 2 presents stereotype threat susceptibility
comparing expected/obtained winning percentage by grade level with and without consideration of

Downloaded from gpi.sagepub.com at Ondokuz Mayis Universitesi on November 6, 2014

Rothgerber and Wolsiefer 85

Table 2.  Expected/obtained winning percentage

differences by grade, gender, and opponent type. Gender Exp/obt T
win%
Gender Exp/obt T
win%   Same opponent .46/.46 0.14
  Younger opponent .70/.72 0.27
Females   Overall .45/.46 0.07
 K–2
  Strong opponent .05/.02 −2.43* Note. Because opponent strength was treated as a continuous
  Moderate opponent .37/.28 −4.80*** predictor, performance versus a strong, moderate, and weak
opponent refers to the expected and obtained winning per-
  Weak opponent .72/.57 −3.96*
centages at 1 SD above the mean relative opponent strength,
  Older opponent .43/.27 −3.88*** at mean relative opponent strength, and at 1 SD below the
  Same opponent .43/.32 −4.81*** mean relative opponent strength respectively.
  Younger opponent .42/.27 −2.85** +p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
  Overall .42/.32 −4.96***
 3–5
  Strong opponent .10/.08 −0.76*** context. Female participants in both lower and
  Moderate opponent .40/.34 −3.02**
  Weak opponent .72/.60 −3.60***
upper elementary grades did not obtain a winning
  Older opponent .38/.26 −2.01* percentage as high as would have been expected.
  Same opponent .37/.33 −3.16** The youngest participants displayed performance
  Younger opponent .37/.33 −1.01 deficits under all conditions: when playing strong,
  Overall .39/.33 −2.84** moderate, and weak opponents, and opponents
 6–9 from a higher, same, and lower grade, their
  Strong opponent .11/09 −0.83 obtained winning percentage was significantly
  Moderate opponent .39/.36 −1.03
  Weak opponent .67/.64 −0.82
lower than expected. Those in upper elementary
  Older opponent .30/.28 −0.30 school obtained a lower than expected winning
  Same opponent .46/.43 −1.01 percentage when confronting all opponents
  Younger opponent .64/.64 0.38 except those from a lower grade. Older partici-
  Overall .46/.42 −1.03 pants were not vulnerable to underperforming
Males expectations. That is, their obtained winning per-
 K–2 centage matched expectations. For males, the
  Strong opponent .06/.11 0.78
  Moderate opponent .37/.43 1.57
obtained winning percentage was generally simi-
  Weak opponent .72/.74 1.39 lar to the expected winning percentage, except
  Older opponent .34/.38 1.13 for one condition: males in grades 3–5 performed
  Same opponent .40/.44 1.43 better than expected in all cases except when
  Younger opponent .33/.36 0.13 playing an opponent from a higher grade.
  Overall .39/.43 0.88
 3–5
  Strong opponent .10/.27 6.15*** Correlations Between Stereotype
  Moderate opponent .39/52 5.38***
  Weak opponent .70/.77 2.32*
Threat and Continued Engagement in
  Older opponent .28/.38 1.47 Chess
  Same opponent .32/.45 5.14***
  Younger opponent .33/.50 4.47***
A clear gender difference occurred in how per-
  Overall .32/.46 5.75*** formance related to continued engagement in
 6–9 chess. Table 3 presents these correlations. For
  Strong opponent .13/.14 0.13 females, nearly all correlations were significant
  Moderate opponent .38/.39 0.09 between performance impairment associated
  Weak opponent .65/.65 0.01 with stereotype threat and continued engage-
  Older opponent .33/.26 −1.25 ment in chess. Overall, females with depressed
(Continued) performance (i.e., a larger expected than obtained

Downloaded from gpi.sagepub.com at Ondokuz Mayis Universitesi on November 6, 2014

86 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 17(1)
Table 3.  Correlations between expected/obtained winning percentage difference, tournaments played during
the following year, and months since the last tournament.
Female expected/obtained %
(n = 219)
Overall
 Tournaments −.29***
 Months .29***
K–2
 Tournaments −.38***
 Months .32**
3–5
 Tournaments −.28**
 Months .28**
6–9
 Tournaments −.43*
 Months .12
Note. +p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
winning percentage) played in fewer tourna-
ments the next year and allowed a greater num-
ber of months to elapse from their last
tournament. This was true for all grade levels
except older females, in which case months from
their last tournament did not show this effect.
For males however, performance was virtually
unrelated to future chess participation. None of
the correlations were significant, except in the
case of the youngest males. For K–2 boys,
months from the last tournament were margin-
ally correlated in the same direction as the female
data. That is, poor performance only predicted
less future chess participation for the youngest
of boys.
Discussion
In this examination of data from a realistic set-
ting, females playing against males performed at
about 83% (.34 / .41) of expectations based upon
their own and their opponents’ preratings.
Because these measures adjust for rating strength,
the present results do not simply demonstrate
that girls lose to boys more often than vice versa,
but rather that girls lose to boys at a rate that cannot be
explained in terms of initial rating strength. Because
young girls are aware of negative stereotypes
about their chess-playing ability, it seems these
Downloaded from gpi.sagepub.com at Ondokuz Mayis Universitesi on November 6, 2014
Male expected/obtained %
(n = 193)
.02
.03
−.16
.20+
.04
−.14
.25
−.22
beliefs emerge to the detriment of females when
they compete with boys. The current results
extend those of Wolsiefer and Rothgerber (2013)
by showing that this form of threat is strong
enough to persist in real-world situations when
attention is not as controlled, with many other
competing stimuli in the environment, and
stronger motivation to succeed present among
individuals. Evidence of stereotype threat among
young children, then, cannot be dismissed merely
as an artifact of, or limited to experimental
paradigms.
Performance deficits triggered by stereotype
threat were more likely to appear when the young
female sample was playing males in more chal-
lenging situations. Specifically, females did worse
than expected when competing against a strong
opponent (achieving 56% of what would be pre-
dicted based on prior ratings), a moderate one
(82% of expected performance), an opponent
from a higher grade (73% of expected perfor-
mance), and an opponent of the same grade
(83% of expected performance). This supports
the contention that anxiety, arousal, and other
processes related to stereotype threat only impair
performance on difficult, challenging tasks
(Steele, Spencer, & Aronson, 2002). To beat
someone in chess who is better than or equal to
oneself requires complete concentration and
Rothgerber and Wolsiefer 87
focus; it may be that playing against a boy diverts
some of these resources toward worrying about
one’s skills and how one will be perceived by oth-
ers, thus lowering performance. When competing
against weaker opponents and opponents from
lower grades, young females performed about as
expected or only marginally worse so. This sug-
gests that playing someone perceived as weaker
or younger may buffer the negative impact of
playing against a male chess player. Especially
when playing a weaker opponent there may be
less frustration that is critical for the activation of
stereotype threat (Steele et al., 2002).
Another major outcome was that the youngest
female chess players we studied were the most
susceptible to stereotype threat activated by com-
peting against a male. Those in lower elementary
achieved an obtained winning percentage slightly
less than 76% of their expected winning percent-
age when playing against a male. That stereotype
threat would be found in females at such a young
age supports prior research (Ambady et al., 2001;
McKown & Weinstein, 2003; Neuville & Croizet,
2007; Wolsiefer & Rothgerber, 2013) showing
performance deficits in young participants. It also
suggests that even when young children face mul-
tiple stimuli and have strong incentive for good
performance, they still notice and are affected by
stereotype threat. This can be seen in the espe-
cially poor performance outcomes under what
could be construed as more challenging circum-
stances. For example, when playing a stronger
opponent, lower elementary-aged girls only
achieved 40% of the success that would have
been expected based on their own and their
opponents’ past performances (again, this pro-
found underachievement cannot be framed
merely as individuals not doing well when playing
stronger opponents because the winning percent-
age formula adjusts for rating strength). When
playing a boy from an upper grade, they achieved
success at 63% of what would have been
expected.
Those females in upper elementary school
also showed evidence of stereotype threat
although not as strong as with the younger par-
ticipants. Third, fourth, and fifth graders achieved
Downloaded from gpi.sagepub.com at Ondokuz Mayis Universitesi on November 6, 2014
about 85% of what was expected. This finding is
inconsistent with experimental evidence (Ambady
et al., 2001) who noted that females in upper ele-
mentary school experience a lift in performance
when stereotype threat is activated. The afore-
mentioned researchers have speculated that
increased chauvinism may lead upper elementary-
aged girls to excel when working under stereo-
type threat. It may be that this chauvinism is
especially likely to be triggered when participants
are aware that they are being studied in an experi-
ment or when placed under more artificial situa-
tions; these contexts may increase reactance
against the stereotype. Secondly, in the experi-
ments individuals are studied in isolation, but
because tournaments involve social interaction
(especially between rounds) and the visible pres-
ence of many others, social dynamics may have
caused these upper elementary girls to be less
successful at fending off stereotype threat.
Perhaps seeing themselves as a relative numerical
minority in the tournament activated threat in
these girls to a greater degree than would have
occurred in more artificial settings. In general,
these females were less prone to contextual varia-
tion, although they did significantly underachieve
(two thirds of expected performance) when com-
peting against stronger males.
For the oldest participants in the sample,
playing against a male opponent did not signifi-
cantly lower overall performance. One possible
explanation is that these older players represent a
select sample that has been immune to the attri-
tion common to female chess players. Selection
pressures have been shown to impact older
female chess players (Vollstadt-Klein, Grimm,
Kirsch, & Bilalic, 2010), but it is unclear whether
such pressures would have exerted influence
over the younger participants in the current
research. It may well be that the youngest chess
players who are most susceptible to stereotype
threat experience disidentification (Steele, 1997)
and thus may be less likely to continue playing
chess in later childhood. The smaller number of
middle school females in the tournaments we
studied may reflect this as well. On the surface,
the lack of overall effects for middle-school
88 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 17(1)
participants seems difficult to reconcile with
recent evidence of stereotype threat susceptibil-
ity among adult chess players (Maass et al., 2008).
Because this latter study examined expert players
who are heavily identified with chess, it may be
that they are more vulnerable to stereotype threat
associated with it.
It should be noted that all of the aforemen-
tioned female results cannot be attributed to
young players’ general underperformance in
chess tournaments, underperformance against
strong opponents, or underperformance when
competing against male opponents. For male
participants in the study did not show evidence
of underperformance as females did. In the
absence of stereotype threat, male participants
were likely better able to concentrate and focus
on the game itself, especially important when
playing stronger opponents. In many cases, males
exceeded rating performance and expectations.
This reinforces our interpretation that there is
something specific to the interaction between
female and male competitors that produced
these performance deficits in females. Although
the retrospective nature of data collection pro-
hibited manipulation checks and measurement
of the mediating mechanisms, the stereotype
threat explanation is made stronger by examin-
ing the relationship between performance and
future chess participation for girls and boys.
That is, one unique aspect of the present
research is its ability to explore possible future
consequences of stereotype threat susceptibility.
Obviously, in one-time experimental research it is
impossible to determine if those most vulnerable
to stereotype threat continue participation in the
domain or if they eventually disengage and disi-
dentify with it. In the tournaments we examined,
those females who demonstrated the largest per-
formance deficits were the least likely to play in
future tournaments and waited longer between
tournaments if they did play. This fits with the
notion that stereotype threat can produce disen-
gagement from the threatened domain (Steele,
1997). Our evidence suggests that this process of
disengagement can occur even with participants
as young as grades K–2. This argument is made
Downloaded from gpi.sagepub.com at Ondokuz Mayis Universitesi on November 6, 2014
stronger by the fact that for the most part, males
who did worse when playing other males did not
disengage from chess any more than males whose
performance exceeded expectations.
Finally, the fact that stereotype threat effects
are evident—indeed even strongest—at such a
young age in a natural setting indicates that inter-
vention or prevention efforts must occur as early
as possible. Borrowing from the existing litera-
ture on reducing stereotype threat, we suggest
that programs teaching chess to young girls
include one or more of the following: providing
female role models whether it be as instructors or
showcasing top female players and their games;
reframing the task as a problem-solving activity
or concentration game and away from chess; de-
emphasizing female identity in lieu of other iden-
tities such as being a member of the school chess
team, grade level, etcetera; emphasizing high
standards for all participants with assurances
about the capability of meeting them; emphasiz-
ing an incremental view of chess performance
(i.e., that one’s ability is not constant but can be
improved by practice and study); and providing
external attributions for difficulty (i.e., telling
young chess students that mistakes are common
in new players and can be overcome with experi-
ence and practice). Whether some of these inter-
ventions would be more appropriate for a
younger population and for the domain of chess
requires further empirical verification. Whatever
the method of intervention, the findings indicate
that for females to fully experience the cognitive
and emotional benefits of chess, the earlier the
intervention, the better.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any fund-
ing agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit
sectors.
Notes
1. The analyses reported utilized maximum likeli-
hood estimation. Therefore, all degrees of free-
dom are estimated using the Satterthwaite method
(Satterthwaite, 1946). Estimates of degrees of
freedom using this method may result in degrees
of freedom with decimals.
Rothgerber and Wolsiefer 89
2. In addition to the interactions there were several
significant main effects as well. First, there was
a significant effect of opponent strength (b =
.001, t(1540) = 2.54, p < .01), such that partici-
pants performed somewhat better when playing a
stronger opponent. An effect of opponent grade
was also demonstrated (b = −.04, t(1152) = −2.41,
p < .05) indicating that participants’ performance
decreased as the relative grade level of their
opponent increased.
References
Ambady, N., Shih, M., Kim, A., & Pittinsky, T. (2001).
Stereotype susceptibility in children: Effects of
identity activation on quantitative performance.
Psychological Science, 12, 385–390. doi:10.1111/1467-
9280.00371
Cadinu, M., Maass, A., Rosabianca, A., & Kiesner, J.
(2005). Why do women underperform under ste-
reotype threat? Evidence for the role of nega-
tive thinking. Psychological Science, 16, 572–578.
doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01577.x
Chalabaev, A., Sarrazin, P., Stone, J. & Curry, F. (2008).
Do achievement goals mediate stereotype threat?
An investigation on females’ soccer performance.
Journal of Exercise and Sports Psychology, 30, 143–158.
Retrieved from http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/
docs/00/38/98/57/PDF/Chalabaev_et_al_
JSEP_2008.pdf
Cullen, M. J., Hardison, C. M., & Sackett, P. R. (2004).
Using SAT-grade and ability-job performance rela-
tionships to test predictions derived from stereo-
type threat theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,
220–230. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.220
Cullen, M. J., Waters, S. D., & Sackett, P. R. (2006). Test-
ing stereotype threat theory predictions for math-
identified and non-math-identified students by gen-
der. Human Performance, 19, 421–440. doi:10.1207/
s15327043hup1904_6
Glickman, M., & Doan, T. (2011). The USCF rating
system. Retrieved from http://www.glicko.net/rat-
ings/rating.system.pdf
Huguet, P., & Regner, I. (2007). Stereotype threat
among schoolgirls in quasi-ordinary classroom
circumstances. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99,
545–560. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.3545
Maass, A., D’Ettole, C., & Cadinu, M. (2008). Check-
mate? The role of gender stereotypes in the ulti-
mate intellectual sport. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 38, 231–245. doi:10.1002/ejsp.440
Downloaded from gpi.sagepub.com at Ondokuz Mayis Universitesi on November 6, 2014
McFarland, L. A., Lev-Arey, D. M., & Ziegert, J. C.
(2003). An examination of stereotype threat in a
motivational context. Human Performance, 16, 181–
205. doi:10.1207/S15327043HUP1603_2
McKown, C., & Weinstein, R. (2003). The develop-
ment and consequences of stereotype conscious-
ness in middle childhood. Child Development, 74,
498–515. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.7402012
Muzzati, B., & Agnoli, F. (2007). Gender and math-
ematics: Attitudes and stereotype threat suscepti-
bility in Italian children. Developmental Psychology, 43,
747–759. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.3.747
Neuville, E., & Croizet, J. (2007). Can salience of gen-
der identity impair math performance among 7–8
year old girls? The moderating role of task diffi-
culty. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22,
307–316. doi:10.1007/BF03173428
Nguyen, H.-H. D., O’Neal, A., & Ryan, A. M. (2003).
Relating test-taking attitudes and skills and stereo-
type threat effects to the racial gap in cognitive abil-
ity test performance. Human Performance, 16, 261–
293. doi:10.1207/S15327043HUP1603_5
Ployhart, R. E., Ziegert, J. C., & McFarland, L. A. (2003).
Understanding racial differences on cognitive abil-
ity tests in selection contexts: An integration of
stereotype threat and applicant reactions research.
Human Performance, 16, 231–259. doi:10.1207/
S15327043HUP1603_4
Satterthwaite, F. E. (1946). An approximate distribu-
tion of estimates of variance components. Biom-
etrics Bulletin, 2, 110–114. Retrieved from http://
www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3002019?uid=37
38664&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21102178857171
Singer, J. D. (1998). Using SAS PROC MIXED to fit
multilevel models, hierarchical models and individ-
ual growth models. Journal of Educational and Behav-
ioral Statistics, 24, 323–355. Retrieved from http://
www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1165280?uid=37
38664&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21102178857171
Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How ste-
reotypes shape the intellectual identities and
performance of women and African-Americans.
American Psychologist, 52, 613–629. doi:10.1037/
0003-066X.52.6.613
Steele, C. M, & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat
and the intellectual test performance of African
Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
69, 797–811. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797
Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Aronson, J. (2002).
Contending with images of one’s group: The psy-
chology of stereotype and social identity threat. In
90 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 17(1)

M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psy-
chology (379–440). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Stone, J., Lynch, C., Sjomeling, M., & Darley, J. (1999).
Stereotype threat effects on Black and White athletic
performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
77, 1213–1227. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1213
Vollstadt-Klein, S., Grimm, O., Kirsch, P., & Bilalic,
M. (2010). Personality of elite male and female
chess players and its relation to chess skill. Learn-
ing and Individual Differences, 20, 517–521. Retrieved
from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti-
cle/pii/S1041608010000403
Wolsiefer, K., & Rothgerber, H. (2013). The influence
of stereotype awareness an endorsement on the development
of stereotype threat in young female chess players. Unpub-
lished manuscript.

Downloaded from gpi.sagepub.com at Ondokuz Mayis Universitesi on November 6, 2014