How Feelings of Stereotype Threat Influence Older Adults' Memory Performance

ABSTRACT

The purpose of the present research was to explore the role of stereotype threat as a mediator of older people's memory performance under different instructional sets. In three studies, younger and older participants completed a memory test that was either framed as a memorization or as an impression formation task. Across these studies, memory performance was greater for younger than for older adults and was higher in the impression formation than memorization condition, but was not different for older adults in the two instruction conditions. These results also showed that age differences in memory performance were mediated by participants' feelings of stereotype threat, such that age was positively related to stereotype threat and stereotype threat was negatively related to memory performance. These data demonstrate that concerns about being negatively stereotyped influence age differences in memory performance, and that the effects of these feelings on performance are not easily reduced by reframing the task instructions.

This research was supported in part by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada research grant (410–2000–0017) and a grant from the University of Toronto Connaught Committee awarded to Alison Chasteen; and by National Institute on Aging (NIA) grant R3704306 awarded to Lynn Hasher. The authors thank Aly Velji, Hajera Rostam, Jana Leggett, Cynthia Aoki, Leah Reisz, Ryan Gonzalez, Charla Pearen, Salwa Mohi-Uddin, and Tara McAuley for their assistance with data collection and coding.

Notes

¹Other stereotype threat studies often simply mention that a test is diagnostic of a particular stereotyped domain, rather than present multiple articles specifying a particular group's deficits in a stereotyped domain (e.g., Steele & Aronson, 1995).

²As an indication of cognitive function, speed of processing scores were also available from the digit comparison task that served as a filler task in Studies 1 and 3. For that task, participants compared pairs of digit strings consisting of either three, six, or nine digits. Their task was to quickly decide whether the strings were the same or different and write S or D on the answer sheet. They were given 30 s to complete as many items as possible at each level (3, 6, or 9 digits). Participants' scores were calculated by taking the sum of the number correct at each of the three levels. For both studies there were no effects of condition, Fs<2.80, but there were robust age differences. In Study 1, young adults correctly compared more digit strings (M=51.62, SD=9.23) than older adults (M=39.83, SD=6.89), F(1, 114)=62.75, p<.001, η²=.36. A similar pattern occurred in Study 3, with young adults completing more digit strings (M=49.88, SD=8.79) than older adults (M=39.25, SD=7.63), F(1, 77)=34.50, p<.001, η²=.31.

Note. Standard deviations are in parentheses.

³Adjusted ratio of clustering scores (Roenker, Thompson, & Brown, 1971) were also calculated to check for differences in the clustering of the sentence predicates during the recall task. No significant effects were found, Fs<1.

⁴Because the mean number recalled in Study 1 was 8.95 predicates for young adults (SD=4.01) and 6.05 predicates for older adults (SD=3.87), it was clear that a shorter list would also demonstrate age differences in this task.

⁵For Studies 2 and 3, a follow-up questionnaire was administered after the recall (or recognition) task to assess participants' experiences during the memory task that they had just completed. No informative results were obtained from this measure, so it will not be discussed further. For information about this measure, please contact the first author.

Note. Standard deviations are in parentheses.

⁶There was also a significant Instruction × Wordtype interaction, Wilks' Lambda =.91, F(2, 75)=3.56, p<.05, η²=.09. Post hoc comparisons on the effects of instruction for each type of word revealed the source of the interaction. Participants in the memorize condition responded faster to both sets of memory words (failure and success) than participants in the impression condition, consistent with the idea that memory instructions prime memory-related words. Neither the Age×Instruction×Word type interaction nor any others were significant, all Fs<1.

⁷A stereotype activation task was not included in the Study 3 for two reasons. First, we were concerned that presenting words related to aging stereotypes prior to the recognition test might affect older adults' performance and nullify any potential benefits of the impression instructions. Second, we wanted to test the efficacy of the impression instructions using a paradigm that closely resembled that used by Rahhal et al. (2001), who also did not include an activation task.

Note. Standard deviations are in parentheses. Corrected recognition = hits − false alarms.

⁸In order to ensure that the mediation was not due to the use of an extreme groups design, we examined the correlations between perceived threat and memory performance in the older adult samples for both Studies 2 and 3. The correlations were in the expected direction (r=−.42, p=.01; r=−.32, p<.05 for Studies 2 and 3, respectively), demonstrating that the mediation represents a robust relation between age, perceived threat, and memory performance.