There is plenty of research on effects of negative stereotypes on performance, but less is known about effects of positive stereotypes. Research examining effects of positive stereotypes on performance has found mixed, often competing, results; positive stereotypes have been shown to lead to performance decrements, performance boosts, both boosts and decrements, or neither. One goal of the current study was to examine how domain identification, mode of stereotype activation, group membership of social referents, and valence of performance feedback (i.e. threat salience antecedents) influence whether positive stereotypes harm or benefit performance. I asserted that different combinations of the aforementioned variables would result in differential levels of threat salience, which I define as feelings of stress or pressure that arise from a dynamic interplay between performance motivation, anxiety and self-efficacy. Furthermore, as threat salience increased performance boosts from the positively stereotyped identity were expected to decrease and eventually lead to performance decrements. I also aimed to pinpoint the exact condition, or level of threat salience, that would lead to the switch from performance boosts to performance decrements (i.e. a tipping point). The threat salience antecedents of social referent’s group membership and feedback valence were combined to create a 2 (male/negative feedback vs female/positive feedback) X 2 (implicit activation vs explicit activation) design with a measured causal antecedent (domain identification). Participants took part in a laboratory study utilizing the positive stereotype that females are better than males at verbal ability tasks. Before arriving to the lab, participants were required to complete measures of verbal ability domain identification. Upon arrival to the lab, participants completed one trial of verbal ability items before being exposed to one of the four combinations of threat salience antecedents; following the manipulations, participants completed a subsequent trial of verbal ability items. The results of the study did not support the hypotheses; greater threat salience was not found to lead to worse performance nor was there support for a tipping point whereby performance boosts shifted to performance decrements. Possible reasons for null findings are discussed along with implications of exploratory analyses. / Master of Science / Research on the impact of positive stereotypes on performance has often resulted in mixed conclusions, with some research finding evidence for performance boosts, some finding evidence for performance decrements, and some finding both or neither. The current study sought to demonstrate that certain variables (i.e. domain identification, mode of stereotype activation, group membership of social referents, and valence of performance feedback) impact whether positive stereotypes lead to increases or decreases in performance outcomes through presenting differential threat salience. Threat salience essentially being feelings of pressure or worry about contradicting a positive stereotype; said feelings are believed to be the result of a dynamic interplay between motivation, self-efficacy, and anxiety about performance outcomes. I hypothesized that as threat salience increased then performance would decrease, eventually causing performance boosts from positive stereotypes to switch to performance decrements. Furthermore, I aimed to identify the exact level of threat salience that resulted in a switch from performance boosts to performance decrements (i.e. a tipping point). The study results did not provide support for the hypotheses, nor was I able to identify a tipping point whereby performance switched from boosts to decrements. Implications of exploratory analyses are discussed, along with possible explanations for null findings.

abstract: Anti-atheist prejudice is cross-culturally prevalent and marked by intuitive distrust. However, recent research suggests that, when social perceivers know additional relevant information about others (i.e., their reproductive strategies), this information overrides religious information and nonreligious targets are trusted as much as religious targets. That is, perceivers seem to use religious information as a cue to a specific set of behavioral traits, but prioritize direct information about these traits when available. Here, I use this framework to explore the possibility that atheists are viewed positively in certain circumstances. First, atheists might be viewed positively for certain purposes because of their perceived reproductive strategies, even while being trusted less. Second, atheists who are family-oriented do not sacrifice trust, but may still be viewed positively for other traits (i.e., open-mindedness, scientific thinking). Third, given the constraints religion often imposes on behavior, atheists might be trusted more in situations where these constraints interfere with religious people’s inclination to cooperate. I tested these hypotheses using fictitious social media profiles to examine social perception. The study had a 3 (Target Religion: Religious, Nonreligious, or Atheist) × 3 (Target Reproductive Strategy: No Information, Committed, Uncommitted) experimental design (N = 550). Contrary to my predictions, participants did not rate atheists and nonreligious targets as “fast” compared to religious targets. Consistent with predictions, however, atheists and nonreligious individuals were rated significantly higher on perceived open-mindedness and scientific thinking. Finally, atheist and nonreligious targets were trusted more in two of the three trust domains: trust with scientific findings that contradict their worldview and trust with a secret about a friend’s abortion. Further analyses compared patterns of responding for religious and nonreligious individuals, finding evidence for ingroup bias in most perceptions, but not all. Results suggest that perceptions of atheists are complex, but that atheists may, at least sometimes, be viewed favorably. Finally, these results point to the importance of reproductive strategy as a dimension of social perception, as this variable had a clear effect, independent of target religion, on the hypothesized perceptions. / Dissertation/Thesis / Masters Thesis Psychology 2018

The deleterious impact of negative stereotypes toward gays has been established, but less thoroughly examined are the potentially harmful effects that positive stereotypes may carry. Gay Americans lack multiple legal rights enjoyed by heterosexual citizens, yet many people do not see gays as a genuinely disadvantaged group. One possible reason for this is the popular misconception that gays are wealthier than the average American. Drawing on previous research regarding popular support for underdogs, it was predicted that, to the extent people endorsed the conception of gay affluence, they would be less likely to support legal reform benefiting gays. This hypothesis was supported: after controlling for overall homophobia and religiosity, perceiving gays as wealthy negatively predicted support for gay rights. This project also explored what emotional or cognitive mechanisms might influence the predicted relationship. Support was found for both resentment and system justification motivations as potential contributors to the effect.