Computers, creativity and learning

EqualBITE: recipe about Imposter Syndrome

For my academic colleagues: if you've ever felt a fraud in your job, or worried that people will find out that you're not really very clever, you're a) wrong and b) not alone. This recipe (from the EqualBITE book) is for you. 

Dealing with Imposter Syndrome

Judy Robertson

 

Background

Do you feel like a fraud? Do you secretly think that you know less than your colleagues and that it is only a matter of time before you get found out? If so, you may have fallen prey to Imposter Syndrome. And you’re not alone. Imposter syndrome, characterised by “persistent thoughts of intellectual phoniness” (Hutchins & Rainbolt, 2016), is common in high performers across a range of careers. Graduate students, early career researchers, women, and minority groups suffer from it. But you know what? So do professors and so do men (Hutchins & Rainbolt, 2016; Woolston, 2016). When you think about it, it’s not that surprising that so many academics are wracked with self-doubt. Academia is a high pressure environment with too many people competing for limited resources and where performance is measured against ridiculously high standards.  To be an academic – even a successful one- is to live with regular rejection from reviewers, journal editors, promotion committees and grant funding panels. The continual cycle of trying one’s best, being rejected in highly competitive circumstances and then mustering the strength to try once more is draining.

Imposter syndrome provokes anxiety and stress, and can lead people to give up their academic careers because they feel they are not good enough (Woolston, 2016). This is unfortunate because people in this position are often highly talented when considered objectively: they are their own worst critics. However, imposter syndrome can cause people to underperform despite their talent, for example by micromanaging their team, by delaying making decisions, by procrastinating, or by insisting that all tasks must be done perfectly rather than prioritising (Mount & Tardanico, 2016).

It is important for managers to recognise that different groups may experience imposter syndrome differently.  It is likely to be more common among staff vulnerable to stereotype threat (often women and minority groups) (Dasgupta, 2011) and women and men may employ different coping mechanisms. In particular, men may be more prone to maladaptive coping strategies which could lead to health problems (Hutchins & Rainbolt, 2016). Here are some ways we can overcome imposter syndrome by taking care of ourselves and our colleagues.

Ingredients

• Empathy (as a manager) and appreciation
• Self-awareness and introspection
• Accurate feedback on your performance
• A mentor or peer with whom you identify
• Understanding of imposter syndrome

Method

1. Look out for what triggers imposter syndrome for you so that you can avoid or prepare for such situations in the future. In a qualitative critical incident analysis of how academics are affected by imposter syndrome Hutchins and Rainbolt identify a series of events which trigger or revive persistent feelings of inadequacy:
   1. Questioning expertise. “Do I know enough? Do I belong here?” Questions triggered by conversations with colleagues who appear to be much more knowledgeable, or who are rude enough to tell you that you are wrong. In my experience there will also generally be a few top-of-the-class students who are perfectly happy to comment on how wrong you are, in public or in earnest after the class conversations. It’s not surprising that you can start questioning yourself, particularly in situations of stereotype threat.
   2. Comparisons among colleagues. “Why is everyone doing so much better than me? I’ll never measure up”. In my view, the Research Excellence Framework really stirs this up. During the week I wrote this recipe our College conducted a “REF readiness” exercise. This required staff to enter all their publications and evidence of other scholarly super-powers onto a database so the outputs could be counted. This database feeds public facing webpages so it is very easy to see your colleagues’ achievements and equally easy to worry that your performance is being evaluated negatively against others’. In fact, new proposals for restructuring the REF are intended to have a more collegiate setup where everyone contributes to the pool of papers for the entire department. Logically, the success of others should be no threat to you. But imposter syndrome is not logical.
   3. Scholarly productivity. “Will I ever get this paper finished?”; “What will the reviewers say?” ;“Aaargh, look what the reviewers said”. The pressure to produce high quality work can lead to performance anxiety and writers’ block. Expectations (in research, teaching and admin) have to be fulfilled, particularly for those on probationary period like the Chancellor’s Fellows at Edinburgh or new lecturers,and much effort can be expended on high stakes grant applications and papers. Many tears can be expended over the brutal rejections of those applications and papers. If you want more proof of this, have a look at the tumblr site “Shit my reviewers say” (http://shitmyreviewerssay.tumblr.com/) and marvel.
   4. Experiencing successes. As if all these triggers were not enough, by some perverse twist of psychology, some people find that experiencing success triggers imposter syndrome. Some people squirm when introduced as an expert, others worry that they will not be up to the challenge of managing a grant or assuming a more senior role.

Among this woeful catalogue of triggers, the women in Hutchin and Rainbolt’s study were more prone to worries resulting from peer comparison and harsh reviews. The men spoke about it in more general terms, although they did mention being labelled an expert in the media as a trigger. I am sure this problem would crop up for women too, if there were more opportunities to appear in the media as experts in their field rather than wearers of pretty dresses.

2. Own your successes. People with imposter syndrome are often reluctant to attribute success to their own abilities, preferring to say that they were just lucky, or they just worked hard. While modesty is a virtue, failure to acknowledge your own success is self-defeating. It can be very valuable to learn to take the time to acknowledge your success and consider what skills led to it so that you can build on this for the future. (Mount & Tardanico, 2016) suggest setting a timer for 5 minutes and writing down 10 things you do well. If you find this difficult, ask a trusted friend or colleague to help you. Reflect on these skills to see if you can identify a common factor and then consider which future roles would benefit from such a skill set.  
3. Remind yourself of the facts. Imposter syndrome thrives on half-conscious misperceptions about your lack of success and what it takes to succeed. It is worth taking some time to challenge these beliefs next time you notice them crop up. For example, if you find yourself thinking “I could never be a professor because professors all speak perfect BBC English” then challenge yourself to collect examples of professors with regional accents. If you think “I’ll never be able to do this”, then remind yourself of the last time you achieved something similar. It is possible to use the offensively superlative descriptions in the REF to your favour here. If you know what your papers were rated at through internal peer review then you can use this as a way to describe your work to yourself. According to the REF 2014 assessment criteria (http://www.ref.ac.uk/panels/assessmentcriteriaandleveldefinitions/), papers which are rated as one star are considered to be of “Quality that is recognised nationally in terms of originality, significance and rigour”. Two star is “recognised internationally”, three star is “internationally excellent” and four star is “world-leading”. It amuses me that internationally recognised papers only get two stars in this ranking scheme. Outside academia, international recognition would be something to aspire to, not to give half marks to! At any rate, try telling yourself “According to a panel of subject experts, my work is nationally/internationally recognised/excellent/universe beating”. Changing to this way of thinking gave me confidence to apply for my current post.
4. Talk to yourself kindly. Get in the habit of positive self-talk rather than mentally running yourself down. The women academics in the Hutchin and Rainbolt study found that they had remind themselves over and over again of achievements which made them proud. Think of the range of things you have achieved and why they matter. I like to save emails and cards from students to remember that when I am a teacher or a mentor I make a difference to people’s lives. Some of the women in the study liked to remind themselves of their successes in other areas of their lives when they feel their confidence drain.  Last week when I had a paper rejected, my family were surprised to witness me stop brooding in order to blurt out “Well, at least I can grow lemons!”.  I understand that not everyone takes comfort from citrus fruit farming, but there is robust empirical evidence that even short exercises in self-affirmation such as writing about the values which are most important to you can protect you from stereotype threat over a surprisingly long period (Cohen, Garcia, Purdie-Vaughns, Apfel, & Brzustoski, 2009).
5. Find social support. Talking to a trusted colleague, mentor or coach may help. You may be surprised to learn that some of your peers have similar difficulties and would appreciate reciprocal support. Ask the person you confide in to help you acknowledge your strengths and objectively evaluate whether your limitations are as crippling as you think they are (Mount & Tardanico, 2016). You could arrange to meet each other at potential trigger points, such as helping each other to read grant reviews or prepare key note talks.
6. What to avoid. Some academics develop maladaptive coping strategies which are counter-productive in the long run. A common and understandable response to imposter syndrome is to work harder and longer. But there is a risk here of in the longer term of workaholism which is associated with a range of health problems such as burn out, stress, insomnia, work -life conflict and poor job satisfaction (Hogan, Hogan, & Hodgins, 2016).
7. If you’re a manager, be aware of and address the potential impact of imposter syndrome among your staff. Imposter syndrome can lead to anxiety and stress, and in some cases reduced work performance and burn-out through workaholism (Mount & Tardanico, 2016). You could well have members of staff in your team who suffer from imposter syndrome, but who are unwilling to admit it to you. This underlies the importance of making sure that all your staff know that you value their work across the spectrum of different academic activities, nourishing them “when you reward or recognise their good work, encourage them or offer emotional support” (Amabile & Kramer 2012:33). I also believe that as the university places strain on staff to fulfil REF obligations, managers have a responsibility to help their staff through it by reducing anxiety and offering support. Minimising circumstances where staff feel they are under obvious pressure from social comparison could help. Another useful avenue for this is social support with colleagues. Mentors and peers who belong to the same in-group can “socially vaccinate” against negative self-perceptions if the staff member identifies with them (Dasgupta, 2011). For example, a new female lecturer would benefit from mentoring from a senior female academic particularly in disciplines where women are in the minority. This can be hard to achieve without over-burdening the few existing female staff with additional mentoring roles, but it may be possible to trade across discipline boundaries where the gender mix is the opposite (e.g. engineering with education).  Mentoring and positive role models are particularly beneficial for those entering academia, and those at transition points in their career (Dasgupta, 2011). 

As Amabile & Kramer observe: “Although nourishers may matter more to some people than others, none of us can truly thrive without them” (2012:33)

 

Note: for fellow members of staff at the University of Edinburgh:

If you are finding it hard to cope, The University of Edinburgh provides a free and confidential counselling service to staff members, on issues including debilitating stress, anxiety, depression, and alcohol and drug abuse. You can get help at http://www.ed.ac.uk/counselling-services/staff.

References

Amabile, T. M. & Kramer, S. (2012). The Progress Principle: Optimizing Inner Work Life to Create Value. Rotman Magazine Winter 2012.

Cohen, G. L., Garcia, J., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Apfel, N., & Brzustoski, P. (2009). Recursive Processes in Self-Affirmation: Intervening to Close the Minority Achievement Gap. Science, 324(5925), 400–403. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1170769

Dasgupta, N. (2011). Ingroup Experts and Peers as Social Vaccines Who Inoculate the Self-Concept: The Stereotype Inoculation Model. Psychological Inquiry, 22(September 2012), 231–246. http://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2011.607313

Hogan, V., Hogan, M., & Hodgins, M. (2016). A study of workaholism in Irish academics. Occupational Medicine, 66(6), 460–465. http://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqw032

Hutchins, H. M., & Rainbolt, H. (2016). What triggers imposter phenomenon among academic faculty? A critical incident study exploring antecedents, coping, and development opportunities. Human Resource Development International, 0(0), 1–21. http://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2016.1248205

Mount, P., & Tardanico, S. (2016). Beating the Imposter Syndrome. Center for Creative Leadership.

Woolston, C. (2016). Faking it. Nature, 529, 555–557. http://doi.org/10.1038/nj7587-555a

EqualBITE recipe: Salary negotiation

To my women colleagues: have you ever looked at your pay cheque and wished it was bigger? Do you get to November and growl when you realise you'll effectively be working for free for the rest of the year?

This recipe (from the EqualBITE book) is for you.

Salary negotiation

Judy Robertson & Alison Williams

Background

We should make sure that, when they leave university, all of our women graduates know and understand salary negotiation skills. And because we firmly believe that institutions shouldn’t exploit people, let’s make sure that anyone in charge of a hiring process understands how gender relates to salary negotiation.

According to the University and College Union (UCU), there is a 16.4% gender pay gap in the UK despite equal pay legislation being in force for forty years (UCU, 2016). The gap is slightly less in higher education at 12.3%, and it tends to increase at higher grades. At Edinburgh, the gender pay gap across all staff grades is 4%: the average woman member of staff earns £1,814 a year less than the average male member of staff (UCU, 2016). Over a career of forty years, this is worth over £70,000. What would you spend the back pay on?

Of course, it’s not just an issue in academia – there are eye-watering salary differentials in many industries. For example, in technology jobs, women earn around £17K a year less than men (Mediaworks). And in case you’re not already completely in despair, try this: there is a motherhood pay penalty (Budig, 2015). Yes, that is as depressing as it sounds – women who are mothers earn less than women who are not mothers. Sadly, there is also a fatherhood pay premium. A report by AAUW (American Association of University Women) found that it takes mothers an extra five months to earn what fathers earn in a year (AAUW, 2016).

There are many complex societal reasons for this inequity which we will not go into here. But you’re not powerless to change your own circumstances, and the first step is to ask for more. It is vitally important for a woman to negotiate her salary in her first job because if she doesn’t, she will start her career earning less than her male counterparts, and the gap will be compounded over the years. Half of the readers may be thinking: “Well of course you negotiate a salary – duh!” Other readers might be thinking: “Oh, but I couldn’t possibly do that. I should just be grateful to get a job”. When Judy started working, she was in the latter group. It simply didn’t occur to her to do anything except to accept the employer’s first offer.  In general, women tend to negotiate salary less frequently, and ask for less money when they do (Bohnet, 2016). This is because there are societal expectations about how women are “meant” to behave.  Studies show that managers are less likely to want to work with female employees who had asked for a pay increase, but this was not the case for such a request from a male employee (Bohnet, 2016).  It is the price for being seen to violate gender norms. This recipe is about how to negotiate a salary, and also how to create an environment where women don’t pay a social price for doing so.

 

Ingredients

• A spark of indignation or burning sense of injustice (adjust to taste).
• Facts about salaries in your sector.
• Steely resolve to ignore any childhood socialisation about how “ladies don’t mention money”.

Method

1. Find out what the average salary is in your sector. This external legitimacy can give you confidence in asking for your starting salary. You can use the average to anchor your request in a reasonable range. In academia, you could use the UCU Rate for the Job website (https://www.ucu.org.uk/rateforthejob) for information on expected salaries at various stages.
2. If you’re recruiting staff, advertise the expected salary range in the job particulars. Add the phrase “salary negotiable” to the advert. Transparency is required because gender bias thrives with ambiguity. If women are given information about the range of wages for the position, they are as good at negotiation as men (Bohnet, 2016).
3. Ask for a salary increase when you switch jobs. When Judy last moved job, she spent a sleepless night trying to work out what salary increase she should ask for after receiving the initial offer. To save you the effort, 15% seems to be about right (Miller & Miller, 2011). In fact, this is what the University did offer her, so she could have enjoyed her sleep instead.
4. These three qualities for successful negotiation cropped up in Judy’s desperate nocturnal reading: be confident, be prepared and be willing to walk away (Miller & Miller, 2011, p. 16). You need confidence to reach an agreement, and to convince the other party that your request is based on an accurate understanding of the facts, it is fair and it will benefit you both. Part of being confident is not being apologetic about your position, or weakening your argument by saying: “I may be wrong but...”. You can prepare by thinking through your priorities and goals – perhaps what really matters to you is flexible working or a good holiday allowance – but know your bottom line and be prepared to reject an offer which does not meet it. “You do need to understand the value of what you bring to the table and refuse to accept less” (Miller & Miller, 2011, p. 16).
5. Be persistent – don’t give up at the first attempt. When Alison was invited to take over running an undergraduate seminar programme at a university which shall remain nameless, the assumption was that she would work on the basis of pre-existing expenses and a small honorarium. Running the entire programme, however, involved a lot of work: planning, facilitating, formative and summative marking, and student guidance.  The university didn’t seem minded to be generous – or even fair – and was trading on her love of the work, and her desire to keep the programme running.  Complaining to a woman friend that “they want to pay me peanuts” there was a pause, and then the reply: “I’ve always thought of you as more of a pistachio person, myself”. Alison went back to the university with a fair, not extravagant, pistachio proposal.  The thought “I’m a pistachio person” (confident of the value she was bringing – see point 4 above) carried her through two attempts to knock her back: and the pistachio proposal was accepted. 
6. Review your salary against the sector average and compare your work to promotion criteria regularly to avoid stagnation. You can frame it in terms of someone else’s suggestion if you prefer: “My team leader suggested I talk to you about a pay rise”  (Bohnet, 2016). You could request someone to negotiate on your behalf if the whole thing gives you the horrors.
7. If you’re a senior manager, make sure there are routine procedures through which all staff can apply for a pay increase with transparent guidance about what is required. At the University of Edinburgh, there is an annual timetable for regrading, promotion and one-off contribution payments (Reward Processes Timetable, 2016). Consider all applications systematically, and if you’re really serious about closing the gender pay gap, consider all staff for grade increases whether they have applied for them or not. Evidence across the University of Edinburgh Athena SWAN applications and the senior mangers’ focus groups shows that women are less likely to apply for promotion or compensation than men: they may need encouragement to apply. If you really want to put your money where your mouth is, do what the University of Essex did and increase women professors’ grades by three points to raise their average salaries to those of male professors (Times HE, 2016).

References

1. Budig M, England P. THE WAGE PENALTY FOR MOTHERHOOD. Am Sociol Rev. 2015;66: 204–225. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
2. Bohnet I. What Works: Gender Equality By Design. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press; 2016.
3. Miller L, Miller J. A Woman’s Guide to Successful Negotiating: How to Convince, Collaborate and Create Your Way to An Agreement. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw Hill; 2011. (Page 16).

    https://www.ucu.org.uk/media/7959/Holding-down-womens-pay-Feb-16/pdf/ucu_IWDpayreport_mar16.pdf

   https://www.ucu.org.uk/media/7959/Holding-down-womens-pay-Feb-16/pdf/ucu_IWDpayreport_mar16.pdfhttps://www.mediaworks.co.uk/insight/visualising-the-gender-pay-gap-infographic-infographic/

   http://www.aauw.org/2016/05/06/dads-get-a-bonus-but-moms-get-a-penalty

    https://www.ucu.org.uk/rateforthejob http://www.ed.ac.uk/files/atoms/files/reward_processes_timetable_16_17.pdf

    https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/university-of-essex-hikes-salaries-for-female-professors-to-eliminate-pay-gap

EqualBITE- our book about Gender Equality in Higher Education

One of the reasons why I have not blogged for an embarrassingly long time is that I have been busy working on a new book about gender equality in higher education. It's an academic recipe book, containing recipes, articles, photos an illustrations by student and staff from the University of Edinburgh. My co-editors were Alison Williams and Derek Jones (we worked together on the original BITE book about remarkable research), as well as Lara Isbel and Daphne Loads. Alan Tait and Elspeth Maxwell did a cracking job of the design and illustration, and I still live in trepidation and awe of Vince Robbins, the proof reader.

We thought writing about gender equality would be hard, but it turned out to be much harder, and much more satisfying than we ever imagined. There are 71 pieces of written content and 18 student drawings and photos, all from 67 contributors. Working with an editorial team of five was necessary to manage the work load (although it did bring a communication overhead which we largely managed to deal with by using Basecamp). Somehow my co-editors and I made it through 2 years without any serious fallings out and with a lot of (slightly hysterical?) laughter along the way. The book is so much better for having all of our points of view. My advice to you is never attempt a project on this scale on such a sensitive topic without a strong team of people who will challenge you and support you and disagree with you and cheer you up when it all goes to hell.

EqualBITE is now published! You can get a free PDF or buy a paper copy.  (Even my dad bought a copy, which is cool but unprecedented) The launch party will be in March 2018. I'll be blogging a few of the recipes over the next few months to give you a flavour of what it is like.

 

Whistling Vivaldi book and stereotype threat

As part of  editing our Equal Bite book about gender equality in Higher Education, I've been reading about stereotype threat and how to overcome it. I just finished reading Whistling Vivaldi by Claude Steele. It's an account of several decades of psychological research into academic under-performance of African-American students in US universities. Stereotype threat  affects the performance of people when they belong to a group which is negatively stereotyped at being poor at a particular task. For example, white sports people, French working class undergraduates at language tests (apparently), women in maths tests, men in situations which require empathy, older adults in memory tests and so on. It is possible to evoke stereotype threat in a lab situation even for activities and groups who might not normally experience it. "Whenever we're in a situation where a bad stereotype about one of our identities could be applied to us - such as those about being old, poor, rich or female - we know it. We know what 'people could think'. We know that anything that we do to fit that stereotype could be taken as confirming it, And we know that, for that reason, we could be judged and treated accordingly".(Ch 1.1). 

The consequences of stereotype threat are powerful. It affects highly motivated, highly skilled individuals who are deeply committed to an outcome, causing them to under-perform. Even without encountering direct prejudice or discrimination, an individual can labour under the ghost of stereotype threat to the detriment of their performance and well being. In a situation where a person identifies with a group which has a related negative stereotype , the stereotype will be evoked. For example, imagine a high ability female maths student sitting a difficult exam who has just noticed a cue that reminds her of the stereotype that women are no good at maths.  The student then becomes anxious and the anxiety has associated physiological symptoms which detract from performance (curiously, the participant might not be aware of this anxiety even if their heart rate and blood pressure tell a different story). The student's mind starts to race: considering the stereotype and how she doesn't want to confirm it by failing the test, denying that the stereotype will apply to her, suppressing unwanted thoughts, giving herself a pep-talk and monitoring her performance. The problem is that if this happens in a situation where the person needs all her cognitive resources to solve a challenging problem at the cusp of her abilities, the mind-racing slurps up some of the raw thinking power which is needed to solve the problem. She then self-monitors, find that her distraction has impacted her performance and the cycle goes on during that test, and at the next test and in other learning situations.

There is strong experimental evidence for this from a range of sources, with effect sizes large enough to substantially suppress a student's grades over the years of a degree course. It's not that people under stereotype threat aren't clever, or don't have the pre-requisite learning, are unmotivated or don't work hard. It's that the environment that they learn and are assessed in interacts with their identity in a negative way. It is actually less of a problem for lower ability students, or those who don't care about the outcomes of the test. Unfortunately increasing effort to combat it can be counter productive. For example, a series of studies of black students found that they redoubled their efforts in the face of failure and stereotype threat, but that those efforts did not use particularly effective strategies. For example, the black students in the study were more likely to spend long hours studying in their rooms and getting stuck, whereas white and asian students were more likely to benefit from shared cognitive resources by studying in groups.

Stereotype threat can be triggered by environmental cues, such as a low proportion of other women in the room, a low proportion of women in positions of power, or the environment reflecting the cultural interests of the more dominant group. For me as a female computer science undergraduate, this meant noticing that I was the only woman in the tutorial group, that the lecturers were almost always male and that the labs were covered in posters about Red Dwarf. Such environmental cues do make a difference to behaviour and performance under lab conditions: women taking maths tests under stereotype threat in the company of men performed worse. Women scientists looked more frequently around the room and were better able to recall who was present when they watched a video about a science conference which depicted a low proportion of women; the cue of stereotype threat made them more vigilant to their surroundings [9].

Dealing with stereotype threat day after day is tiring and can lead to vicious cycle of under performing, then possibly drop out. Evidence suggests that it has a longer term negative impact on health outcomes.  It is not surprising that there are low proportions of women opting for advanced scientific and maths departments in universities. Even without encountering direct prejudice, the threat in the air caused by stereotypes is quite seriously damaging.

Is there anything we can do about this? Happily, yes. Several seemingly small educational interventions have recently been shown to be surprisingly effective, even in the long term. In an article in Current Directions in Psychological Science, Walton [1] refers to interventions of this type as "wise psychological interventions". They are based on a specific, precise well-founded psychological theories which have been validated in the lab and then developed to be applicable in a real world setting. The reason that small interventions of this sort can have surprisingly long lasting effects is that they operate recursively. A small adjustment to the way an individual perceives their situation (when applied early enough) can disrupt a self-reinforcing downward spiral, and begin a snowball of positive effects. Some wise psychological interventions are based on the story-editing approach (see Redirect - the New Science of Psychological Change) in which individuals are encouraged to change the narratives they tell themselves in order to address a wide range of social and personal issues. It's based on the assumptions that changing behaviour requires changes in the way individuals interpret themselves in their social worlds, that these interpretations can be fruitfully and wisely redirected, and that these redirections can be self-sustaining, which leads to long term behavioural change.

Here are some examples of successful wise psychological interventions which have important lessons for how we can reduce stereotype threat in our teaching environments.

Belonging

A successful intervention which aimed to help participants edit their stories about themselves focussed on developing a sense of belonging to the student community [2]. If you're a first year black student at college where most of your classmates are white, or a woman student on a engineering course which is male dominated, you may question whether you belong ( belonging uncertainty). This may well provoke stereotype threat and its dampening effect on performance. If you  find classes hard, or have trouble making friends you may attribute these difficulties as being related to your sense that you don't "fit".  In Walton and Cohen's study [2], first year college students were presented with the results of a survey which showed that all first year students, regardless of ethnicity, had initial worries about fitting in, but that over time they settled in, made friends and felt part of the community. This encouraged the students watching the presentation to construct a positive story in which their feelings of belonging uncertainty were attributed to the stage in their academic career rather than their social identity. This gave them hope for the future. Black students who took part in this hour long intervention got on average one third of a letter grade higher next semester than those in the control group. This study has implications for possible successful interventions to assist women studying subjects where they are a minority and which are associated with negative gender stereotypes.

Mind set

Dweck's work on mindset has far reaching consequences for education in general, and has implications for productively intervening to reduce the impact of stereotype threat.  Mindset refers to people's theories about how ability relates to challenge. Those with a "fixed" mindsets believe that ability and intelligence is fixed and can't be expanded: you're either good at maths or you're not. Those with growth mindset believe that it is possible to meet challenges by learning new abilities: you can get better at maths if you practice. If you have a fixed mindset, and are under stereotype threat then you are not in a hopeful situation because it seems as though it is not worthwhile to take on new challenges in case you fail , thus confirming the negative stereotype. If you have a growth mindset, then you have the more optimistic view that you should take on challenges because there is always room for improvement. The stereotype threat is removed because someone with growth mindset doesn't see failure as confirmation of innate intelligence of themselves or their group, but as a step in a journey to improving performance. Luckily, quite short interventions can change people from fixed to growth mindset. Indeed, in  study of women maths students, Good, Rattan and Dweck demonstrated that  "the message that math ability could be acquired protected women from negative stereotypes, allowing them to maintain a high sense of belonging in math and the intention to pursue math in the future" [4;1]. As educators, then, we need to support all our students to learn growth mindsets in order to help them to overcome the difficulties which they will encounter during their studies. Dweck and colleagues write: "We have found that what students need the most is not self-esteem boosting or trait labeling; instead, they need mindsets that represent challenges as things that they can take on and overcome over time with effort, new strategies, learning, help from others, and patience" [5; 312].

Values affirmation

Self-affirmation theory gives us another clue about how to interrupt the downward spiral caused by stereotype threat. This is based on the idea that it's basic human nature to see oneself as good and competent, and that if that perception is threatened we try to repair that self image. Repairing one's self image may involve rationalising and re-explaining events to fit with the view of self-competence. However, it is productive to encourage people to "self-affirm" their wider valued sense of self so that this minor threat to self-image seems smaller and there is less need to rationalise it away. Stereotype threat  causes regular damage to one's self-image of competence, so one possible intervention to reduce it is to give students an opportunity to develop a self-affirming narrative. It turns out this is an astonishingly effective intervention. In an experiment with 7th grade children, researchers asked a random sample of children to write a paragraph for 15 minutes on their three most important values (e.g. family, friends, being good at music) and why they were important to them [7]. There were a few similar follow up writing exercises in later school terms. The affirmation writing exercise improves the grades of all but the strongest performing black students, with those with the poorest initial performance improving the most. It closed the racial achievement gap between black and white students by 40%, and this lasted for two years. More recently, Miyake et al found that a similar writing exercise for female college students studying physics boosted students' modal grades from a C to a B [8].

These results are extremely promising.They suggest that refocusing students' attention on the values that are important to them helps them not to dwell on poor early performances and so frees up cognitive resources which otherwise might get consumed worrying about stereotype threat. This enables a better performance next time around and interrupts the negative snowballing.

Feedback

Much has been made of poor feedback practices in HE in recent years, particularly because in the UK, national student survey results are scathing about feedback on undergraduate degrees. Negative feedback has a detrimental effect for those studying under stereotype threat [6]-  in a study of women tackling a challenging maths test, Mangels and colleagues found that negative feedback was a predictor of disengagement from learning and interference with learning attempts. That is, stereotype threat when combined with negative feedback drags down not only assessment performance but learning itself. Steele describes studies [3] which found that black students interpret critical feedback on their writing in different ways from white students; they are less likely to trust it and less likely to find it motivating. The studies found that it didn't work to try to be neutral in the feedback, or begin the feedback with a general positive comment. What did work for both black and white students was for the marker to explain that she had high standards, and that she believed the students could meet these standards by acting on the following specific advice. This strategy is successful because stereotype threat is reduced. The learner knows that the clearly stated high intellectual standards are for everyone (not just their group) and that the marker believes that they personally are capable of meeting those standards by improving various features of the work. They have hope, and they have a plan for next steps in their learning. As a related note, publishing clear and transparent assessment criteria along with an assignment helps with the first part of this equation. No-one has to second guess what the marker might be "looking for".

 Lastly, but not necessarily related to wise psychological interventions, paying attention to the environment for teaching and learning can reduce stereotype threat.  "If enough cues in a setting can lead members of a group to feel 'identify safe', it might neutralise the impact of other cues in the setting which might otherwise threaten them." (section 8.3). A useful concept here is critical mass: which refers to the point where there are enough members of a minority group in the setting so that individuals no longer uncomfortable or vulnerable to identity threat.  It's hard to quantify what critical mass means in proportional terms. However, Steele reports studies of the gender balance in orchestras in which orchestras with 20% female members experienced problems, in contrast to 40% female member orchestras in which all members reported more satisfying experiences. For me, this converts into a practical teaching suggestion about allocating groups in classes with minority groups. In a maths class with a small number of women for example, if you prioritise critical mass, then you could have some groups with at least 2 out of 5 female members and many groups with no women.This would enable the women to be closer to critical mass, and would work better for them rather than putting one woman in as many groups as possible. (I did a 6 week long group project in which I was the only women as an undergrad and it was not fun). 

Other environmental cues of stereotype threat which we can address in teaching environments is the proportion of women staff members, and the proportion of women in positions of power. This is something which one would hope would be addressed by other initiatives such as Athena Swan; my point here is that women staff members should be highly visible to the students. My point is not, however, that women should bear the responsibility of "fixing" gender balance on our degree programmes. It's everyone's responsibility and so if women staff are asked to teach high profile courses as part of a gender equality commitment, then it should be factored into their workload rather than being an added extra.

Summary

There is a convincing pool of research which indicates that women under-perform in challenging intellectual situations where they encounter stereotype threat. This is not a unique characteristic of women, but a general psychological effect which is possible to trigger in members of any group by negatively comparing their group to another. Fortunately, it is possible to reduce stereotype threat by paying attention to cues that might trigger it in our teaching environments, and by using small but extremely effective wise psychological interventions including promoting a sense of belonging, using values affirmation writing exercises, encouraging growth mindset, and structuring feedback in a way that encourages the student to strive for high standards.

[1] G.M. Walton, The new science of wise psychological interventions, Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 23 (2014) 73–82. doi:10.1177/0963721413512856.

[2]  G.M. Walton, G.L. Cohen, A question of belonging: race, social fit, and achievement., J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 92 (2007) 82–96. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.82.

[3]  G.L. Cohen, C.M. Steele, L.D. Ross, The Mentor’s Dilemma: Providing Critical Feedback Across the Racial Divide, Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 25 (1999) 1302–1318. doi:10.1177/0146167299258011.

[4] C. Good, A. Rattan, C.S. Dweck, Why do women opt out? Sense of belonging and women’s representation in mathematics., J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 102 (2012) 700–717. doi:10.1037/a0026659.

[5] D.S. Yeager, C.S. Dweck, Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe that personal characteristics can be developed, Educ. Psychol. 47 (2012) 302–314. doi:10.1080/00461520.2012.722805.

[6] J.A. Mangels, C. Good, R.C. Whiteman, B. Maniscalco, C.S. Dweck, Emotion blocks the path to learning under stereotype threat, Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 7 (2012) 230–241. doi:10.1093/scan/nsq100.

[7] G.L. Cohen, Reducing the Racial Achievement Gap: A Social-Psychological Intervention, Science (80-. ). 313 (2006) 1307–1310. doi:10.1126/science.1128317.

[8] A. Miyake, L.E. Kost-Smith, N.D. Finkelstein, S.J. Pollock, G.L. Cohen, T.A. Ito, Reducing the Gender Achievement Gap in College Science: A Classroom Study of Values Affirmation, Science (80-. ). 330 (2010) 1234–1237. doi:10.1126/science.1195996.

[9] M.C. Murphy, C.M. Steele, J.J. Gross, Signaling Threat, Psychol. Sci. 18 (2007) 879–885. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01995.x.