↓ Skip to main content

Addressing Stereotype Threat is Critical to Diversity and Inclusion in Organizational Psychology

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
270 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Addressing Stereotype Threat is Critical to Diversity and Inclusion in Organizational Psychology
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00008
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bettina J. Casad, William J. Bryant

Abstract

Recently researchers have debated the relevance of stereotype threat to the workplace. Critics have argued that stereotype threat is not relevant in high stakes testing such as in personnel selection. We and others argue that stereotype threat is highly relevant in personnel selection, but our review focused on underexplored areas including effects of stereotype threat beyond test performance and the application of brief, low-cost interventions in the workplace. Relevant to the workplace, stereotype threat can reduce domain identification, job engagement, career aspirations, and receptivity to feedback. Stereotype threat has consequences in other relevant domains including leadership, entrepreneurship, negotiations, and competitiveness. Several institutional and individual level intervention strategies that have been field-tested and are easy to implement show promise for practitioners including: addressing environmental cues, valuing diversity, wise feedback, organizational mindsets, reattribution training, reframing the task, values-affirmation, utility-value, belonging, communal goal affordances, interdependent worldviews, and teaching about stereotype threat. This review integrates criticisms and evidence into one accessible source for practitioners and provides recommendations for implementing effective, low-cost interventions in the workplace.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 270 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 267 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 45 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 15%
Student > Bachelor 41 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 7%
Researcher 9 3%
Other 32 12%
Unknown 84 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 82 30%
Social Sciences 31 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 27 10%
Arts and Humanities 6 2%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 2%
Other 36 13%
Unknown 83 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 September 2023.
All research outputs
#1,911,377
of 25,761,363 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#3,911
of 34,781 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,323
of 405,502 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#79
of 448 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,761,363 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,781 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 405,502 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 448 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.