College students' implicit theories of ability in sports: race and gender differences.

Li, Weidong ; Harrison, Louis, Jr. ; Solmon, Melinda 等

This study examined gender and race differences in implicit theories of ability in sports. Results indicated that both African Americans and European Americans were more likely to express an incremental rather than an entity theory. European Americans were more likely than African Americans to accept the notion of ability as a fixed construct. Entity theories did not differ significantly by gender, but females had weaker beliefs in an incremental theory of ability than males. The findings suggest physical education teachers, coaches, and other sports practitioners avoid references to innate racial and gender superiority and instead reinforce the belief that ability can be increased with effort.

**********

The study of ability has been challenging because the construct is explained and defined in more than one way. Definitions of ability are numerous and varied, with much disagreement over the precise nature of ability (Dweek, 2002). A common controversy about the nature of ability is whether ability is innate or acquired. One viewpoint holds that ability is an individual difference variable, and is genetically determined (Magill, 2001). The opposite view is that ability is malleable, and can be changed through learning and effort (Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, & Whalen, 1993; Ericsson, 2003; Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Romer, 1993).

Although there is a disagreement about the precise nature of ability, many modern theorists believe that definitions of ability are socially and individually constructed (Dweek, 2002). Some contemporary authors have speculated that even though researchers refer to a mature conception of ability as an understanding that ability is a stable trait separate from effort, this acceptance varies and there is not universal agreement among the scholars. For example, according to Dweck (2002), Alfred Binet, author of the major intelligence test (IQ) accepts that children can improve capacity through learning. In the physical activity literature Fleishman (1972) wrote extensively in his attempts to analyze and describe and distinguish learning from ability in the psychomotor domain. While he refers to ability as a general trait of the individual he argues that many abilities are products of learning and experience. Others (e.g. Safrit & Wood, 1995) agree that it seems reasonable that students might possess an innate physical ability, but there is no scientific evidence that these traits can be measured. It is very difficult to separate innate ability from learning and experience (Safrit & Wood, 1995). From the literature reviewed it seems clear that ability is a vague term that is difficult to define in a precise way. Scientists might argue that ability is a fixed capacity but individuals are free to construct their own meanings and some mature learners could believe that ability is controllable (Dweek, 2002). It is not the personal definition of ability that is critical but rather the consequences of the various beliefs surrounding ability. The important issue is related to a learner's views about how and under what conditions his or her ability will affect performance.

The role of ability conceptions in motivation, personality, and development has been the focus of recent research in educational and sport contexts (Dweck, 1999; Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995; Dweck & Legget, 1988; Sarrazin, Biddle, Famose, Cury, Fox & Durand, 1996). Implicit theories of intelligence or ability are characterized as either entity or incremental. Students with an entity theory believe that ability is natural and fixed and cannot be changed, whereas those with an incremental theory perceive it as a malleable quality that can be changed through their long-term efforts. Different labels, including innate and acquired, are often attached to these two components, but they represent parallel constructs across these models. An incremental theory of ability is positively associated with many adaptive motivational and cognitive patterns that should produce positive achievement outcomes, whereas an entity theory of ability is related to a number of maladaptive motivational and cognitive processes that may result in performance deteriorations (Dweck, 1999; Dweck, et al., 1995; Dweck & Legget, 1988; Sarrazin et al., 1996).

In general, entity theorists are more likely to make negative self-inferences from failure. They attribute their failure to lack of ability because they think that high effort implies that they are intellectually inferior. Incremental theorists are more likely to attribute their failure to lack of effort. When encountering challenging tasks, entity theorists are more likely to display cognitive, affective, and behavioral aspects of helpless responses, while incremental theorists are more likely to display mastery-oriented patterns and positive affect. They value effort and focus on learning something new even if they go through some failures (Dweck, 1999; Dweck et al., 1995; Dweck & Legget, 1988).

Implicit theories of ability differ according to gender, race, learning environments, and cultures (Dweck, 2002). In educational contexts, African Americans are more likely to embrace an incremental theory of ability than European Americans, while girls tend to hold an entity theory as compared to boys. No significant interaction effect between race and gender was reported in the research literature. Although there has been substantial inquiry into issues concerning gender, race, and beliefs about the nature of ability, the rationale for race and gender differences in ability conceptions is not clear. Stereotype threat has been offered as a possible explanation for racial differences (Steele & Aronson, 1997), while a pattern of learned helplessness attributable to stereotypes provides a possible explanation for girls' entity theories. Racial and gender differences in conceptions of ability in sport have not been investigated. Because of the dominant racial and gender sport stereotypes that exist, examining these variables in the sport context provides a viable approach to help us better understand why conceptions of ability vary according to race and gender.

Stereotype Theory

A stereotype is a description of the over-generalization of characterizations about the members belonging to a social group (Cauthen, Robinson, & Krauss, 1971; Hamilton, Sherman, & Ruvolo, 1990; Wittenbrink, Gist, & Hilton, 1997). Stereotypes have been passed on and perpetuated from one generation to the next. All human beings are subject to the development of stereotypical thinking. No one can avoid assimilating the prevailing and often implicit knowledge of stereotypes, which shapes human experience through the process of socialization (Ehrlich, 1973; Wittenbrink et al., 1997). Once an individual is identified as a member of a certain group, he or she is automatically perceived as possessing the innate characteristics of that group (Cauthen et al., 1971). Race and gender are core concepts on which stereotypes are formed.

Two types of stereotypes have been identified in social science literature: positive and negative. A positive stereotype describes favorable and valued attributes of the self and group, which are distinctive from other groups. In contrast, a negative stereotype describes unfavorable and negative characteristics of the self and group (Steele, 1997, 2000; Steele & Aronson, 1995; Stone, Lynch, Sjomeling, & Darley, 1999).

Recent stereotype threat theory suggests that people avoid accepting a negative attribute that is assigned to their group (Steele, 1997). Most people are motivated to protect positively valued characterizations of their specific personal and group attributes (Tajfel, 1982; Tajfel & Turner, 1979, 1986; Turner, 1982). When individuals face negative characteristics applied to their group, they are afraid of confirming them, and they seek to avoid them because negative characterizations potentially impair people's self-esteem. After individuals are exposed to negative stereotypes for a lifetime, they are likely to internalize an "inferiority anxiety" (Steele & Aronson, 1995, p. 797). Therefore, individuals would be likely to reject negative group stereotypes as attributes of themselves (Darley & Gross, 1983; Steele & Aronson, 1995).

Racial stereotypes. Race is theorized to be one of the core stereotypes. Typically, racial differences are attributed not only to biological, but also cultural, social, and environmental factors (Carlston, 1983; Harpalani, 1998; Harrison, 1995; Hunter, 1998; LaVeist, 1996). Research efforts give convincing evidence that race is a social variable (Smith & Lewis, 1985; Steele & Aronson, 1995; Stone et al., 1999). Therefore, in this paper race is conceptualized on the basis of social, cultural, and behavioral forces that expose racial differences.

Steele and Aronson (1995) demonstrated that simply asking participants to indicate racial identity on tests would activate racial stereotypes, and such indicators of racial stereotypes could engage stereotype threat. In their study, participants were asked to indicate their racial identity on their test. Although the test was constructed to measure a non-stereotyped dimension, this made race salient, and African American college students performed poorly. The researchers rationalized that African American college students' poor performance was attributed to their inference that they would be evaluated based on the negative stereotype concerning intelligence because they were asked to indicate their racial identity.

A common racial stereotype held by the public is that African Americans are born with physical superiority as compared to European Americans. Relying on the work of Coakley (1998) and Wiggins (1997), Stone et al. (1999) assumed that for African Americans, having natural athletic ability would represent a positive stereotype, while having less intelligence, even in a sport context, was classified as a negative attribute. In contrast, for European American athletes, having less natural athletic ability was perceived as a negative attribute, but being intelligent and perhaps harder working were perceived as positive attributes. Their study demonstrated that framing an athletic task in the context of negative racial stereotypes had an adverse effect on performance.

African Americans are generally viewed as physically superior in nature as compared to European Americans, and that innate superiority has been very closely linked to intellectual inferiority (Edwards, 1971; Entine, 2000; Harrison, 2001). Because of the strong socially implicit link between African American athletic superiority and intellectual inferiority, for African American college students the overall stereotype may become negative. If this is true, then African Americans would be likely to reject the notion of superior natural ability in order to maintain and protect positive self-esteem based on stereotype threat theory. They should be more likely to acknowledge effort as an influential factor on success in sport.

Gender stereotypes. Women have been stereotyped as biologically and physically inferior to men. This cultural notion has been passed on from one generation to another generation through school education, community, media, and parents, and accepted as a fact existing between men and women throughout the centuries (Crandall, 1994; Eccles & Harold, 1991; Gould, 1996). Gender stereotypes have pressured women and men to behave in certain ways in order to satisfy the expectations of society, which has limited women's involvement in physical activity and sports, especially activities that are vigorous in nature (Harrison, Lee, & Belcher, 1999). The stereotypical view of women as inferior in sport is not as complex as the assumption of racial superiority and the accompanying implication of intellectual inferiority. The view of women as inferior in sport may not necessarily be viewed as a negative attribute, given that it is so deeply ingrained in our culture. Rather, the view of women as less able in sport is consistent with societal expectations, so that women who are athletically gifted are at risk to be viewed as inappropriate. Athletic superiority runs counter to expectations, and for some females may actually constitute a negative image.

The stereotypical acceptance of females' inferior sport ability is associated with a pattern of learned helplessness. Learned helplessness is the view that failure is due to an uncontrollable situation and that nothing can be done to change it (Seligman, 1972, 1975). If ability is viewed as stable and unchangeable, a sense of learned helplessness is reflected in a belief that success is dependent on innate ability (entity theory) rather than effort (incremental theory). If ability cannot be changed, then the belief in the efficacy of effort may be weakened. That is, if females lack ability in sport, no matter how hard they try, their efforts will not improve their performance. Individuals who display a learned helpless pattern show negative affects and emotions, lower effort and persistence, and performance decrements (Diener & Dweck, 1978; Dweck, 1999).

Stereotypes and Ability Conceptions

Stereotypes and beliefs are interrelated and have some characteristics in common. They are, however, distinct cognitive structures. Beliefs are accepted propositions that are an integral part of students' motivational constructs (Devine, 1989; Ehrlich, 1973). They can orient the goals that students adopt toward learning, influence the motivational behaviors that students display during the learning processes, and also determine how students interpret and respond to achievement events, especially in the face of some learning challenges and difficulties (Dweck, 1999).

Social psychologists have demonstrated that individual self-beliefs are influenced by the stereotypes held by the social group to which one belongs. Positive and negative racial stereotyped beliefs can be a powerful influence on individuals' self-perceptions (Gaines et al., 1997). If so, then it is possible that knowledge of the positive and negative racial and gender-role stereotyping beliefs about sports ability could have an important effect on their self-beliefs of the nature of sports ability.

Although there is clear evidence that theories of ability represent an important motivational construct and that racial and gender stereotypes relevant to ability in sport exist, it is unclear how race and gender and beliefs about the nature of ability interact. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether college students' implicit theories of ability in sport settings differ as a function of race and gender. Based on stereotype threat theory and previous work in educational contexts, we hypothesized that African American participants would be more likely to embrace an incremental theory of ability and to reject an entity theory of ability than European Americans. On the basis of stereotypes and previous literature on learned helplessness, we hypothesized females would be were more likely to hold an entity theory and less likely to embrace an incremental theory.

Method

Participants

The participants in this study were 238 college students (57 male and 62 female African Americans and 57 male and 62 female European Americans) enrolled in a wide range of classes at a university in the southeastern United States. Individuals were not asked to indicate their academic majors, but classes where data were collected included a broad range of academic majors, so relatively few participants were physical education/kinesiology majors. Since race is viewed as a social variable for the purpose of this paper, participants' own racial designation was used. The students' ages ranged from 18 to 28 years (M age=20.6 years, SD=1.92). Informed consent was obtained from all participants in accordance with the university's Institutional Review Board.

Instrumentation

The Conceptions of the Nature of Athletic Ability Questionnaire (CNAAQ-2; Wang & Biddle, 2001), which consists of 12 five-point Likert-type items, was employed to assess students' conceptions of ability in sports. The 12-item measure consists of four first order factors with three items for each factor (learning, improvement, stable, and gift) and two higher-order factors (Incremental and Entity). The incremental scale was assessed through two subscales reflecting learning (e.g., "to reach a high level of performance in sports, I must go through periods of learning and training") and improvement (e.g., "in sports, if you work hard at it, you will always get better"). The entity scale was assessed through two subscales reflecting stable (e.g., "I have a certain level of ability in sports and I cannot really do much to change that level") and gift (e.g., "you need to have a certain 'gift' to be good at sports"). The response scales range from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree." This measure has been employed to assess sports ability beliefs in several studies by Biddle and his colleagues (Wang & Biddle, 2001; Wang, Chatzisarantis, Spray, & Biddle, 2002), and has been established as a valid and reliable instrument. The questions were not specific to any particular sport. Rather, items are intended to assess students' conceptions of ability in sports in general.

Data Collection

The primary investigator administered the instrument to participants from a variety of majors in regularly scheduled classes. The participants were not initially told the purpose or significance of the study, but were debriefed after they completed the instrument. They were told that there were no right or wrong answers, and the importance of reading each statement carefully was stressed.

Data Analysis

To make comparisons across subscales, means and standard deviations for each subscale by race (African American and European American) and gender were calculated by dividing the sum of the subscale scores by the number of items on that scale. Internal consistency of the subscales was assessed using Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients. The alpha coefficients for an entity of theory and an incremental theory of ability were .65 and .74 respectively. The alpha coeffcient for the entity scale is low and results should be interpreted with caution. A 2 (race) X 2 (gender) profile analysis using a repeated statement on theory (entity vs. incremental) was performed to determine if theories of ability in sport vary by race and gender.

Results

Means and standard deviations for entity and incremental theories by race are reported in Table 1. The profile analysis yielded significant main effects for race (F (1,234) = 4.24, p< .040, gender (F(1,234) = 7.04, p<.0085), and theory of ability (F(1,234) = 550.14, p<.0001). The interactions were not significant. Inspection of the means for the theories of ability indicates participants expressed a stronger incremental theory as compared to an entity theory.

Univariate ANOVAs were used to follow-up the race and gender effects. Incremental theories did not differ significantly by race, but European Americans had stronger beliefs in an entity theory of ability than African Americans (F(l,234) = 4.80, p<.0295, d = 0.29). Entity theories did not differ significantly by gender, but males had stronger beliefs in incremental theory of ability than females (F(1,234) = 4.36, p<.038, d=0.27).

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigate how implicit theories of ability about sport vary as a function of race and gender. Overall, participants in the study regardless of race and gender were more likely to express an incremental rather than an entity theory of ability. That is, individuals embraced the belief that, through effort and hard work, sports ability as reflected by performance can be improved. An incremental theory, widely considered to be a more adaptive motivational construct (Csikszentmihalyi, et al., 1993; Dweck, 1999; Ericsson, et al., 1993), reflects a positive image, valuing a work ethic, and regardless of race and gender, individuals in this study expressed a belief in the efficacy of effort in sport. One explanation for this finding is the participant population sampled in this study. College students may be a homogenous group with regard to their incremental theories in that they believe that effort and hard work will produce positive results.

Racial Differences

African Americans were less likely to support the notion of ability as a fixed construct than European Americans, providing partial support for our hypothesis. Most people are motivated to protect a positive self-image (Tajfel & Turner, 1979, 1986). According to stereotype threat theory, people will avoid accepting a negative attribute about their group as their individual identity, since acceptance of negative stereotypes can threaten self-esteem. African Americans are generally viewed as physically superior in nature as compared to European Americans, and that innate superiority has been very closely linked to intellectual inferiority (Edwards, 1971; Harrison, 2001). This strong socially implicit link between African American athletic superiority and intellectual inferiority seems to produce a negative stereotype related to superior innate ability. Consistent with the findings of Darley and Gross (1983) and Steele and Aronson (1995), African American participants in this study were less likely to support an entity theory of ability than European Americans, suggesting that, when confronted with the negative racial stereotype, they tended to deny the over-generalized attributes of the self and group in order to maintain positive self-esteem.

European Americans were somewhat more likely to acknowledge that innate ability could be an influential factor on sport performance. Tajfel and Turner (1979) suggested that people are motivated to maintain a positive image of their group by enhancing negative stereotypes about other groups, thus bolstering their own social identity. While they expressed a strong belief that ability can be improved with effort, perhaps to compensate for their perceived inferiority in sports, European Americans viewed natural ability to be a more influential factor than African Americans.

Gender Differences

The finding that females were less likely than males to endorse an incremental theory of ability than males also partially supports our hypothesis, and is consistent with the view of females being at risk for a learned helpless pattern of attributions. Females have been stereotyped as physically inferior to males throughout the centuries. A lifetime of exposure to gender stereotypes about their inferior ability in sport may have weakened their belief in the efficacy of effort to improve performance in sport. That is, no matter how hard they try, they may not be able to improve their performance. This stereotypical pattern of thinking serves to limit women's involvement in physical activity and sports (Harrison, el al., 1999).

Entity theorists are more likely than incremental theorists to display cognitive, affective, and behavioral aspects of helpless responses in the face of challenges and difficulties (Dweck, 1999). Guiding students away from beliefs that sports ability is fixed, and reinforcing the belief that ability can be improved with effort, may help to alleviate maladaptive inferences and help student athletes cope with the obstacles that are inevitable in a challenging sports context. Our findings suggest that race and gender affect beliefs about the nature of ability and consequently should be considered as we try to foster incremental theories of ability.

The findings of the present study have practical implications and provide direction for future research. If physical education teachers, coaches, and other sports practitioners want to create a motivational climate that will encourage all individuals to be actively engaged in physical activities without negatively affecting their self-esteem, it is important to avoid references to innate racial and gender superiority. Reinforcing the belief that ability can be increased with effort is more likely to foster active engagement. Even though the racial and gender stereotypes held by most people may be difficult to change, it is possible that we can reduce the influence of stereotype threats by the creation of a positive social climate. Awareness of the potential negative impact of references to innate superiority based on race, gender or any other characteristic is important in this regard.

Limitations of the Study

This study was an initial attempt to investigate race and gender differences in conceptions of ability in sport. Several limitations are evident, in that a convenience sample of college students was used and the data collection was limited to a single questionnaire. The results of this study are informative and suggest that this line of research is worth pursuing, but many questions need to be explored. Although these results suggest that African Americans view innate physical superiority as a negative attribute, the nature of this belief and its effect on self esteem are unclear. A qualitative approach exploring the effect of a negative stereotype has the potential to increase our understanding. Additionally, the effects of stereotypes on European Americans need further exploration. It is also important to investigate other racial/ ethnic groups.

Future Research

The nature of ability in sport is another issue that merits attention, as the precise nature or definition of ability in sport is not clear. This issue is complicated in the sport arena by the interaction between the notions of ability as capacity, skill level, and performance. Individuals may believe that ability is constant (an entity theory), but that they can improve their skill level and performance through effort and practice. In order to clarify practical issues with regard to implicit theories of ability in sport, it seems important to address how ability is defined and clarify the meanings and relationships between ability and performance. Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations for Entity and Incremental Theories by Race and Gender Incremental Entity theory of ability theory of ability M SD M SD African American 2.34 .57 3.86 .62 European American 2.51 .58 3.88 .56 Male 2.46 .60 3.95 .54 Female 2.39 .57 3.79 .62 Total 2.43 .58 3.87 .59

References

Carlston, D.E. (1983). An environmental explanation for race differences in basketball performance. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 7, 30-51.

Cauthen, N.R., Robinson, I. E., & Krauss, H. H. (1971). Stereotypes: A review of the literature 1926-1968. The Journal of Social Psychology, 84, 103-125.

Coakley, J.J. (1998). Sport in society: Issues and controversies. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Crandall, C.S. (1994). Prejudice against fat people- Ideology and self-interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 882-894.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers: The roots of success and failure. NY: Cambridge.

Darley, J.M., & Gross, P.H. (1983). A hypothesis-confirming bias in labeling effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 44, 20-33.

Devine, P.G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5-18.

Diener, C., & Dweck, C. S. (1978). An analysis of learned helplessness: Continuous changes in performance, strategy, and achievement cognitions following failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psvchology, 36, 451-462.

Dweck, C.S. (2002) The development of ability conceptions. In A. Wigfield & J.S. Eccles (Eds.)

Development of Achievement Motivation (pp.57-88) New York: Academic Press

Dweck, C.S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Psychology Press: Taylor & Francis.

Dweck, C.S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267-285.

Dweck. C.S., & Leggett, E.L. (1988). A social cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.

Eccles, J.S., & Harold, R. D. (1991). Gender differences in sport involvement: Applying the Eccles' expectancy-value model. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 3, 7-35.

Edwards, H. (1971). The sources of the Black athlete's superiority. The Black Scholar, 3, 32-41.

Ehrlich, H.J. (1973). The social psychology of prejudice. New York: Wiley.

Entine, J. (2000). Taboo: Why black athletes dominate sports and why we're afraid to talk about it. New York: Public Affairs.

Ericsson, K.A. (2003). Exceptional memorizers: Made, not born. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7(6), 233.

Ericsson, K.A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 3, 363-406.

Fleishman, E.A. (1972) On the relation between abilities, learning, and human performance. American Psychologist, 27, 1017-1032,

Gaines, S.O., Marelich, W. D., Bledsoe, K.L., Steers, W.N., Henderson, M.C., Granrose, C.S., et al. (1997). Links between race/ethnicity and cultural values as mediated by racial/ ethnic identity and moderated by gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1460-1476.

Gould, S.J. (1996). The mismeasure of man (Rev. and Expanded). NY: Norton

Hamilton, D.L., Sherman, S.J., & Ruvolo, C. M. (1990). Stereotype-based expectancies: Effects on information processing and social behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 35-60.

Harpalani, V. (1998). The athletic dominance of African Americans--Is there a genetic basis? In G. A. Salies (Ed.), African Americans in sport: Contemporary themes (pp. 103-120). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Harrison, C.K. (2001). Black athletes' success transcends biomechanics. BioMechanics, 2, 73-82.

Harrison, L. Jr. (1995). African Americans: Race as a self-schema affecting physical activity choices. Quest, 47, 7-18.

Harrison, L. Jr., Lee, A. M., & Belcher, D. (1999). Race and gender differences in sport participation as a function of self-schema. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 23, 287-307.

Hunter, D. W. (1998). Race and athletic performance: A physiological review. In G. A. Salies (Ed.), African Americans in sport: Contemporary themes, (pp. 85-102). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

LaVeist, T. A. (1996). Why we should continue to study race ... but do a better job: An essay on race, racism and health. Ethnicity & Disease, 6, 21-29.

Magill, R.A. (2001). Motor Learning: Concepts and Applications. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill

Sarfit, M.J. & Wood, T.M (1995) Introduction to measurement in physical education and exercise science. WCB: McGraw-Will.

Sarrazin, P., Biddle, S., Famose, J. P., Cury, F., Fox, K., & Durand, M. (1996). Goal orientations and conceptions of the nature of sport ability in children: A social cognitive approach. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 399-414.

Seligman, M.E.P. (1972). Learned helplessness. Annual Review of Medicine. 23,407-412.

Seligman, M.E.P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. San Francisco: Freeman.

Smith, R.R., & Lewis, R. (1985). Race as a self-schema affecting recall in African American children. Journal of African American Psychology 12, 15-29.

Steele, C.M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist. 52, 613-629.

Steele, C.M. (2000). "Stereotype threat" and Black college students. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 2, 3-6.

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.

Stone, J., Lynch, C.I., Sjomeling, M., & Darley, J.M. (1999). Stereotype threat effects on African American and European American athletic performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1213-1227.

Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1-39.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W.G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.). The social psychology of inter-group relations (pp. 33-48). Monterey, CA: Brooks Cole.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.). Psychology of inter-group relations (2nd Ed., pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.). Social identity and inter-group Relations (pp. 15-40). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Wang, J.C.K., & Biddle, S.J.H. (2001). Young people's motivational profiles in physical activity: A cluster analysis. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology. 23, 1-22.

Wang, C.K.J., Chatzisarantis, N.L.D., Spray, C.M., & Biddle, S.J.H. (2002). Achievement goal profiles in school physical education: Differences in self-determination, sport ability beliefs, and physical activity. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 433-445.

Wiggins, D.K. (1997). "Great speed but little stamina": The historical debate over African American athletic superiority. In S. W. Pope (Ed.), The new American sport history: Recent approaches and perspectives (pp. 312-338). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Wittenbrink, B., Gist, P. L., & Hilton, J. L. (1997). Structural properties of stereotypic knowledge and their influences on the construal of social situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 72, 526-543

Weidong Li, Louis Harrison, Jr. and Melinda Solmon

Louisiana State University

Address Correspondence To: Weidong Li, Louisiana State University, Department of Kinesiology, 112 Long Fieldhouse, Baton Rouge, LA 70803. Phone: (225)578-5714 FAX: (225)578-3680 Email: WLI7@LSU.EDU