Journal of

Experimental
Social Psychology
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 40 (2004) 247–255
www.elsevier.com/locate/jesp

When saying and doing diverge: The effects of stereotype threat

on self-reported versus non-verbal anxietyq
Jennifer K. Bosson,a,* Ethan L. Haymovitz,b and Elizabeth C. Pinelc
a
Department of Psychology, 455 W. Lindsey, DAHT #705, The University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019, USA
b
Department of Psychology, Vassar College, USA
c
Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University, USA

Received 31 July 2002; revised 20 May 2003

Abstract

Although research has established that stigmatized individuals suffer impaired performance under stereotype threat conditions,
the anxiety presumed to mediate this effect has proven difficult to establish. In the current investigation, we explored whether non-
verbal measures would fare better than self-reports in capturing stereotype threat anxiety. Gay and heterosexual men interacted with
preschool children under stereotype threat or control conditions. As predicted, stereotype-threatened gay men demonstrated more
non-verbal anxiety, but not more self-reported anxiety, than non-threatened gays during these interactions. Furthermore, non-
verbal anxiety appeared to mediate the effects of stereotype threat on the quality of participantsÕ childcare skills. We discuss how
these findings advance stereotype threat research, and highlight their potential implications for gay childcare workers.
Ó 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Stereotype threat; Non-verbal anxiety; Gay males

Introduction effects—anxiety—has proven difficult to establish em-

Stereotype threat is the realization that oneÕs perfor-
mance on a particular task might confirm a negative
stereotype about oneÕs group (Steele & Aronson, 1995).
Once evoked, this concern may hinder the performance
of stereotyped individuals in various evaluative contexts.
Although the outcomes of stereotype threat manipula-
tions are clear, the proposed mechanism driving these
q
We thank Donna Albert, Ryan Camire, Jenny Elek, Lesley
Grapka, Jonathan Lytle, Agatha Maciejewski, Jocelyn Marlatt,
Danyale McCurdy, Lisa Paul, Courtney Pearson, Julia Rubin-Smith,
Adam Scott, and Diya Uberoi for their assistance with data collection,
data entry, and videotape coding. We are especially grateful to Julie
Reiss and the staff of the Wimpfheimer Nursery School for accom-
modating us, Tiffany Lightbourn for supervising various aspects of the
project, and Bridget Murphy-Kelsey for sharing her knowledge of
behavioral coding. For their helpful comments on an earlier draft of
this paper, we thank Ryan Brown, April Phillips, Jennifer Prewitt,
Carolin Showers, and Virgil Zeigler-Hill.
*
Corresponding author. Fax: +405-325-4737.
E-mail address: jbosson@ou.edu (J.K. Bosson).
pirically. We propose that researchers who failed to
obtain evidence of the anxiety triggered by stereotype
threat did so because they searched for this evidence in
peopleÕs self-reports, rather than in other, less control-
lable types of responses. Thus, the primary purpose of
this study is to explore the effectiveness of self-reports
versus unobtrusive measures in capturing stereotype
threat anxiety. Another purpose is to expand the extant
literature by testing stereotype threat effects in an as-yet-
unexplored group: gay men.
In their efforts to uncover stereotype threat anxiety,
most researchers utilize self-report scales, with mixed
results. Whereas findings from some studies suggest that
self-reported anxiety is unrelated to performance among
stigmatized individuals (e.g., Aronson et al., 1999;
Brown, Charnsangavej, Keough, Newman, & Rentfrow,
2000; Oswald & Harvey, 2001; Schmader, 2002; Steele &
Aronson, 1995), other findings show that self-reported
anxiety accounts for a small but significant portion of
the variance in the performance of stereotype-threatened
individuals. For example, reports of anxiety made by
women (Osborne, 2001; Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999),

0022-1031/$ - see front matter Ó 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00099-4
248 J.K. Bosson et al. / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 40 (2004) 247–255
Blacks, and Latinos (Osborne, 2001) partially mediated
the link between their stereotype-threatened status and
their intellectual test performance. Still other findings
show that although stereotype threat increases partici-
pantsÕ self-reported anxiety, this anxiety does not me-
diate the association between the threat and their
performance (Stone, Lynch, Sjomeling, & Darley, 1999).
In sum, empirical evidence for the anxiety-mediator
hypothesis has been inconclusive.
We see at least two possible reasons for the incon-
sistency of these anxiety findings. First, stigmatized in-
dividuals may be particularly mindful of, and concerned
with, the impressions they make on others (e.g., Frable,
Blackstone, & Scherbaum, 1990; Pinel, 1999). For some
individuals, this heightened awareness and concern may
constrain their self-presentational behaviors, compelling
them to convey a ‘‘cool, calm, and collected’’ image on
self-report anxiety scales in an effort to appear invul-
nerable to stereotypes. Second, it is possible that ste-
reotype threat processes are non-conscious (cf. Croizet
& Claire, 1998; Oswald & Harvey, 2001), which could
explain why they are difficult to tap with self-reports.
Regardless of why self-reported anxiety produces
mixed findings, we believe that a logical next step in the
effort to capture stereotype threat anxiety involves the
use of indirect measures. Such measures are ideal be-
cause respondents cannot easily control their responses
to them, and they may capture processes of which re-
spondents are unaware (Dovidio & Fazio, 1992). Sup-
porting this logic, Blascovich, Spencer, Quinn, and
Steele (2001) observed increases in blood pressure
among stereotype-threatened Black men. Although not
necessarily a measure of anxiety, blood pressure and
other markers of physiological arousal may provide in-
sight into peopleÕs emotional states (e.g., Brownley,
Hurwitz, & Schneiderman, 2000) while circumventing
problems associated with self-reports.
Another indirect measure involves observing peopleÕs
non-verbal anxiety behaviors. Non-verbal behavior is
thought to reflect peopleÕs spontaneous, genuine emo-
tions (DePaulo, 1992), and should thus be somewhat
immune to self-presentation attempts. Observer-ratings
of anxiety based on non-verbal behavior are often cor-
related with targetsÕ self-reported anxiety (e.g., Watson
& Clark, 1991), but under certain conditions—such as
when targets are motivated to conceal, or are unaware
of, their anxiety—non-verbal behavior may provide
more reliable information than self-reports (Ekman &
Friesen, 1969; Waxer, 1977). In the current study we
measure anxiety by way of peopleÕs non-verbal behav-
iors, and compare the effectiveness of this strategy with
that of a self-report scale.
As noted, an additional goal of this study was to
explore how stereotype threat affects gay men. A focus
on gay menÕs reactions to stereotype threat is important
not only because it further establishes the external
validity of this phenomenon, but also because it moves
stereotype threat research into the arena of concealable
stigmas (see also Croizet & Claire, 1998). There is reason
to expect that people with concealable versus visible
stigmas will experience and react to stereotype threat
somewhat differently. Because their stigma is not nec-
essarily apparent to observers, gay men may be rela-
tively unconcerned about the possibility of confirming a
negative stereotype in othersÕ eyes (cf. Crocker, Major,
& Steele, 1998). Alternatively, if concealing oneÕs stig-
matized status is akin to keeping a secret, then gay men
may experience an ‘‘obsessive preoccupation’’ with their
stereotyped status that actually heightens their vulner-
ability to stereotype threat (Smart & Wegner, 1999).
To test how stereotype threat affects gay men, we
turned to the stereotype that gay men are dangerous to
young children. This belief appears to derive from two
assumptions. First, many people incorrectly link ho-
mosexuality with pedophilia (Herek, 2002). Second,
many believe that gay men will corrupt children by ex-
posing them to a ‘‘perverted’’ lifestyle, or even seduce
them into lives of homosexuality (Herek, 1991). So
powerful is this stereotype, that the results of a 1996
Gallup poll (cited in Neuberg, Smith, & Asher, 2000)
indicated large increases in AmericansÕ acceptance of
gays in most occupations—except as elementary school
teachers or clergy. Given the prevalence of the belief that
gays pose a threat to children, we wondered whether
concern about being perceived as perverted would im-
pair gay menÕs ability to interact comfortably and ef-
fectively with children, as anecdotal and survey research
suggest that it might (Kissen, 1996; Olson, 1987).
We exposed some gay men to a stereotype threat
manipulation before they interacted with young children
in a nursery school, and compared their self-reported
anxiety, non-verbal anxiety, and overall performance to
that of some non-threatened gay men. We assumed that
stereotype-threatened gay men would exhibit more non-
verbal anxiety—but not necessarily more self-reported
anxiety—than non-threatened gays. Moreover, we ex-
pected non-verbal anxiety to mediate the relation be-
tween stereotype threat and performance during the
interaction. For our comparison group, we used heter-
osexual men; we did not expect heterosexualsÕ anxiety or
performance to be affected by the stereotype threat
manipulation. Finally, we measured additional variables
(familiarity with children, gay menÕs comfort being
‘‘out’’) that might moderate our findings.
Method
Participants
Forty heterosexual, 22 gay, and 10 bisexual male
students at a small liberal arts college participated in
 J.K. Bosson et al. / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 40 (2004) 247–255
exchange for course credit or $10. Because stereotypes
concerning gay and bisexual menÕs negative influences
on children are similar (Mohr & Rochlen, 1999), we
combined the data from bisexual and gay participants
into one group.1 We discarded responses from two
heterosexual and four gay participants because they re-
ported strong suspicions about the experimental proce-
dures, and one participant because he failed to complete
a key questionnaire.2 This left 37 heterosexual and 28
gay men, aged 18–22 years, in the final sample.
Procedure
Students in introductory psychology courses were
recruited via the schoolÕs web-based participant pool.
Because the number of gay men in the participant pool
was small, we recruited gay participants through an
email list for the gay student group, ads in the college
newspaper, and flyers posted around campus. Postings
stated that ‘‘Males [Gay and bisexual males] at least 18
years of age are wanted for a study exploring issues of
college adjustment.’’
When participants arrived individually at the lab, an
experimenter greeted them and explained that the ori-
ginal study was cancelled because of problems with the
materials. She then explained that she was working with
a professor on an unrelated project exploring how col-
lege students interact with young children, and she in-
vited the participant to be in her study (after reassuring
him that it would take no longer than the original ex-
periment and that he would receive whatever credit or
money he had been promised). We included this de-
ception to reduce the salience of sexual orientation for
gay participants, who were originally recruited specifi-
cally because they were gay. All but four (5.6%) students
consented to the experimenterÕs request, and were sub-
sequently led to the campus nursery school where they
learned that they would complete several questionnaires
and engage in a brief, videotaped interaction with some
children.3
Stereotype threat manipulation
Participants first completed a demographic survey
that contained the stereotype threat manipulation. Fol-
lowing (Steele & Aronson, 1995, Study 4), we randomly
assigned approximately half of participants to receive
the prime version of the survey, which required them
to circle their sexual orientation from the following
1
The removal of bisexualsÕ data from analyses did not change any
of our patterns.
2
Inclusion of the suspicious participantsÕ data did not change any
of our patterns, although it did reduce statistical significance levels.
3
We do not know the sexual orientation of the students who
declined to participate because this variable was assessed during the
experimental sessions.
249
options: Heterosexual/straight, homosexual/gay, and
bisexual.
The remaining participants received the no-prime
version of the survey, which did not contain the sexual
orientation item or any other reference to sexual orien-
tation. Both surveys also contained questions about the
participantÕs age, race, and familiarity with children.
Specifically, we asked ‘‘To what extent are you generally
comfortable around young (aged 4–6) children?’’ and
‘‘How much experience do you have interacting with
young children?’’ These two items were rated on 9-point
scales with endpoints of not at all/extremely and none/a
lot, respectively; because responses to these items were
correlated, r ¼ :78; p < :001, we averaged them to yield
an index of familiarity with children.
When the participant finished the demographic survey,
the experimenter took it from him, glanced briefly at his
responses, and said ‘‘Okay, letÕs get started.’’ This was
done so that participants in the prime condition would
believe it possible, but not definite, that the experimenter
was aware of their sexual orientation; we assumed that
this state of uncertainty would heighten the impact of the
stereotype threat manipulation for gay participants.
Interaction task
Next, the experimenter led participants to the play-
room. The interaction task took place during ‘‘free
play’’ time, during which the children engaged in un-
structured activities in a large playroom equipped with
books, dress-up clothes, games, and toys. Several adult
teachers and student workers were always present in the
room, but they typically did not intervene with the
childrenÕs play behavior. Approximately 20 children,
aged 4–6 years old, were present in the playroom during
each experimental session. At the door to the playroom,
the experimenter instructed the participant to familiarize
himself with one child, or a group of children, and try to
involve himself in the childÕs activity for 5 min. She then
explained that the participant would be videotaped from
behind a one-way mirror, and directed him to remain in
the area in front of the mirror. No further instructions
were given, because we wanted to observe participantsÕ
behavior in a relatively unstructured, naturalistic social
situation. After giving instructions, the experimenter
exited and waited outside the playroom for 5 min; she
then returned and led the participant to another room to
complete some final scales.
Self-reported reactions
The last set of scales began with a self-report measure
of reactions to the interaction task. We measured two
variables that have been proposed to mediate the rela-
tionship between stereotype threat and performance:
anxiety and evaluation apprehension. Using scales rang-
ing from 1 (not at all) to 9 (extremely), participants in-
dicated the extent to which they experienced five
250 J.K. Bosson et al. / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 40 (2004) 247–255
different anxiety-related emotions during the task:
anxious, worried, calm, pleasant, and relaxed. After
reverse-scoring items so that higher scores indicated
more anxiety, we averaged across these items (a ¼ :82).
Next, participants used the same scales to rate the extent
to which they felt self-conscious, were concerned about
how they might appear to others, were able to be
themselves (reverse-scored), and were able to act natural
during the interaction (reverse-scored). We averaged
these items to yield an index of evaluation apprehension
(a ¼ :80).
After providing these self-reports, participants com-
pleted a filler survey and then indicated their sexual
orientation by circling Heterosexual/Straight, Homo-
sexual/Gay, or Bisexual at the top of another question-
naire. Instructions on this questionnaire explained that
heterosexual participants were now finished with the
study; gay participants were instructed to answer a series
of questions about how ‘‘out’’ they were. On scales an-
chored with 1 (not at all) and 9 (extremely), gay men
rated ‘‘How ÔoutÕ are you, even to people who donÕt
know you?’’ and ‘‘To what extent do you feel comfort-
able being public about your sexual orientation?’’ Next,
gay men estimated, on scales of 0–100%, the percentages
of their close friends, immediate family, extended family,
and extended social network who knew they were gay.
We standardized responses to these six out-ness items,
then averaged them to yield an overall out-ness index
(a ¼ :89). After completing these measures, participants
were debriefed and thanked.
Coding non-verbal anxiety
A judge who was blind to all procedures and hy-
potheses watched each videotaped interaction and rated
participantsÕ non-verbal anxiety in the presence of the
children. A second judge rated a subset (N ¼ 19; 29%) of
the videotaped sessions; because interrater reliability on
this subset was good (intraclass r ¼ :88), we felt confi-
dent that the ratings made by the first judge represented
an accurate picture of participantsÕ anxiety. Judges were
instructed to ‘‘consider the extent to which the target
appears uncomfortable in his surroundings,’’ and look
for ‘‘any behaviors that communicate discomfort, anx-
iety, awkwardness, or a similar emotion.’’ These be-
haviors included fidgeting, chewing on lip, playing with
hair, biting nails, nervous smiling, stiff posture, and
averting eyes, among others.
Starting when the participant first entered the play-
room, judges made one rating every 30 s for 5 min, for a
total of 10 ratings. All ratings were made on scales of 1 (no
discomfort evident) to 5 (extreme discomfort evident).4
4
We used ‘‘discomfort’’ in the endpoints of the rating scales, rather
than the more specific ‘‘anxiety,’’ because we wanted coders to attend
to a broad array of anxiety-related behaviors.
Each rating pertained only to the 30 s that preceded it, and
judges considered both the intensity and the frequency of
anxiety behaviors when making their ratings. Thus, a
rating of 5 could reflect either one or two extreme (but
brief) anxiety behaviors during a given 30-s segment, or a
series of more moderate anxiety behaviors lasting the
entire 30 s.
Coding childcare performance
A judge who was blind to all procedures and hy-
potheses watched each videotaped interaction and rated
participantsÕ childcare performance. A second judge
rated a subset (N ¼ 25; 38%) of the videotaped sessions;
interrater reliability on this subset was good (intraclass
r ¼ :84), so we used only the first judgeÕs ratings. Judges
who rated childcare performance did not also rate non-
verbal anxiety, and vice versa.
We asked judges to imagine that they were evaluating
potential childcare workers who had applied for a job at
a daycare center. As part of the interview process, each
job applicant was videotaped interacting with the chil-
dren; the judgeÕs job was to watch each interaction in its
entirety, and then rate the applicantÕs overall perfor-
mance. Unlike the non-verbal anxiety ratings, which
were based on the frequency and intensity of specific
anxiety behaviors, overall performance ratings were in-
tended to capture a Gestalt-like impression of the par-
ticipantÕs childcare skills. Judges used scales ranging
from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely) to indicate the extent
to which the participant ‘‘has a natural flair for working
with children,’’ ‘‘seems to enjoy working with children,’’
‘‘has the potential to offer high-quality childcare,’’
and ‘‘appears to communicate well with children.’’
Finally, judges rated the quality of each participantÕs
performance on a scale of 1 (did a poor job) to 4 (did
a great job).
Scoring non-verbal anxiety and childcare performance
Although we instructed the judges who coded non-
verbal anxiety and childcare performance to attend to
different aspects of participantsÕ behavior, it is possible
that these two sets of ratings actually reflect the same
underlying construct (anxiety). Indeed, we suspect that
anxiety does factor into performance in some interper-
sonal contexts. To ensure that our anxiety and perfor-
mance indices were not redundant, we submitted the 10
non-verbal anxiety ratings and the five childcare per-
formance ratings to a principal axis factor analysis with
varimax rotation. Two factors emerged with eigenvalues
greater than 2.0. The first factor captured the five per-
formance ratings (all factor loadings > .84), and ac-
counted for 48.3% of the total common variance. The
second factor captured eight of the non-verbal anxiety
ratings (all factor loadings > .50), and accounted for
 J.K. Bosson et al. / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 40 (2004) 247–255 251

Table 1
Zero-order correlations and descriptive statistics
I II III IV V VI M SD N
I Familiarity with children — ).41 ).60 ).13 .03 ).11 5.72 1.92 65
II Self-reported anxiety — .72 .12 ).10 ).37 3.92 1.48 64
III Self-reported evaluation apprehension — .08 ).09 ).14 4.38 1.78 64
IV Non-verbal anxiety — ).47 ).01 2.10 0.55 63
V Childcare performance (standardized) — .06 0.03 0.90 63
VI Out-ness — )0.01 0.79 28
*
p < :10.
**
p < :01.

14.9% of the total common variance; the remaining two
anxiety ratings loaded equally strongly on both factors.
To create final non-verbal anxiety scores, we deleted the
two cross-loaded ratings, then averaged the remaining
ratings (a ¼ :88). To obtain final childcare performance
scores, we standardized the five performance ratings and
averaged them (a ¼ :95). Thus, although participantsÕ
non-verbal anxiety and childcare performance were
moderately correlated (see Table 1), the results of the
above factor analysis suggest that these scores reflect
distinct constructs.
Results
Descriptive statistics and correlations among all
variables appear in Table 1. Because we used regression
analyses to test our mediational hypothesis, we con-
ducted the primary analyses with regressions to be
consistent.
Self-reported reactions
We did not expect threatened and non-threatened gay
men to report different levels of self-reported anxiety or
evaluation apprehension. To test this prediction, we re-
gressed participantsÕ anxiety and evaluation apprehen-
sion scores separately onto their sexual orientation (coded
as heterosexual ¼ 0, gay ¼ 1), their stereotype threat
condition (coded as no-prime ¼ 0, prime ¼ 1), and the
sexual-orientation
stereotype-threat interaction term.
Moreover, because participantsÕ familiarity with children
was correlated with their scores on the self-report vari-
ables (see Table 1), we also entered familiarity with chil-
dren as a predictor in this model (after mean-centering it),
as well as all interactions with this variable. In the model
predicting anxiety, familiarity with children was the only
significant predictor, b ¼ :72; tð56Þ ¼ 2:87; p < :01,
and no other effects emerged, all ts < 1:62; ps > :11.5
Similarly, in the model predicting evaluation apprehen-
sion, participants who were more familiar with children
reported lower evaluation apprehension, b ¼ :74; tð56Þ
¼ 3:34; p < :01, and no other effects reached significance,
ts < 1:08; ps > :28.
Non-verbal anxiety
We expected stereotype-threatened—as compared to
non-threatened—gay men to exhibit more non-verbal
anxiety during the interaction. To test this, we regressed
participantsÕ non-verbal anxiety scores onto their sexual
orientation, stereotype threat condition, and the inter-
action term (familiarity with children was unrelated to
non-verbal anxiety, so we did not include it in this
model). As expected, the interaction was significant,
b ¼ :63; tð59Þ ¼ 2:91; p < :01 (see Fig. 1).6 To examine
whether the interaction pattern confirmed our expecta-
tions, we compared the non-verbal anxiety of gay men in
the prime and no-prime conditions using contrast cod-
ing (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). Specifically, we assigned
codes of 1, )1, 0, and 0, to the gay/prime, gay/no-prime,
heterosexual/prime, and heterosexual/no-prime condi-
tions, respectively. We also assigned codes correspond-
ing to the remaining two orthogonal contrasts: 0, 0, 1,
)1 for the heterosexual/prime vs. heterosexual/no-prime
contrast, and 1, 1, )1, )1 for the sexual orientation main
effect.
When we entered these contrast codes into a regression
analysis predicting non-verbal anxiety, our main contrast
comparing participants in the gay/prime vs. gay/no-prime
conditions was significant, b ¼ :29; tð59Þ ¼ 2:39; p ¼ :02.
The remaining contrasts revealed that heterosexuals in
the prime condition appeared somewhat less anxious than
heterosexuals in the no-prime condition, b ¼ :21; tð59Þ
¼ 1:70; p ¼ :09, and there was no main effect of sexual
orientation, b ¼ :03; t < 1.

5 6
Only 64 participantsÕ data were used in analyses on the self-report Only 63 participantsÕ data were used in analyses on non-verbal
measures because one participant did not rate his reactions to the anxiety and childcare performance because poor lighting conditions
interaction task. rendered two of the videotaped sessions unusable.
252 J.K. Bosson et al. / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 40 (2004) 247–255
Fig. 1. Non-verbal anxiety as a function of sexual orientation and
stereotype threat condition.
Childcare performance
To test whether stereotype-threatened gay men exhib-
ited poorer childcare skills than non-threatened gays, we
regressed the index of childcare performance onto sexual
orientation, stereotype threat condition, and the interac-
tion term. The interaction was significant,
b ¼ :55; tð59Þ ¼ 2:59; p ¼ :01 (see Fig. 2). When we re-
gressed childcare performance onto the same contrast
codes described previously, we found that gay men in the
prime condition performed significantly more poorly
than gays in the no-prime condition, b ¼ :26;
tð59Þ ¼ 2:15; p ¼ :036. Also, heterosexuals in the prime
and no-prime conditions did not perform significantly
differently, b ¼ :18; tð59Þ ¼ 1:48; p ¼ :14, and there was a
trend for gay men to perform better than heterosexual
men overall, b ¼ :21; tð59Þ ¼ 1:75; p ¼ :086.
Mediational analyses
We followed the steps identified by Baron and Kenny
(1986) to test whether non-verbal anxiety mediated the
relation between stereotype threat and childcare per-
formance. First, results reported above established that
the predictor variable (the sexual-orientation
stereo-
type-threat interaction) was significantly related to both
the mediator variable (non-verbal anxiety) and the
outcome variable (childcare performance). Next, we
regressed childcare performance onto non-verbal anxi-
ety, sexual orientation, stereotype threat condition, and
the sexual-orientation
stereotype-threat interaction
term. Non-verbal anxiety was significantly related to
Fig. 2. Childcare performance (standardized) as a function of sexual
orientation and stereotype threat condition.
performance, b ¼ :41; tð58Þ ¼ 3:41; p < :01, but the
sexual-orientation
stereotype-threat interaction was
not, b ¼ :30; tð58Þ ¼ 1:42; p ¼ :16. Finally, the results
of a Sobel (1982) test indicated that the path between the
predictor and outcome variables was significantly re-
duced when the mediator was included in the model,
z ¼ 2:27; p ¼ :02. Thus, non-verbal anxiety appeared to
mediate the relation between stereotype threat and
participantsÕ childcare skills during the interaction.
Despite the apparent strength of these findings, the
possibility remains that our indices of non-verbal anxi-
ety and childcare performance were based on similar
non-verbal behaviors, and thus, somewhat confounded.
We view this potential overlap between anxiety and
performance as endemic to the domain of study: in
interpersonal contexts, anxiety and performance may go
hand-in-hand (e.g., Brodt & Zimbardo, 1981; Schlenker
& Leary, 1982). Although the results of the previously-
reported factor analysis increase our confidence that our
non-verbal anxiety and performance indices captured
distinct constructs, we urge readers to keep the potential
overlap in mind when interpreting the results of the
mediational analyses.
Follow-up analyses
We conducted several additional analyses to answer
teraction task was relatively unstructured, leaving open
the possibility that participants in the different conditions
might have selected themselves into qualitatively different
social interactions. To explore this possibility, we asked a
 J.K. Bosson et al. / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 40 (2004) 247–255
na€ıve observer to watch each videotaped interaction
and answer the following questions: (1) Did the par-
ticipant establish an ongoing (longer than 1 min) in-
teraction with any child? (2) With how many girls and
boys did he interact? (3) Did he read a book to the
children? (4) Did he engage in physical play (e.g.,
roughhousing, dancing) with any children? and (5)
What was the overall activity level in the room (on a
scale of 1 ¼ very little to 5 ¼ a lot)? In separate anal-
yses, we regressed each of these variables onto par-
ticipantsÕ sexual orientation, their stereotype threat
condition, and the interaction term. No significant
effects emerged, all ts < 1:30; ps > :20. Thus, partici-
pants appeared to select themselves into social inter-
actions that were similar along several important
dimensions.
Finally, we explored the extent to which gay menÕs
out-ness moderated their non-verbal anxiety and child-
care performance during the interaction, to determine
whether our stereotype threat effect was limited to gay
men who are relatively uncomfortable revealing their
sexual orientation to others (i.e., those low in out-ness).
In separate analyses, we regressed gay menÕs non-verbal
anxiety and childcare performance onto their out-ness,
stereotype threat condition, and the out-ness
stereo-
type-threat interaction. In both models, a main effect of
threat emerged, such that gays in the prime condition
were more non-verbally anxious, b ¼ :47, and per-
formed more poorly, b ¼ :42, than gays in the no-
prime condition, ts > 2:32; ps < :04. No other effects
reached significance in either model, ts < 1:02; ps > :32.
It therefore appears that our effect was not driven
merely by a subset of highly self-conscious gay men.
Discussion
Mounting evidence indicates that targets of negative
stereotypes suffer performance decrements when they
are reminded of their stereotyped status. Although the
performance-impairing outcomes of stereotype threat
are clear, the underlying cause of these outcomes has
evaded researchers. The current findings thus make an
important contribution to the literature by providing
some of the first evidence that non-verbal anxiety me-
diates the effects of stereotype threat on gay menÕs per-
formance during an interpersonal task. Specifically, gay
men who were reminded of their stigmatized identity
before interacting with young children exhibited poorer
childcare abilities than gays who were not reminded of
their identity, and this effect appeared to be driven by
the menÕs non-verbal anxiety. Despite non-verbal signs
of distress, however, threatened gay men did not self-
report heightened anxiety or evaluation apprehension.
Had we relied solely on self-reports, as others have done,
we would have obtained little evidence that stereotype
253
threat produces anxiety. Thus, given the generalizability
of the stereotype threat effect, it seems likely that future
researchers would benefit from using unobtrusive indi-
ces of anxiety.
In addition to establishing that stereotype threat
anxiety can be captured non-verbally, the current find-
ings extend the literature by focusing on gay men. To
our knowledge, no previous research has explored
whether or how gay men experience stereotype threat,
despite the numerous negative stereotypes associated
with this group. Here, a simple reminder of their stig-
matized identity caused gay men to become anxious and
awkward around children, suggesting that people with
concealable stigmas are vulnerable to the effects of ste-
reotype threat. Croizet and Claire (1998) made a similar
point when they showed that students of low socioeco-
nomic status—also a concealable identity—experienced
stereotype-threat-induced performance decrements.
Taken together, these findings attest to the power of
stereotype threat: Even people whose stereotyped status
is virtually invisible are vulnerable to concerns about
confirming negative stereotypes in other peopleÕs eyes.
Aside from making these theoretical points, our
findings also bear important practical implications: If
stereotypes can impair gay menÕs interpersonal skills
during brief interactions with children, they might sim-
ilarly compromise gay teachersÕ abilities in the class-
room. Concern about appearing ‘‘dangerous’’ or
‘‘perverted’’ may place gay schoolteachers in a state of
chronic preoccupation with their behaviors, appearance,
and speech in the classroom, and this preoccupation
may usurp teachersÕ already-strained mental and/or
physical resources. Indeed, many gay teachers complain
that their constant self-monitoring efforts leave them
feeling stiff and inauthentic with their students (Kissen,
1996; Olson, 1987). As one teacher put it: ‘‘My biggest
disappointment is the inability to get really close to my
students. . ..IÕm afraid to hug them. . ..If there were no
barriers or fears between us, I could be doing a better
job’’ (Trent, 1978, cited in Fassinger, 1993, p. 130).
Additional research in a more structured daycare or
school setting could explore the extent to which stereo-
type threat anxiety affects real teacher–student interac-
tions, as well as teachersÕ effectiveness. StudentsÕ
evaluations of their teachers, or even studentsÕ perfor-
mance on standardized tests, could serve as especially
useful indices of teachersÕ effectiveness—presumably,
such indices would avoid the problem of potential
overlap that plagued our non-verbal anxiety and child-
care performance measures, and would thus strengthen
researchersÕ ability to draw conclusions about media-
tion. We believe that such research is vital given the
finding that, when not threatened, gay men appeared to
possess a natural aptitude for childcare work. Although
not predicted, this trend is consistent with research
suggesting that gay men may be particularly well-suited
254 J.K. Bosson et al. / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 40 (2004) 247–255
to careers, such as preschool teacher, that require social
and artistic abilities (Chung & Harmon, 1994).
By contrast, then, are heterosexual men poorly-suited
to the job of preschool teacher? At first glance, our
findings seem to raise this possibility: Heterosexuals
appeared relatively anxious and unskilled while inter-
acting with children in the no-prime condition. On the
other hand, affirming their heterosexuality prior to the
interaction substantially (though not statistically signif-
icantly) alleviated heterosexualsÕ discomfort. Thus, the
same manipulation that hurt gay menÕs childcare abili-
ties appeared to boost heterosexual menÕs abilities—a
pattern that distinguishes our findings from other ste-
reotype threat research. The typical pattern of findings,
as exemplified in Steele and Aronson (1995), shows a
large effect of the stereotype threat manipulation on the
performance of stigmatized individuals and little or no
effect of the threat manipulation on non-stigmatized
participants. Why were heterosexuals in our study af-
fected by the threat manipulation? Perhaps heterosexual
men in the no-prime condition were anxious because
they considered childcare a feminine activity, and
therefore feared that they would do poorly, or that
observers would assume they were gay. Alternatively,
heterosexuals in the prime condition may have felt re-
laxed after indicating that they were straight because
they knew that predominant stereotypes link homosex-
uality—not heterosexuality—with child-molestation (for
related ideas, see Shih, Pittinsky, & Ambady, 1999).
Clearly, this puzzle merits additional scrutiny and we are
conducting follow-up studies to replicate and explore
this effect. In the meantime, we note that the domain of
childcare may provide a particularly interesting context
for research because it appears to activate performance-
impairing stereotypes for a variety of different social
groups.
Finally, although we chose to study stereotype threat
anxiety in an interpersonal context here, we believe that
our recommendation to utilize indirect anxiety indices
can be applied to research in other contexts as well. For
example, if stereotype-threatened individuals are ob-
served while taking a math or verbal exam, their non-
verbal behaviors can be coded for evidence of anxiety
that a self-report scale might not capture. Regardless of
the context chosen for investigation, the findings re-
ported here highlight the theoretical and practical in-
sight that is gained by recognizing that, where stereotype
threat anxiety is concerned, people may feel one thing
but say another.
References
Aronson, J., Lustina, M. J., Good, C., Keough, K., Steele, C. M., &
Brown, J. (1999). When white men canÕt do math: Necessary and
sufficient factors in stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 35, 29–46.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator
variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual,
strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Blascovich, J., Spencer, S. J., Quinn, D., & Steele, C. (2001). African
Americans and high blood pressure: The role of stereotype threat.
Psychological Science, 12, 225–229.
Brodt, S. E., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1981). Modifying shyness-related
social behavior through symptom misattribution. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 437–449.
Brown, R. P., Charnsangavej, T., Keough, K. A., Newman, M. L., &
Rentfrow, P. J. (2000). Putting the ‘‘affirm’’ into affirmative action:
Preferential selection and academic performance. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 736–747.
Brownley, K. A., Hurwitz, B. E., & Schneiderman, N. (2000).
Cardiovascular psychophysiology. In J. T. Cacioppo, L. G.
Tassinary, & G. G. Berntson (Eds.), Handbook of psychophysiology
(2nd ed., pp. 224–264). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chung, Y. B., & Harmon, L. W. (1994). The career interests and
aspirations of gay men: How sex-role orientation is related. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 45, 223–239.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation
analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. In D. T.
Gilbert, S. T Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social
psychology (Vol. 2, (4th ed., pp. 504–553). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Croizet, J. C., & Claire, T. (1998). Extending the concept of stereotype
threat to social class: The intellectual underperformance of students
from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 24, 588–594.
DePaulo, B. M. (1992). Nonverbal behavior and self-presentation.
Psychological Bulletin, 111, 203–243.
Dovidio, J. F., & Fazio, R. (1992). New techniques for the direct and
indirect assessment of attitudes. In J. Tanur (Ed.), Questions about
questions: Meaning, memory, expression, and social interactions in
surveys (pp. 204–237). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). Nonverbal leakage and clues to
deception. Psychiatry, 32, 88–105.
Fassinger, R. E. (1993). And gladly teach: Lesbian and gay issues in
education. In L. Diamant (Ed.), Homosexual issues in the workplace
(pp. 119–142). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.
Frable, D. E., Blackstone, T., & Scherbaum, C. (1990). Marginal and
mindful: Deviants in social interactions. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 59, 140–149.
Herek, G. M. (1991). Myths about sexual orientation: A lawyerÕs guide
to social science research. Law and Sexuality: A Review of Lesbian
and Gay Legal Issues, 1, 133–172.
Herek, G. M. (2002). Gender gaps in public opinion about lesbians
and gay men. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66, 40–66.
Kissen, R. M. (1996). The last closet: The real lives of lesbian and gay
teachers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Mohr, J. J., & Rochlen, A. B. (1999). Measuring attitudes regarding
bisexuality in lesbian, gay male, and heterosexual populations.
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 46, 353–369.
Neuberg, S. L., Smith, D. M., & Asher, T. (2000). Why people
stigmatize: Toward a biocultural framework. In T. F. Heatherton,
R. E. Kleck, M. R. Hebl, & J. G. Hull (Eds.), The social psychology
of stigma. New York: The Guilford Press.
Olson, M. R. (1987). A study of gay and lesbian teachers. Journal of
Homosexuality, 13, 73–81.
Osborne, J. W. (2001). Testing stereotype threat: Does anxiety explain
race and sex differences in achievement? Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 26, 291–310.
Oswald, D. L., & Harvey, R. D. (2001). Hostile environments,
stereotype threat, and math performance among undergraduate
 J.K. Bosson et al. / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 40 (2004) 247–255
women. Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality,
Social, 19, 338–356.
Pinel, E. C. (1999). Stigma consciousness: The psychological legacy of
social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76,
114–128.
Schlenker, B. R., & Leary, M. R. (1982). Social anxiety and self-
presentation: A conceptualization model. Psychological Bulletin,
92, 641–669.
Schmader, T. (2002). Gender identification moderates stereotype
threat effects on womenÕs math performance. Journal of Experi-
mental Social Psychology, 38, 194–201.
Shih, M., Pittinsky, T. L., & Ambady, N. (1999). Stereotype
susceptibility: Identity salience and shifts in quantitative perfor-
mance. Psychological Science, 10, 80–83.
Smart, L., & Wegner, D. M. (1999). Covering up what canÕt be seen:
Concealable stigma and mental control. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 77, 474–486.
255
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects
in structural equations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological
methodology (pp. 290–312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat
and womenÕs math performance. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 35, 4–28.
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 Black and White athletic performance.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1213–1227.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1991). Self- versus peer ratings of specific
emotional traits: Evidence of convergent and discriminant validity.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 927–940.
Waxer, P. H. (1977). Nonverbal cues for anxiety: An examination of
emotional leakage. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 86, 306–314.