Scan barcode
guineapiggirl's review against another edition
informative
reflective
medium-paced
5.0
Not only is this book very informative, but it's much better written than a majority of academic books.
yedidah72's review against another edition
3.0
An interesting and helpful hypothesis about racial inequality, but a little dry
saxifrage_seldon's review against another edition
4.0
Claude M. Steele’s 2010 book, Whistling Vivaldi: How Stereotypes Affect Us and What We Can Do, offers a profound exploration into the intricate ways social identities and stereotypes shape our lives. Steele illuminates the process of internalizing these stereotypes and how this affects individuals in specific contexts through decades of research and multiple experiments carried out not only by him but also by researchers across the globe.
Steele introduces two pivotal concepts in his book. The first is “identity contingency,” which he defines as the conditions or situations dictated by one’s social identity. These conditions influence behavior, choices, and opportunities, both externally imposed and internally processed. Steele, an African American who grew up during segregation, illustrates this with his personal experience at a segregated swimming pool. His limited access to the pool, dictated by race, not only restricted his swimming times but also heightened his awareness of racial divisions and shaped his racial identity and future perceptions.
The second concept, “stereotype threat,” builds upon the first. Steele describes it as the anxiety experienced by individuals in situations where there is a risk of confirming negative stereotypes about their social group. This anxiety, he argues, can detrimentally affect their performance. A seminal experiment conducted by Steele and his colleagues at Stanford University powerfully illustrates this. In the study, white and black males were asked to play golf, but the framing of the task was manipulated. For one group, the task was presented as a test of “natural athleticism,” a domain where black males might feel positively stereotyped. Conversely, for the other group, it was framed as measuring “sports strategic intelligence,” a domain associated with negative stereotypes about black males. The results were striking: black males performed significantly better when the task was framed as measuring athleticism, but their performance declined under the intelligence framing. This stark contrast underscored how the activation of a stereotype, positive or negative, can profoundly impact an individual’s performance. The experiment highlighted the tangible effects of stereotype threat and demonstrated its fluidity across different contexts and groups.
Steele extends this concept to various groups, underscoring that stereotype threat is not exclusive to any single group. He details how it not only impairs performance but also induces psychological stress, alters behaviors, and triggers physiological reactions. Intriguingly, Steele and his colleagues found that stereotype threat disproportionately affects overachievers within impacted groups, likely due to their heightened awareness and fear of confirming negative stereotypes.
Towards the end, Steele proposes strategies to combat stereotype threat. He advocates for the adoption of what psychologist Carol Dweck calls a “growth mindset,” the understanding that abilities and intelligence aren’t fixed but can develop over time. He also advises self-affirmation exercises and seeking mentors who face similar stereotype threats. Furthermore, he calls for a greater understanding of stereotype threat, as this knowledge allows individuals to recognize and mitigate its effects and provides assessors with insights on how to shape assessments to minimize negative impacts.
Steele cautions against certain intuitive but less effective strategies for overcoming stereotype threat. He specifically advises against the approach of merely “toughing it out,” which relies on personal resilience and grit to counter stereotypes. He argues that this strategy consumes excessive cognitive resources, leading to increased stress and ultimately, task failure. Additionally, Steele emphasizes that stereotype threat is just one of many structural challenges faced by underrepresented groups in areas like education and employment. He advocates for a more comprehensive approach, integrating strategies to address stereotype threat with others. For instance, he highlights the importance of enhancing teacher quality and leveraging social networks for job opportunities, demonstrating how these factors are crucial in mitigating the broader challenges faced by these groups.
In summary, Whistling Vivaldi is a critical read for understanding how social identity shapes actions, behaviors, and opportunities. It insightfully reveals how stereotypes, prejudices, and discrimination can subtly impact groups, even without direct personal experiences of discrimination. I highly recommend this book to educators, administrators, and anyone interested in exploring the complexities of social identity.
Steele introduces two pivotal concepts in his book. The first is “identity contingency,” which he defines as the conditions or situations dictated by one’s social identity. These conditions influence behavior, choices, and opportunities, both externally imposed and internally processed. Steele, an African American who grew up during segregation, illustrates this with his personal experience at a segregated swimming pool. His limited access to the pool, dictated by race, not only restricted his swimming times but also heightened his awareness of racial divisions and shaped his racial identity and future perceptions.
The second concept, “stereotype threat,” builds upon the first. Steele describes it as the anxiety experienced by individuals in situations where there is a risk of confirming negative stereotypes about their social group. This anxiety, he argues, can detrimentally affect their performance. A seminal experiment conducted by Steele and his colleagues at Stanford University powerfully illustrates this. In the study, white and black males were asked to play golf, but the framing of the task was manipulated. For one group, the task was presented as a test of “natural athleticism,” a domain where black males might feel positively stereotyped. Conversely, for the other group, it was framed as measuring “sports strategic intelligence,” a domain associated with negative stereotypes about black males. The results were striking: black males performed significantly better when the task was framed as measuring athleticism, but their performance declined under the intelligence framing. This stark contrast underscored how the activation of a stereotype, positive or negative, can profoundly impact an individual’s performance. The experiment highlighted the tangible effects of stereotype threat and demonstrated its fluidity across different contexts and groups.
Steele extends this concept to various groups, underscoring that stereotype threat is not exclusive to any single group. He details how it not only impairs performance but also induces psychological stress, alters behaviors, and triggers physiological reactions. Intriguingly, Steele and his colleagues found that stereotype threat disproportionately affects overachievers within impacted groups, likely due to their heightened awareness and fear of confirming negative stereotypes.
Towards the end, Steele proposes strategies to combat stereotype threat. He advocates for the adoption of what psychologist Carol Dweck calls a “growth mindset,” the understanding that abilities and intelligence aren’t fixed but can develop over time. He also advises self-affirmation exercises and seeking mentors who face similar stereotype threats. Furthermore, he calls for a greater understanding of stereotype threat, as this knowledge allows individuals to recognize and mitigate its effects and provides assessors with insights on how to shape assessments to minimize negative impacts.
Steele cautions against certain intuitive but less effective strategies for overcoming stereotype threat. He specifically advises against the approach of merely “toughing it out,” which relies on personal resilience and grit to counter stereotypes. He argues that this strategy consumes excessive cognitive resources, leading to increased stress and ultimately, task failure. Additionally, Steele emphasizes that stereotype threat is just one of many structural challenges faced by underrepresented groups in areas like education and employment. He advocates for a more comprehensive approach, integrating strategies to address stereotype threat with others. For instance, he highlights the importance of enhancing teacher quality and leveraging social networks for job opportunities, demonstrating how these factors are crucial in mitigating the broader challenges faced by these groups.
In summary, Whistling Vivaldi is a critical read for understanding how social identity shapes actions, behaviors, and opportunities. It insightfully reveals how stereotypes, prejudices, and discrimination can subtly impact groups, even without direct personal experiences of discrimination. I highly recommend this book to educators, administrators, and anyone interested in exploring the complexities of social identity.
queenbethie's review against another edition
4.0
Excellent and thought provoking book as you consider not only how stereotypes affect us, as a human race, but as you, the reader, personally. I appreciated being challenged in my thinking and assumptions and considering ways to bring about change.
mdyang97's review against another edition
4.0
This book was the first victim of me finding cute covers inside the office storage room. I strangely feel like I had also heard of this book before finding it there, but who knows...
Anyways, I thought this was going to be more practice than theory. I'm here to share that I was wrong, and "Whistling Vivaldi" is a book about theory. Professor Steele shares the various research experiments that he, his collaborators, and different cohorts of graduate students worked on to discover "stereotype threat," which affects our ability to respond to certain social situations that befall us in life.
While there was a ton of science, I'm happy to report that this level of science was written in "English" and reasonably understandable to the average individual. It was educational to learn about the various stereotype threats that different demographic groups face - it is not just minorities. For example, the story about the white student feeling threatened in a critical race theory/history class where he was the only non-POC. I hope to bring the knowledge from this short read with me everywhere I go, in workplaces and social gatherings.
Anyways, I thought this was going to be more practice than theory. I'm here to share that I was wrong, and "Whistling Vivaldi" is a book about theory. Professor Steele shares the various research experiments that he, his collaborators, and different cohorts of graduate students worked on to discover "stereotype threat," which affects our ability to respond to certain social situations that befall us in life.
While there was a ton of science, I'm happy to report that this level of science was written in "English" and reasonably understandable to the average individual. It was educational to learn about the various stereotype threats that different demographic groups face - it is not just minorities. For example, the story about the white student feeling threatened in a critical race theory/history class where he was the only non-POC. I hope to bring the knowledge from this short read with me everywhere I go, in workplaces and social gatherings.
yuzujam's review against another edition
4.0
Read for HGSE summer reading
I do not read many books on education- I much prefer fiction, fantasy books. However, I am glad I read this book- I was not very mindful of identity contingencies and really, how much of an impact they have on performance.
In writing about his own journey in the field, Claude Steele was able to make me follow in depth the subtle nuances of the topic. At one point, I thought how it may have been better if the book had been more concise and covered more studies and topics (such as more specifics on how to address these issues). However, because I followed his story, I feel that I gained a deeper understanding as well as connection to the topic. His story definitely stands alone as one book- ways to deal with the issue can be covered in another book. For those who already knew and strongly believed in identity contingencies may probably not have found this book super useful.
This book is definitely a good read for those entering education research as well as perhaps a good review for those already advanced in the field. But of course, this is just the beginning for me, I need to read more books.
PS: This was interesting to read after I read about the Global Achievement Gap. The common Achievement Gap would definitely benefit from addressing the identity contingency. How to address the Global Gap though?
I do not read many books on education- I much prefer fiction, fantasy books. However, I am glad I read this book- I was not very mindful of identity contingencies and really, how much of an impact they have on performance.
In writing about his own journey in the field, Claude Steele was able to make me follow in depth the subtle nuances of the topic. At one point, I thought how it may have been better if the book had been more concise and covered more studies and topics (such as more specifics on how to address these issues). However, because I followed his story, I feel that I gained a deeper understanding as well as connection to the topic. His story definitely stands alone as one book- ways to deal with the issue can be covered in another book. For those who already knew and strongly believed in identity contingencies may probably not have found this book super useful.
This book is definitely a good read for those entering education research as well as perhaps a good review for those already advanced in the field. But of course, this is just the beginning for me, I need to read more books.
PS: This was interesting to read after I read about the Global Achievement Gap. The common Achievement Gap would definitely benefit from addressing the identity contingency. How to address the Global Gap though?
metalphoenix's review against another edition
3.0
The premise of this book is really interesting and thought-provoking. The writing is terrible. I had a later edition and there were still multiple typos and errors. The same point is repeated over and over again; I assume in attempt to fill pages.
The run on sentences that somehow were still fragments, the never ending lists, the references back to earlier parts of the sentence in an attempt to reframe the sentence that was a run on and yet were fragments and repeated the words in a later part of the sentence, the overly convoluted phrasing (and parenthetical asides that unnecessarily prolonged the conclusion of the point) attributed to the sense that, there may have been no editor, and that, this author just stream of conscious-ed the whole thing, and that led to long sentences that had no point and could have made the non-existent point clearer given an editor.
Did you get lost in that? Imagine it for 200+ pages.
I just flipped to a random page and here’s a taste:
“Both psychology majors, who were under stereotype threat, and science majors, who were under less stereotype threat during this IQ test, seemed to be bearing a substantial cognitive load. It was something else that distinguished the two groups: the relationship between their heartbeat interval and how well they performed. The harder the science majors (under less stereotype threat) thought, as indicated by a more stable heartbeat interval, the better they did. But the harder the psychology majors (at risk of confirming the stereotype) thought, the more stable their heartbeat interval, the worst they did. Hard thinking for the science majors, under little stereotype pressure, reflected constructive engagement with the test. Hard thinking for the psychology majors, at risk of confirming the stereotype, reflected performance-worsening rumination.”
Another:
“For example, if alleviating stereotype threat in college led stereotyped students to “overperform” there in comparison to nonstereotyped students, it would mean that their underperformance in more typical college environments was likely due to the stereotype threat in those environments depressing their grades. It would also suggest that the earlier test of their potential, say, the SAT, underestimated their true potential since they actually got higher grades than the test would have predicted when stereotype threat was reduced in their later college environment—higher grades than nonstereotype students with the same SAT scores, for example”
It’s worth a read, but get ready to skim.
The run on sentences that somehow were still fragments, the never ending lists, the references back to earlier parts of the sentence in an attempt to reframe the sentence that was a run on and yet were fragments and repeated the words in a later part of the sentence, the overly convoluted phrasing (and parenthetical asides that unnecessarily prolonged the conclusion of the point) attributed to the sense that, there may have been no editor, and that, this author just stream of conscious-ed the whole thing, and that led to long sentences that had no point and could have made the non-existent point clearer given an editor.
Did you get lost in that? Imagine it for 200+ pages.
I just flipped to a random page and here’s a taste:
“Both psychology majors, who were under stereotype threat, and science majors, who were under less stereotype threat during this IQ test, seemed to be bearing a substantial cognitive load. It was something else that distinguished the two groups: the relationship between their heartbeat interval and how well they performed. The harder the science majors (under less stereotype threat) thought, as indicated by a more stable heartbeat interval, the better they did. But the harder the psychology majors (at risk of confirming the stereotype) thought, the more stable their heartbeat interval, the worst they did. Hard thinking for the science majors, under little stereotype pressure, reflected constructive engagement with the test. Hard thinking for the psychology majors, at risk of confirming the stereotype, reflected performance-worsening rumination.”
Another:
“For example, if alleviating stereotype threat in college led stereotyped students to “overperform” there in comparison to nonstereotyped students, it would mean that their underperformance in more typical college environments was likely due to the stereotype threat in those environments depressing their grades. It would also suggest that the earlier test of their potential, say, the SAT, underestimated their true potential since they actually got higher grades than the test would have predicted when stereotype threat was reduced in their later college environment—higher grades than nonstereotype students with the same SAT scores, for example”
It’s worth a read, but get ready to skim.