{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0273972602739726, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0032232070910556, 'mean_word_length': 5.861878453038674, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Casting a Wide Net? Performance Deficit, Priming, and Subjective Performance Evaluation in Organizational Stereotype Threat Research

In their focal article, Kalokerinos, von Hippel, and Zacher (2014) suggest that stereotype threat is a useful construct for organizational psychology research and practice, largely due to its negative effect on organizational attitudes (i.e., disidentification). We agree that stereotype threat research should not be confined to the boundaries of laboratories. However, we argue that Kalokerinos and colleagues are casting too wide a net, and field research on stereotype threat would benefit from considering the following three design issues: (a) Actual or potential deficits in performance domains should be identified to examine the mechanism with which stereotype threat affects organizational attitudes; (b) stereotype threat effects should be differentiated from the more general social category membership (e.g., priming) effects to avoid confounding the two; (c) the role of subjective performance appraisal in stereotype threat effects should be examined because as a high stakes organizational practice it is likely to create vulnerability to stereotype threat and curb one’s career advancement.