Numbers Ain't Neutral: A QuantCrit Analysis of the Relationship Among Stereotype Threat, Threat Mitigation, and Identity Safety.

Purpose: Stereotype threat (fear of fulfilling negative stereotypes about one's group) hinders performance through mechanisms such as overwhelming working memory and forcing conscious attention to normally automated cognitive or physical processes. Efforts to combat stereotype threat may include threat mitigation (reactive responses to identity threats) and identity safety (proactively empowering individuals to be their authentic selves). The authors assessed the relationship among stereotype threat, threat mitigation, identity safety, and participant demographics.

Method: In this cross-sectional study, all U.S. nephrology fellows were invited to complete a survey after the 2024 national in-training examination. The study was anchored in QuantCrit, a research paradigm that applies critical race theory to quantitative methods, and included 8 items using a 5-point Likert scale. The authors performed confirmatory factor analysis to explore statistical validity for the proposed model. Exploring stereotype threat as the dependent variable, the authors compared non-QuantCrit with QuantCrit analysis.

Results: Overall, 646 of 962 fellows responded (66.9% response rate). With confirmatory factor analysis, a 3-factor model achieved best fit. Participants endorsed low stereotype threat (mean [SD], 1.47 [0.87]), moderate threat mitigation (mean [SD], 3.02 [1.25]), and high identity safety (mean [SD], 4.34 [0.81]). In non-QuantCrit and QuantCrit regressions, threat mitigation was positively associated with stereotype threat, whereas identity safety was inversely associated with stereotype threat. Non-QuantCrit analysis showed no identity-based differences in stereotype threat. QuantCrit analysis with disaggregated identity categories showed that Southeast Asian and Black fellows and international medical graduates (IMGs) from Asia and the Middle East had higher stereotype threat. Asian and Black fellows who were IMGs had less stereotype threat than their racial counterparts from U.S. allopathic schools.

Conclusions: Fellows who experienced more identity safety reported less stereotype threat, whereas fellows who experienced more threat mitigation reported more stereotype threat. QuantCrit analysis demonstrated intergroup differences not apparent in non-QuantCrit analysis.