Does a self-affirmation intervention reduce stereotype threat in Black and Hispanic high schools?
Bratter, J. L., Rowley, K. J., & Chukhray, I. (2016). Race and Social Problems, 8, 340-356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-016-9187-4.
-
examining722Students, grade9
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: May 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Self-affirmation intervention - Bratter et al. (2016))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with high attrition, but the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness—End of Course Results (STAAR-EOC): Algebra 1 |
Self-affirmation intervention - Bratter et al. (2016) vs. Non-emotional/neutral eliciting writing exercise |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
English Course Grade- Spring Semester Ninth Grade |
Self-affirmation intervention - Bratter et al. (2016) vs. Non-emotional/neutral eliciting writing exercise |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness—End of Course Results (STAAR-EOC): Reading 1 |
Self-affirmation intervention - Bratter et al. (2016) vs. Non-emotional/neutral eliciting writing exercise |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
7% English language learners -
Female: 50%
Male: 50% -
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Texas
-
Race Black 26% Other or unknown 63% White 11% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 62% Not Hispanic or Latino 38% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 38% No FRPL 62%
Study Details
Setting
This study occurred during the 2012-13 academic year in grade 9 English classes within 3 high schools located in a large urban school district in Texas. The researchers purposely chose one school that served a predominantly Black student population, another high school that served a predominantly Hispanic student population, and a third high school that served a racially/ethnically diverse student population. The students in 2 of the 3 participating schools scored well-below the state average on standardized achievement tests.
Study sample
For the original sample consisting of 886 grade 9 students, 62% were Hispanic, 26% were Black, 11% were White, and 1% belonged to other racial or ethnic groups. Half (50%) of the students were female. Roughly one quarter of the students (27%) were classified as ‘‘not disadvantaged’’, while almost 38% qualified for free/reduced lunch and 35% lived in poverty. About 7% of students were classified as limited English proficiency (LEP). Half (50%) of the sample attended the predominantly Hispanic high school; 35% attended the high school serving a racially/ethnically diverse population, and the remaining 15% attended the predominantly Black high school. The analysis included 722 of these 886 students.
Intervention Group
The self-affirmation writing exercise consisted of four short (15-20 minute) writing exercises in students' English classrooms that occurred over the course of the school year. The writing exercises included a list of 12 values that the authors expected students to perceive as important (e.g., spending time with friends or family, enjoying sports, enjoying music). Students circled the values that were important to them and then—following a writing prompt that asked them to elaborate—wrote about why the values they selected were important to them. These writing exercises were adapted from the self-affirming intervention developed by Cohen et al. (2006). The exercises were administered by teachers as part of the regular curriculum at academically stressful times; specifically, no more than three days prior to four high-stakes tests: (1) a national pre-college exam administered in October, (2) the semester final exam in December, (3) a school-based examination in February, and (4) an end of-the-year standardized test that is required for graduation and is used to determine promotion to the next grade in April.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition had a similar experience as students in the intervention condition. Comparison students also received a similar list of values and were asked to circle the values that they considered important. They then were asked to write briefly about an emotionally- neutral topic (for example, whether the USA should continue using the penny given that it costs more to produce a penny than it's actually worth).
Support for implementation
English teachers distributed the materials to their students but were unaware of students' assignment. The researchers trained the teachers on how to administer the writing exercises and collect students' written responses.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).