# Talk:Stereotype threat

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 April 2020 and 11 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AndrewLung.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

"Some critics have charged that the studies cannnot fully explain the black-white achievement gap, which emerges before children are aware of cultural stereotypes."
The emphasized part of that sentence needs a citation. I have removed that half of the sentence because (a) I could figure out how to include a fact template in a way that would make it clear which part of the sentence I thought needed a citation and (b) because I think it's controversial enough a claim on its own that it shouldn't be left in without citation. —mako (talk•contribs) 22:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you made the right move here. futurebird 01:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yer average wikipedia reader won't understand the graph.   The key point is that the black and white students scored equally well before the experimental "threat".   If anything, the graph implies that there is no stereotype threat effect on SAT scores outside of the laboratory, but the presentatio makes it look like stereotype threat explains existing differences, which it doesn't.
This page doesnt have anything to do with Africa so i removed the template.
216.254.20.162 02:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this graph is clear. futurebird (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I applaud the recent work an an anonymous editor, but I'm trying to NPOV the recent additions somewhat.  The recent additions sometimes take it for granted that Steele and Aronson are trying to show that S.T. accounts for overall black-white test gaps.  At least some people on the other side of the argument don't think that Steele and Aronson are trying to show this at all, so that aspect of the debate needs to be characterized without taking sides.  --Allen 04:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree. The link to the post article supports the idea that the critics (if they can be called critics) are concerned that people misundersting the implication of ST will think that ST is the entire cause ofr the gap. No one has disputed that it contributes to the gap and no one has suggested that that was the point of the ST studies to show that this was the entire source of the gap. futurebird 16:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Why was this removed?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Futurebird (talk • contribs) 05:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 

Hmm. The graph seems like a good idea, but it also looks like it was drawn in ms-paint. ⟳ausa sui × 06:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I've added dozens of images to Wikipedia made in MS Paint that have gone unchallenged and continue to be heavily used.  That's not relevant.  That said, I think the image could use some work, or at least better explanation of everything and inclusion of the numerical data plotted.
After reading this article, the image makes more sense to me.  It essentially shows the same result that the blacks vs. whites graph does. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 08:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

 
How about this new graph? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Just want to add the paragraph from Osborne (2007): "As expected and reported in previous studies of this nature, performance was significantly related to sex and condition (F(1,50) = 5.46, p < .02, η2 = .12). As shown in Figure 1, there is a large gap in performance between males and females under high ST conditions (means = 11.28 and 6.87 respectively) and no substantial difference between males and females under low ST conditions (means = 8.70 and 9.47 respectively)."
It's on page 146. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Is this graph actually helpful and relevant to the article? It seems to show an outsized effect, well beyond that found in larger studies and meta-analyses, which could make it rather misleading. It also has more minor technical issues such as the Y-axis not starting at 0, and it should be a bar rather than line chart (WP:Graphs and charts#Accuracy). Stonkaments (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Stonkaments and I don't often agree but I think they're correct here. I'll go ahead and remove this graph and if others believe that it belongs in the article they can revert and discuss. Best, Generalrelative (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to share that I separated the evidence section into gender and race. I moved the alignment of the graphs for more of an appeal as well. I'm currently in an Honors seminar class at NC State and we're working on editing some Wikipedia articles as a project. My interest was stereotype threat and its effect on gender (i.e. women's underachievement in math) so I added some more sources to reference that idea. I didn't edit anything for the race part, all original content is there (but I did move some of it so that it would be all together). This is a great article and great references. Any questions, feel free to ask. 
comment added by akkuluku  —Preceding comment was added at 01:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC) 

I have posted a bibliography of   Intelligence Citations for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in those issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research and to suggest new sources to me by comments on that page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi fellow Wikipedians - I am a social psychologist who is currently working on a stereotype threat study. Since I have to review all of the literature anyway, I thought I would simultaneously try to improve this article by adding additional information, clarifying what was there previously, and providing references. I have added quite a bit to the background of how the theory of stereotype threat was first developed (this information is newly available in Claude Steele's book "Whistling Vivaldi") as well as more information on mechanisms and interventions. I changed the "interpretations" section to "criticisms" but was not completely sure if that is right. Maybe interpretations is a better description for that section. I cleaned up the writing in that section but will not change anything in it, since I'm less familiar with the material. As I continue to review stereotype threat research, I will possibly add more to the other sections. This is my first major edit, and I apologize for any mistakes.Haley love (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No worries for making any mistakes. Problems with formatting are easily corrected, and if you have any questions on how to do something you can always ask myself or another user.AerobicFox (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Haley and other contributors for their recent improvements to the article. I think it's really good and hope that some of us can work together to get it to Good Article status.

The first section goes into too much detail about the career of Claude Steele. This isn't a biographical article: readers will want to know in the first few paragraphs which are the key findings about Stereotype threat.
References need to be converted to fully formatted citations.
I remember reading about a study with women of Asian descent doing maths tests. They showed stereotype threat when the concept of gender was activated, and stereotype enhancement when primed to think about race. Would be great to have this.
Criticism: it would be better to have this material worked into the other sections rather than parcelled out.
MartinPoulter (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I cut some of the biographical information and added the article about Asian-American women and math performance. I'll keep working on it this week to fix references and add more content that I've come across in the last few weeks.Haley love (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Excellent work, Haley- really like the latest edits. MartinPoulter (talk) 09:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stereotype threat/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: MartinPoulter (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
No time this evening, but I will review this. I have made minor edits to it in the past but am not a substantial contributor. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about the continuing delay. I will review soon. I think only minor tweaks are necessary. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Making a bunch of minor changes now in readiness for a pass. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Full review
1. The article is well-written: I have made a number of copy edits to simplify the text for a general audience.
2. It is based on reliable academic sources which are properly cited, with the most weight given to central, highly-cited research.
3. Broad: Introduces the canonical demonstrations of stereotype threat, but goes beyond them into theoretical issues, long-term effects, and gives a sense of the variety of stereotype threat research. The article is significantly better than some professional textbook sources in this respect.
4. Neutral: The article reflects a mainstream scientific position on the subject, such as is found in textbooks on the topic. No agenda-pushing. Controversy is fairly represented.
5. Stable: no edit-warring.
6. Illustrated: Two free, appropriate images are included. There are concerns about their visual quality (in particular, JPG artefacts on a diagram) but they are adequate for GA. Replacement of those images by SVG (vector) versions would be a welcome improvement.
This deserves a definite pass. Well done to everyone who has worked on it. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

My name is Casey Walker and as part of our History of Psychology class I will be revising this article. Thia is a list of the sources that I plan to use.

1.
 
2.
 
3. 

4. 

Cwalkerr21 (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I just made a pretty big edit which was an assignment for class. I wasn't totally sure where everything should have fit so I'm not sure if the sections that I added my information to are right. I added my information to the mechanisms and effects on performance sections, again I wasn't sure if I should make a whole other section or add to an existing one. But hopefully I made my edits correctly. 
Cwalkerr21 (talk) 06:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

In the "Effects on performance" section is stated:
(...) They found that African-Americans who thought the test measured intelligence were more likely to complete word fragments using words that are associated with relevant negative stereotypes (e.g. completing __mb as "dumb" rather than "numb").(...).
Well... I wonder how many completed the word fragment with "thumb"...
Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 09:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Wikipedians, I’m hoping to help expand this article as part of a university course dedicated to improving Wikipedia articles related to psychology. In this vein, I’ve added a subsection to the “Effects on performance” section on stereotype lift and stereotype boost which run parallel to stereotype threat as they deal directly with the effects of stereotypes on performance. While these topics are separate from stereotype threat, I believe they are relevant enough to warrant a brief mention in this article in order to highlight the fact that stereotypes may not always have a negative impact on performance. In addition, I’ve combined the existing information regarding stereotype boost and Asian-American women in math with the new subsection since this is distinct from stereotype threat. As a final word, I am not yet very familiar with editing Wikipedia articles so any advice would be greatly appreciated and I apologize in advance for any mistakes on my part. StudentPSYche (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not familiar with editing psychology articles, but I think your edit looked just fine. Interesting stuff. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I've expanded the consequences section  to include information on the long-term mental health consequences of stereotype threat due to perceived discrimination. StudentPSYche (talk) 13:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I am at a loss to understand how Stereotype Threat could possibly be falsified. If it is not falsifiable, it is obviously not science at all. Can anyone enlighten me? There is criticism out there questioning the legitimacy of the theory per se. Whether these might be considered reliable sources is another matter. 108.184.196.224 (talk) 06:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

you call it "the theory"... the article does not describe it as a theory, the article describes it as fact. Only enemies of these facts call it a theory; see the criticism section, that's where you see the word "theory" thrown around. You need to get with the program here. 69.201.168.196 (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Theories (like Stereotype Threat) make predictions about what we should see in different situations. These predictions may end up being supported or not. This is where falsifiability enters into science. There is a large literature supporting the main prediction of Stereotype Threat, which is that when someone from a group is aware of a negative stereotype about their group concerning a particular domain of action, their performance tends to suffer. For an example of the methodology used to test this, you can read about the original study in the main article. The idea is not without its criticisms, as you point out, but the predictions made by Stereotype Threat researchers are certainly falsifiable.
Zorander22 (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I had written something longer, but thought better of it. This discussion (scientfic validity) needs to be resolved in the scientific community, not a Wikipedia page. If there is literature on this then it should be incorporated into the criticism section if not already there. If the bulk of the literature is showing it is bunk them it will come out in the wash and the article will reflect that.
108.39.83.47 (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually stereotype has been proven to be bunk by various studies. It is best that we edit the lede so that it points that out and also says that the hypothesis is considered largely unscientific.74.14.73.37 (talk) 02:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Who is citing any sources here? What do the reliable sources say? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
The basic mainstream view is basically what I said above. Here are some particularly excellent sources below -
http://volition.gla.ac.uk/~stoet/pdf/Stoet-Geary-RGP2012.pdf
http://andrewgelman.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/ganley-et-al.-stereotype-threat.pdf
74.14.73.37 (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Two small-n primary sources about girls and mathematics are not the same as reliable secondary sources about the topic as a whole. See WP:RS for more details. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 12:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Stoet and Geary is a review, not a small-n primary source.  Of course you are correct that it only measures one aspect of the topic.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC).

COI disclosure: I am a staff member of the USC Davis School of Gerontology, of which Cleopatra Abdou is a faculty member. I'd like to suggest adding a paragraph about health care stereotype threat, including reference to Abdou's work, under "Further Empirical Studies." Abdou was the first to develop experimental methods to study stereotype threat in a health care context, including the first study indicating that health care stereotype threat is linked with adverse health outcomes and disparities. —BethNewcomb (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC) 

I am a PhD social and cognitive psychologist, and I can verify that the section on 'Factors that affect threat perception' does not belong in this article. That section is discussing bias and implicit association. It is obvious that it is not related by the simple definition of stereotype threat that is provided in the article: "Stereotype threat is a situational predicament in which people are or feel themselves to be at risk of conforming to stereotypes about their social group." Stereotype threat is a totally inward-facing phenomenon, it originates from something that a person perceives about themselves. It is not related to the biases that one person has about another. Please note that other users have made this same argument. This is a major flaw in this article.
--Acline1225 (talk) 05:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree with you. I also commented above in Section Talk:Stereotype_threat#Section_on_Threat_Perception_is_Misleading_and_Irrelevant. Created a separate article Factors contributing to racial bias in threat perception for the content. Not completely happy with that solution but the content doesn′t belong here and I didn′t want to delete the content completely either. Qtea (talk) 11:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The section on threat perception has absolutely nothing to do with the psychological phenomenon of stereotype threat correlating decreased performance with self-stereotyping and instead rambles about perceiving danger from stereotyping others (most notably racial profiling). Seriously, this section is completely irrelevant, has an obvious racial agenda and needs to be removed.
Taken from the section: "There are two race effects that lead to Blacks being incorrectly shot at more than Whites: Perceptual sensitivity: guns are less distinguishable when held by Blacks Response bias: objects held by Blacks are more likely to be treated as guns. After being tasked to shoot individuals who held guns, and not to shoot if they were carrying any other object, race should technically be irrelevant to the decision to shoot or not shoot because the correct response solely depends on the object being held."

Assessing a person's potential danger based on stereotypes is NOT the meaning of stereotype threat discussed in this article. The concept of stereotype threat in this section seems grossly misrepresented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.10.179 (talk) 07:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC) and edited 16:05, 6 June 2016‎ (UTC)

Agree with above. Created a separate article Factors contributing to racial bias in threat perception for the content, with template "Lacking overview". I didn′t find an existing article where it would fit. Qtea (talk) 10:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

This article reads rather strangely. It asserts the existence of the phenomenon as fact, goes in-depth into the various effects it can have, its possible origins, and what might be done to stop it. Then it has a lengthy section that gives fairly strong evidence that it's all bogus. Why is there so much article devoted to the possible causes and mechanisms of an effect whose mere existence is on such shaky grounds?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.2.203 (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC) 

I need to read over the article more closely, but my first pass through makes me inclined to agree that the article needs to at least change phrasing about degrees of confidence into the various effects it can have given the failures to replicate and publication bias. -Pengortm (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
This page should only exists as a cautionary tale in p-hacking in social science.  The fact that people are refusing to acknowledge that the effect is due to flawed (or possibly disingenuous) research methodology is appaling.  Maybe this page should be locked so that these people with a conflict of interest in favour of stereotype threat existing can't edit the page. 136.159.16.10 (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I think that the GA status of this article needs to be re-assessed, but I am not in a position to perform such an assessment. We shouldn't have a GA status article that present a controversial matter as fact, and then states later that it probably isn't. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 06:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, the article is contradictory and gives undue weight to existence. BooleanQuackery (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC) Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the following the liede:

"For example, stereotype threat can lower the intellectual performance of African Americans taking the SAT test used for college entrance in the United States due to the stereotype that African Americans are less intelligent than other groups.<ref name="SteeleAronson" />"
This is wrong. Steele and Aaronson 1996 took the students, and investigated whether their SAT scores would predicts their results. For situation without stereotype threat, blacks and whites scores were well predicted by their SAT scores. For situation without stereotype threat, blacks performed worse than as expected from their SAT scores, while for whites there was no difference. Nothing in the study could be used to imply, that SAT scores themselves were result of stereotype threat; on the contrary, since in experiment without ST blacks and whites scores were predicted by their SAT scores (as S&A 1996 put it, number of items solved adjusted by SAT scores was the same), it can be argued that SAT results are not influenced by stereotype threat at all.
However, it is true that many people, including scientific bloggers seem to misunderstood the study and have ignored the crucial "adjusted by SAT" part, misreporting the study. Maybe description of this misunderstanding is worthy to include in the lead; in fact, the last blog (written by supposedly scientist!) I read which reported "blacks and whites solved the same number of items" in S&A study came from 2017 (!!).
-- szopen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.60.62.225 (talk) 09:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

"One experiment by Paul Hanselman using Cohen's methodology showed only a negligible 0.065 increase in GPA..."
Is that a 0.065 percent increase or is that proportional to the GPA itself? Meaning is it a 6.5% increase? Or is it in terms of non-centigrade points? What are the units of increase?
Also, for the image from "Flore, P. C., & Wicherts, J. M. (2014)," the x-axis has a monolinear title that partially reads, "...- = girl's scores reduce + = increase..." For purposes of clarity there should be extra spacing or perhaps a semicolon after the word "reduce," or else the text caption under the image file should specify that an increase in scores is indicated by a positive increase on the y-axis and vice versa.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.233.160 (talk) 01:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Stereotype threat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203040055/http://www.stolaf.edu/people/steen/Papers/87predict.pdf to http://www.stolaf.edu/people/steen/Papers/87predict.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130404150510/http://www2.uni-jena.de/svw/igc/studies/ss03/sackitt_hardison_cullen_2004.pdf to http://www2.uni-jena.de/svw/igc/studies/ss03/sackitt_hardison_cullen_2004.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Removed and changed multiple biased and inaccurate claims. Removed a study by Cohen, which looked at multiple possible ways to  mitigate performance measures which show ST, and they found "self affirmation" to have a "negligible" effect on GPA. This does not address ST, rather "self affirmation" (in a narrow context). Removed "an even larger study" as being irrelevant which addressed "self affirmation", not ST, despite being portrayed as showing "no increases in achievement" (note that ST is typically associated with negative, not positive, effects). Removed a claim that a study by Levitt "could not replicate the stereotype threat", since they were attempting to address whether financial incentives would offset it, and do not suggest this shows the effect doesn't exist. Retitled and changed the first sentence of the section "Failures to replicate and publication bias" to "Publication bias", since not a single study actually finds no effect at all. Changed the first sentence from "Whether the effect occurs at all has also been questioned, with researchers failing to replicate the finding," to "The strength and type of the effect has also been questioned." Changed portrayal of a study by Wei from "the opposite of stereotype threat:randomly assigned gendered questions actually raised female students' scores," to "a reverse stereotype threat: a randomly assigned question actually raised female students' scores...", since the formed implies a wide array of different questions were evaluated, despite being a single question (specifically, "How do you feel about this statement: math is more for boys than girls"). Modified portrayal of an industry study by Stricker et al for Advanced Placement testing results, which failed to identify results that both "both statistically and practically significant," which is portrayed as "no stereotype threat". The study DOES show "statistically significant" effects for both race and gender, but claim that when statistically significant, it wasn't "practically" significant. It also does not replicate anything at all from the prior study (by Wei). Therefore, changing "The lack of stereotype threat replicates an earlier large experiment with Advanced Placement exams which found no stereotype threat," to "An earlier experiment with Advanced Placement exams found no effects that were 'practically significant,' but does show 'statistically significant' effect." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roguetech (talk • contribs) 16:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

My name is Nicole Dudley and as a part of my class I will be revising this article. I plan to add more strategies to mitigate stereotype threat based on empirical evidence and to compile all the ideas into a more streamlined number list. I'm looking forward to your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nd1018 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23743603.2018.1559647. Once again, no stereotype threat on female pupils in a large controlled study, at least not in math. The article should focus more on the fact, that ST has been oversold, does not exist in large high quality studies and should be considered as bogus, much like homeopathy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.20.199.92 (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC) 

The lead needs to summarize the body of the article. The publication bias section makes quite clear that this is a serious critique and Generalrelative's edits to the lead seem to be an inaccurate summary of the body. More specifically, the weight of the publication bias section suggest no overall effect--even with the recent addition at the end of the section. If the publication bias section is incorrect, first correct that and then we can change the lead. Happy to discuss and let's avoid unproductive and prohibited edit warring. -Pengortm (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Pengortm that the lead needs to summarize the body of the article. However it is hard for me to believe that they are speaking in good faith since the previous version which I corrected misrepresented the science and the article as a whole, presenting the Criticism section as though it were the final word. In particular the Publication Bias subsection suggests that publication bias may account for the phenomenon of stereotype threat but in no way demonstrates that case. Indeed, the subsection itself concedes that "well-controlled studies find smaller or non-significant effects", meaning that some well-controlled studies yielded significant effects –– albeit small ones. Such findings of small effects are quite consistent with the broader literature. Therefore I do not need to correct the subsection on Publication Bias; it simply needs to not be misrepresented in the lead. And while it may present a "serious" critique, that in no way makes it appropriate to simply delete reference to countervailing evidence such as meta-analyses showing significant effects, as Pengortm has done repeatedly. Yes let's avoid unproductive and prohibited edit warring. Please reread the article, explore the literature it references, and consider my edits as a whole before engaging further. Generalrelative (talk) 03:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for engaging here on the talk page. I am glad we agree that the lead should be summarizing the body of the article. I started to look up some of the recent references you added to the lead. I could not find the first couple I checked anywhere else in the body of the article. If references are not referenced in the body, it is harder to argue that the lead is summarizing the body. Good point that the publication bias section does not represent all of the body of the article. Can you point me to where in the body the more elaborated versions of what you have added occur? You are the one making changes here to established text with an apparent consensus behind them, so the burden is, I believe, on you, to gain consensus before insisting that your changes are correct. -Pengortm (talk) 05:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Final paragraph of "Empirical studies" section. Generalrelative (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Stereotype threat is, I believe, a specific type of priming. It would be nice to see ST placed in its larger context. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 04:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

In looking at this article, it strikes me as needing a lot of trimming. A major issue seems to be over reliance on single studies which are strung together in a way which is likely to be overly dependent on the synthesis of editors rather than secondary sources. See especially WP:MEDRS and WP:SYNTH. I have started tagging and correcting some areas that appear to be problematic in these regards and will try to work on this. I think these corrections will also allow us to make the article more succinct and useful. -Pengortm (talk) 06:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I have tried to respond to these concerns, but honestly it didn't take much searching to find RS, mostly already cited in the article. E.g. when cutting the sentence on the 300+ studies showing the effects of stereotype threat in various domains, you wrote in your edit summary: Not, so far as I can tell, that these 300 support the idea. But I found this statement in citation 17 (Pennington et al., "Twenty Years of Stereotype Threat Research: A Review of Psychological Mediators"): Over 300 experiments have illustrated the deleterious and extensive effects that stereotype threat can inflict on many different populations. For this claim Pennington et al. cites Walton et al., "Latent Ability: Grades and test scores systematically underestimate intellectual ability of negatively stereotyped students", which is currently our citation 19. So it was pretty easy to clear this up and restore a slightly modified version of the statement with RS to back it up. I won't go through all of your recent edits here, unless I need to, because I hope that my edit summaries are self-explanatory. That said, I'll be happy to discuss if there are ongoing concerns, and collaborate in finding appropriate solutions where necessary. Generalrelative (talk) 06:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification, and quick and productive engagement here and on the talk page. Please note however, that the issue of the 300+ was not what I was getting at above. Again, there seems to be a general over-reliance on single studies which creates original research and synth issues. With so many studies in this area, an editor could pick and choose different articles to come up with different stories in the literature. Note, I am not accusing you of this, but pointing out the importance of depending more on reviews than primary research articles to make the article easier to read and better reflect scientific consensuses. -Pengortm (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. Let's look at each instance where you see potential SYNTH on a case-by-case basis. I will suggest, though, that before cutting anything as insufficiently supported you check whether it's also mentioned in one of the two secondary sources I mentioned above. Pennington et al. is a systematic review of studies which proposed mechanisms and mediators for stereotype threat, and Walton et al. is a report of two meta-analyses which discusses a wide variety of studies. Taken together it seems to me that most of the claims in this article (outside the Criticism section) are supported by just these two sources. The question then becomes whether there is value in also citing the individual studies, which is a question I'd suggest should be discussed, again, on a case-by-case basis. Generalrelative (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Pengortm, I saw that you added "needs secondary sources" tags to the article. Just FYI it doesn't seem to me that you've made a persuasive case here that these tags are necessary. You've stated in a general way that there's too much reliance on primary sources and raised the specter of SYNTH, but I haven't seen specific example of where that's causing problems in the article. I'm happy to work with you but I remain unconvinced. I won't revert the tags just yet, especially in case another editor cares to weigh in. But it seems to me that the thing to do, as I mentioned above, is to work on specific fixes on a case-by-case basis, rather than marking the whole article as deficient (a view for which, as of right now, there is no consensus). Generalrelative (talk) 02:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
There are too many examples to enumerate here. Examples that jump out from quick skim are the entirety of the third, fourth and fifth paragraph of the empirical studies section. All of these look like old single studies with small sample sizes. As we make these improvements we should not be using this an excuse to remove studies which point in directions we personally are skeptical of. The removal of a 2018 "single largest experimental test of stereotype threat" while leaving many old and much smaller single studies seem like tendentious editing to me. Clearly this article could use more editors attention and help and I hope these tags help to draw in this needed attention.-Pengortm (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Pengortm, my edit summary made clear why I removed that study: "Cut discussion of single study showing null result. This does not constitute criticism nor did it relate directly to the theme of publication bias. The study may be informative but it needs to be framed in a way that doesn't constitute WP:SYNTH."[[1]] Characterizing this as tendentious rather than engaging with the substance of my point seems to me to be pretty non-collaborative. Same goes for the other points where you've characterized my edits as tendentious. Further, "we should not be using this an excuse to remove studies which point in directions we personally are skeptical of" is definitely condescending and borderline aspersion since there is no evidence that I am motivated by personal opinion (or engaging in excuse-making) any more than you are. Perhaps we just have legitimate differences of opinion that can be sorted out though discussion? Yes, more eyes on this page would be helpful. But in the meantime I suggest you deal with issues on a case-by-case basis, as I have done, and then discuss the substance of any disagreements here rather than focusing on characterizing other editors' imagined motivations. Generalrelative (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Note that I have posted a neutral invitation to contribute to this and the following discussions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology. It is my hope that editors uninvolved in the current content disputes will be able to help us move forward and succeed in our shared goal of improving the article. Generalrelative (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I have worked to remove instances of WP:SYNTH and violations of WP:IMPARTIAL from Criticism section (largely in response to Pengortm's suggestion above), providing my rationale in my edit summaries. Several of these edits were recently reverted by Pengortm, charging tendentious editing. With regard to this claim, I would argue that I am rather working to undo problematic edits which appear frequently to overstate the nature of critiques or employ SYNTH to make a case that is not present in the cited sources. I hadn't noticed this problem until reviewing the sources, which is the reason I have made these edits in sequence recently. And frankly I have not yet seen instances where SYNTH or violations of IMPARTIAL have occurred with regard to the positive findings, though I am by no means finished reviewing the article. If the majority or all of the problematic statements in the article that we can identify happen to be in the Criticism section (or even if an editor chooses to begin by cleaning up this section because that's where their interest is), fixing these issues in no way amounts to tendentious editing according to WP:TENDENTIOUS. Again, I am open to discussing any and all issues here. Let's do that (as I have done just above with regard to Pengortm's decision to add tags to the head of the article) rather than relying on reverting one another. With this in mind I ask Pengortm to please self-revert their recent reversions and discuss any ongoing issues here.  Generalrelative (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Seeing as Pengortm has continued to revert my good-faith edits rather than engaging here, I will ask that they check in with the policy stated at WP:TALKDONTREVERT: "Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material ...  may be guilty of disruptive editing". Regardless of how onerous one may find it, WP:BRD on a case-by-case basis is basic to what we do here, and leaving out the "D" short-circuits the whole process. Generalrelative (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe the empirical studies and Criticism sections should be merged. The meta-analyses and publication bias results are empirical studies and it is generally best practices in wikipedia to avoid having separate criticisms sections. -Pengortm (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd be open to this but I think you need to respond to the legitimate points I've raised above before we can proceed with a collaboration at this level. Generalrelative (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Pengortm, I went and moved discussion of Flore et al. 2018 (the large null result study) from the Publication Bias section (where it did not belong per my previous edit summary) up to the Empirical Studies section in partial fulfillment of your suggestion here. I would suggest doing this with the Wei study too in order to avoid the SYNTH issue I have raised elsewhere regarding presenting null results as "critiques". Note that this is a separate issue from the question discussed below about the language needed to describe that study in a way that avoids reader misunderstanding. Generalrelative (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for you Generalrelative for your good faith self-revert in our disagreement about how to summarize the Wei article. I have engaged in the talk page here on several other points. I gave an edit summary explaining my disagreement. You have given edit summaries for some of your edits (and I believe reverts of my edits--although my memory might be failing me) which with those explanations helped me understand and agree enough with your edit without needing to go to the talk page. Edit summaries are a way of beginning the conversation. If you disagree, take it to the talk page. Every change to a page does not require extensive talk page dicussions. I have already explained in my edit summary why I reverted your change--now I am waiting for you to do the same...-Pengortm (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Great, let's start with my original edit summary: Added major / highly relevant qualification from paper's Abstract. The material is relevant because it qualifies the impression that the study disconfirms existing research in toto. If the author had not thought this essential for an understanding of their results it would not appear in the Abstract. Presenting just the disconfirming part of the argument would represent WP:CHERRYPICKING. Your edit summary when reverting ([[2]]) did not seem cogent to me. In particular, the word "However" appears to me to be necessary for logical flow and in no way misleading in relation to the first claim. In what way(s) do you disagree? Generalrelative (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
As I understand it, the abstract is saying they find mostly null results, but one significant result--but it is in the opposite direction of expected based on conventional thinking about stereotype threat--i.e. he finds that stereotype threat INCREASES scores. He goes on to say that "stereotype priming effects are relevant outside of lab settings and that consistent with findings from a companion lab experiment and other lab studies from the stereotype literature, the effects appear to depend on the exact phrasing of the primes." but within the context of their empirical findings it seems clear to me that them being relevant is in a very different way than usually assumed--i.e. stereotype threat improving scores. Yes, it does support the idea that phrasing matters--but that is not in contrast to his findings (as implied by however). Including the quote seems to distract from the main finding of the paper and not really make any helpful points. I think the point about phrasing mattering might be used elsewhere in the article to make the point about "defies over-simplistic characterization" more clear. At the end of the day the results of the paper are to show no evidence for stereotype threat, or in the opposite direction of expected--depending on phrasing.-Pengortm (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I do agree with most of this, which is why I had no issue with reintroducing the sentence on Wei in your revised language once you'd identified the peer-reviewed version of the article: A 2012 examination of real-world testing over a broad population (rather than lab assessments with questionable external validity) found a reverse stereotype threat: a randomly assigned question actually raised female students' scores by 0.05 standard deviations. The parenthesis may make for awkward reading but I don't object to the content.
Further, I think I may have identified a possible compromise solution. You state: Yes, it does support the idea that phrasing matters--but that is not in contrast to his findings (as implied by however). I would argue that the sentence on stereotype priming and phrasing is included in the Abstract precisely because it contrasts with an overly simplistic or intuitive reading of the study's main findings (something the author clearly wishes to avoid), rather than contrasting with the findings themselves. It's obviously important for us to avoid causing a misunderstanding for our readers too. On this point, consider the sentence's opening words: These findings suggest that stereotype priming effects are relevant outside of lab settings... (emphasis added). If you're concerned that the "However" might lead readers to believe that this statement somehow runs counter to Wei's findings, perhaps the thing to do is to quote the entire sentence, thus removing any possible ambiguity? Generalrelative (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I think removing the however is a good step, but I still feel this is misleading to include. The fact that it originally included the word "however" is, I think indicative of how this statement is likely to be interpreted. The article is largely about stereotype threat having negative effects on outcomes. This finds either no effects or a positive effect. So, yeah, it this article argues that stereotype threat might be important in the field--but in the exact opposite direction. Including this statement seems only likely to distract from this fact and not meaningfully clarify things. -Pengortm (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
That's fine, but please recognize that this is a personal opinion rather than a policy-based position. My view is that your version is misleading and that it misrepresents the source in favor of an over-simplistic rejection of the stereotype threat literature, which the author takes up a great deal of space in the Abstract to avoid. In the absence of a neutral third party to help us reach consensus on this and other matters, please refrain from edit warring (as you've recently done by reverting my contribution before giving me a chance to respond here, and indeed before giving yourself an opportunity to be persuaded by discussion). Generalrelative (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Pengortm, if we can't come to an agreement on the language I've suggested, or something to the same effect, or some other compromise to avoid misleading the reader, I won't be able to support including this study at all. The WP:ONUS is therefore on you to achieve consensus or it will be cut. Policy is very clear that The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Generalrelative (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

FYI a new meta-analysis was just made available this month (currently in press) which will to appear in Journal of Applied Psychology: [[3]] If we're looking for recentism in our sources, this would be the logical place to start. Of note (from the Abstract): We also traced the theoretical roots of 11 specific intervention strategies and showed that 9 of them yielded significant effect sizes. Moreover, we found evidence of publication bias regarding some but not all intervention types. Generalrelative (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

In response to User:Pengortm's suggestion that the article is overly long, I would counter that it does not seem to be so to me. I do not see any clear policy guideline for this, but will simply note that stereotype threat is "one of the most widely studied topics in the field of social psychology" per the article's lead. As such it merits a substantial article. Compare with, e.g. Intelligence quotient, which is more than twice as long. But on a procedural level I would suggest that we focus on specific elements that may or may not belong rather than arguing on the basis of personal opinion about the article's overall length. Generalrelative (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

In response to previous objections to similar clarification / WP:NPOV edits I've attempted to make to this sentence in the past, I'm creating this section to explain my rationale. My overall point is that even prominent critics of stereotype threat theory couch their criticisms in circumspect language, and that there is no reason for us to present these criticisms as more certain or definitive than the authors themselves do.
See these quotes from the three cited sources for the sentence (emphasis added):
Flore et al.: "We conclude that publication bias might seriously distort the literature on the effects of stereotype threat among schoolgirls. We propose a large replication study to provide a less biased effect size estimate."
Ganley et al.: "Overall, these results raise the possibility that stereotype threat may not be the cause of gender differences in mathematics performance prior to college. Although we feel that more nuanced research needs to be done to truly understand whether stereotype threat impacts girls’ mathematics performance, we also believe that too much focus on this one explanation may deter researchers from investigating other key factors that maybe involved in gender differences in mathematics performance."
Stoet & Geary: "We conclude that although stereotype threat may affect some women, the existing state of knowledge does not support the current level of enthusiasm for this as a mechanism underlying the gender gap in mathematics."
If these prominent critics use circumspect language such as this to describe their criticisms, so should Wikipedia. Generalrelative (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Generalrelative that we should be using similar language as the authors themselves. As such, it is puzzling to me that Generalrelative has reverted my edit which uses almost identical language as Generalrelative  quotes from Fiore above ("there were several signs of publication bias which "might seriously distort the literature"). Can Generalrelative or another editor explain why this was reverted?-Pengortm (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Similarly, the edits I made to the summary of the Ganley source were minor, but I think better reflect the authors (changing one "may reflect" to "suggests"--phrasing used by Ganley). I also removed one may after a "suggest" saying someone "suggested" that something "may" seems to be working to add in more doubt than the source uses to undermine the point.-Pengortm (talk) 02:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
See the Ganley et al. quote just above: “Overall, these results raise the possibility that stereotype threat may not be the cause…” Pengortm’s statement here (saying someone "suggested" that something "may" seems to be working to add in more doubt than the source uses to undermine the point) appears to me to be incomprehensible in light of what was just quoted. I am not sure how to engage with incomprehensible arguments like this other than to suggest that they read more carefully in the future. Generalrelative (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia prefers to paraphrase where possible rather than quoting, and include information from reliable sources where possible. In light of these two facts, I can't agree with Pengortm's edits nor find any coherency in the strange attempt at turning Generalrelative's words against them above. Their edit warring is disappointing but no less than expected. I am yet to see a useful change that needs to be made to the status quo for the publication bias section. — Bilorv (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'm just getting caught up to speed on this article, but I wanted to weigh in on one tangential issue: I definitely think we should work towards integrating the Criticism section into the Empirical studies section. Right now we're inadvertently "burying the lead" that larger studies and meta-analyses have mostly found little or no significant effect. In that light, I would also tend to agree with some earlier comments that the article is likely too long, as it appears to draw too heavily from primary sources (individual studies that haven't replicated well). Stonkaments (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
This is false, and in fact quite a common misconception about the stereotype threat literature. Most meta-analyses have indeed found significant effects. See the extensive list cited at the end of the lead. As mentioned in my recent edit summary, however, I thank Stonkaments for their judicious edits to the publication bias subsection. I'm happy with these modest changes. Generalrelative (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Oops, thanks for the correction. I didn't realize that. On a related note, could you point me to the supporting evidence in Liu et al for the claim "the level of bias found is insufficient to overturn consensus that such interventions are associated with performance benefits"? I did a quick Ctrl+F on "consensus" and didn't find anything, but it's certainly possible I'm missing something. The closest I could find is: These analyses suggest that, although unlikely to change the overall conclusion that major types of STIs are associated with performance benefits, publication bias may lead to overestimation of the STI effect, especially for STIs aimed at improving resilience. If that's it, I think the wording on that part could use some fine-tuning as well. Stonkaments (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
No worries, there's a lot of literature here to untangle. Yes that's the relevant bit (I quoted it in a recent edit summary). For anyone else who's looking, it's the final sentence of the "Publication Bias Analysis" section. I'd be open to changing "consensus" to some other word. My only concerns are straying too close to the quoted text so that it's a copyright vio –– and of course watering down the conclusion. Suggestions welcome. Generalrelative (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
WP:PARAPHRASE says "Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting, so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text", so I don't think there would be anything wrong with my proposed change (the level of bias found is unlikely to change their overall conclusion that major interventions are associated with performance benefits)? Stonkaments (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
I understand how there might be space for differences of opinion with regard to what "limited close paraphrasing" means, but my intuition is that this crosses the line, and without substantial reason for doing so. In cases like this I suggest that we defer to the judgment of more experienced editors like Bilorv, who commented above.
I would also argue that, given the context, "their conclusion" is not what they're referring to here, but rather the general conclusion accepted by the field (i.e. the scientific consensus; see the intro paragraph of the first section), and that "major interventions" misconstrues the intent of "major types of STIs" which, again from the context, evidently refers to the three broad types they analyze rather than to the intensity of the intervention (see the section "Overall Effect Size and Effect Sizes for Major Types of STIs"). Generalrelative (talk) 19:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm missing something here: on the close paraphrasing question, we're comparing the level of bias found is unlikely to change their overall conclusion that major interventions are associated with performance benefits (proposed article text) to which sentence(s) from the original source? — Bilorv (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
@Bilorv: thanks for responding. We're comparing that proposed sentence to this quote from the source: These analyses suggest that, although unlikely to change the overall conclusion that major types of STIs are associated with performance benefits.... (verbatim overlap highlighted). Note that the only deviations from the quoted text after "although" are the deviations I highlighted as potentially problematic in my previous comment. In any case, I'll be happy to defer to your judgment here. Generalrelative (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Yep, that's definitely close paraphrasing, not even borderline. — Bilorv (talk) 23:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
@Bilorv: Sorry, to be clear, are you saying that's an acceptable form of close paraphrasing, or unacceptable? Stonkaments (talk) 08:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks all for the careful discussion and work above and on the article. Just tuning back in and I don't think I have a lot to add at this point on the major points I raised in this section. As I have raised before, I do agree with Stonkaments that the criticism section and meta-analysis results (and evidence of publication bias) should be better integrated into the article and that meta-analysis results should be given much more prominence than single studies. As currently phrased the messages from the meta-analyses in the criticism section are either not being properly considered enough or being given too much prominence if other meta-analyses contradict them.- Pengortm (talk) 03:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I invite IP 2A00:23C7:EE82:7701:E123:B5C6:A19B:2F0D to discuss their preferred language here rather than edit warring. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

What was the issue with saying "However, there are meta-analyses and systematic reviews that have shown significant evidence for the effects of stereotype threat, though the phenomenon defies over-simplistic characterization."? Currently the phrasing "However, meta-analyses and systematic reviews have shown significant evidence for the effects of stereotype threat, though the phenomenon defies over-simplistic characterization." seems to suggest that all meta-analysis and systematic reviews have concluded that the phenomenon can be reliable observed when this is not the case.
Also, why use the phrasing "significant" evidence instead of just "evidence"? What is the criteria for significant here?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:EE82:7701:E123:B5C6:A19B:2F0D (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
First off, thanks for engaging here. We use the term "significant" because it is used in the cited meta-analyses to refer to their statistically significant findings, e.g. [4], [5], [6]. The concept of statistical significance is a widely accepted convention within scientific literature, not at all "subjective" as you suggested in one of your edit summaries.
The current language does not say that all meta-analyses and systematic reviews support the existence of stereotype threat, but it does focus on what the vast majority of them say, which is what is required to avoid WP:FALSEBALANCE. Note that another recent systematic review should probably be added to that list: [7]. Generalrelative (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
So why would it be inaccurate to say "However, there are meta-analyses and systematic reviews that have shown significant evidence for the effects of stereotype threat, though the phenomenon defies over-simplistic characterization.?" 2A00:23C7:EE82:7701:E123:B5C6:A19B:2F0D (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Because they constitute the vast majority of such secondary sources. Again, see WP:FALSEBALANCE. Generalrelative (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, how do you constitute the sum of the meta-analyses free of publication bias, and check what the vast majority of them are saying?
I mean, the word "however" led me to believe that the vast majority of meta studies constitutes an answer to the criticism of publication bias. Is that the case? BabarJohn (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I added a large pre-registered study in the "criticism" section that showed no stereotype threat. It was removed because "null result" is not criticism. So are scientific experiments on effects of stereotype threat that show no evidence of stereotype threat not relevant in the criticism section? If not, what sort of experiments would classify as being included in the criticism sections?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:EE82:7701:E123:B5C6:A19B:2F0D (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC) 

Explicit criticism would belong in the criticism section. As I mentioned in my edit summary when reverting, this study is already discussed in the "Empirical studies" section, where it belongs. Generalrelative (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I saw that you just altered the language surrounding this study, stating in your edit summary: Saying "some studies have found null result" can be bit misleading when as many studies have found null results as have found significant effects. Do you have a reliable source for this claim? It seems to me that this is wildly incorrect. Even those studies which have been critical of the validity of stereotype threat have suggested publication bias as the reason why so much confirming evidence exists. Generalrelative (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
The source is referenced 2A00:23C7:EE82:7701:E123:B5C6:A19B:2F0D (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
It appears that you have misinterpreted the meta-analysis you cite for that claim. They have run the studies they examined through a statistical process meant to check for publication bias, and based on that result have claimed "there are just as many null stereotype threat effects as there are significant effects". This is not a count of the relevant studies but the result of their analysis. Generalrelative (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Note that this study is premised on the notion that "most gender stereotype threat studies have not included all stereotype threat essential conditions in their designs. Consequently, stereotype threat effects from such studies tend to be biased." They do not show but merely assume what these "essential conditions" are, and of course once controlling for them produce a varied picture of the literature. This doesn't demonstrate much beyond that an alternative theoretical formulation may be possible, hence the tenuous nature of their conclusion: " ST effects on women’s performance might be smaller than previously reported in primary and secondary (meta-analytic) studies." Generalrelative (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
It refers to the funnel plot, no? 2A00:23C7:EE82:7701:E123:B5C6:A19B:2F0D (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Yup. Clearly the large majority of the dots are to the right of zero. Not all are significantly to the right of zero, but we need to avoid any false equivalency that might make it seem as though the mean value were zero. That is far from the case. Generalrelative (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: I have struck one sentence above which I see was poorly phrased. Generalrelative (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
It's also worth looking at the eligibility criteria used for this meta-analysis. This is not a sample of all stereotype threat research as your summary suggested:
Studies were included in the current study if they (a) were experimental, (b) nonintervention studies, (c) had math performance or a quantitative test as outcome (dependent) variables, (d) had evidence of stereotype threat priming (i.e., introducing the negative gender stereotype to participants prior to administering a quantitative test), (e) used control groups, and (f) included useable descriptive statistics required to calculate effect size. In cases where studies met the abovementioned criteria but lacked effect size information, study authors were contacted and asked to provide missing information. We contacted 13 authors about 19 studies and received responses from seven researchers on 12 studies, which were subsequently included in the meta-analysis. Therefore, from the original pool of 192 articles, reports, and dissertations, the final pool of studies was narrowed down to 53 for the meta-analysis based on the abovementioned inclusion criteria.
In particular, these are limited to nonintervention studies on the impact of gender-based stereotype threat on math performance. Generalrelative (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

 This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Shenandoah University supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page. 
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

In several places this article uses the language of "consensus" and cites a number of meta-analyses to back this up (and sources that explicitly use this language). The consensus seems to be that a) the concept of ST is scientifically valid; and b) the effects are real and significant, and interventions yield positive results.
A "consensus" does not merely mean that a large number of researchers agree to something; even if, say, 2/3rds of a field are in agreement, a case could be made that the remaining third constitute a significant minority view that should be captured in the article. A "consensus" by definition means opposing views are ipso facto fringe, and thus not worthy of inclusion on here.
So why the criticism section? According to Wikipedia:Criticism, these sections are generally to be avoid because they introduce issues of undue weight, which means they're never permitted on subjects that have generated a mainstream consensus. So, what am I missing here? Jonathan f1 (talk) 05:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)