Talk:Stereotype threat

message: "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)
replies: text: I think you made the right move here. futurebird 01:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed sentence

message: 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)
thread_title: removed graph/afro template

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  interpretations section 

message: 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)
thread_title: separated evidence section

message: 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)
thread_title:  Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Major clean-up and expansion of this article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Excellent work, Haley- really like the latest edits. MartinPoulter (talk) 09:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further development 

message: 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.
</br>
1.
</br> 
2.
</br> 
3. 
</br>
4. 
</br>
Cwalkerr21 (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: References for Revisions to this Article

message: 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)
thread_title: Additions to this Article

message: 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)
thread_title:  What about the percentage of "thumb"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New subsection 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Consequences section 

message: 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 contextAbdou, Cleopatra M.; Fingerhut, Adam W. "Stereotype threat among Black and White women in health care settings." Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, Vol 20(3), Jul 2014, 316-323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036946, including the first study indicating that health care stereotype threat is linked with adverse health outcomes and disparitiesAbdou, Cleopatra M. et al. "Health Care Stereotype Threat in Older Adults in the Health and Retirement Study." American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 50, Issue 2, 191-198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2015.07.034Preidt, Robert. "Stereotypes Can Hurt a Patient's Care." U.S. News and World Report. Retrieved September 29, 2016 from http://health.usnews.com/health-news/articles/2015/10/20/stereotypes-can-hurt-a-patients-care. —BethNewcomb (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add paragraph on Health Care Stereotype Threat? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Factors that affect threat perception section is irrelevant 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Section on Threat Perception is Misleading and Irrelevant

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Agreed, the article is contradictory and gives undue weight to existence. BooleanQuackery (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight towards existence? 

message: 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."
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)
thread_title:  Steele and Aaronson and SAT results 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Ambiguities in "Failures to replicate and publication bias"

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Addition and Organization of the Mitigation subsection  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Replication failure, episode 1231421 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Final paragraph of "Empirical studies" section. Generalrelative (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead summaries of critiques 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Priming (psychology)]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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: . But I found this statement in citation 17 (Pennington et al., "Twenty Years of Stereotype Threat Research: A Review of Psychological Mediators"):  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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."[] 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)
thread_title:  Too much reliance on primary sources and WP:SYNTH 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[WP:SYNTH]] and [[WP:IMPARTIAL]] issues within Criticism section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Empirical studies and Criticism sections should be merged 

message: FYI a new meta-analysis was just made available this month (currently in press) which will to appear in Journal of Applied Psychology: [] If we're looking for recentism in our sources, this would be the logical place to start. Of note (from the Abstract):  Generalrelative (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New meta-analysis 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Overly long? 

message: Hello, I am employed by Boston University's Fineman & Pappas Law Libraries. After reviewing this Wikipedia page, I believe that information from one of our faculty's scholarship might provide a valuable addition to this page. I would appreciate it if this requested edit could be reviewed.
Add (missing) citation to first sentence of third paragraph of article: "According to the theory, if negative stereotypes are present regarding a specific group, group members are likely to become anxious about their performance, which may hinder their ability to perform to their full potential."
Add two sentences to the end of the first paragaraph 'Mitigation' section:  "Additional research seeks ways to boost the test scores and academic achievement of students in negatively stereotyped groups. Such studies suggest various ways in which the effects of stereotype threat may be mitigated." For example, there have been increasing concerns about the negative effects of stereotype threats on MCAT, SAT, LSAT scores, etc.  One effort at mitigation of the negative consequences of stereotype threat involves rescaling standardized test scores to adjust for the adverse effects of stereotypes.  
Cf2022 (talk) 06:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi  Please proceed with making the edits above.  Thank you! Orvilletalk 07:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Proposed Changes