This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stereotype threat article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Stereotype threat has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is currently the subject of an educational assignment. |
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)
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)
Why was this removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Futurebird (talk • contribs) 05:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
"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)."
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)
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.
MartinPoulter (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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)
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.[1]
2.[2]
3.[3]
4.[4]
Cwalkerr21 (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
((cite journal))
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help)
((cite journal))
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help)
((cite journal))
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help)
((cite journal))
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help)
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:
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'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)
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)
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)
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[2], including the first study indicating that health care stereotype threat is linked with adverse health outcomes and disparities[3][4]. —BethNewcomb (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
SteeleAronson
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).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)
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)
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 have removed the following the liede:
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:
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
![]() | An impartial editor has reviewed the proposed edit(s) and asked the editor with a conflict of interest to go ahead and make the suggested changes. |
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."[1]
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.[2] One effort at mitigation of the negative consequences of stereotype threat involves rescaling standardized test scores to adjust for the adverse effects of stereotypes.[3]
Cf2022 (talk) 06:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Cf2022
References
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)
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)
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)
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.
Sock drawer. Generalrelative (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I would like to avoid an edit war. Editors with no stake in this discussion: do you think aspects of, or the entirety of, my edit here should be kept? @Generalrelative reverted it due to "apparent POV-pushing," which if it were true, would be a reason for an edit but not a revert. I would not like to engage in an edit war, so I will not undo @Generalrelative's edit for now. I would appreciate the input of uninvolved editors on if any part of my edit should remain. BooleanQuackery (talk) 23:05, 28 July 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)