Talk:Stereotype threat

References for Revisions to this Article

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)

Removed sentence

"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)

removed graph/afro template

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)

The Effects of Stereotype Threat on the Standardized Test Performance of College Students, J. Aronson, C.M. Steele, M.F. Salinas, M.J. Lustina - Readings About the Social Animal, 8th edition, E. Aronson

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

interpretations section

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)

removed graph

The effect of Stereotype threat. Data from Linking Stereotype Threat and Anxiety by Jason W. Osborne* North Carolina State University, USA

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)

The effect of Stereotype threat. Data from Linking Stereotype Threat and Anxiety

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)

separated evidence section

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)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing

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)

Major clean-up and expansion of this article

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)

Further development

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)

Additions to this Article

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)

GA Review

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)

What about the percentage of "thumb"?

File:Bodindecha (Sing Singhaseni) School Student - 011.jpg

Thumbs up!

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)

New subsection

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)

Consequences section

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)

New Section on Scientific Validity?

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)