Potential publication bias in the stereotype threat literature: Comment on Nguyen and Ryan (2008).

Abstract. Neurocognitive deficits in patients with mental disorders are partially due to secondary influences. “Stereotype threat” denotes the phenomenon that performance is compromised when a participant is confronted with a devaluing stereotype. The present study examined the impact of stereotype threat on neuropsychological performance in schizophrenia. Seventy-seven participants with a self-reported diagnosis of schizophrenia were randomly assigned to either an experimental condition involving stereotype threat activation or a control condition in an online study. Participants completed memory and attention tests as well as questionnaires on motivation, self-efficacy expectations, cognitive complaints, and self-stigmatization. Contrary to our prediction, the two groups showed no significant differences regarding neuropsychological performance and self-report measures. Limitations, such as a possibly too weak threat cue, are discussed and recommendations for future studies are outlined.

Download Full-text

How to Detect Publication Bias in Psychological Research

Zeitschrift für Psychologie ◽

10.1027/2151-2604/a000386 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 227 (4) ◽

pp. 261-279 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Frank Renkewitz ◽

Melanie Keiner

Keyword(s):

Publication Bias ◽

Effect Size ◽

Statistical Power ◽

Type I Error ◽

Psychological Research ◽

Type I ◽

True Effect Size ◽

Questionable Research Practices ◽

True Effect ◽

Meta Analyses

Abstract. Publication biases and questionable research practices are assumed to be two of the main causes of low replication rates. Both of these problems lead to severely inflated effect size estimates in meta-analyses. Methodologists have proposed a number of statistical tools to detect such bias in meta-analytic results. We present an evaluation of the performance of six of these tools. To assess the Type I error rate and the statistical power of these methods, we simulated a large variety of literatures that differed with regard to true effect size, heterogeneity, number of available primary studies, and sample sizes of these primary studies; furthermore, simulated studies were subjected to different degrees of publication bias. Our results show that across all simulated conditions, no method consistently outperformed the others. Additionally, all methods performed poorly when true effect sizes were heterogeneous or primary studies had a small chance of being published, irrespective of their results. This suggests that in many actual meta-analyses in psychology, bias will remain undiscovered no matter which detection method is used.

Download Full-text

Smart Girls, Dumb Boys!?

Social Psychology ◽

10.1027/1864-9335/a000167 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 45 (2) ◽

pp. 112-126 ◽

Cited By ~ 14

Author(s):

Martin Latsch ◽

Bettina Hannover

Keyword(s):

Secondary School ◽

Stereotype Threat ◽

Gender Stereotypes ◽

Secondary School Students ◽

Learning Goals ◽

School Students ◽

Compensatory Strategies ◽

Media Portrayal ◽

Stereotype Lift ◽

The Media

We investigated effects of the media’s portrayal of boys as “scholastic failures” on secondary school students. The negative portrayal induced stereotype threat (boys underperformed in reading), stereotype reactance (boys displayed stronger learning goals towards mathematics but not reading), and stereotype lift (girls performed better in reading but not in mathematics). Apparently, boys were motivated to disconfirm their group’s negative depiction, however, while they could successfully apply compensatory strategies when describing their learning goals, this motivation did not enable them to perform better. Overall the media portrayal thus contributes to the maintenance of gender stereotypes, by impairing boys’ and strengthening girls’ performance in female connoted domains and by prompting boys to align their learning goals to the gender connotation of the domain.

Download Full-text