Effectiveness of Stereotype Threat Interventions: A Meta-Analytic Review

This meta-analytic review examined the effectiveness of stereotype threat interventions (STIs). Integrating the identity engagement model (Cohen, Purdie-Vaughns, & Garcia, 2012) with the process model of stereotype threat (Schmader, Johns, & Forbes, 2008), we categorized STIs into 3 types: belief-based, identity-based, and resilience-based STIs. Combining 251 effect sizes from 181 experiments, we found an overall effect size of d = 0.44, with the intervention group outperforming the control group. Subgroup analyses showed that although all 3 types of STIs helped counter stereotype threat, primary-appraisal-based (i.e., belief-based and identity-based) STIs were more effective than seconday-appraisal-based (i.e., resilience-based) STIs. 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. These findings' theoretical and practical implications, as well as methodological issues and future research directions for the STI literature, are discussed.

Automated summary

This study examined the effectiveness of stereotype threat interventions and found that belief-based and identity-based interventions were more effective. The research also identified the theoretical roots of specific intervention strategies and discussed publication bias issues and future research directions in the STI literature.