PD-0332991 : Information About How And Exactly Why One Could Reap Benefits Using That

g., stereotype threat treatment by immigrant background). We did not consider such interaction effects because they can be driven �C in part or completely �C by stereotype lift effects (Walton and Cohen, 2003) among non-immigrant groups. We also did not consider multi-group comparisons; when the stereotype threat treatment involved more than one group (e.g., reflecting stereotype threat low, intermediate, GSK2118436 in vivo and high) those two groups were compared that should theoretically exhibit maximum difference. In some studies several performance scores were reported (e.g., scores for two or more subtests of an intelligence test, Pellegrini, 2005; Wicherts et al., 2005). In order to preserve independence of effect sizes, we averaged the scores before they were included in the meta-analysis (Headrick, 2010). Coding of Study Characteristics Sample Background We distinguished two broader groups of studies based on their origin and sample: those that addressed stereotype threat among Latinos in the US (k = 11) and studies that focused on immigrants in Europe (k = 8). The latter studies were conducted in Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, or the Netherlands. Circulation Whereas nine studies were published in outlets of educational or social Megestrol Acetate psychology, a majority of 10 studies was unpublished. Age Group All studies conducted in the US and four of the European studies investigated samples of young adults, typically consisting of undergraduates (k = 14). Five of the European studies investigated adolescents. Stereotype Threat Treatment Based on the distinction of stereotype threat-activating cues in the meta-analysis by Nguyen and Ryan (2008), out of the 19 experiments included in our meta-analysis, seven studies were found to have used indirect and subtle cues, five used moderately explicit cues, PD-0332991 price and seven used blatant stereotype threat-activating cues. Dependent Measures We distinguished studies that used measures of knowledge and abilities such as GRE-type tasks (verbal or maths, k = 13) from studies that used non-verbal measures of general cognitive functioning, such as (working) memory tests, or tests in the tradition of Raven��s progressive matrices (k = 6). Group Categorization There are different ways to distinguish immigrant group members from non-immigrants. Demographic surveys and statistical reports (e.g., OECD, 2010) typically rely on the place of birth of the individuals or their parents. Another common method is to ask individuals with which group they identify most. Studies were coded whether or not self-identification was the means to distinguish between immigrant group members or non-members (self-identification, k = 13). Comparison with Previous Meta-Analyses Our dataset diverges remarkably from the data obtained in previous meta-analyses on stereotype threat.