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 secondary-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. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

刻板印象威胁干预的有效性：荟萃分析审查。

这项荟萃分析审查检查了刻板印象威胁干预 (STI) 的有效性。将身份参与模型 (Cohen, Purdie-Vaughns, & Garcia, 2012) 与刻板印象威胁的过程模型 (Schmader, Johns, & Forbes, 2008) 相结合，我们将性传播感染分为 3 种类型：基于信念的、基于身份的、和基于弹性的性传播感染。结合来自 181 个实验的 251 个效应量，我们发现总体效应量 d = 0.44，干预组的表现优于对照组。亚组分析表明，虽然所有 3 种类型的性传播感染都有助于对抗刻板印象威胁，但基于初步评估（即基于信念和基于身份）的性传播感染比基于二次评估（即基于复原力）的性传播感染更有效。我们还追踪了 11 种特定干预策略的理论根源，并表明其中 9 种产生了显着的效果。此外，我们发现了关于某些但不是所有干预类型的发表偏倚的证据。讨论了这些发现的理论和实践意义，以及 STI 文献的方法问题和未来研究方向。（PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2020 APA，保留所有权利）。