Psychol Aging. 2018 Aug;33(5):vi. doi: 10.1037/pag0000269.
Reports an error in "A review and meta-analysis of age-based stereotype threat: Negative stereotypes, not facts, do the damage" by Ruth A. Lamont, Hannah J. Swift and Dominic Abrams (, 2015[Mar], Vol 30[1], 180-193). In the article, some of the effect sizes in the meta-analysis were mistakenly calculated based on standard error (SE), rather than standard deviation (SD). The authors identified this problem for three of the 32 studies in the analysis. In addition, SE was incorrectly used in one of the original publications (Desrichard & Kopetz, 2005), and amendments have been made based on this also. A table of the recalculated data is provided in the erratum. The recalculations have minimal impact on the meta-analysis conclusions, but effect sizes calculated throughout the article needed to be updated. The meta-analysis still revealed a small-to-medium effect of age-based stereotype threat (ABST; = .32). Two conclusions have changed from the original moderator analyses. Journal region did not significantly moderate effect sizes of stereotype-based studies conducted within Europe ( (1) 2.17, p .14). Thus, reassuringly, it cannot be concluded that publication region predicts effect size magnitude or that there are different expectations for effect sizes based on the journal region. Because this issue was slightly peripheral to the central questions for the analysis, the central conclusions of the article remain unaffected. Further, the meta-analysis now supports the authors' initial hypothesis that gender would moderate ABST effects ( β=.36, p< .05), whereby women may experience greater ABST effects. The online version of this article has been corrected. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2015-02669-001.) Stereotype threat effects arise when an individual feels at risk of confirming a negative stereotype about their group and consequently underperforms on stereotype relevant tasks (Steele, 2010). Among older people, underperformance across cognitive and physical tasks is hypothesized to result from age-based stereotype threat (ABST) because of negative age-stereotypes regarding older adults' competence. The present review and meta-analyses examine 22 published and 10 unpublished articles, including 82 effect sizes ( = 3882) investigating ABST on older people's ( = 69.5) performance. The analysis revealed a significant small-to-medium effect of ABST ( = .28) and important moderators of the effect size. Specifically, older adults are more vulnerable to ABST when (a) stereotype-based rather than fact-based manipulations are used ( = .52); (b) when performance is tested using cognitive measures ( = .36); and (c) occurs reliably when the dependent variable is measured proximally to the manipulation. The review raises important theoretical and methodological issues, and areas for future research. (PsycINFO Database Record
报告露丝·A·拉蒙特、汉娜·J·斯威夫特和多米尼克·艾布拉姆斯所著的《基于年龄的刻板印象威胁的综述与元分析:负面刻板印象而非事实造成损害》(, 2015[3月], 第30卷[1], 180 - 193页)中的一处错误。在该文章中,元分析中的一些效应量是基于标准误(SE)而非标准差(SD)错误计算得出的。作者在分析的32项研究中发现了其中3项存在此问题。此外,原始出版物之一(德斯里夏尔 & 科佩茨,2005年)中也错误地使用了标准误,并且也已基于此进行了修正。勘误中提供了重新计算数据的表格。重新计算对元分析结论的影响极小,但文章中计算的所有效应量都需要更新。元分析仍显示基于年龄的刻板印象威胁(ABST; = 0.32)有小到中等程度的效应。原始调节分析中有两个结论发生了变化。期刊所属地区并未显著调节在欧洲范围内进行的基于刻板印象研究的效应量((1) 2.17, p .14)。因此,可以放心地得出结论,不能认为发表地区能预测效应量大小,也不能认为基于期刊所属地区对效应量有不同预期。由于这个问题对于分析的核心问题来说略显次要,文章的核心结论未受影响。此外,元分析现在支持了作者最初的假设,即性别会调节ABST效应(β = 0.36, p < .05),由此女性可能会经历更大的ABST效应。本文的网络版已作修正。(原始文章的以下摘要出现在记录2015 - 02669 - 001中。)当个体感到有确认关于其群体的负面刻板印象的风险,从而在与刻板印象相关的任务上表现不佳时,就会出现刻板印象威胁效应(斯蒂尔,2010年)。在老年人中,认知和身体任务表现不佳被假设是由于基于年龄的刻板印象威胁(ABST),因为存在关于老年人能力的负面年龄刻板印象。本综述与元分析考察了22篇已发表和10篇未发表的文章,包括82个效应量( = 3882),研究ABST对老年人( = 69.5)表现的影响。分析显示ABST有显著的小到中等程度的效应( = 0.28)以及效应量的重要调节因素。具体而言,当(a)使用基于刻板印象而非基于事实的操纵时( = 0.52);(b)使用认知测量来测试表现时( = 0.36);以及(c)当因变量在接近操纵时进行测量时,老年人更容易受到ABST的影响。该综述提出了重要的理论和方法问题以及未来研究的领域。(PsycINFO数据库记录