[DalaiObama]

"Stereotype threat" isn't doing well in replication.

https://replicationindex.wordpress.com/2017/04/07/hidden-fig...

Money quote:

"Research on stereotype threat and women’s performance on math tests is one example where publication bias undermines the findings in a seminal study that produced a large literature of studies on gender differences in math performance. After correcting for publication bias, this literature shows very little evidence that stereotype threat has a notable and practically significant effect on women’s math performance (Flore & Wicherts, 2014)."

[meowface]

If "male visuospatial advantage" isn't being replicated when stereotype threat is taken into account, and stereotype threat isn't being replicated when other experimental variables are taken into account, I don't think that necessarily proves or disproves male visuospatial advantage or that it can or can't be explained by stereotype threat.

I think we need some meta-analyses here.

[leereeves]

A meta-analysis wouldn't solve the problem unless it somehow included previously unpublished data. Publication bias has left whole fields of science untrustable.

If an individual scientist cherry-picked interesting data the way publications cherry-pick results to publish, it would be called fraud.

[meowface]

Very true. I should've said "more studies and more meta-analyses need to be conducted".

[mnsc]

Great find! The statistical analysis in that article is miles above my competence but I get the gist of it. And I also agree with the comments that I don't think ethical research can show how big or small this effect is because a lifetime of stereotyping can't be undone completely in a single experiment.