A meta-analysis of stereotype threat effects was conducted and an overall mean effect size of |.26| was found, but true moderator effects existed. A series of hierarchical moderator analyses evidenced differential effects of race- versus gender-based stereotypes. Women experienced smaller performance decrements than did minorities when tests were difficult: mean ds = |.36| and |.43|, respectively. For women, subtle threat-activating cues produced the largest effect, followed by blatant and moderately explicit cues: ds = |.24|, |.18|, and |.17|, respectively; explicit threat-removal strategies were more effective in reducing stereotype threat effects than subtle ones: ds = |.14| and |.33|, respectively. For minorities, moderately explicit stereotype threat-activating cues produced the largest effect, followed by blatant and subtle cues: ds = |.64|, |.41|, and |.22|, respectively; explicit removal strategies enhanced stereotype threat effects compared with subtle strategies: ds = |.80| and |.34|, respectively. In addition, stereotype threat affected moderately math-identified women more severely than highly math-identified women: ds = |.52| and |.29|, respectively; low math-identified women suffered the least from stereotype threat: d= |.11|. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

This review critically examines the literature from 1985 to 1999 on applicant perceptions of selection procedures. We organize our review around several key questions: What perceptions have been studied? What are determinants of perceptions? What are the consequences or outcomes associated with perceptions applicants hold? What theoretical frameworks are most useful in examining these perceptions? For each of these questions, we provide suggestions for key research directions. We conclude with a discussion of the practical implications of this line of research for those who design and administer selection processes.

There are discrepant findings in the literature regarding the effects of applicant faking on the validity of noncognitive measures. One explanation for these mixed results may be the failure of some studies to consider individual differences in faking. This study demonstrates that there is considerable variance across individuals in the extent of faking 3 types of noncognitive measures (i.e., personality test, biodata inventory, and integrity test). Participants completed measures honestly and with instructions to fake. Results indicated some measures were more difficult to fake than others. The authors found that integrity, conscientiousness, and neuroticism were related to faking. In addition, individuals faked fairly consistently across the measures. Implications of these results and a model of faking that includes factors that may influence faking behavior are provided.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

This review critically examines the iite rat tire from 1985 to 1999 on applicant perceptions of selection procedures. We organize our review around several key questions: What perceptions have been studied? What are determinants of perceptions? What are the consequences or outcomes associated with perceptions applicants hold? What theoretical frameworks are most useful in e.xamining these perceptions? For each of these questions, we provide suggestions for key research directions. We conclude with a discussion of the practical implications of this line of research for those who design and administer selection processes.