Table 2.

Characteristics and effect sizes of studies included in this meta-analysis.

Study(s) [Ref]	Year and Country	Sample Characteristics		Methodological Characteristics			Effect Size
		Cultural Origin	Age Range	NC/NE	Variables	Results	Cohen’s d	Variance
Cohen et al. Study 1 [17]	2006, US	African Americans and European Americans	12–13	243	Academic performance	(+)	0.26 *	0.0166
Cohen et al. Study 2 [17]	2006, US	African Americans and European Americans	12–13	243	Academic performance	(+)	0.26 *	0.0106
Cohen et al. [8]	2009, US	African Americans and European Americans	12–14	385	Academic performance	(+)	0.31 *	0.0105
Bowen et al. [7]	2013, US	African Americans and ethnic minorities	11–14	74/58	Academic performance	(+)	0.52 *	0.0318
Thomaes et al. Study 1 [40]	2012, NL	Dutch	11–14	85/88	Prosocial feelings	(+)	0.47 *	0.0143
Thomaes et al. Study 2 [40]	2012, NL	Dutch	11–14	81/82	Prosocial behaviors	(+)	0.19 *	0.0156
Thomaes et al. [41]	2009, NL	Caucasians	12–15	405	Narcissistic aggression	(=)	0.10	0.0127
Armitage [42]	2012, GB	Caucasians	13–16	105/115	Perceived threat Self-esteem Current body shape Desired body shape Body satisfaction Body self-esteem	(−/+)	0.43 *	0.0182
Sherman et al. Study 1 [10]	2013, US	Caucasians and Latin Americans	11–14	92/92	Academic performance	(+)	0.33 *	0.0222
Sherman et al. Study 2 [10]	2013, US	Caucasians and Latin Americans	11–14	79/72	Academic performance Interpretation level Daily adversity	(+)	0.52 *	0.0207
Bratter et al. [6]	2016, US	African Americans, Caucasians, and Hispanics	14–15	456/430	Academic performance	(=)	0.09	0.0137
Cook et al. Study 1 [9]	2012, US	African Americans and Caucasians	12–14	361	Academic affiliation	(=)	0.16	0.0110
Cook et al. Study 2 [9]	2012, US	African Americans and Caucasians	12–14	121	Academic affiliation and academic performance	(+)	0.45 *	0.0343
Lokhande and Müller [43]	2019, DE	Ethnic minorities	12–13	294/374	Academic performance	(=)	0.14	0.0366
Binning et al. [44]	2019, US	Caucasians and ethnic groups	11–14	145	School trust Discipline incidents	(−/+)	0.40 *	0.0281
Hoffman and Kurtz-Costes [45]	2019, US	American Indians	11–14	212	Motivation for science	(=)	0.14	0.0189
Liu and Huang [46]	2019, CN	Asians	15–16	48/47	Self-integration Coping with homework Academic performance Perceived value	(−/+)	0.42 *	0.0423
Harackiewicz et al. [24]	2014, US	Caucasians and ethnic minorities	M = 19.27, SD = 1.15	396/402	Performance gap Academic performance	(−/+)	0.22 *	0.0263
Miyake et al. [25]	2010, US		18–22	399	Gender gap Learning	(=)	0.15 *	0.0216
Taylor and Walton [23]	2011, US	African Americans	18–22	29	Learning	(+)	0.83 *	0.0138
Baker et al. [47]	2020, US	Caucasians and ethnic groups		551/564	Academic performance	(=)	0.09	0.0036
Bayly and Bumpus [48]	2019, US	Ethnic minorities	18–19	107/389	Academic performance	(=)	0.00	0.0135
Blanton et al. [49]	2013, US		M = 18.7, SD = 1.16	116	Discomfort with the threat Willingness to have unprotected sex	(−/+)	0.43 *	0.0355
Brady et al. [31]	2016, US	Latinos	18–20	183	Academic performance Adaptive appropriateness Academic belongingness Spontaneous affirmation Fear of school Optimism Rumination Problem analysis	(+)	0.75 *	0.0204
Cameron et al. [50]	2015, GB	Caucasians and ethnic groups	16–24	799/696	Consumption of fruits and vegetables Physical activity Alcohol consumption Tobacco consumption Smoking in college	(−/+)	0.12 *	0.0286
Churchill et al. [51]	2018, GB		18–33	32/35	Musical performance	(=)	0.00	0.0598
De Clercq et al. [52]	2019, BE		18–19	129/123	Self-affirmation	(+)	0.47 *	0.0163
Covarrubias et al. Study 1 [53]	2016, US	Latinos	11–14	81	Academic performance	(+)	0.19 *	0.0106
Covarrubias et al. Study 2 [53]	2016, US	Latinos and Americans of European origin	11–14	269	Academic performance	(+)	0.22 *	0.0113
Ehret and Sherman [54]	2018, US	Caucasians and ethnic groups		74/66	Abstinence from alcohol	(=)	0.00	0.0356
Epton et al. [55]	2014, GB	Caucasians and ethnic groups	18–19	709/736	Tobacco use Drug use Hospital admissions Descriptive norms Perception of control	(−/+)	0.12 *	0.0199
Goyer et al. [56]	2017, US	Latinos and Caucasians	11–14	185	Academic preparation Attendance to selective schools	(+)	0.48 *	0.0227
Gregory et al. [57]	2017, US	Caucasian	18–22	64	Self-pity Perception of pain Resistance to pain	(+)	0.60 *	0.0139
Harackiewicz et al. [58]	2016, US	African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans	18–19	1040	Academic performance Performance gap	(+)	0.28 *	0.0254
Hernandez et al. [59]	2017, US	Latinos	11–14	67	Threat to identity	(=)	0.00	0.0615
Jones and Huey [60]	2020, US	Caucasians, Latinos, and African Americans	18–24	38/44	Academic performance Perception of self-integration Social adjustment	(=)	0.13	0.0130
Jordt et al. [61]	2017, US	Caucasians and ethnic minorities	18–22	970/963	Academic performance	(+)	0.27	0.0156
Kamboj et al. [62]	2016, GB		18–35	278/250	Pro-social feelings Alcohol consumption Intention to reduce consumption Message derogation Perceived threat Commitment to the threatening message	(−/+)	0.23 *	0.0109
Kim and Niederdeppe [63]	2016, SG	Caucasians and Asians	18–34	74/76	Negative cognitive responses Perceived risk of alcohol consumption	(=)	0.28	0.0267
Lannin et al. [64]	2013, US	European Americans and ethnic groups	19–46	84	Self-stigma Willingness to seek help	(−/+)	0.24 *	0.0627
Lannin et al. [65]	2020, US	European Americans and ethnic groups	18–22	152	Positive mood Negative mood Psychological distress	(−/+)	0.45 *	0.0295
Layous et al. [66]	2017, US	Caucasians and ethnic minorities	M = 19.12, SD = 1.28	57/48	Academic performance	(+)	0.39 *	0.0391
Meier et al. [67]	2015, US	Caucasians	18–35	52/58	Importance of the problem AR Risk perception AR Alcohol use Protective Strategies AR	(=)	0.16	0.0368
Norman and Wrona-Clarke [68]	2016, GB	Caucasians	M = 22.58, SD = 6.31	105/104	Reactivity of AR messages Message evaluation AR Perceived Risk AR Intention to binge drink Binge drinking	(=)	0.12	0.0192
Norman et al. [69]	2018, GB	Caucasians	M = 18.76, SD = 1.94	738	Frequency of excessive consumption AR	(+)	0.13 *	0.0054
Peters et al. [70]	2017, US	Caucasians and African Americans	17–59	194	Subjective numerical capacity	(=)	0.29	0.0208
Rosas et al. [71]	2017, US	Caucasians, Latinos, and ethnic minorities	18–35	143	Self-esteem Intention to consume sugar-sweetened beverages	(+)	0.24 *	0.0135
Sereno et al. [72]	2020, US	Caucasians, Latinos, and ethnic minorities	M = 20.04, SD = 2.69	157	Self-assessment Oral participation	(+)	0.45 *	0.0267
Shapiro et al. Study 3 [73]	2013, US	African Americans	18–24	37	Academic performance	(+)	0.19 *	0.0271
Shapiro et al. Study 4 [73]	2013, US	African Americans	18–24	75	Academic performance	(+)	0.57 *	0.0555
Tibbetts et al. Study 1 [74]	2016, US	Caucasians and ethnic minorities	18–24	69/72	Academic performance	(+)	0.23 *	0.0289
Tibbetts et al. Study 2 [74]	2016, US	Caucasians and ethnic minorities	18–24	389/399	Performance gap Choice of independent topics Choice of interdependent topics	(+)	0.29	0.0066
Walton et al. [75]	2015, CA	Caucasians, Asians, and ethnic minorities	18–24	228	Academic performance Importance of negative events Confidence in stress management Self-esteem Gender identification	(−/+)	0.60 *	0.0249
Adams et al. Study 1 [76]	2006, US	Caucasians, European Americans, and Latinos	18–24	44/51	Perception of racism Belief that whites understate the extent of racism Ratings of the average white person	(+)	0.58 *	0.0442
Adams et al. Study 2 [76]	2006, US	Caucasians, European Americans, and Latinos	18–24	27/36	Belief that whites understate the extent of racism	(−)	0.67 *	0.0688
Borman et al. [15]	2016, US	Caucasians and ethnic minorities	12–13	499/513	Cumulative seventh grade GPA Fall reading test Fall math test Spring reading test Spring math test Spring language usage test	(−/+)	0.05	0.0040
Briñol et al. Study 1 [77]	2007, ES		18–24	111	Manipulation check (index of personal importance)	(+)	2.51 *	0.0644
Briñol et al. Study 2 [77]	2007, ES		18–24	73	Manipulation check (index of personal importance)	(+)	1.84 *	0.0781
Briñol et al. Study 3 [77]	2007, ES		18–24	87	Attitudes	(−)	0.52 *	0.0475
Briñol et al. Study 4 [77]	2007, ES		18–24	91	Confidence	(+)	0.63 *	0.0461
Correll et al. [78]	2004, CA	Canadians	18–24	21/18	Advocate’s arguments Pro-attitudinal advocate position Argument strength	(−/+)	1.05 *	0.1182
Creswell et al. [79]	2013, US	Caucasians and ethnic minorities	18–34	73	Rating value Writing activity RAT score Positive affect	(+)	1.40 *	0.0582
Critcher et al. Study 1 [11]	2010, US		18–24	184	Defensiveness	(−/+)	0.15	0.0218
Critcher et al. Study 2a [11]	2010, US		18–24	76	Defensively negative score	(−)	0.57 *	0.0549
Critcher and Dunning Study 1 [29]	2015, US		18–24	75	Positive feelings of self-worth	(+)	0.45 *	0.0547
Critcher and Dunning Study 2 [29]	2015, US		18–24	94	Defensiveness Perspective on the threat	(−/+)	0.44 *	0.0435
Crocker et al. Study 1 [80]	2008, US	Caucasians, Asians, and other or mixed ethnicity	17–21	70/69	Rating of loving feelings	(+)	0.84 *	0.0319
Crocker et al. Study 2 [80]	2008, US	Caucasians, Asians, and other or mixed ethnicity	17–22	54	Acceptance of the article	(+)	0.63 *	0.1182
Dillard et al. [81]	2005, US	Caucasians	18–24	65/65	Motivated to quit smoking	(+)	0.39 *	0.0314
Epton and Harris [82]	2008, GB		18–46	41/46	Portions of fruit and vegetables Self-efficacy Response efficacy	(+)	0.46 *	0.0474
Harris and Napper [83]	2005, GB		18–24	42/40	Importance of self-affirmed passages Self-positivity Positive attitudes	(+)	5.08 *	0.4354
Harris et al. [84]	2007, GB	Caucasians	18–40	43/44	Threat Intention Control Self-efficacy Negative thoughts and feelings	(+)	0.67 *	0.0486
Klein et al. Study 1 [85]	2011, US		18–24	120	Feelings of vulnerability	(+)	0.36 *	0.0339
Klein et al. Study 2 [85]	2011, US		18–24	99	Feelings of vulnerability Intentions	(−/+)	0.43 *	0.0413
Klein and Harris [86]	2009, US		18–24	118	Attentional bias toward threat	(+)	0.37 *	0.0345
Koole and van Knippenberg [87]	2007, NL		18–24	88	Stereotypic word fragments Stereotypic descriptions	(−/+)	0.93 *	0.0511
Koole et al. Study 1 [88]	1999, NL		18–24	60	Value of the AVL subscale Recognition accuracy	(−/+)	1.49 *	0.0930
Koole et al. Study 2 [88]	1999, NL		18–24	71	Value of the AVL	(+)	1.84 *	0.0801
Koole et al. Study 3 [88]	1999, NL		18–24	70	Value of the AVL Recognition accuracy Positive mood Relative evaluation of name letters	(−/+)	0.99 *	0.0704
Legault et al. [89]	2012, CA		18–24	35	Errors of commission Waveform amplitude	(−/+)	0.82 *	0.1240
Martens et al. Study 2 [22]	2006, US		18–24	52	Items correct on math SATs	(+)	0.55 *	0.0799
Reed and Aspinwall [90]	1998, US	Caucasians, African Americans, Asian Americans, Biracials, Hispanics, and others	17–54	61	Reduced bias processing of threatening health information Reading time risk disconfirming Number of facts recalled Perceived control over reducing caffeine consumption	(−/+)	0.60 *	0.0688
Schimel et al. Study 1 [91]	2004, CA		18–24	49	Self-handicapping attributions Performance measures	(−/+)	0.57 *	0.085
Schmeichel and Martens Study 1 [92]	2005, US		18–24	65	Percept negative to anti-U.S. essay	(−)	0.50 *	0.0634
Schmeichel and Martens Study 2 [92]	2005, US		18–24	54	Death-related thoughts	(−)	0.54 *	0.0768
Schmeichel and Vohs Study 1 [93]	2009, US		18–24	63	Positive mood	(+)	0.44 *	0.0650
Schmeichel and Vohs Study 2 [93]	2009, US		18–24	72	Puzzle persistence	(+)	0.94 *	0.0617
Schmeichel and Vohs Study 3 [93]	2009, US		18–24	29	Behavioral descriptions	(+)	0.74 *	0.1474
Sherman et al. [94]	2009, US	Caucasians, Asians, Americans, other ethnicities	18–24	49	Concerns about failure Worrying during exam	(−)	−0.57 *	0.085
Sherman et al. Study 1 [95]	2000, US		18–24	60	Feel better about selves Point to most important value Accepting of threatening information Reduced caffeine consumption	(+)	1.14 *	0.0791
Sherman et al. Study 2 [95]	2000, US		18–24	61	Similar risk Considered risk of HIV Perceptions of risk	(+)	0.57 *	0.0683
Shrira and Martin Study 1 [96]	2005, US		18–24	101	Use of stereotypes Left hemisphere activation	(+)	0.50 *	0.0409
Shrira and Martin Study 2 [96]	2005, US		18–24	180	Left hemisphere activation Stereotyping	(−/+)	0.33 *	0.0226
Sivanathan et al. Study 2 [97]	2008, US		18–24	38	Reinvest funds in initially chosen Commitment to job candidate	(−)	0.94 *	0.1169
Sivanathan et al. Study 3 [97]	2008, US		18–24	55	Commitment to job candidate	(−/+)	0.61 *	0.0748
Spencer et al. Study 3 [98]	2001, US		18–24	24	Choice downward comparisons Choice upward comparisons	(−/+)	0.89 *	0.1840
Stone et al. Study 1 [99]	2011, US	Caucasians, Hispanics, Asians, and African Americans	18–24	179	Desire to meet target race	(+)	−0.30 *	0.0226
Stone et al. Study 2 [99]	2011, US	Caucasians, Hispanics, Asians, and African Americans	18–24	102	Desire to meet target race Empathy Guilt Perceived injustice Stereotyped views	(+)	−0.59 *	0.0413
van Koningsbruggen et al. [100]	2009, NL		18–24	84	Reaction time as a function of threat-related perceptions of message quality Reduction in caffeine consumption	(+)	0.47 *	0.0489
Vohs et al. Study 1 [101]	2013, US		18–31	52	Disengagement from a life goal	(+)	0.47 *	0.0571
Vohs et al. Study 2 [101]	2013, US		18–24	132	Performance expectations Dampening effect Interest in performing an additional task	(+)	0.36 *	0.0308
Vohs et al. Study 3 [101]	2013, US		18–24	119	More effort to task Dampening effect Effort to additional task Effort to attempt RAT problems	(−/+)	0.42 *	0.0344
Vohs et al. Study 4 [101]	2013, US		18–24	56	Negative self-perceptions of intelligence Self-perceptions of intelligence Self-efficacy perceptions Performance in the second set of RAT items	(−/+)	0.59 *	0.0746
Wakslak and Trope Study 1 [102]	2009, US		18–24	24	Self-concept clarity	(+)	0.92 *	0.1844
Wakslak and Trope Study 2 [102]	2009, US		18–24	45	Preferences for high-level action identifications	(+)	0.73 *	0.0948
Zárate and Garza Study 1 [103]	2002, US	Mexicans, Anglos, African Americans, and Asian Americans	18–24	120	Prejudices	(−)	0.36 *	0.0339
Zhao et al. [104]	2014, US	Caucasians, African Americans, Asians, Hispanics, and other races	18–24	116	Quitting intentions	(+)	0.29 *	0.0348
Sillero-Rejon et al. [105]	2018, GB		18–24	64/64	Avoidance Reactance Susceptibility Effectiveness Motivation to drink less Self-efficacy to drink less	(=)	0.18	0.0313
Pauketat et al. Study 1 [106]	2016, US		18–24	61	Affective forecasts Appraisal of negative event as less disturbing	(+)	1.02 *	0.0741
Pauketat et al. Study 2 [106]	2016, US		18–24	47	Affective forecasts Appraisal of negative event as less disturbing	(+)	.71 *	0.0905
Gu et al. [107]	2019, CN		18–24	48	Feedback-related negativity	(+)	0.82 *	0.0903
Taillandier-Schmitt et al. [108]	2012, FR		18–43	40/55	Performance scores Temporal performance scores	(+)	0.42 *	0.0441
Hanselman et al. [32]	2017, US	African Americans and Hispanics	12–14	166/165	Academic performance	(+)	0.24 *	0.0122
Borman et al. [109]	2018, US	Caucasians and African Americans	12–14	920	GPA	(+)	0.25 *	0.0044
Borman et al. [110]	2021, US	Caucasians and racial/ethnic groups	11–17	473/479	GPA	(+)	0.01	0.0042
Serra-Garcia et al. [111]	2020, US		18–24	283	Exam scores	(−)	−0.24 *	0.0142
Hayes et al. Study 1 [112]	2019, US	Latinos, African Americans, and Asian Americans	10–13	116	Overall semester grade	(=)	0.00	0.0345
Hayes et al. Study 2 [112]	2019, US	Caucasians, Latinos, and Africans Americans	18–22	273	GPA	(=)	0.00	0.0147
Hadden et al. [113]	2020, GB		11–14	562	Academic performance Levels of stress	(−/+)	0.21 *	0.0071
Scott et al. [114]	2013, AU		18–24	67/54	Intentions to reduce alcohol consumption	(+)	0.37 *	0.0340
Perry et al. [115]	2021, US	Caucasians and African Americans	20–43	416	Perceived residency competitiveness	(+)	0.20 *	0.0097
Dee [116]	2015, US	Caucasians, African Americans, and Hispanics	12–14	885	Grade in treated subject	(−/+)	0.30 *	0.0046
Protzko and Aronson [117]	2016, US	Caucasians, Hispanics and Africans Americans	13–15	243	Overall GPA	(=)	0.06	0.0165
Knight and Norman [118]	2016, GB	Caucasians	18–24	307	Self-affirmation manipulation	(+)	0.38 *	0.0133
Kim et al. [119]	2022, US	Hispanics and African Americans	9–10	29/37	Affect/emotion in relation to academic environments or tasks	(=)	0.27	0.0617
More et al. [120]	2022, US	Caucasians and ethnic minorities	18–28	125/129	Fear and defensive processing Exercise intentions	(=)	0.14	0.0158
Smith et al. [121]	2021, US	Caucasians and ethnic minorities	18–24	361	Task engagement	(+)	0.52 *	0.0115
Kim et al. Study 1 [122]	2022, US	Caucasians, African Americans, Asians, Hispanics, and others	M = 27.9	1277	GPA	(+)	0.07 *	0.0031
Pandey et al. [123]	2021, IN	Indians	22–27	40/40	Well-being	(+)	0.94 *	0.0709
Celeste et al. [124]	2021, GB	Afro-descendants and Caucasians	11–13	43/42	Cognitive performance	(=)	0.05	0.0476
Li et al. [125]	2022, CA, CN	Asians and Caucasians	M = 18.13, SD = 1.65	159/137	Psychological well-being	(=)	0.02	0.0136
Borman et al. [126]	2022, US	Caucasians, African Americans, Asians, Latins	12–14	2149	Suspensions	(−)	−0.28 *	0.0019
Binning et al. [127]	2021, US	Caucasians, African American, Latins, and Asian American	11–14	145	GPA	(+)	0.45 *	0.0283
Pilot and Stutts [128]	2023, US	Caucasians, African Americans, Asians, Hispanics, and others.	18–22	238	Body dissatisfaction Negative mood state	(=)	0.06	0.0168
Strachan et al. [129]	2020, CA	Caucasians and Asians	18–58	120	Exercise task self-efficacy	(+)	0.17 *	0.0339
Hagerman et al. [130]	2020, US	Caucasians, African Americans, Asians, Latinos	M = 19.35, SD = 1.61	167	Negative modo Absent-exempt Perceived skin damage Perceived vulnerability Intentions to protect skin	(=)	0.10	0.0241
Dutcher et al. [131]	2020, US		M = 19.3; SD = 1.35	27	Stressful Academic performance	(−/+)	1.24 *	0.1770
Shin et al. Study 2 [132]	2020, KR		M = 21.04, SD = 2.07	75	Acceptance of the threatening information	(−)	0.89 *	0.0586
Huppin and Malamuth [133]	2022, US	Asian American, European American, Hispanic American, African American, and others	18–24	70	Affirmative consent Conceptualization of consent Knowledge and awareness Rape beliefs Fairness of the outcome	(−/+)	0.61 *	0.0598
Çetinkaya et al. Study 1 [134]	2020, TR		M = 21.88, SD = 1.34	60	Task performance	(+)	0.84 *	0.0725
Poon et al. Study 4 [135]	2020, CN		M = 20.78, SD = 1.70	178	Conspiracy beliefs	(=)	0.83	0.0225
Turetsky et al. [136]	2020, US	Caucasians, African Americans, Asians, Hispanics, and others	18–44	108/118	Closeness centrality Degree centrality Maintaining existing friendships Forming new friendships	(+)	0.35 *	0.0193
Rapa et al. [137]	2020, US	Caucasians, African Americans, Asians, Hispanics, and others	M = 14.97	28/25	GPA	(+)	0.54	0.0785
Bosch [138]	2020, US	Caucasians, African Americans, Asians, Hispanics, and others	18–24	221/246	Academic performance	(=)	0.03	0.0086

Abbreviations: Number of subjects in the control group (NC); number of subjects in the experimental group (NE); mean associated with age (M); standard deviation associated with age (SD). Variable abbreviations: Related to alcohol intake (AR); Unadjusted grade-point-average (GPA); Remote Associates Test, a well-known measure of problem solving and creativity (RAT); Allport–Vernon–Lindzey (AVL); Force and Motion Concept Evaluation (FMCE). Abbreviations: Indicator of improvement in the dependent variable (+), mixed results with respect to the change in the dependent variable (−/+), absence of statistically significant changes in the dependent variable (=). Country abbreviations from https://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/country_code_list.htm (accessed on 10 February 2023): Australia (AU), Belgium (BE), Canada (CA), China (CN), France (FR), Germany (DE), India (IN), Singapore (SG), South Korea (KR), Spain (ES), The Netherlands (NL), Turkey (TR), United Kingdom (GB), United States of America (US). * = p < 0.05.