Power of Suggestion, Part 2 Presented by: Kathryn Lawrence Discussing: Beilock et al., 2007, Goldin- Meadow et al., 2001 Psychology 1306, November 25, 2008

Stereotype Threat Women and math tests African Americans and intelligence tests Whites and athletic tests (unrelated to athletic intelligence) Women and leadership roles (Prasad, 2007) Power of suggestion without stereotype Very applicable and relevant to real world 0http:// 0

Many examples of stereotype threat—But what is causing it? (Beilock et al., 2007) *Working memory* ▫Reduced capacity after women and Latinos are primed with negative intelligence stereotypes ▫Mediates poorer performance when primed women complete math test Multi-component model of working memory ▫1. A limited-capacity central executive ▫2. A phonological loop for storing verbal information ▫3. A visual-spatial sketchpad for storing visual images ▫4. A multi-modal episodic buffer for creating a unitary representation Math makes specific demands on the various resources (domain-specific to some extent) Does worrying make demands on the central executive or the phonological loop (a.k.a. a verbal worry)?

Beilock et al.’s Various experiments #1 Do women experience stereotype threat when primed with gender stereotypes? #2 Which types of math problems depend most strongly on verbal resources? (horizontal) #3 Does stereotype threat most negatively affect verbally dependent problems? #4 Is it possible to alleviate the effects of stereotype threat? #5 Does stereotype threat only affect stereotype- relevant tasks?

The Modular arithmetic (MA) problems 3 numbers. Subtract the second from the first. Then divide by the third. Then decide if it is a whole number. Respond with two characters on keypad. Must be answered correctly 75% of the time, True/False correlates, Counterbalanced Keep in context when looking at effects—Not that hard!!

Experiment 1 Women who at least moderately care about math All horizontal MA problems, High demand vs. low demand Stereotype threat vs. none “Only MA problems heavily dependent on working memory (i.e., horizontal high demand problems) failed under stereotype threat, suggesting that stereotype threat exerts its impact by co-opting working memory resources needed for the successful execution of such problems.”

Experiment 2 – Do phonological tasks most negatively affect horizontal math problems? 32 questions, ½[Low demand, High demand], ½[Horizontal, vertical] Repeat with phonological secondary task ▫(gib, lec, nup) ▫Have you seen geb? No difference in response time or MA accuracy, difference in Secondary Task accuracy “Adding a phonological memory load to MA execution led to performance decrements (primarily reflected in a decrease in secondary task accuracy) only when the MA problems being performed were high in working memory demands and presented in a horizontal orientation. Because participants were instructed to perform both the MA and the phonological secondary tasks equally well, errors in either task are evidence of disruption in working memory.”  Horizontal math is more verbally demanding.

Experiment 3A – Does stereotype threat differentially affect horizontal vs. vertical math problems? All participants had worries. Effect seen: Horizontal (using verbal), High Demand Exp 3B: This effect is only seen when Stereotype Threat is included. Between subjects—2 groups[horizontal, vertical] (1) Baseline, (2) Stereotype threat block “Given that Experiment 2 and previous research has shown that arithmetic problems presented in a horizontal format rely more on verbal resources than do vertically presented problems, this finding suggests that stereotype threat harms MA performance by co-opting the phonological resources that horizontal problems also use.”

Verbal Thought Questionnaire (Experiment 3A vs. 3B) Categories of response ▫Worries about the task or thoughts confirming the stereotype threat manipulation ▫Thoughts regarding monitoring performance and its consequences ▫Thoughts related to carrying out the steps involved in the math problems ▫Unrelated thoughts No difference between vertical, horizontal (# or break-down) Statistically controlling for the worries eliminated differences in math task performance under threat.  Casual role of verbal thoughts and worries (Not a self-fulfilling prophecy, rather these thoughts use valuable resources)

Main conclusions Stereotype threat caused individuals to worry about their performance and its consequences. This harms math problems most reliant on verbal working memory resources. ▫Spatial effect complication. (Some more general effect?) BUT Exp 4: Training can make effects less working memory-dependent. This improves performance. ▫Practice makes perfect! (And robust!) ▫Can’t practice everything but still applicable

So why do we care? Worrying is a verbal activity!! (?)  If there are “0thinking for speaking” effects, might they extend to include such things? (a.k.a. Must verbalize here too, not just when speaking?)  Patterns of worrying affecting our habitual language use—associating “I” with “dumb,” “mouse” with “scary” on a linguistic level not just a feeling level (like Germans associate “die Bruecke (fem)” with femininity) Using language (more or less) as we process mathematical questions  Relation to e.g. Pirahã  Are speakers of languages with more systematic or syllabically shorter numbers better at math? Verbalization has a domain-specific part of working memory—What implications does this have? Huge applications for education, fairness, worrying, etc. ▫Can the effect be overcome? How far does it extend (Exp #5)? ▫Does this suggest that worrying in general contributes to lowered performance (anxiety disorders, etc)?

Experiment #5—Is this effect restricted to the stereotype-relevant area? No! Equally difficult 2-back tasks—Verbal (phonological loop), Spatial (visual spatial sketchpad) Stereotype threat, MA test, then 2-back test “Regardless of whether performance was defined as accuracy, latency, or a composite of the two, those who performed worse on the MA task under stereotype threat performed more poorly on the subsequent verbal two-back task.”

Explaining Math: Gesturing Lightens the Load Goldin-Meadow et al., 2001 What is the purpose of gesturing? ▫No meaningful purpose ▫Conveying meaningful information ▫Subtly influencing perception of communication ▫Lightening cognitive load of speaking?? Main question: Does gesturing increase cognitive load while speaking (requiring motor planning, coordination, etc) or reduce cognitive load?

An Example X 2 -5x+6 = ( )( )

XR QP BN

How did you just do that math problem? X 2 -5x+6 = ( )( ) [Do or Don’t Gesture]

What were the letters again?

The Experiment Children ▫Simpler math: = __ + 3 ▫Common words instead of letters Gesturing allowed vs. not allowed (to determine effect of gesture) Long list vs. short list (to alter cognitive load)

Gesturing helps! Even when considering ▫Math ability ▫Time taken to answer (With gesture, takes less time  less time to forget?) ▫Trying to not gesture being a cognitive load

The cognitive load of not gesturing does not drive the results. Can test because some people voluntarily did not gesture 

Conclusions Gesturing enriches the way information is encoded and processed (by allowing visuospatial + verbal) and therefore reduces necessary effort? A synergistic system? ▫Should we gesture as much as possible? ▫Areas that are decidedly verbal and learning to transfer to more spatial representation could enhance our overall abilities? Implications for sign language? How do we reconcile with other study? ▫Two systems do seem to be relatively distinct. ▫When verbal memory is less taxed, it performs better. ▫Do easier languages improve our capability? Languages that are syllabically short? Languages that represent as much as possible? Languages that force spatial representation by not having words?