Power of Suggestion, Part 2

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

2. 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 • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjn6ZSU_zS0

3. 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)?

4. 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?

5. 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!!

6. 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.”

7. 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.

8. Experiment 3A – Does stereotype threat differentially affect horizontal vs. vertical math problems? • 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.” All participants had worries. Effect seen: Horizontal (using verbal), High Demand Exp 3B: This effect is only seen when Stereotype Threat is included.

9. 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)

10. 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

11. 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)?

12. 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.”

13. Explaining Math: Gesturing Lightens the LoadGoldin-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?

14. An Example X2-5x+6 = ( )( )

15. XR QP BN

16. How did you just do that math problem? X2-5x+6 = ( )( ) [Do or Don’t Gesture]

17. What were the letters again?

18. The Experiment • Children • Simpler math: 4 + 5 + 3 = __ + 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)

19. 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

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

21. 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?