Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-995ml Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T23:21:27.157Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - “Math is hard!” (Barbie™, 1994): Responses of Threat vs. Challenge-Mediated Arousal to Stereotypes Alleging Intellectual Inferiority

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Talia Ben-Zeev
Affiliation:
San Francisco State University
Cristina M. Carrasquillo
Affiliation:
San Francisco State University
Alison M. L. Ching
Affiliation:
San Francisco State University
Tattiya J. Kliengklom
Affiliation:
San Francisco State University
Kristen L. McDonald
Affiliation:
San Francisco State University
Daniel C. Newhall
Affiliation:
San Francisco State University
Gillian E. Patton
Affiliation:
San Francisco State University
Tiffany D. Stewart
Affiliation:
San Francisco State University
Tonya Stoddard
Affiliation:
San Francisco State University
Michael Inzlicht
Affiliation:
New York University
Steven Fein
Affiliation:
Williams Collage
Ann M. Gallagher
Affiliation:
Law School Admissions Council, Newton, PA
James C. Kaufman
Affiliation:
California State University, San Bernardino
Get access

Summary

In 1994, Mattel created a Barbie™ doll that said, “Math is hard.” The Barbie Liberation Organization, a group composed of activists and media personalities, among others, protested against Barbie's perpetuation of gender-based stereotyping. The media publicized the case and discussions on gender stereotyping in children's toys ensued on and off the air, leading Mattel to withdraw the “math is hard” Barbie from the market.

However, did Barbie's frustration with math represent a reality in which girls and women, more than boys and men, find math to be hard? Benbow and Stanley (1980, 1983) found gender differences in performance on the mathematical section of the SAT (SAT-M) in boys and girls under the age of fourteen who were high in math achievement. The boys outperformed the girls by about half a standard deviation and were overrepresented by a ratio of 13:1 among students who scored above 700. Similarly, in a meta-analysis involving over three million participants, Hyde, Fennema, and Lamon (1990) found a gender difference favoring males that emerged from high school (d = 0.29) through college (d = 0.41), and into adulthood (d = 0.59). Finally, Brown and Josephs (1999) reported that the two most widely used standardized tests of mathematics in the United States, the SAT-M and the quantitative portion of the GRE (GRE-Q), revealed a gender difference in the order of half a standard deviation.

This gender difference can also be seen in the types of activities that females vs. males tend to pursue.

Type
Chapter
Information
Gender Differences in Mathematics
An Integrative Psychological Approach
, pp. 189 - 206
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aronson, J., Fried, C. B., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 113–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronson, J., Lustina, M. J., Good, C., Keough, K., Steele, C. M., & Brown, J. (1999). When white men can't do math: Necessary and sufficient factors in stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 29–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronson, J., Quinn, D. M., & Spencer, S. J. (1998). Stereotype threat and the academic underperformance of minorities and women. In J. K. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.), Prejudice: The target's perspective (pp. 83–103). San Diego, CA: Academic PressCrossRef
Aronson, J., & Salinas, M. F. (1997). Stereotype threat, attributional ambiguity, and Latino underperformance. Unpublished manuscript, University of Texas
Bargh, J. A., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 71, 230–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baumeister, R. F., & Showers, C. J. (1986). A review of paradoxical performance effects: Choking under pressure in sports and mental tests. European Journal of Social Psychology, 16, 361–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benbow, C. P., Lubinski, D., Shea, D. L., & Eftekhari-Sanjani, H. (2000). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability at age 13: Their status 20 years later. Psychological Science, 11, 474–479CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1980). Sex differences in mathematical ability: Fact or artifact? Science, 210, 1262–1264CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1983). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability: More facts. Science, 222, 1029–1031CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ben-Zeev, T., Fein, S., & Inzlicht, M. (in press). Arousal and stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
Blascovich, J., Spencer, S. J., Quinn, D., & Steele, C. (2001). African Americans and high blood pressure: The role of stereotype threat. Psychological Science, 12, 225–229CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, R. P., & Josephs, R. A. (1999). Stereotype relevance and gender differences in math performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 246–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croizet, J. C., & Claire, T. (1998). Extending the concept of stereotype threat to social class: The intellectual underperformance of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 588–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dienstbier, R. A. (1989). Arousal and physiological toughness: Implications for mental and physical health. Psychological Review, 96, 84–100CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-Theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eccles, J. S., & Jacobs, J. E. (1987). In M. R. Walsh (Ed.), The Psychology of Women (question 10, pp. 333–354). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. (1986). Stress process and depressive symptomatology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95, 107–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geary, D. C. (1996). Sexual selection and sex differences in mathematical abilities. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19, 229–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hong, Y., Chiu, C., & Dweck, C. S. (1999). Implicit theories, attributions, and coping: A meaning system approach. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 77, 588–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., & Lamon, S. J. (1990). Gender differences in mathematics performance: A meta analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 139–155CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Inzlicht, M. (2001). Threatening intellectual environments: When and why females perform worse in the presence of males. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Brown University
Inzlicht, M., & Ben-Zeev, T. (2000). A threatening intellectual environment: Why females are susceptible to experiencing problem-solving deficits in the presence of males. Psychological Science, 11, 365–371CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Kray, L. J., Thompson, L., & Galinsky, A. (2001). Battle of the sexes: Gender stereotype confirmation and reactance in negotiations. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 80, 942–958CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leyens, J. P., Desert, M., Croizet, J. C., & Darcis, C. (2000). Stereotype threat: Are lower status and history of stigmatization preconditions of stereotype threat? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1189–1199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupien, S. J., & McEwen, B. S. (1997). The acute effects of corticosteroids on cognition: Integration of animal and human model studies. Brain Research Reviews, 24, 1–27CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marx, D. M., Brown, J. L., & Steele, C. M. (1999). Allport's legacy and the situational press of stereotypes. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 491–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Brien, L. T., & Crandall, C. S. (2001). Stereotype threat and arousal: Effects on women's math performance. Manuscript submitted for publication
Pyszczynski, T., & Greenberg, J. (1983). Determinants of reduction in effort as a strategy for coping with anticipated failure. Journal of Research in Personality, 17, 412–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruvolo, A. P., & Markus, H. R. (1992). Possible selves and performance: The power of self-relevant imagery. Social Cognition, 10, 95–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, B. H., Gilovitch, T., Goore, N., & Joseph, L. (1986). Mere presence and social facilitation: One more time. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 242–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1983). Beyond the purely cognitive: Belief systems, social cognitions, and metacognitions as driving forces in intellectual performance. Cognitive Science, 7, 329–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1–66Google Scholar
Shih, M., Pittinsky, T. L., & Ambady, N. (1999). Stereotype susceptibility: Identity salience and shifts in quantitative performance. Psychological Science, 10, 80–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. (1999). Stereotype threat and women's math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stangor, C., Carr, C., & Kiang, L. (1998). Activating stereotypes undermines task performance expectations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1191–1197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613–629CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797–811CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Lynch, M. (1993). Self-image resilience and dissonance: The role of affirmational resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 885–896CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stone, J., Lynch, C. I., Sjomeling, M., & Darley, J. M. (1999). Stereotype threat effects on Black and White athletic performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1213–1227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ursin, H., Baade, E., & Levine, S. (Eds.). (1978). Psychobiology of stress: A study of coping men. New York: Academic Press
Walsh, M., Hickey, C., & Duffy, J. (1999). Influence of item content and stereotype situation on gender differences in mathematical problem solving. Sex Roles, 41, 219–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, S. C., & Petty, R. E. (2001). The effects of stereotype activation on behavior: A review of possible mechanisms. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 797–826CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relationship of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology of Psychology, 18, 459–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149, 269–274CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×