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

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511614446.010

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 ,

Cristina M. Carrasquillo ,

Alison M. L. Ching ,

Tattiya J. Kliengklom ,

Kristen L. McDonald ,

Tonya Stoddard and

Edited by

Ann M. Gallagher and

James C. Kaufman

Show author details

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

Book contents

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.

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Gender Differences in Mathematics
An Integrative Psychological Approach
, pp. 189 - 206

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614446.010 [Opens in a new window]

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

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, 113–125CrossRef Google 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, 29–46CrossRef Google 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, 230–244CrossRef Google 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, 1173–1182CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

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, 361–383CrossRef Google 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, 474–479CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1980). Sex differences in mathematical ability: Fact or artifact? Science, 210, 1262–1264CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1983). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability: More facts. Science, 222, 1029–1031CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

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, 225–229CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Brown, R. P., & Josephs, R. A. (1999). Stereotype relevance and gender differences in math performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 246–257CrossRef Google 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, 588–594CrossRef Google Scholar

Dienstbier, R. A. (1989). Arousal and physiological toughness: Implications for mental and physical health. Psychological Review, 96, 84–100CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

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, 256–273CrossRef Google 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, 107–113CrossRef Google Scholar

Geary, D. C. (1996). Sexual selection and sex differences in mathematical abilities. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19, 229–284CrossRef Google Scholar

Hong, Y., Chiu, C., & Dweck, C. S. (1999). Implicit theories, attributions, and coping: A meaning system approach. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 77, 588–599CrossRef Google Scholar

Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., & Lamon, S. J. (1990). Gender differences in mathematics performance: A meta analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 139–155CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

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, 365–371CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

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, 942–958CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

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, 1189–1199CrossRef Google 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, 1–27CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Marx, D. M., Brown, J. L., & Steele, C. M. (1999). Allport's legacy and the situational press of stereotypes. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 491–502CrossRef Google 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, 412–422CrossRef Google Scholar

Ruvolo, A. P., & Markus, H. R. (1992). Possible selves and performance: The power of self-relevant imagery. Social Cognition, 10, 95–124CrossRef Google 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, 242–248CrossRef Google Scholar

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1983). Beyond the purely cognitive: Belief systems, social cognitions, and metacognitions as driving forces in intellectual performance. Cognitive Science, 7, 329–363CrossRef Google 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, 80–83CrossRef Google Scholar

Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. (1999). Stereotype threat and women's math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4–28CrossRef Google Scholar

Stangor, C., Carr, C., & Kiang, L. (1998). Activating stereotypes undermines task performance expectations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1191–1197CrossRef Google Scholar

Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613–629CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797–811CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

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, 885–896CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

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, 1213–1227CrossRef Google 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, 219–240CrossRef Google Scholar

Wheeler, S. C., & Petty, R. E. (2001). The effects of stereotype activation on behavior: A review of possible mechanisms. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 797–826CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

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, 459–482CrossRef Google Scholar

Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149, 269–274CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.