Gender bias in Math skills : a case of Traits Vs. Environment/Effort feedback?

A recent news article reports on a study that demonstrates that the gender bias in Math abilities may be due to environmental and cultural effects - specifically as a result of the negative self- perception garnered by the activation of the negative stereotype of women as having grossly inferior mathematical abilities than men.

The experiment involved giving 220 female study participants bogus scientific explanations for alleged sex differences in math and then having them write math tests. Those who were given a 'nature' explanation - that women have differential genetic composition than men and the cause of their low maths abilities was genetic and gender based - performed poorly on the Math tests compared to the group that was told that their math skills depended on how they were raised and were given a 'nurture' explanation and an experiential account of the sex differences such as math teachers treating boys preferentially during the first years of math education.

In the control condition some females were told that no sex differences exist while another group was reminded (primed) of the stereotype about female math under-achievement.

The worst performance was for genetic explanation females, followed by 'stereotype primed' females. Those who were given an experiential explanation performed as well or better than the control group that received the feedback that there were no sex differences in Math abilities.

While the authors analyze and explain the results in terms of the 'Stereotype theory' - that genetic explanations lead to more negative stereotypes and that activation of the negative stereotype affects performance- a more parsimonious explanations is that the differences can be explained by the same differential outcomes that are observed in people who have a genetic or trait-like versus an effort-driven or skill-like view of abilities. I have discussed previously how these differential view of abilities may develop and the experiment above has just the right conditions to induce such a differential view.

Those who were given a genetic explanation of sex differences in math abilities, may have formed a trait-like view of Math ability and were prone to see the ability as stable, genetic and immutable. This is the same view of math ability that would be formed if they had been given generic feedback - like "you are a math prodigy".

Those who had been given experiential explanations of sex differences would have been more prone to form a skill-like view of math abilities and assume that the ability could be improved and honed based on environmental inputs like proper teaching, guidance, strategy or efforts. This would have been the case if they had been given 'specific' feedback - like "you solved this math problem very well this time".

It is evident that a large part of the difference in the math test results observed in genetic vs experiential explanation conditions can be explained by the different view about math abilities that these experiments had induced. Those who were having the trait-like view of math ability would get frustrated while tackling a difficult problem and would be less resilient and effort-full while tackling the latter, more easy, problem on the test; as they would have formed a negative self-perception as one who has little mathematical talent. On the other hand, those who had been induced to form a skill-like view of math ability, would have been more resilient and effort-full when tackling latter problems, despite some early failures, as a failure would not have led to a resigned sate of mind, but would have only resulted in a belief that the strategies or effort or earlier training had not been sufficient to solve the particular problem.

It is not my contention that negative stereotype activation has no role to play- priming with stereotype words does lead to measurable effects on performance - but in this case, even if the stereotype activation is involved, the stereotype may be instrumental in activating the differential view of mathematical abilities and its effects mediated by the effects that such views have on test performances.

Sphere: Related Content

Encephalon #9 is out!

The latest edition of that fantastic brain carnival called Encephelon is now out. The ninth edition has been very nicley presneted by Dan at the Migrations.

There are special focus sections on Learning, Perception, Autism and Neuroscience, so have your pick and enjoy!

Sphere: Related Content

Synapse : the special SfN edition now online

A new edition of synapse, featuring from-the-tracks coverage of the SfN conference, is now available at the Pure Pedantry. Don't miss all the action that is taking place at the SfN.

Sphere: Related Content

Mouse research: Genetic footprints of anxiety?

A recent study, has determined that a Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) in the BDNF (Brain deriver neurotopic factor) gene in humans, that substitutes a Met allele for Val, may be a predictor for increased susceptibility to anxiety/ depression. The study involved experiments with mouse homozygous for the Met allele and placing them in stressful situations. These mice exhibited considerable increase in anxiety over normal mouse when facing similar situations. Thus, a potential locus and mechanism for anxiety/ depression has become available.

It is interesting to note that a similar SNP that involves Met/Val substitution in the COMT gene has been implicated in schizophrenia and affects cognitive performance in frontal regions. In the COMT case though, those who have the Met allele are more fortunate, in the sense that the Val allele causes increased metabolism of dopamine and other catecholamines.

While a Met allele is good in a Schizophrenia gene, it has the reverse effect in a depression/anxiety gene! What exactly does the Met / Val difference mean for a gene?

Hat Tip: The Mind Blog

Sphere: Related Content

Alien Vs Predator : would eugenics and mate selction divide us in two?

An interesting discussion is going on at slashdot regarding the recent speculation of LSE theorist Oliver Curry, that Humans may split into two species, very much like the Elois and Morlocks conceived by H G Wells, as a result of mate selection.

As per the standard evolutionary theory of how new species are formed, it is posited that new species result form existing species, when interbreeding between two factions of the old species stops and genetic variations accumulate in isolation in the two species making them different from each other and making them further unavailable for interbreeding. The original lack of interbreeding resulting in a species split may be due to accidental genetic changes that make interbreeding troublesome or less likely (or make resultant children unhealthy and unlivable) or it may be a direct result of sexual selection and preferential mating. This theory of a new specie origination has also been experimentally verified in fruit flies.

Oliver theorizes, that sexual selection would become prominent in the near future and eventually lead to the bifurcation of the human species, and this bifurcation would be on intelligence/attractiveness lines, with more intelligent and beautiful (Elois) making one strata and the dim-witted and ugly (Morlocks) making the other strata.

This is not inconceivable as intelligence and attractiveness (things like height, beauty etc) have been found to covary in humans and people do take these factors into account while choosing mates.

An added twist to this provide by the fact that SES or wealth is related to intelligence and thus, the bifurcation would also happen along economic lines. Again, wealth and status are attributes that are heavily involved in mate selection.

But for this process to take shape, inter breedings have to be prevented, or become less and less probable and we know that we, as humans, are still not choosy and do interbreed frequently.


What could accelerate and freeze the process of genetic differentiation between the species is the modern genetic research that may once more lead to eugenics-style human-enhancement efforts, with rich having more of these tools at their disposal vis-a-vis the poor. This is exactly the point that Peter Singer makes in his editorial "Gene Therapy" in today's TOI and comes to a similar conclusion that we may be doomed to a split down the line.

I had speculated on something similar some time back: but my reasoning was more guided by evolutionary pressures that our ancestors might have faced during the EEA and whether that had laid the foundation for the split of human lineage. To be precise, I had speculated that the different foraging styles that our ancestors adopted during the EEA had lead to the evolution of different personality traits consistent with that personality ( there was some research that indicated that a foraging style based on begging or nagging the compatriots incessantly to give food might have had low Agreeableness associated and resulted in the emergence of an Agreeableness trait). Further, once people started assuming a certain foraging and personality style, they might have interbred within that class leading to the emergence of that trait in that population.

Fortunately, once the EEA pressures were over the populations mixed with each other and thus the personality traits dispersed in the population. There is not much evidence to back this theory, but it highlights one important point: there has to be environmental pressure on the species that makes them breed selectively and leads to emergence of new traits. If humanity manages not to screw itself ( by nuclear catastrophe or whatever) , then I cannot see any environmental pressures that would enforce the lack of interbreeding. We can thus sleep assured that we are not going to split in two. There will always be that quirky beautiful lady that marries the dumb ugly squat- motivated solely by that elusive thing called love- and not giving a damn about confirming to the standard sexual selection model- as long as we can ensure that we do not subject her to the evolutionary pressures faced by her ancestors and which have become mostly useless since the time we humans have started controlling our environments.

Update : An interesting sum-up of all the prominent blog postings debunking this claim has been compiled by Coturnix at A Blog Round the Clock. It is interesting to note that while John Wilkins, disagrees with the analysis because he thinks that human speciation, if it happens, will happen due to isolation (Allopatric speciation) and lack of interbreeding and that sympatric speciation is not relevant to us; John Hawks takes a completely different take and assumes that if human divergance can take place, it would be most likely sympatric and requiring natural selection against intermediate phenotypes. He rules out the possibility of all Morlocks shipped to an island and being isolated as a likely scenario! He does mention some intricacies involved in assortative mating and sympatric speciation which are worth musing over. The take home is that we are not going to split!!
My own take, had more focussed on Parapatric speciation, in which environmental pressures are a key factor. Key and drastic environmental changes clubbed with partial isolation (occupation of niches by daughter species) and the resultant selective interbreeding is posited as the mechanism here, and does not require either complete geographic isolation of the two diverging species (required in allopatry) or the requirement that the those heterozygous at the differentiating gene locus have less reproductive fitness compared to those who are homozygous (the sympatry requirement) .

Sphere: Related Content

Should you read my blog or my short-stories/poems?

BPS research digest has reported on an interesting study that has found that lifetime reading of fiction leads to enhanced empathetic abilities, while reading non-fiction predominantly leads to the converse effects. although, the study suffers from some limitations ( the usual correlation is not causation and empathetic people might be more drawn to fiction rather than it being the other way round) as well as methodological constraints ( it used familiarity of fiction and non-fiction writers' name as a criterion for exposure to that genre: by this measure I would do well in both cases, as I was a very prolific fiction reader earlier, but in the recent years have been reading non-fiction almost exclusively...so my familiarity with fiction authors doesn't reflect my current fiction exposure), but still the results are tantalizing and the implications profound.

For me that raises the question of whether I should also occasionally post some of my short stories on this blog, in a bid to balance the drop in empathy that my readers will undergo by reading my non-fiction!!

There is another interesting study highlighted in this week's BPS digest, that reveals that a thicker corpus-callosum is required for a right-brain hemisphericality (is it that a thicker corpus callosum ensures that the right mechanism is in place (more communication between the hemispheres) to ensure that the more feminine, talkative :-) , holistic right brain is able to become dominant ? Or is it the other way round, that right brain dominance causes more interconnections between the hemispheres and leads to a thicker callosum?)

Sphere: Related Content

Steps for the evolution and devlopment of languages

There is an interesting post at the Babel's Dawn, highlighting the work of David Rose in relation to SFL.

As per David, some pre-requisites are required for the evolution and development of languages as we know them.

Four conditions are suggested for developing explanatory models that may account for these linguistic phenomena. These include (a) a mechanism for reproducing complex cultural behaviors intergenerationally over extended time, (b) a sequence by which articulated wordings could evolve from nonlinguistic primate communication, (c) extension of the functions of wording from enacting interpersonal interactions to representing speakers’ experience, and (d) the emergence of complex patterns of discourse for delicately negotiating social relations, and for construing experience in genres such as narrative. These conditions are explored, and some possible steps in language evolution are suggested, that may be correlated with both linguistic research and archaeological models of cultural phases in human evolution.

Edmund Bolles summarizes this as below:

Rose’s four steps required for the growth and survival of language are:

1. reproducibility: along with the “suite of biological adaptations” for speaking, there has to be some “mechanism” for precisely reproducing the language that happens to be spoken wherever one happens to be born. Many inquiries into language acquisition assumed this reproducibility is purely biological, but Roses insists that language is reproduced across generations “by cultural means.” In other words, children learn language from their elders. We will see on this blog that this explanation is not accepted quite as widely as a novice might think. One thing is clear, we got this skill after we said goodbye to the chimpanzee’s line of descent.
2. exchangeability: Once speakers have the ability to reproduce words they can “exchange” them. Rose takes the idea of an exchange of words more literally than I do; thus he talks about “exchange behavior” in primates, but the basic idea of being able take and modify one another’s existing words to create new ones appears sound enough. The interesting thing about such interactions is that both parties in the exchange “get” it. The usage is understood as a bit of wit or cleverness rather than as an error, so wit too is something added to our species when we had parted from the surviving primates.
3. extendibility: one very peculiar quality of humans is what a resourceful species we are, able to turn established tools to new tasks as the purpose demands. A digging tool becomes a backscratcher becomes a probe. Equally, we can extend the uses of our verbal tools. Thus, words which were surely first “exchanged” as tools for interpersonal actions could be extended for use in expressing ideas and then extended again to be used in thinking through some complex set of ideas. At this point biology is left in the dust as the role of language is extended at a pace that far outdistances plodding natural selection.
4. combinability: the various extensions of speech can be combined to produce still more verbal wonders, such as stories and polite behavior that lets people negotiate delicate situations without giving offense. At this point we can speak of craft, maybe even artistry. Speech, thought, and culture has moved so far from its primate roots that the idea of common descent becomes surprising.

To me these bring to mind the more genetic and physical (as opposed to the cultural based that Rose presumes them to be) pre-requisites for language, in particular, and symbolic manipulation in general, that Premack had outlined recently. I had commented on the same earlier by integrating those with the existing stage-based developmental model of language evolution/development.

I'll briefly recap the pre-requisites that Premack had identified:

• Voluntary Control of Motor Behavior. Premack argues that because both vocalization and facial expression are largely involuntary in the chimpanzee, they are incapable of developing a symbol system like speech or sign language.
• Imitation. Because chimpanzees can only imitate an actor's actions on an object, but not the actions in the absence of the object that was acted upon, Premack suggests that language cannot evolve. .
• Teaching. Premack claims that teaching behaviors are strictly human, defining teaching as "reverse imitation" - in which a model actor observes and corrects an imitator.
• Theory of Mind. Chimps can ascribe goals to others' actions, but Premack suggests these attributions are limited in recursion (i.e., no "I think you thought he would have thought that.") Premack states that because recursion is a necessary component of human language, and because all other animals lack recursion, they cannot possibly evolve human language.
• Grammar. Not only do chimps use nonrecursive grammars, they also use only words that are grounded in sensory experience - according to Premack, all attempts have failed to train chimps to use words with meanings grounded in metaphor rather than sensory experience.
• Intelligence. Here Premack suggests that the uniquely human characteristics of language are supported by human intelligence. Our capacity to flexibly recombine pieces of sensory experience supports language, while the relative lack of such flexibility in other animals precludes them from using human-language like symbol systems.

To me, the Imitation and Teaching seem to be the cognitive mechanisms by which reproducibility of languages across cultures and generation is ensured.

Theory of mind abilities would definitely be utilized and instrumental in the process of excahngeability, whereby one can use tokens like words to exchange meanings. For this mechanism to evolve, an ability to understand that others have mental states that are similar to us is necessary and only then can one comprehend what that person means when he uses a particular token. Also, the mirror system , that might be involved in ToM module , may also be sufficient to explain the evolution of linguistic words from non-linguistic communication.

Grammatical abilities like recursion and ability to use metaphors can be directly mapped to the capabilities like combinability and extendability, whereby complex linguistic devices can be combined to produce complex discourses and novel metaphors used for extending the semantics associated with a word.


I'm quite intrigued and excited by such commonalities! Does this excite you too? Let me know via comments.

Sphere: Related Content

Belief about Intelligence : how it affects performance and how it is formed

Affective Teaching keeps posting some interesting basic cognitive tutorials and their latest one deals with the different concepts people have regarding intelligence and how that affects performance and attitudes.

As per that tutorial, people can either have fixed (entity) or trait-like view of intelligence/ abilities or a changeable (incremental) or skill-like view of intelligence/ abilities. Interestingly, those with fixed view are more prone to learned helplessness, external locus of control, less persistence and lack of use of learning strategies. On the other hand those with changeable view of intelligence are more persistent, having a mastery goal or orientation and apt to use learning strategies and credit success to effort and strategy.

This same difference in attitudes and outcomes was predicted by my recent blog post where I analyzed the differential effects of providing generic (person based) versus specific (outcome based) feedback and praise. It was surmised that this would lead to differential view of intelligence/abilities as being trait-like or skill-like in nature. It is heartening to note that existing research supports such a differentiation in the conceptualization of intelligence by individuals and also predicts accurately the different outcomes based on different underlying conceptualizations.

It should thus be clear that providing the right sort of feedback to the child is very important so that they hook on to the right conceptualization of intelligence early on. This may also go long way in settling the expertise debate: genius have a mastery orientation and an incremental view of intelligence which is different form the normal trait-like view held by most people. Thus, it is not just the case that that they are either more talented or just better learners (although they are both) ; they also have a different attitude- and a different underlying concept of intelligence/ability- which is very much a result of the environmental feedback they received in childhood ans is instrumental in making them what they are.

Sphere: Related Content