Differential Gender and Ethnic Differences in Math Performance
A Self-Regulatory Perspective
Abstract
The present research investigates the role of self-regulatory mechanisms in the context of gender and ethnic differences (between African Americans and Caucasians) in math test performance. Building on two basic notions proposed in regulatory focus theory, it is argued that gender and ethnic differences in math performance are particularly pronounced under conditions where prevention-focused self-regulation is activated (by emphasizing point deductions for mistakes). This assumption refers to a specific mechanism documented in previous research on regulatory focus theory: The differential-sensitivity mechanism according to which a prevention focus renders individuals particularly sensitive with regard to negative information (such as negative performance expectancies). Results of an archival data analysis document a substantial differential gender and ethnic gap in math performance as a function of test instruction (involving point deductions for mistakes or not) supporting the proposed differential gender and ethnic-gap hypothesis. The gap between women and men as well as the gap between African-American and Caucasian test takers is substantially larger in the Scholastic Aptitude Test for math (which involves point deductions for mistakes) than in the corresponding American College Test.
References
. (2012). ACT national and state scores. Retrieved March 17, 2012, from www.act.org/newsroom/data/
(1991). Gender differences in multiple-choice tests: The role of differential guessing tendencies. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28, 23–35.
(2008). The role of performance-avoidance goals and worry in mediating then relationship between stereotype threat and performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 180–185.
(1999). A burden of proof: Stereotype relevance and gender differences in math performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 246–257.
(1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
(2005). “I am us”: Negative stereotypes as collective threats. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 566–582.
(2005). The gender-gap artifact: Women’s underperformance in quantitative domains through the lens of stereotype threat. In , Gender differences in mathematics: An integrative psychological approach (pp. 172–188). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
(1996). Sex differences in visuospatial ability: Do performance factors play such an important role? Memory & Cognition, 24, 504–510.
(2012). SAT data and reports. Retrieved March 17, 2012, from professionals.collegeboard.com/data-reports-research/sat
(2003). Speed/accuracy decisions in task performance: Built-in trade-off or separate strategic concerns? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90, 148–164.
(2002). Enjoying goal-directed action: The role of regulatory fit. Psychological Science, 13, 1–6.
(2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1001–1013.
(2011). Regulatory focus moderates the influence of age-related stereotypic expectancies on older adults’ test performance and threat-based concerns. European Review of Applied Psychology, 61, 23–29.
. (2005). Gender differences in mathematics: An integrative psychological approach. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
(2005). What if the hereditarian hypothesis is true? Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 11, 311–319.
(2000). The neuropsychology of anxiety (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
(2009). Stereotype threat reinterpreted as a regulatory mismatch. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 288–304.
(2000). Sex differences in cognitive abilities (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
(1995). Sex differences in mental test scores, variability, and numbers of high-scoring individuals. Science, 269, 41–45.
(1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300.
(1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In , Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 1–46). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
(2008). Regulatory fit. In , Handbook of motivation science (pp. 356–372). New York, NY: Guilford.
(1990). Gender differences in mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 139–155.
(2008). Gender similarities characterize math performance. Science, 321, 494–495.
(2011). Interaction does not only tell us ‘when’, but can also tell us ‘how’: Testing process hypotheses by interaction. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 180–190.
. (1998). The black-white test score gap. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
(2007a). When negative stereotypic expectancies turn into challenge or threat: The moderating role of regulatory focus. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 66, 163–168.
(2007b). Stereotype threat in classroom settings: The interactive effect of domain identification, task difficulty, and stereotype threat on female students’ math performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 323–338.
(2006). Regulatory fit and cognitive performance: The interactive effect of chronic and situationally induced self-regulatory mechanisms on test performance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 393–405.
(2008a). Communicating positive or negative stereotypic expectancies: The interplay of stereotype threat and regulatory focus. In , Stereotype dynamics: Language-based approaches to the formation, maintenance, and transformation of stereotypes (pp. 367–389). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
(2008b). When positive and negative expectancies disrupt performance: Regulatory focus as a catalyst. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 187–212.
(1998). Mathematic and science achievement in the final year of secondary school. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
(1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51, 77–101.
(2009). Intelligence and how to get it: Why schools and cultures count. New York, NY: Norton.
(2003). Stereotype threat and arousal: Effects on women’s math performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 782–789.
(2004). Ideals and thoughts and the reliance on affect versus substance in persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 503–518.
(2009). Contingent reliance on the affect heuristic as a function of regulatory focus. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 267–278.
(2003). Understanding racial differences on cognitive ability tests in selection contexts: An integration of stereotype threat and applicant reactions research. Human Performance, 16, 231–259.
(1999). The role of instructions in the variability of sex-related differences in multiple-choice tests. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 1067–1077.
(2008). Distinguishing levels of approach and avoidance: An analysis using regulatory focus theory. In , Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation (pp. 489–503). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
(2004). Stereotype threat and performance: How self-stereotypes influence processing by inducing regulatory foci. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 38–56.
(1998). Performance incentives and means: How regulatory focus influences goal attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 285–293.
(1971). Sex, grade, and risk taking on objective examinations. Journal of Experimental Education, 39, 65–68.
(2006). The interplay among stereotypes, performance-avoidance goals, and women’s math performance expectations. Sex Roles, 54, 287–296.
(1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4–28.
(2005). Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 845–851.
(1997). A threat in the air. How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613–629.
(1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797–811.
(2002). Contending with group image: The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. In , Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 379–440). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
(2004). Stereotype threat, inquiring about test takers’ ethnicity and sex, and standardized test performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 665–693.
(1982). The attitude-behavior relation: Moving toward a third generation of research. In , Consistency in social behavior. The Ontario Symposium on Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 283–301). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
