Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 13, Issue 5, pp 813–819 | Cite as

Stereotype susceptibility narrows the gender gap in imagined self-rotation performance

  • Maryjane Wraga
  • Lauren Duncan
  • Emily C. Jacobs
  • Molly Helt
  • Jessica Church
Brief Reports

Abstract

Three studies examined the impact of stereotype messages on men’s and women’s performance of a mental rotation task involving imagined self-rotations. Experiment 1 established baseline differences between men and women; women made 12% more errors than did men. Experiment 2 found that exposure to a positive stereotype message enhanced women’s performance in comparison with that of another group of women who received neutral information. In Experiment 3, men who were exposed to the same stereotype message emphasizing a female advantage made more errors than did male controls, and the magnitude of error was similar to that for women from Experiment 1. The results suggest that the gender gap in mental rotation performance is partially caused by experiential factors, particularly those induced by sociocultural stereotypes.

References

  1. 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, 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baenninger, M., &Newcombe, N. (1989). The role of experience in spatial test performance: A meta-analysis.Sex Roles,20, 327–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, R. P., &Josephs, R. A. (1999). A burden of proof: Stereotype relevance and gender differences in math performance.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,76, 246–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cadinu, M., Maass, A., Frigerio, S., Impagliazzo, L., &Latinotti, S. (2003). Stereotype threat: The effect of expectancy on performance.European Journal of Social Psychology,33, 267–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campos, A., Pérez-Fabello, M. J., &Gómez-Juncal, R. (2004). Gender and age differences in measured and self-perceived imaging capacity.Personality & Individual Differences,37, 1383–1389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Casey, M. B. (1996). Gender, sex, and cognition: Considering the interrelationship between biological and environmental factors.Learning & Individual Differences,8, 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, J., &Cohen, P. (1983).Applied multiple regression/correlation analyses for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, J. D., MacWhinney, B., Flatt, M., &Provost, J. (1993). PsyScope: An interactive graphic system for designing and controlling experiments in the psychology laboratory using Macintosh computers.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,25, 257–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Connor, J. M., Schackman, M., &Serbin, L. A. (1978). Sex-related differences in response to practice on a visual-spatial test and generalization to a related test.Child Development,49, 24–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Connor, J. M., &Serbin, L. A. (1985). Visual-spatial skill: Is it important for mathematics? Can it be taught? In S. F. Chipman, L. R. Brush, & D. M. Wilson (Ed.),Women and mathematics: Balancing the equation (pp. 151–174). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Creem, S. H., Wraga, M., &Proffitt, D. R. (2001). Imagining physically impossible self-rotations: Geometry is more important than gravity.Cognition,81, 41–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Easton, R. D., &Sholl, M. J. (1995). Object-array structure, frames of reference, and retrieval of spatial knowledge.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 483–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Feingold, A. (1988). Cognitive gender differences are disappearing.American Psychologist,43, 95–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Geary, D. C. (1995). Sexual selection and sex differences in spatial cognition.Learning & Individual Differences,7, 289–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johns, M., Schmader, T., &Martens, A. (2005). Knowing is half the battle: Teaching stereotype threat as a means of improving women’s math performance.Psychological Science,16, 175–179.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kimura, D., &Hampson, E. (1994). Cognitive pattern in men and women is influenced by fluctuations in sex hormones.Current Directions in Psychological Science,3, 57–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Koslow, R. E. (1987). Sex-related differences and visual-spatial mental imagery as factors affecting symbolic motor skill acquisition.Sex Roles,17, 521–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Levy, B. (1996). Improving memory in old age through implicit selfstereotyping.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,71, 1092–1107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Leyens, J.-P., Désert, M., Croizet, J.-C., &Darcis, C. (2000). Stereotype threat: Are lower status and history of stigmatization preconditions of stereotype threat?Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin,26, 1189–1199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Linn, M. C., &Petersen, A. C. (1985). Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis.Child Development,56, 1479–1498.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Masters, M. S. (1998). The gender difference on the Mental Rotations Test is not due to performance factors.Memory & Cognition,26, 444–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Masters, M. S., &Sanders, B. (1993). Is the gender difference in mental rotation disappearing?Behavior Genetics,23, 337–341.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory.Neuropsychologia,9, 97–113.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Presson, C. C. (1982). Strategies in spatial reasoning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,8, 243–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ripley, A. (2005, March 7). Who says a woman can’t be Einstein?Time, pp. 50–60.Google Scholar
  26. Sharps, M. J., Price, J. L., &Williams, J. K. (1994). Spatial cognition and gender: Instructional and stimulus influences on mental image rotation performance.Psychology of Women Quarterly,18, 413–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sharps, M. J., Welton, A. L., &Price, J. L. (1993). Gender and task in the determination of spatial cognitive performance.Psychology of Women Quarterly,17, 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shepard, R. N., &Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of threedimensional objects.Science,171, 701–703.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shih, M., Pittinsky, T. L., &Ambady, N. (1999). Stereotype susceptibility: Identity salience and shifts in quantitative performance.Psychological Science,10, 80–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., &Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,35, 4–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance.American Psychologist,52, 613–629.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Steele, C. M., &Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,69, 797–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., &Aronson, J. (2002). Contending with group image: The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 379–440). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  34. Vandenberg, S. G., &Kuse, A. R. (1978). Mental rotations, a group test of three-dimensional spatial visualization.Perceptual & Motor Skills,47, 599–604.Google Scholar
  35. Voyer, D., Voyer, S., &Bryden, M. P. (1995). Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables.Psychological Bulletin,117, 250–270.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Walton, G. M., &Cohen, G. L. (2003). Stereotype lift.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,39, 456–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Willis, S. L., &Schaie, K. W. (1988). Gender differences in spatial ability in old age: Longitudinal and intervention findings.Sex Roles,18, 189–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wraga, M. (2003). Thinking outside the body: An advantage for spatial updating during imagined versus physical self-rotation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,29, 993–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wraga, M., Creem, S. H., &Proffitt, D. R. (2000). Updating displays after imagined object and viewer rotations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 151–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wraga, M., Helt, M., Jacobs, E., & Sullivan, K. (in press). Neural basis of stereotype-induced shifts in women’s mental rotation performance.Social Cognitive & Affective Neuroscience.Google Scholar
  41. Wraga, M., Shephard, J. M., Church, J. A., Inati, S., &Kosslyn, S. M. (2005). Imagined rotations of self versus objects: An fMRI study.Neuropsychologia,43, 1351–1361.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zacks, J. M., Vettel, J. M., &Michelon, P. (2003). Imagined viewer and object rotations dissociated with event-related fMRI.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,15, 1002–1018.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maryjane Wraga
    • 1
  • Lauren Duncan
    • 1
  • Emily C. Jacobs
    • 2
  • Molly Helt
    • 1
  • Jessica Church
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologySmith CollegeNorthampton
  2. 2.University of CaliforniaBerkeley
  3. 3.Washington UniversitySt. LouisMissouri

Personalised recommendations