Women who were told that their genes predisposed them to underachievement perfomed worse than women who were told their experiences were to blame.
Credit: iStockphoto
SYDNEY: People told they have a genetic disadvantage are more likely to underperform than those who are led to believe their disadvantage is learned, Canadian researchers say.
Their study, published today in the U.S. journal Science investigated the effects of manipulating women's beliefs about the stereotype that women are worse at maths than men. It did not, however, weigh into the ongoing controversy over whether such innate sex differences exist.
Steven J. Heine and Ilan Dar-Nimrod of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, gave tests to 220 women over three years. The tests included two sections of maths problems separated by a reading comprehension essay.
Participants were divided into four groups. For the first two groups, the essays made the claim that there are sex differences in maths performance. In the first group, the essay attributed the differences to genetic causes, while the second argued that the different life experiences of men and women - preferential treatment of boys by teachers during maths lessons, for example - account for the discrepancy in maths performance.
A third group was given an essay that argued that there are no maths-related sex differences, while a fourth control group read an essay about the history of woman's body in art that made no mention of the maths stereotype.
Women who read the experiential explanation significantly outperformed the groups that were given the made-up genetic account and the art history essay. They were on a par with the group that was told that there are no sex differences in maths performance.
"The findings suggest that people tend to accept genetic explanations as if they're more powerful or irrevocable [than experiential explanations], which can lead to self-fulfilling prophecies," said Heine, an associate professor of psychology at the University of British Columbia. "Experiential theories may allow a woman to say 'This stereotype doesn't apply to me,'" he explained.
The control group's performance confirmed previous research suggesting that women's maths performance decreases when attention is drawn to their gender because of what is known as 'stereotype threat'.
"That essay described the history of the woman's body in art. It was reminding women that they're women, so they're thinking of their femininity while taking a really difficult math test," said Heine. "They find themselves not doing really well in the maths test, because it's really difficult. This causes them to think about the stereotype and choke under pressure."
According to Dar-Rimod, co-author of the study, their findings highlight the need for responsible communication and interpretation of science, "especially genetic explanations where you often see grossly simplified media stories that report on genes for homosexuality, genes for obesity or genes for thrill-seeking".
"The reports themselves have the potential to undermine people's motivations. If I believe that genes have a deterministic influence on my weight, will I struggle to keep up with my diet and exercise routine?"
Heine calls for scientists to be "especially attentive at describing [genetic influences] in less deterministic ways, emphasising that there are multiple influences on people's behaviour, that genes interact with the environment, emphasising that this is not a direct one-to-one correspondence."
It remains to be seen whether these results also apply to other stereotyped groups: boys and their perceived underachievement in English, for example.
