Post a brief summary of the article and explain how stereotype threat or stereotype lift might have influenced your own academic performance in school.

Original Article

A Threat in the Classroom Gender Stereotype Activation and Mental-Rotation

Performance in Elementary-School Children

Sarah Neuburger,1 Petra Jansen,2 Martin Heil,3 and Claudia Quaiser-Pohl1

1Institute of Psychology, University of Koblenz-Landau, Koblenz, Germany, 2Institute of Sports Science, University of Regensburg, Germany, 3Institute of Experimental Psychology, University of

Düsseldorf, Germany

Abstract. Females’ performance in a gender-stereotyped domain is impaired when negative gender stereotypes are activated (Nguyen & Ryan, 2008). ‘‘Stereotype threat’’ affects the gender difference in adults’ mental-rotation performance (e.g., Moè & Pazzaglia, 2006). Our study investigated this effect in fourth graders. Two hundred sixteen males and females solved two mental-rotation tests. In between, a gender- difference instruction was given (‘‘boys better,’’ ‘‘girls better,’’ ‘‘no gender difference’’). A significant interaction of time and gender was found in the ‘‘girls better’’-condition and in the ‘‘no gender difference’’-condition: As expected, the male performance advantage disappeared after these two instructions, because girls improved and boys deteriorated. Thus, the study suggests that the gender effect in mental rotation is affected by stereotype threat and stereotype lift from the very beginning of its occurrence. Results are discussed within a biopsychosocial framework and seem to play an important role with regard to the ‘‘hidden curriculum’’ in schools.

Keywords: stereotype threat, gender differences, elementary-school children, mental rotation

Mental rotation, a subcomponent of visual-spatial abilities, refers to the rotation of two- or three-dimensional objects in mind (Shepard & Metzler, 1971). The male advantage in adults’ mental-rotation performance is well documented (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974; Masters & Sanders, 1993; McGee, 1979; Linn & Petersen, 1985) and, with an effect size of about one standard deviation, one of the largest cog- nitive gender differences (Halpern, 2000). Contrary to other gender differences, it has not declined during the past dec- ades (Voyer, Voyer, & Bryden, 1995), which suggests that it might be caused by hereditary, biological factors. This assumption is supported by findings of gender differences in mental rotation at very young ages (e.g., Levine, Huttenl- ocher, Taylor, & Langrock, 1999; Quinn & Liben, 2008) and by links between spatial performance on the one hand, and specific genes (Bock & Kolakowski, 1973; Pezaris & Casey, 1991) and sex hormone levels on the other hand (e.g., Grimshaw, Sitarenios, & Finegan, 1995; Hausmann, Slabbekorn, Van Goosen, Cohen-Kettenis, & Güntürkün, 2000). However, there are also findings that do not support pure biological theories of the gender difference in mental rotation. First, several studies could not show a clear rela- tionship between mental-rotation skills and endogenous lev- els of sex hormones (e.g., Halari et al., 2005; Hines et al., 2003; Rahman, Wilson, & Abrahams, 2004). Second, social-psychological variables have been demonstrated to influence mental-rotation performance, for example, gender role identity (McGlone & Aronson, 2006; Ortner & Siever- ding, 2008; Saucier, McCreary, & Saxberg, 2002), stereo- types (Moè, 2009; Moè & Pazzaglia, 2006), causal

attribution (Moè, 2012; Moè & Pazzaglia, 2010), and confi- dence (Estes & Felker, 2011). Thus, a biopsychosocial framework ‘‘based on the continuous interplay of biological and psychological variables’’ (Halpern, Wai, & Saw, 2005, p. 68) seems to be the most appropriate model for under- standing the gender effect in mental rotation.

For understanding the dynamic, interactive processes leading to the gender difference in adults’ mental rotation, it seems useful to investigate differences in males’ and females’ performance in various ages. Recent studies sug- gest that the gender difference emerges before adolescence (e.g., Geiser, Lehmann, & Eid, 2008), probably at about 10 years (Neuburger, Jansen, Heil, & Quaiser-Pohl, 2011; Titze, Jansen, & Heil, 2010). This can be explained on the basis of prepubertal hormonal changes (Archibald, Graber & Brooks-Gunn, 2006; Reiter & Grumbach, 1982) as well as by sociocultural processes. In middle and late childhood, stereotype consciousness increases (McKown & Weinstein, 2003), accompanied by major steps in the development of self-concepts of ability (Damon & Hart, 1988; Marsh, Barnes, Cairns, & Tidman, 1984; Ruble, 1987) and gender role identity (Ruble &Martin, 1998). Therefore, fourth grad- ers are more likely aware of gender stereotypes regarding spatial abilities than younger elementary-school children, and they probably already have internalized these stereotypes.

In contrast to mathematics (e.g., Cvencek, Meltzoff, & Greenwald, 2011; Steele, 2003; Wigfield et al., 1997), ste- reotypes of spatial performance have rarely been investi- gated in children. In adults, Blanton, Christie, and Dye

� 2012 Hogrefe Publishing Zeitschrift für Psychologie 2012; Vol. 220(2):61–69 DOI: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000097

Th is

d oc

um en

t i s c

op yr

ig ht

ed b

y th

e A

m er

ic an

P sy

ch ol

og ic

al A

ss oc

ia tio

n or

o ne

o f i

ts a

lli ed

p ub

lis he

rs .

Th is

a rti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

(2002) as well as Hausmann, Schoofs, Rosenthal, and Jordan (2009) found a strong stereotype of male superiority in mental rotation. According to Nash (1979), children in the second grade begin to perceive spatial skills as masculine. In a recent study (Neuburger, Jansen, Heil, & Quaiser-Pohl, 2012), fourth-grade boys and girls rated spatial activities and tasks (mental rotation, building something according to construction plans, understanding maps and road schemes, playing with Lego, and performing well on line- reflection tasks) as more typical for boys than for girls.

Being linked to the gender gap in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (Else-Quest, Hyde, & Linn, 2010), stereotypes of performance are a major research topic of gender studies. Stereotypes potentially affect both abili- ties and performance. First, they can exert long-term effects on skill acquisition by influencing ability-related attitudes and beliefs in relevant others (e.g., parents, teachers, or peers) and the individuals themselves. These attitudes deter- mine the degree to which the individual gathers experiences relevant to the skill domain and thus can lead to ability dif- ferences between groups (for a more detailed analysis of long-term sociocultural influences on gender differences see Bussey & Bandura, 1999). Second, there are short-term social influences which can determine the individual’s per- formance in a certain situation.

The present study focuses on a specific situational social influence on cognitive performance contributing to group differences in various domains, the so-called ‘‘stereotype threat’’ (ST). It refers to ‘‘the event of a negative stereotype about a group to which one belongs becoming self-relevant’’ (Steele, 1997, p. 616), and to ‘‘being at risk of confirming, as self-characteristic, a negative stereotype about one’s group’’ (Steele & Aronson, 1995, p. 797). According to Nguyen and Ryan (2008), ST cuing can be either indirect and subtle (e.g., by priming the stereotyped group identity or by emphasizing the evaluative or diagnostic nature of the test), moderately explicit (e.g., by informing about the existence of group differences but not about the direction of these differences), or blatant (e.g., by indicating a group’s inferiority in the test). According to Schmader, Johns, and Forbes (2008), ST impairs performance because it triggers three different mechanisms reducing the capacity of working memory: physiological stress, monitoring processes, and emotion-suppressing efforts. These mechanisms are elicited by a cognitive imbalance between the individual’s concept of self, ability domain, and group: ‘‘My group does not have this ability, I am like my group, but I think that I have this ability’’ (Schmader et al., 2008, p. 338). As Martinot and Désert (2007) point out, ST occurs as soon as an individual is aware of a negative in-group stereotype, even if the stereo- type in question is not endorsed, that is, internalized by the individual. ST effects have been reported in a variety of groups and ability domains, for example, with African- Americans in national school tests (e.g., Steele & Aronson, 1995), Caucasians in sports (Stone, 2002), and women in mathematics (e.g., Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999).

The present study investigated the influence of ST on the mental-rotation performance of fourth graders, that is, the probably youngest age group, in which a male performance advantage can be reliably detected. Three reasons suggest

that ST affects the gender difference in fourth graders’ men- tal-rotation performance:

First, ST effects have already been found in elementary- school children in other performance domains (e.g., Alter, Aronson, Darley, Rodriguez, & Ruble, 2010; Désert, Préaux, & Jund, 2009). With regard to gender, Ambady, Shih, Kim, and Pittinsky (2001) and Tomasetto, Alparone, and Cadinu (2011) induced ST effects in 5–7-year-old chil- dren’s mathematical performance by a painting task that activated gender identity. Thus, ST effects occur before ado- lescence. Second, ST should affect children’s mental-rota- tion performance because mental rotation strongly relies on working memory for representing standard and compar- ison in the visual scratchpad, executing the rotation in mind, and maintaining the rotated comparison in awareness while comparing it with the target (see, e.g., Ilan & Miller, 1994). As ST impairs working memory capacity, mental-rotation performance should be very vulnerable to ST effects. A third reason for expecting such ST effects in children is that these effects have already been demonstrated in adult females’ mental-rotation performance (Hausmann et al., 2009; Moè, 2009; Moè & Pazzaglia, 2006; Sharps, Welton, & Price, 1993). Sharps et al. (1993) found that the male advantage in mental-rotation (measured with the ‘‘Mental Rotation Test (MRT),’’ Vandenberg & Kuse, 1978) and spatial-memory tasks disappeared, when instruction deemphasized the spa- tial character of the tasks. Moè and colleagues (Moè, 2009; Moè & Pazzaglia, 2006) induced the ‘‘able in the task stereotype’’ by providing explicit information about gender differences in the MRT. Both men’s and women’s mental- rotation performance improved when a positive stereotype concerning their own sex was induced, whereas perfor- mance decreased in case of a negative stereotype. The performance improvement due to the activation of a positive in-group stereotype is called ‘‘stereotype lift,’’ which can be defined as ‘‘a performance boost that occurs when down- ward comparisons are made with a denigrated outgroup’’ (Walton & Cohen, 2003, p. 456). Stereotype lift has been demonstrated both with regard to motor performance (Chalabaev, Stone, & Sarrazin, 2008) and in the intellectual domain (Chatard, Selimbegovic, Konan, & Mugny, 2008). Shih, Pittinsky, and Ambady (1999) found that the activa- tion of Asian women’s ethnic identity improved their quan- titative performance, whereas the activation of their gender identity led to a performance decrease. Thus, stereotype acti- vation can affect performance in both positive and negative directions.

Design and Hypotheses

The present study examined if the stereotype threat and ste- reotype lift effects reported by Moè (2009) already affect elementary-school children’s mental-rotation performance. Three instructions (‘‘boys better,’’ ‘‘girls better,’’ and ‘‘no gender difference’’) were compared with regard to their influence on boys’ and girls’ performance. Before and after the respective instruction, children solved a mental-rotation task, so that their performance before the gender stereotype

62 S. Neuburger et al.: Gender Stereotype Activation and Children’s Mental-Rotation Performance

Zeitschrift für Psychologie 2012; Vol. 220(2):61–69 � 2012 Hogrefe Publishing

Th is

d oc

um en

t i s c

op yr

ig ht

ed b

y th

e A

m er

ic an

P sy

ch ol

og ic

al A

ss oc

ia tio

n or

o ne

o f i

ts a

lli ed

p ub

lis he

rs .

Th is

a rti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

instruction could be compared to their performance after- wards. Pre- and posttest consisted of identically structured paper-pencil tasks. Stimulus material was varied between the two tests, so that training effects based on stimulus familiarity were excluded (for the effect of stimulus familiar- ity on strategy use see Bethell-Fox & Shepard, 1988; Sims & Mayer, 2002).

The study had a 2 (time: before vs. after stereotype acti- vation) · 2 (gender: male vs. female) · 3 (instruction: ‘‘boys better’’ vs. ‘‘girls better’’ vs. ‘‘no gender difference’’) – mixed design. We expected to find a three-way interaction of time, gender, and instruction: The ‘‘boys better’’-instruc- tion should increase the salience of the spatial gender stereo- type and therefore reinforce the male performance advantage, that is, girls should deteriorate and boys should improve from pre- to posttest. The ‘‘girls better’’-instruction should remove ST and therefore counteract the male perfor- mance advantage, that is, girls should improve and boys should deteriorate. The ‘‘no gender difference’’-instruction was also expected to reduce the gender difference because it removes ST (Nguyen & Ryan, 2008) and therefore should promote girls’ performance, while boys’ performance should no more benefit from stereotype lift and thus deteriorate.

Method

Participants

Two hundred sixteen fourth graders (age: 9.33–11.67 years, M = 10.18, SD = 0.48) from predominantly rural schools in Germany participated in the study. Parents gave their writ- ten, informed consent and provided information concerning their SES. Participating classes received 2€ per child for the class treasury and were assigned to one of the three instruc- tions (‘‘boys better’’ vs. ‘‘girls better’’ vs. ‘‘no gender differ- ence’’) by the experimenter. In each condition, 36 boys and 36 girls were tested. The sample included children from families with low (11%), middle (30%), and high (59%) SES.

Material

The mental-rotation task was constructed similarly to the MRT (Vandenberg & Kuse, 1978). Each item consisted of one target on the left side and four comparison stimuli on the right. Two of the four comparisons were ‘‘correct’’ (pic- ture-plane rotated versions of the target), and two were ‘‘incorrect’’ (mirror images of the target). Participants had to cross out the two ‘‘correct’’ comparisons. The mental- rotation task consisted of 16 test items; four items at a time were presented per DIN-A4-sized, landscape-formatted sheet of paper. Six rotation angles were used: 45�, 90�, 135�, 225�, 270�, and 315�. In the pretest, the rotation stim- uli were perspective drawings of cube figures (Shepard & Metzler, 1971), in the posttest, the rotation stimuli were

upper- and lower-case letters. Both task versions consisted of picture-plane rotations, in contrast to the in-depth rota- tions of the MRT (Vandenberg & Kuse, 1978). Figure 1 shows sample items from the two task versions, which had been designed for assessing the mental-rotation perfor- mance of elementary-school children in an earlier study (Neuburger et al., 2011). In that previous study, an equal gender effect in favor of males had been found in both task versions.

We controlled for general cognitive abilities by adminis- tering the subtest ‘‘Reasoning’’ of the ‘‘Cognitive-Ability Test’’ (KFT 1-3; Heller & Geisler, 1983). This test consists of 15 items, which are made up of five pictures, respectively. Four of the five pictures belong to the same category (e.g., vegetables, toys). One picture does not fit into this category, and the child has to detect this picture. The test was chosen because it measures general nonverbal cognitive abilities, and because performance in the test does not strongly depend on visual-spatial abilities. Information about socio- economic status was gathered by a questionnaire based on the measure provided by Jöckel et al. (1998).

Procedure

The experiment was conducted by a female experimenter in classrooms during regular schooltime in class-based groups of 10–25 children. After a short introduction, children were given the KFT subtest. Since the KFT is a power test, there was no temporal constraint. When all participants had fin- ished the KFT, the concept of ‘‘mentally rotating objects’’ was introduced by rotating a real, familiar object (a pair of scissors) accompanied with the words ‘‘The next task is about rotating pictures in your mind. If you rotate an object, like this pair of scissors, it looks different. But I think each of you can see that it is still the same object, can’t you?’’ In the next step, the mental-rotation task was explained on an overhead projector. To support task understanding, the target picture and the four comparisons of a sample task had been cut out (with the surrounding circle) and were shown on the projector. Children were asked to judge each comparison and to decide if it could be rotated in such a way that it would look the same as the target. For each comparison, one child was allowed to manually rotate the comparison on the overhead projector in order to check the correctness

Figure 1. Sample items from the mental-rotation tasks. (top: pretest, bottom: posttest).

S. Neuburger et al.: Gender Stereotype Activation and Children’s Mental-Rotation Performance 63

� 2012 Hogrefe Publishing Zeitschrift für Psychologie 2012; Vol. 220(2):61–69

Th is

d oc

um en

t i s c

op yr

ig ht

ed b

y th

e A

m er

ic an

P sy

ch ol

og ic

al A

ss oc

ia tio

n or

o ne

o f i

ts a

lli ed

p ub

lis he

rs .

Th is

a rti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

of his or her answer. After two practice items, which chil- dren solved on their own, the test started. For the letters mental-rotation task, children were given 2 min; for the cube-figures task, they were given 4 min. (These testing times were chosen on the basis of pilot tests in order to avoid floor and ceiling effects.)

When the first mental-rotation task (pretest) was fin- ished, the gender-difference instruction was given. In the condition ‘‘boys better,’’ the experimenter said: ‘‘Now you will get another task, which is also about rotating pictures in your mind. By the way, I have some information for you: In such tasks, boys are somewhat more skilled than girls. They have a better ability to imagine how pictures and objects look when they are rotated. For girls, such tasks are therefore somewhat more difficult. Nevertheless I encourage both boys and girls to do your best.’’ In the con- dition ‘‘girls better,’’ the experimenter said: ‘‘In such tasks, girls are somewhat more skilled than boys. They have a bet- ter ability to imagine how pictures and objects look when they are rotated. For boys, such tasks are therefore some- what more difficult. Nevertheless I encourage both boys and girls to do your best.’’ In the condition ‘‘no gender dif- ference,’’ the experimenter said: ‘‘In such tasks, boys and girls are equally skilled. Both have an equal ability to imag- ine how pictures and objects look when they are rotated. Therefore, such tasks are exactly equally difficult or easy for girls and boys. Give your best to solve the task as well as you can.’’ After the gender-difference instruction, the sec- ond mental-rotation task was solved. Afterwards, an implicit manipulation check similar to that used by Ambady et al. (2001) was administered. The following story was read aloud: ‘‘In my school, there were many smart children, but one child was especially smart. This child had A’s in all subjects and could figure out questions that even the tea- cher was unable to solve. One of the greatest strengths of this child was solving such tasks like the ones you have just solved, that is tasks in which you have to imagine objects in space. No other person in the whole school could rotate pic- tures in their mind as well as this child could.’’ After having read the story, the experimenter asked: ‘‘What do you think: Was this child a boy or a girl?’’ The question was answered by the children on a sheet of paper.

When data gathering in the schools was finished, partic- ipants were debriefed by their teachers, who were thor- oughly informed about the background and the aims of the study. We emphasized that both girls and boys showed good mental-rotation performance in our tasks.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed by a 2 · 2 · 3-repeated-measures ANCOVA with the within-subject factor time (before vs. after stereotype activation) and the between-subject factors gender (boys vs. girls) and instruction (‘‘boys better’’ vs. ‘‘girls better’’ vs. ‘‘no gender difference’’). Age was included as covariate in the analyses because of the age heterogeneity of the sample. The dependent measure (mental-rotation performance) was defined as z-transformed

number of correctly solved items (= items in which the child had crossed out the two correct sample stimuli and none of the mirror images, see Peters et al., 1995). The analyses were conducted with z-scores computed separately for pre- and posttest scores in order to adjust the two difficulty levels of the pretest (the more difficult cube-figures task) and the posttest (the easier letters task). Following Moè and Pazza- glia (2006), effect sizes of the performance changes accord- ing to Cohen (1977) are reported. In addition to the overall ANCOVA, separate 2 (time) · 2 (gender) – ANCOVAs were computed for the three instruction groups, and effect sizes of the gender differences in the standardized pre- and posttest scores are reported for each instruction group.

Results

Before analyzing mental-rotation performance, the six groups (boys/‘‘boys better,’’ boys/‘‘girls better,’’ girls/‘‘boys better,’’ girls/‘‘girls better,’’ boys/‘‘no gender difference, girls/’’no gender difference’’) were compared with respect to reasoning ability (KFT score). No significant group differ- ences were found (all p > .05).

Regarding the raw scores, boys and girls in both condi- tions showed a considerably higher performance level in the second mental-rotation task than in the first task: boys/‘‘boys better’’: M = 3.67 (SD = 2.40) versus M = 11.33 (SD = 3.25); boys/‘‘girls better’’: M = 5.11 (SD = 2.88) and M = 11.56 (SD = 3.75); boys/‘‘no gender difference’’: M = 4.72 (SD = 2.67) versus M = 10.75 (SD = 4.06); girls/‘‘boys better’’: M = 4.06 (SD = 2.60) and M = 11.33 (SD = 3.73); girls/‘‘girls better’’: M = 3.61 (SD = 2.06) and M = 11.81 (SD = 3.12); girls/‘‘no gender difference’’: M = 3.31 (SD = 2.78) versus M = 11.86 (SD = 3.58). Thus, the stimulus material used in the mental-rotation pre- test (cube figures) led to a higher task difficulty compared to the posttest stimuli (letters). Therefore in the following anal- yses, the z-transformed performance scores were used as dependent variables so that the main effect of time (i.e., pre- test vs. posttest) was leveled out.

The overall 2 · 2 · 3-ANCOVA revealed the expected Time · Gender · Instruction interaction, F(2, 209) = 4.53; p = .012; g2 = .04. Furthermore, there was a two-way inter- action of time and gender, F(1, 209) = 9.46; p = .002; g2 = .04. All further effects, including the effect of the covariate age, were not significant, all p > .10; all g2 < .005. Figure 2 shows that girls’ performance improved after the ‘‘girls better’’-instruction (d = .34) and the ‘‘no gender difference’’-instruction (d = .40), but stayed about the same after the ‘‘boys better’’-instruction (d = .02). Boys’ performance slightly improved after the ‘‘boys better’’- instruction (d = .14) and deteriorated after the ‘‘girls better’’-instruction (d = .34) and the ‘‘no gender differ- ence’’-instruction (d = .41).

The three 2 · 2-ANCOVAs computed separately for each instruction condition revealed the following results (the reported p values are Bonferroni corrected): In the ‘‘boys better’’-condition, none of the interactions and main

64 S. Neuburger et al.: Gender Stereotype Activation and Children’s Mental-Rotation Performance

Zeitschrift für Psychologie 2012; Vol. 220(2):61–69 � 2012 Hogrefe Publishing

Th is

d oc

um en

t i s c

op yr

ig ht

ed b

y th

e A

m er

ic an

P sy

ch ol

og ic

al A

ss oc

ia tio

n or

o ne

o f i

ts a

lli ed

p ub

lis he

rs .

Th is

a rti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

effects reached significance, all p > .10; all g2 < .04. Neither in the pretest nor in the posttest boys outperformed girls: Unexpectedly, there was a performance advantage of girls

in the pretest (d = .16), and no gender difference in the posttest (d < .001). In the ‘‘girls better’’-condition, there was a significant Time · Gender interaction, F(1, 69) = 9.65; p = .009; g2 = .12, and none of the remaining effects reached significance, all p > .10; all g2 < .03. As expected, boys outperformed girls in the pretest (d = .60), but not in the posttest, where, on the descriptive level, girls slightly outperformed boys (d = .07). In the ‘‘no gender difference’’-condition, there was also a signifi- cant Time · Gender interaction, F(1, 69) = 11.77; p = .003; g2 = .15, and none of the remaining effects reached significance, all p > .10; all g2 < .005. As in the ‘‘girls better’’-condition, boys outperformed girls in the pre- test (d = .52), but not in the posttest, where girls slightly outperformed boys (d = .29).

Answers in the manipulation-check task indicated that in the ‘‘boys better’’-condition and the ‘‘girls better’’-condition, the majority of both boys and girls believed in the activated stereotype: In the condition ‘‘boys better,’’ 100% of the boys and 77.8% of the girls (significantly more than 50%, v2(1) = 11.11; p = .001) assumed the spatially talented child in the story to be a boy. In the condition ‘‘girls better,’’ 72.2% of the boys (significantly more than 50%, v2(1) = 27.17; p < .001) and 83.3% of the girls (signifi- cantly more than 50%, v2(1) = 16.00; p < .001) answered ‘‘The child in the story was a girl.’’ In the ‘‘no gender dif- ference’’-condition, answers were expected to be equally distributed, that is, 50% of the participants should answer ‘‘boy’’ and 50% should answer ‘‘girl.’’ However, this was not confirmed: 77.8% of the boys (significantly more than 50%, v2(1) = 11.11; p = .001) answered ‘‘The child was a boy.’’ and 69.4% of the girls (significantly more than 50%, v2(1) = 5.44; p = .02) answered ‘‘The child was a girl.’’ Thus, in the ‘‘no gender difference’’-condition, both boys and girls showed a bias toward assigning their own sex to the spatially talented child.

Discussion

Results indicate that the gender effect in fourth graders’ men- tal-rotation performance is affected by stereotype threat and stereotype lift. More specifically, the hypotheses were par- tially confirmed: After being instructed that girls outper- formed boys or that there was no gender difference in mental-rotation task, girls’ performance improved and boys’ performance deteriorated. Girls’ improvement can be explained by the ST reducing nature of these instructions (Nguyen & Ryan, 2008). Boys’ performance decrease was supposedly caused by the absence of stereotype lift after the ‘‘no gender difference’’-instruction and the artificially induced reversed STafter the ‘‘girls better’’-instruction. Con- trary to the hypotheses, the instruction that boys outperformed girls did not lead to an increase of the male advantage: Both boys’ and girls’ performance stayed at about the same level after the instruction. Furthermore, contrary to the two other instruction groups, boys in the ‘‘boys better’’-group did not outperform girls in the pretest. This nonexistence of the

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Pretest Posttest

M en

ta l-r

ot at

io n

pe rf

or m

an ce

(z -s

co re

s) M

en ta

l-r ot

at io

n pe

rf or

m an

ce (z

-s co

re s)

M en

ta l-r

ot at

io n

pe rf

or m

an ce

(z -s

co re

s) “Boys better”

boys girls

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Pretest Posttest

“Girls better”

boys girls

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Pretest Posttest

“No gender difference”

boys girls

Figure 2. Pre- and posttest mental-rotation scores of the three experimental groups as a function of gender. Error bars represent ±1 standard error.

S. Neuburger et al.: Gender Stereotype Activation and Children’s Mental-Rotation Performance 65

� 2012 Hogrefe Publishing Zeitschrift für Psychologie 2012; Vol. 220(2):61–69

Th is

d oc

um en

t i s c

op yr

ig ht

ed b

y th

e A

m er

ic an

P sy

ch ol

og ic

al A

ss oc

ia tio

n or

o ne

o f i

ts a

lli ed

p ub

lis he

rs .

Th is

a rti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

expected male performance advantage before the instruction makes it difficult to interpret the absence of a performance change after the instruction. As we have no plausible theoret- ical interpretation of the pretest results in the ‘‘boys better’’- group, the field context and its potential confounding variables might provide for an explanation. Children were recruited from public schools, and variables that might have influenced the gender difference in mental-rotation perfor- mance, for example, quality of previous geometry lessons, sex of the mathematics teacher, or differences in gender-sen- sitive teaching, were not controlled. Although each group included children from various schools and classes were assigned to the conditions by the experimenter, girls-promot- ing school contexts might have been overrepresented in the ‘‘boys better’’-condition, which might have distorted the results. Laboratory studies assigning children individually to the conditions and controlling for potential confounding variables would be useful to reexamine the effect of the ‘‘boys better’’-instruction. Since the blatant activation of positive in- group stereotypes does not always result in performance boosts for targets (Shih, Ambady, Richeson, Fujita, & Gray, 2002), further studies are necessary to clarify if the ‘‘boys bet- ter’’-instruction actually increases the gender effect in fourth graders’ mental-rotation performance or not. Moreover, some studies do not confirm the effect of gender identity salience and gender stereotype priming on fourth graders’ perfor- mance (Ambady et al., 2001; Muzzatti & Agnoli, 2007). As in adults, the occurrence and the size of ST probably depend on how the stereotype is activated (Nguyen & Ryan, 2008). Additionally, stereotype stratification (Steele, 2003) might account for diverging results regarding ST in children after different stereotype activating cues; when the cue refers to adults, children might not apply the stereotype to their own age group (see Muzzatti & Agnoli, 2007).

In line with the study of Moè and Pazzaglia (2006), the present results confirm the influence of stereotypes on the gender effect in mental rotation. Additionally, it suggests that after explicitly outlining the equal skills of boys and girls, the male advantage disappears, at least in fourth grad- ers. Thus, this study provides tentative evidence that the gender effect in mental rotation is affected by stereotype threat (in girls) and stereotype lift (in boys) from the very beginning of its occurrence. This assumption requires fur- ther theoretical and empirical investigation, especially because of specific methodical constraints of the present study. First, the effect of stereotype activation was measured by pre-post changes, and the three experimental groups dif- fered with regard to the gender effect in the pretest scores. As outlined above, this complicates the interpretation of the pre-post changes. A second methodical constraint is that stereotypes were explicitly activated. This method can be criticized from an ethical and a theoretical perspective: Tell- ing elementary-school children that their own gender per- forms worse in spatial tests might have negative effects on their further development, unless participants are carefully debriefed. Although this was done in the present study, some kind of ‘‘undoing manipulation check’’ would have been desirable to ensure that stereotype activation did not negatively affect the participating children. From a theoreti- cal point of view, it should be discussed if the concept of

‘‘ST’’ includes effects of explicitly induced stereotypes or if such phenomena better fit into the general category of the Rosenthal effect (Rosenthal & Fode, 1963; Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968). In order to provide an empirical basis for this discussion, the cognitive mechanisms mediating the effects of explicit stereotype activation on performance should be analyzed and compared to the mechanisms medi- ating the effect of implicit stereotype activation.

Both stereotype threat and self-fulfilling prophecies play an important role in gender socialization and are part of the hidden curriculum in schools (Basow, 2004, 2010). This has been demonstrated by gender biases in learning materials (Gooden & Gooden, 2001) and differences in teachers’ interactions with boys versus girls (Sadker & Zittleman, 2007): Especially in mathematics and science (Jovanovic & King, 1998), boys receive more attention and are more strongly involved. In the context of visuospatial abilities, which are important prerequisites for mathematics and sci- ence, future studies should assess the degree to which gen- der stereotypes in this domain exist in children and teachers.

As outlined in the Introduction, both biological and social-psychological variables have been demonstrated to influence the gender difference in mental rotation. There- fore, the present findings should be interpreted and further examined within a biopsychosocial framework. Concerning biological factors, some studies with adult females suggest an influence of testosterone and estrogen levels on mental rotation, which leads to performance fluctuations during the menstrual cycle (Hausmann et al., 2000; Maki, Rich, & Rosenbaum, 2002). For adult males, the effect of stereo- type activation on spatial test performance seems to be accompanied by an increase of testosterone levels (Haus- mann et al., 2009). As suggested by Estes and Felker (2011), the influence of both biological and social variables on mental rotation might be mediated by the same psycho- logical processes. One of these mediating psychological variables is probably self-confidence: On the one hand, confidence predicts mental-rotation performance, suppos- edly by affecting strategy use (Estes & Felker, 2011), and on the other hand, confidence relates to testosterone levels (Johnson, Zava, & McCoy, 2000) and stereotype activation (Chalabaev et al., 2008; Steele, 1997; Walton & Cohen, 2003).

The link between biological variables and ST has not yet been studied in preadolescent subjects. However, understanding the developmental pathways of the gender difference in mental-rotation and other performance domains requires the theoretical and empirical integration of biological, social, and psychological variables. Revealing the effects of spatial-technical gender stereotypes on chil- dren’s performance is one important pillar of such a biopsy- chosocial conception of the largest cognitive gender difference (Halpern, 2000).

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the German Research Founda- tion (DFG QU/96 4-1/JA 889/7-1). We thank Anna Rohe and Robby Schoenfeld, who supported the development of

66 S. Neuburger et al.: Gender Stereotype Activation and Children’s Mental-Rotation Performance

Zeitschrift für Psychologie 2012; Vol. 220(2):61–69 � 2012 Hogrefe Publishing

Th is

d oc

um en

t i s c

op yr

ig ht

ed b

y th

e A

m er

ic an

P sy

ch ol

og ic

al A

ss oc

ia tio

n or

o ne

o f i

ts a

lli ed

p ub

lis he

rs .

Th is

a rti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

the rotation tasks. We thank Vera Heuser and Madeleine Stein for data entry, and all children and teachers of the participating schools.

References

Alter, A. L., Aronson, J., Darley, J. M., Rodriguez, C., & Ruble, D. N. (2010). Rising to the threat: Reducing stereotype threat by reframing the threat as a challenge. Journal of Experi- mental Social Psychology, 46, 166–171.

Ambady, N., Shih, M., Kim, A., & Pittinsky, T. L. (2001). Stereotype susceptibility in children: Effects of identity activation on quantitative performance. Psychological Sci- ence, 12, 385–390.

Archibald, A. B., Graber, J. A., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2006). Pubertal processes and physiological growth in adolescence. In G. R. Adams & M. D. Berzonsky (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of adolescence (2nd ed., pp. 24–47). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Basow, S. (2004). The hidden curriculum: Gender in the classroom. In M. A. Paludi (Ed.), Praeger guide to the psychology of gender (pp. 117–131). Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Basow, S. (2010). Gender in the classroom. In J. C. Chrisler & D. R. McCreary (Eds.), Handbook of gender research in psychology: Gender research in general and experimental psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 277–295). New York, NY: Springer.

Bethell-Fox, C. E., & Shepard, R. N. (1988). Mental rotation: Effects of stimulus complexity and familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor- mance, 24, 1173–1182.

Blanton, H., Christie, C., & Dye, M. (2002). Social identity versus reference frame comparisons: The moderating role of stereotype endorsement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 253–267.

Bock, R. D., & Kolakowski, D. (1973). Further evidence of sex- linked major-gene influence on human spatial visualizing ability. American Journal of Human Genetics, 25, 1–14.

Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological Review, 106, 676–713.

Chalabaev, A., Stone, J., & Sarrazin, P. (2008). Investigating physiological and self-reported measures of stereotype lift effects on a motor task. Basic and Applied Social Psychol- ogy, 30, 18–26.

Chatard, A., Selimbegovic, L., Konan, P., & Mugny, G. (2008). Performance boosts in the classroom: Stereotype endorse- ment and prejudice moderate stereotype lift. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44, 1421–1424.

Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cvencek, D., Meltzoff, A. N., & Greenwald, A. G. (2011). Math-gender stereotypes in elementary school children. Child Development, 82, 766–779.

Damon, W., & Hart, D. (1988). Self-understanding in childhood and adolescence. NewYork, NY:CambridgeUniversity Press.

Désert, M., Préaux, M., & Jund, R. (2009). So young and already victims of stereotype threat: Socio-economic status and performance of 6 to 9 years old children on Raven’s progressive matrices. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24, 207–218.

Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (2010). Cross- national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 103–127.

Estes, Z., & Felker, S. (2011). Confidence mediates the sex difference in mental rotation performance. Archives of Sexual Behavior. doi: 10.1007/s10508-011-9875-5

Geiser, C., Lehmann, W., & Eid, M. (2008). A note on sex differences in mental rotation in different age groups. Intelligence, 36, 556–563.

Gooden, A. M., & Gooden, M. A. (2001). Gender representation in notable children’s pictures books: 1995–1999. Sex Roles, 45, 89–101.

Grimshaw, G. M., Sitarenios, G., & Finegan, J.-A. K. (1995). Mental rotation at 7 years: Relations with prenatal testoster- one levels and spatial play experiences. Brain and Cognition, 29, 85–100.

Halari, R., Hines, M., Kumari, V., Mehrotra, R., Wheeler, M., Ng, V., & Sharma, T. (2005). Sex differences and individual differences in cognitive performance and their relationship to endogenous gonadal hormones and gonadotropins. Behav- ioral Neuroscience, 119, 104–117.

Halpern, D. F. (2000). Sex differences in cognitive abilities (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Halpern, D. F., Wai, J., & Saw, A. (2005). A psychobiosocial model: Why females are sometimes greater than and sometimes less than males in math achievement. In A. M. Gallagher & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Gender differences in mathematics: An integrative psychological approach (pp. 48–72). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Hausmann, M., Schoofs, D., Rosenthal, H. E. S., & Jordan, K. (2009). Interactive effects of sex hormones and gender stereotypes on cognitive sex differences – a psychobiosocial approach. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 34, 389–401.

Hausmann, M., Slabbekorn, D., Van Goosen, S. H. M., Cohen- Kettenis, P. T., & Güntürkün, O. (2000). Sex hormones affect spatial abilities during the menstrual cycle. Behavioral Neuroscience, 114, 1245–1250.

Heller, K., & Geisler, H.-J. (1983). KFT 1-3. Kognitiver Fähigke- its-Test Grundschulform [Cognitive ability test, elementary school version]. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz Test GmbH.

Hines,M., Fane, B. A., Pasterski, V. L.,Mathews, G. A., Conway, G. S., &Brooke, C. (2003). Spatial abilities following prenatal androgen abnormality: Targeting and mental rotations perfor- mance in individuals with congenital adrenal hyperplasia. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 28, 1010–1026.

Ilan, A. B., & Miller, J. (1994). A violation of pure insertion: Mental rotation and choice reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Psycho- physics, 20, 520–536.

Jöckel, K.-H., Babitsch, B., Bellach, B.-M., Bloomfield, K., Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik, J., Winkler, J., Wolf, C. (1998). Messung und Quantifizierung soziodemografischer Merkmale in epi- demiologischen Studien [Measurement and quantification of sociodemographic attributes in epidemiological studies]. In W. Ahrens, B.-M. Bellach, & K.-H. Jöckel (Eds.), Messung soziodemografischer Merkmale in der Epidemiolo- gie (pp. 7–38). München, Germany: MMV Münchner Medizin Verlag.

Johnson, W., Zava, D., & McCoy, N. (2000). Overall self- confidence, self-confidence in mathematics, and sex-role stereotyping in relation to salivary free testosterone in university women. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 91, 391– 401.

Jovanovic, J., & King, S. S. (1998). Boys and girls in the performance-based science classroom: Who’s doing the performance? American Educational Research Journal, 35, 477–496.

Levine, S. C., Huttenlocher, J., Taylor, A., & Langrock, A. (1999). Early sex differences in spatial skill. Developmental Psychology, 35, 940–949.

Linn, M. C., & Petersen, A. C. (1985). Emergence and charac- terization of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta- analysis. Child Development, 56, 1479–1498.

Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

S. Neuburger et al.: Gender Stereotype Activation and Children’s Mental-Rotation Performance 67

� 2012 Hogrefe Publishing Zeitschrift für Psychologie 2012; Vol. 220(2):61–69

Th is

d oc

um en

t i s c

op yr

ig ht

ed b

y th

e A

m er

ic an

P sy

ch ol

og ic

al A

ss oc

ia tio

n or

o ne

o f i

ts a

lli ed

p ub

lis he

rs .

Th is

a rti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

Maki, P. M., Rich, J. B., & Rosenbaum, R. S. (2002). Implicit memory varies across the menstrual cycle: Estrogen effects in young women. Neuropsychologia, 40, 518–529.

Marsh, H. W., Barnes, J., Cairns, L., & Tidman, M. (1984). The Self Description Questionnaire (SDQ): Age effects in the structure and level of self-concept for preadolescent children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 940–956.

Martinot, D., & Désert, M. (2007). Awareness of a gender stereotype, personal beliefs and self-perceptions regarding math ability: When boys do not surpass girls. Social Psychology of Education, 10, 455–471.

Masters, M. S., & Sanders, B. (1993). Is the gender difference in mental rotation disappearing? Behavior Genetics, 23, 337– 341.

McGee, M. (1979). Human spatial abilities: Psychometric studies and environmental, genetic, hormonal, and neurological influences. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 889–918.

McGlone, M. S., & Aronson, J. (2006). Stereotype threat, identity salience, and spatial reasoning. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27, 486–493.

McKown, C., & Weinstein, R. (2003). The development and consequences of stereotype consciousness in middle child- hood. Child Development, 74, 498–515.

Moè, A. (2009). Are males always better than females in mental rotation? Exploring a gender belief explanation. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 21–27.

Moè, A. (2012). Gender difference does not mean genetic difference: Externalizing improves performance in mental rotation. Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 20–24.

Moè, A., & Pazzaglia, F. (2006). Following the instructions! Effects of gender beliefs in mental rotation. Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 369–377.

Moè, A., & Pazzaglia, F. (2010). Beyond genetics in mental rotation test performance. The power of effort attribution. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 464–468.

Muzzatti, B., & Agnoli, F. (2007). Gender and mathematics: Attitudes and stereotype threat susceptibility in Italian children. Developmental Psychology, 43, 747–759.

Nash, S. C. (1979). Sex role as mediator of intellectual functioning. In M. A. Wittig & A. C. Peterson (Eds.), Sex- related differences in cognitive functioning (pp. 263–302). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Neuburger, S., Jansen, P., Heil, M., & Quaiser-Pohl, C. (2011). Gender differences in pre-adolescents’ mental-rotation per- formance: Do they depend on grade and stimulus type? Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 1238–1242.

Neuburger, S., Jansen, P., Heil, M., & Quaiser-Pohl, C. (2012). Acceptance and effects of role models in the spatial domain: A storytelling experiment with fourth graders. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Nguyen, H. D., & Ryan, A. M. (2008). Does stereotype threat affect test performance of minorities and women? A meta- analysis of experimental evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1314–1334.

Ortner, T. M., & Sieverding, M. (2008). Where are the gender differences? Male priming boosts spatial skills in women. Sex Roles, 59, 274–281.

Peters, M., Laeng, B., Latham, K., Jackson, M., Zaiyouna, R., & Richardson, C. (1995). A redrawn Vandenberg and Kuse mental rotations test: Different versions and factors that affect performance. Brain and Cognition, 28, 39–58.

Pezaris, E., & Casey, M. B. (1991). Girls who use ‘‘masculine’’ problem-solving strategies on a spatial task: Proposed genetic and environmental factors. Brain and Cognition, 17, 1–22.

Quinn, P. C., & Liben, L. S. (2008). A sex difference in mental rotation in young infants. Psychological Science, 19, 1067– 1070.

Rahman, Q., Wilson, G. D., & Abrahams, S. (2004). Biosocial factors, sexual orientation and neurocognitive functioning. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 29, 867–881.

Reiter, E. O., & Grumbach, M. M. (1982). Neuroendocrine control mechanisms and the onset of puberty. Annual Review of Physiology, 44, 595–613.

Rosenthal, R., & Fode, K. L. (1963). Three experiments in experimenter bias. Psychological Reports, 12, 491–511.

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectation and pupils’ intellectual development. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Ruble, D. N. (1987). The acquisition of self-knowledge: A self- socialization perspective. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Contempo- rary topics in developmental psychology. New York, NY: Wiley.

Ruble D. N., & Martin C. L., (1998). Gender development. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.) & W. Damon (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development (Vol. 3, 5th ed., pp. 993–1016). New York, NY: Wiley.

Sadker, D. M., & Zittleman, K. (2007). Practical strategies for detecting and correcting gender bias in your classroom. In D. M. Sadker & E. S. Silber (Eds.), Gender in the classroom: Foundations, skills, methods, and strategies across the curriculum (pp. 259–275). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Saucier, D. M., McCreary, D. R., & Saxberg, J. K. J. (2002). Does gender role socialization mediate sex differences in mental rotations? Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 1101–1111.

Schmader, T., Johns, M., & Forbes, C. (2008). An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance. Psychological Review, 115, 336–356.

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.

Shepard, R. N., & Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of three- dimensional objects. Science, 171, 701–703.

Shih, M., Ambady, N., Richeson, J. A., Fujita, K., & Gray, H. M. (2002). Stereotype performance boosts: The impact of self- relevance and the manner of stereotype activation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 638–647.

Shih, M., Pittinsky, T. L., & Ambady, N. (1999). Stereotype susceptibility: Identity salience and shifts in quantitative performance. Psychological Science, 10, 80–83.

Sims, V. K., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Domain specificity of spatial expertise: The case of video game players. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 97–115.

Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of Experi- mental Social Psychology, 35, 4–28.

Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air. American Psychologist, 52, 613–629.

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

Steele, J. (2003). Children’s gender stereotypes about math: The role of stereotype stratification. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 2587–2606.

Stone, J. (2002). Battling doubt by avoiding practice: The effect of stereotype threat on self-handicapping in white athletes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1667–1678.

Titze, C., Jansen, P., & Heil, M. (2010). Mental rotation performance and the effect of gender in fourth graders and adults. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 7, 432–444.

Tomasetto, C., Alparone, F. R., & Cadinu, M. (2011). Girls’ math performance under stereotype threat: The moderating

68 S. Neuburger et al.: Gender Stereotype Activation and Children’s Mental-Rotation Performance

Zeitschrift für Psychologie 2012; Vol. 220(2):61–69 � 2012 Hogrefe Publishing

Th is

d oc

um en

t i s c

op yr

ig ht

ed b

y th

e A

m er

ic an

P sy

ch ol

og ic

al A

ss oc

ia tio

n or

o ne

o f i

ts a

lli ed

p ub

lis he

rs .

Th is

a rti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

role of mothers gender stereotypes. Developmental Psychol- ogy, 47, 943–949.

Vandenberg, S. G., & Kuse, A. R. (1978). Mental rotations. A group test of three-dimensional spatial visualization. Percep- tual and Motor Skills, 47, 599–604.

Voyer, D., Voyer, S., & Bryden, M. P. (1995). Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis and consid- eration of critical variables. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 250–270.

Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2003). Stereotype lift. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 456–467.

Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Yoon, K. S., Harold, R. D., Abreton, A. J. A., Freedman-Doan, C., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (1997). Change in children’s competence beliefs and subjective task values across the elementary school years: A three-year study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 451–469.

Sarah Neuburger

Department of Psychology University of Koblenz-Landau Universitätsstr. 1 56070 Koblenz Germany Tel. +49 261 287-1934 Fax +49 261 287-1921 E-mail neuburger@uni-koblenz.de

S. Neuburger et al.: Gender Stereotype Activation and Children’s Mental-Rotation Performance 69

� 2012 Hogrefe Publishing Zeitschrift für Psychologie 2012; Vol. 220(2):61–69

Th is

d oc

um en

t i s c

op yr

ig ht

ed b

y th

e A

m er

ic an

P sy

ch ol

og ic

al A

ss oc

ia tio

n or

o ne

o f i

ts a

lli ed

p ub

lis he

rs .

Th is

a rti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .