What causes social class disparities in education? The role of the mismatches between academic contexts and working-class socialization contexts and how the effects of these mismatches are explained.

Within psychology, the underachievement of students from working-class backgrounds has often been explained as a product of individual characteristics such as a lack of intelligence or motivation. Here, we propose an integrated model illustrating how educational contexts contribute to social class disparities in education over and beyond individual characteristics. According to this new Social Class-Academic Contexts Mismatch model, social class disparities in education are due to several mismatches between the experiences that students from working-class backgrounds bring with them to the classroom and those valued in academic contexts-specifically, mismatches between (a) academic contexts' culture of independence and the working-class orientation to interdependence, (b) academic contexts' culture of competition and the working-class orientation toward cooperation, (c) the knowledge valued in academic contexts and the knowledge developed through working-class socialization, and (d) the social identities valued in academic contexts and the negatively stereotyped social identities of students from working-class backgrounds. Because of these mismatches, students from working-class backgrounds are likely to experience discomfort and difficulty in the classroom. We further propose that, when attempting to make sense of these first-order effects, students and teachers rely on inherent characteristics (e.g., ability, motivation) more often than warranted; conversely, they overlook extrinsic, contextual factors. In turn, this explanatory bias toward inherent features leads (a) students from working-class backgrounds to experience self-threat and (b) their teachers to treat them unfairly. These second-order effects magnify social class disparities in education. This integrated model has the potential to reshape research and discourse on social class and education. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Adolescent boys' aggressive responses to perceived threats to their gender typicality.

When adult men are made to feel gender-atypical, they often lash out with aggression, particularly when they are pressured (vs. autonomously motivated) to be gender-typical. Here, we examined the development of this phenomenon. Specifically, we provided a first experimental test of whether threatening adolescent boys' perceived gender typicality elicits aggression as a function of their pressured (vs. autonomous) motivation to be gender-typical. We also investigated whether this causal link emerges as a function of boys' chronological age versus pubertal development. Participants were a geographically diverse sample of 207 adolescent US boys (ages 10-14; 23.2% boys of color) and one of their parents. Boys played a "game" and received randomly-assigned feedback that their score was atypical versus typical of their gender. For boys in mid-to-late puberty (but not before), feedback that they are gender-atypical predicted an aggressive reaction, particularly among boys whose motivation to be gender-typical was pressured (vs. autonomous). Next, we explored which aspects of boys' social environments predicted their pressured motivation to be gender-typical. Boys' pressured motivation was positively correlated with their perceptions that their parents and peers would be "upset" if they deviated from gender norms, as well as with their parents' endorsement of so-called hegemonic beliefs about masculinity (i.e., that men should hold power over women). Parents with these beliefs resided in more conservative areas, had less formal education, and had lower incomes. Our results inform theorizing on gender identity development and lay the foundation for mitigating the harmful effects of gender typicality threat among adult men. RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS: Similar to young adult men, adolescent boys in mid-to-late puberty (but not before) responded with aggression to perceived threats to their gender typicality. Aggression was heightened among boys whose motivation to be gender-typical was pressured (i.e., driven by social expectations) rather than autonomous. Which boys showed pressured motivation? Those whose parents endorsed hegemonic beliefs about masculinity (e.g., that men should have more power than people of other genders). Hegemonic beliefs about masculinity were strongest among parents who resided in more conservative US counties, had less formal education, and had lower incomes.

Does inducing growth-oriented mindsets about math ability in parents enhance children's math mindsets, affect, and achievement?

A parent-directed intervention designed to foster growth-oriented mindsets about math was evaluated in a longitudinal randomized-control trial. Parents (N = 615; 61% White, 22% Black; 63% with at least a bachelor's degree) participated in the intervention or an active control condition in which they learned about the Common Core math curriculum. Parents reported on their math mindsets and parenting practices (e.g., autonomy-supportive math homework assistance) over 15-18 months; their young elementary school children's (Mage = 7.17 years; 50% girls) math adjustment (e.g., mindsets and achievement) was also assessed. The intervention (vs. control) led to sustained increases in parents' beliefs that math ability is malleable and math failure is beneficial for learning. The intervention, however, did not improve their math parenting practices or children's math adjustment relative to the control. Instead, there were generally improvements in math parenting practices and children's math adjustment over the course of the study regardless of condition, perhaps because the control condition provided parents with useful information about the Common Core math curriculum. Overall, the findings indicate that although the mindset intervention was effective in instilling stronger growth-oriented mindsets about math in parents, this did not translate into benefits for children's math learning over and above the active control condition. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

People's beliefs about pronouns reflect both the language they speak and their ideologies.

Pronouns often convey information about a person's social identity (e.g., gender). Consequently, pronouns have become a focal point in academic and public debates about whether pronouns should be changed to be more inclusive, such as for people whose identities do not fit current pronoun conventions (e.g., gender nonbinary individuals). Here, we make an empirical contribution to these debates by investigating which social identities lay speakers think that pronouns should encode (if any) and why. Across four studies, participants were asked to evaluate different types of real and hypothetical pronouns, including binary gender pronouns, race pronouns, and identity-neutral pronouns. We sampled speakers of two languages with different pronoun systems: English (N = 1,120) and Turkish (N = 260). English pronouns commonly denote binary gender (e.g., "he" for men), whereas Turkish pronouns are identity-neutral (e.g., "o" for anyone). Participants' reasoning about pronouns reflected both a familiarity preference (i.e., participants preferred the pronoun type used in their language) and-critically-participants' social ideologies. In both language contexts, participants' ideological beliefs that social groups are inherently distinct (essentialism) and should be hierarchal (social dominance orientation) predicted relatively greater endorsement of binary gender pronouns and race pronouns. A preregistered experimental study with an English-speaking sample showed that the relationship between ideology and pronoun endorsement is causal: Ideologies shape attitudes toward pronouns. Together, the present research contributes to linguistic and psychological theories concerning how people reason about language and informs policy-relevant questions about whether and how to implement language changes for social purposes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Intersectional Male-Centric and White-Centric Biases in Collective Concepts.

In principle, the fundamental concepts person, woman, and man should apply equally to people of different genders and races/ethnicities. In reality, these concepts might prioritize certain groups over others. Based on interdisciplinary theories of androcentrism, we hypothesized that (a) person is more associated with men than women (person = man) and (b) woman is more associated with women than man is with men (i.e., women are more gendered: gender = woman). We applied natural language processing tools (specifically, word embeddings) to the linguistic output of millions of individuals (specifically, the Common Crawl corpus). We found the hypothesized person = man / gender = woman bias. This bias was stronger about Hispanic and White (vs. Asian) women and men. We also uncovered parallel biases favoring White individuals in the concepts person, woman, and man. Western society prioritizes men and White individuals as people and "others" women as people with gender, with implications for equity across policy- and decision-making contexts.

Sex and gender essentialism in textbooks.

Several widely used high school biology texts depart from established science.

The inherence bias in preschoolers' explanations for achievement differences: replication and extension.

Two studies examined how preschoolers (N = 610; French) explain differences in achievement. Replicating and extending previous research, the results revealed that children invoke more inherent factors (e.g., intelligence) than extrinsic factors (e.g., access to educational resources) when explaining why some children do better in school than others. This inherence bias in explanation can contribute to inequalities in education (e.g., the early-emerging disparities based on social class) by portraying them as fair and legitimate even when they are not.

Checking gender bias: Parents and mentors perceive less chess potential in girls.

Girls and women are underrepresented in chess. Here, we explored the role of gender bias in this phenomenon. Specifically, we investigated whether parents and mentors (e.g., coaches) show bias against the female youth players in their lives. Parents and mentors (N = 286; 90.6% men) recruited through the U.S. Chess Federation reported their evaluations of and investment in youth players (N = 654). We found evidence of bias on some, but not all, measures. Most strikingly, parents and mentors thought that female youth players' highest potential chess ratings were on average lower than male players', a bias that was exacerbated among parents and mentors who believed that success in chess requires brilliance. In addition, mentors who endorsed (vs. rejected) this belief also reported that female mentees were more likely to drop out of chess due to low ability. These findings provide the first large-scale evidence of bias against youth female players and hold implications for the role of parents and mentors in other domains that, like chess, are culturally associated with intellectual ability and exhibit substantial gender imbalances (e.g., science and technology). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

What makes a role model motivating for young girls? The effects of the role model's growth versus fixed mindsets about ability and interest.

Successful women role models can be-but are not always-effective in increasing pursuit of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) careers among girls. What makes a woman role model motivating for young girls? An experimental study (N = 205 girls aged 5-8 years; 42.0% girls of color) investigated the effects of a role model's messages about her own ability and interest. The model portrayed her ability and interest as quantities that developed over time (a growth mindset) or that had always been present (a fixed mindset). The role model's growth (vs. fixed) mindset messages about ability-but not interest-increased girls' interest and self-efficacy in the scientist's field, but these effects were observed only among girls of color (ds = 0.56 and 0.65 for interest and self-efficacy, respectively). The findings contribute to theory on role models and growth mindsets, and they also have implications for the design of effective role model interventions.

"You need to be super smart to do well in math!" Young children's field-specific ability beliefs.

Success in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields is often believed to require intellectual talent ("brilliance"). Given that many cultures associate men more than women with brilliance, this belief poses an obstacle to women's STEM pursuits. Here, we investigated the developmental roots of this phenomenon, focusing specifically on young children's beliefs about math (N = 174 U.S. students in Grades 1-4; 93 girls, 81 boys; 52% White, 17% Asian, 13% Hispanic/Latinx). We found that field-specific ability beliefs (FABs) that associate success in math (vs. reading/writing) with brilliance are already present in early elementary school. We also found that brilliance-oriented FABs about math are negatively associated with elementary school students' (and particularly girls') math motivation-specifically, their math self-efficacy and interest. The early emergence of brilliance-oriented FABs about math and the negative relation between FABs and math motivation underscore the need to understand the sources and long-term effects of these beliefs. RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS: Field-specific ability beliefs (FABs) are beliefs about the extent to which intellectual talent (or "brilliance") is required for success in a particular field or context. Among adults, brilliance-oriented FABs are an obstacle to diversity in science and technology, but the childhood antecedents of these beliefs are not well understood. The present study (N = 174) found that FABs that associate success in math (vs. reading/writing) with brilliance were already present in Grades 1-4. Brilliance-oriented FABs about math were negatively associated with elementary school students' (and particularly girls') math motivation-specifically, their math self-efficacy and interest.

Mindset × Context: Schools, Classrooms, and the Unequal Translation of Expectations into Math Achievement.

When do adolescents' dreams of promising journeys through high school translate into academic success? This monograph reports the results of a collaborative effort among sociologists and psychologists to systematically examine the role of schools and classrooms in disrupting or facilitating the link between adolescents' expectations for success in math and their subsequent progress in the early high school math curriculum. Our primary focus was on gendered patterns of socioeconomic inequality in math and how they are tethered to the school's peer culture and to students' perceptions of gender stereotyping in the classroom. To do this, this monograph advances Mindset × Context Theory. This orients research on educational equity to the reciprocal influence between students' psychological motivations and their school-based opportunities to enact those motivations. Mindset × Context Theory predicts that a student's mindset will be more strongly linked to developmental outcomes among groups of students who are at risk for poor outcomes, but only in a school or classroom context where there is sufficient need and support for the mindset. Our application of this theory centers on expectations for success in high school math as a foundational belief for students' math progress early in high school. We examine how this mindset varies across interpersonal and cultural dynamics in schools and classrooms. Following this perspective, we ask: 1. Which gender and socioeconomic identity groups showed the weakest or strongest links between expectations for success in math and progress through the math curriculum? 2. How did the school's peer culture shape the links between student expectations for success in math and math progress across gender and socioeconomic identity groups? 3. How did perceptions of classroom gender stereotyping shape the links between student expectations for success in math and math progress across gender and socioeconomic identity groups? We used nationally representative data from about 10,000 U.S. public school 9th graders in the National Study of Learning Mindsets (NSLM) collected in 2015-2016-the most recent, national, longitudinal study of adolescents' mindsets in U.S. public schools. The sample was representative with respect to a large number of observable characteristics, such as gender, race, ethnicity, English Language Learners (ELLs), free or reduced price lunch, poverty, food stamps, neighborhood income and labor market participation, and school curricular opportunities. This allowed for generalization to the U.S. public school population and for the systematic investigation of school- and classroom-level contextual factors. The NSLM's complete sampling of students within schools also allowed for a comparison of students from different gender and socioeconomic groups with the same expectations in the same educational contexts. To analyze these data, we used the Bayesian Causal Forest (BCF) algorithm, a best-in-class machine-learning method for discovering complex, replicable interaction effects. Chapter IV examined the interplay of expectations, gender, and socioeconomic status (SES; operationalized with maternal educational attainment). Adolescents' expectations for success in math were meaningful predictors of their early math progress, even when controlling for other psychological factors, prior achievement in math, and racial and ethnic identities. Boys from low-SES families were the most vulnerable identity group. They were over three times more likely to not make adequate progress in math from 9th to 10th grade relative to girls from high-SES families. Boys from low-SES families also benefited the most from their expectations for success in math. Overall, these results were consistent with Mindset × Context Theory's predictions. Chapters V and VI examined the moderating role of school-level and classroom-level factors in the patterns reported in Chapter IV. Expectations were least predictive of math progress in the highest-achieving schools and schools with the most academically oriented peer norms, that is, schools with the most formal and informal resources. School resources appeared to compensate for lower levels of expectations. Conversely, expectations most strongly predicted math progress in the low/medium-achieving schools with less academically oriented peers, especially for boys from low-SES families. This chapter aligns with aspects of Mindset × Context Theory. A context that was not already optimally supporting student success was where outcomes for vulnerable students depended the most on student expectations. Finally, perceptions of classroom stereotyping mattered. Perceptions of gender stereotyping predicted less progress in math, but expectations for success in math more strongly predicted progress in classrooms with high perceived stereotyping. Gender stereotyping interactions emerged for all sociodemographic groups except for boys from high-SES families. The findings across these three analytical chapters demonstrate the value of integrating psychological and sociological perspectives to capture multiple levels of schooling. It also drew on the contextual variability afforded by representative sampling and explored the interplay of lab-tested psychological processes (expectations) with field-developed levers of policy intervention (school contexts). This monograph also leverages developmental and ecological insights to identify which groups of students might profit from different efforts to improve educational equity, such as interventions to increase expectations for success in math, or school programs that improve the school or classroom cultures.

Unequal opportunities from the start: Socioeconomic disparities in classroom participation in preschool.

Why do socioeconomic disparities in achievement emerge so early in life? Previous answers to this question have generally focused on the perceived deficits of parents from disadvantaged backgrounds (e.g., insufficient childrearing knowledge). Here, we instead focus on the structure of early childhood education and argue that early schooling contexts provide unequal opportunities for engagement to children of higher versus lower socioeconomic status (SES). As engagement is a longitudinal predictor of achievement, early SES disparities in engagement could serve to maintain or even exacerbate SES disparities in achievement. In Study 1 (1,236 observations; N = 98 children), we investigated preschool students' behavioral engagement during whole-class discussions-a core aspect of early childhood education. Low-SES children showed significantly lower engagement than their peers. Consistent with the claim of unequal opportunities for engagement, these differences were not accounted for by SES differences in language proficiency. As students' engagement in school is influenced by their peers' attitudes toward them, we also examined peer perceptions (Study 2, N = 94, and a meta-analysis, k = 2 studies). We found that preschoolers who show more engagement relative to others during whole-class discussions are perceived as possessing more positive qualities (e.g., intelligence). Given that higher-SES students are afforded more opportunities for engagement (see Study 1), they may be the ones benefiting from these positive peer perceptions as well, which might further boost their engagement. Our results suggest that aspects of early childhood education should be redesigned to foster engagement among all students, regardless of their SES. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Field-specific ability beliefs as an explanation for gender differences in academics' career trajectories: Evidence from public profiles on ORCID.Org.

Academic fields exhibit substantial levels of gender segregation. Here, we investigated differences in field-specific ability beliefs (FABs) as an explanation for this phenomenon. FABs may contribute to gender segregation to the extent that they portray success as depending on "brilliance" (i.e., exceptional intellectual ability), which is a trait culturally associated with men more than women. Although prior work has documented a relation between academic fields' FABs and their gender composition, it is still unclear what the underlying dynamics are that give rise to gender imbalances across academia as a function of FABs. To provide insight into this issue, we custom-built a new data set by combining information from the author-tracking service Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) with information from a survey of U.S. academics across 30 fields. Using this expansive longitudinal data set (Ns = 86,879-364,355), we found that women were underrepresented among those who enter fields with brilliance-oriented FABs and overrepresented among those who exit these fields. We also found that FABs' association with women's transitions across academic fields was substantially stronger than their association with men's transitions. With respect to mechanisms, FABs' association with gender segregation was partially explained by the fact that women encounter more prejudice in fields with brilliance-oriented FABs. With its focus on the dynamic patterns shaping segregation and its broad scope in terms of geography, career stage, and historical time, this research makes an important contribution toward understanding the factors driving gender segregation in academia. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Formal explanations shape children's representations of animal kinds and social groups.

In certain domains, people represent some of an individual's properties (e.g., a tiger's ferocity), but not others (e.g., a tiger's being in the zoo), as stemming from the assumed "essence" of the individual's category. How do children identify which properties of an individual are essentialized and which are not? Here, we examine whether formal explanations-that is, explanations that appeal to category membership (e.g., "That's ferocious because it's a tiger")-help children to identify which properties are essentialized. We investigated this question in two domains: animal kinds (Study 1) and social categories (specifically, gender; Studies 2 and 3). Across studies, we introduced children to novel behaviors and preferences of individuals using either a formal explanation or closely matched wording that did not express a formal explanation. To measure the extent to which children essentialized the novel properties, we assessed their inferences about the stability, innateness, and generalizability of these properties. In Study 1 (N = 104; 61 girls, 43 boys; predominantly White and multiracial children from high-income backgrounds), we found that formal explanations led 5- and 6-year-old children to view novel properties of individual animals as more stable across time. In Studies 2 and 3 (total N = 163; 84 girls, 79 boys; predominantly White, Asian, and multiracial children from high-income backgrounds), we found that formal explanations led 6-year-olds, but not 5-year-olds, to view novel properties of individual girls and boys as more stable across contexts. These studies highlight an important mechanism by which formal explanations guide conceptual development. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Parents' responses to children's math performance in early elementary school: Links with parents' math beliefs and children's math adjustment.

A new parent-report measure was used to examine parents' person and process responses to children's math performance. Twice over a year from 2017 to 2020, American parents (N = 546; 80% mothers, 20% other caregivers; 62% white, 21% Black, 17% other) reported their responses and math beliefs; their children's (Mage  = 7.48 years; 50% girls, 50% boys) math adjustment was also assessed. Factor analyses indicated parents' person and process responses to children's math success and failure represent four distinct, albeit related, responses. Person (vs. process) responses were less common and less likely to accompany views of math ability as malleable and failure as constructive (|r|s = .16-.23). The more parents used person responses, the poorer children's later math adjustment (|ß|s = .06-.16).

Growth-Mindset Intervention Delivered by Teachers Boosts Achievement in Early Adolescence.

School underachievement is a persistent problem in the United States. Direct-to-student, computer-delivered growth-mindset interventions have shown promise as a way to improve achievement for students at risk of failing in school; however, these interventions benefit only students who happen to be in classrooms that support growth-mindset beliefs. Here, we tested a teacher-delivered growth-mindset intervention for U.S. adolescents in Grades 6 and 7 that was designed to both impart growth-mindset beliefs and create a supportive classroom environment where those beliefs could flourish (N = 1,996 students, N = 50 teachers). The intervention improved the grades of struggling students in the target class by 0.27 standard deviations, or 2.81 grade percentage points. The effects were largest for students whose teachers endorsed fixed mindsets before the intervention. This large-scale, randomized controlled trial demonstrates that growth-mindset interventions can produce gains when delivered by teachers.

The acquisition of the gender-brilliance stereotype: Age trajectory, relation to parents' stereotypes, and intersections with race/ethnicity.

Past research has explored children's gender stereotypes about specific intellectual domains, such as mathematics and science, but less is known about the acquisition of domain-general stereotypes about the intellectual abilities of women and men. During 2017 and 2018, the authors administered Implicit Association Tests to Chinese Singaporean adults and 8- to 12-year-olds (N = 731; 58% female) to examine the gender stereotype that portrays exceptional intellectual ability (e.g., genius, brilliance) as a male attribute. This gender-brilliance stereotype was present among adults and children and for both Chinese and White stereotype targets. It also was stronger among older children and among children whose parents also showed it. This early-emerging stereotype may be an obstacle to gender equity in many prestigious employment sectors.

Based on billions of words on the internet, people = men.

Recent advances have made it possible to precisely measure the extent to which any two words are used in similar contexts. In turn, this measure of similarity in linguistic context also captures the extent to which the concepts being denoted are similar. When extracted from massive corpora of text written by millions of individuals, this measure of linguistic similarity can provide insight into the collective concepts of a linguistic community, concepts that both reflect and reinforce widespread ways of thinking. Using this approach, we investigated the collective concept person/people, which forms the basis for nearly all societal decision- and policy-making. In three studies and three preregistered replications with similarity metrics extracted from a corpus of over 630 billion English words, we found that the collective concept person/people is not gender-neutral but rather prioritizes men over women-a fundamental bias in our species' collective view of itself.

An Emphasis on Brilliance Fosters Masculinity-Contest Cultures.

Women are underrepresented in fields in which success is believed to require brilliance, but the reasons for this pattern are poorly understood. We investigated perceptions of a "masculinity-contest culture," an organizational environment of ruthless competition, as a key mechanism whereby a perceived emphasis on brilliance discourages female participation. Across three preregistered correlational and experimental studies involving adult lay participants online (N = 870) and academics from more than 30 disciplines (N = 1,347), we found a positive association between the perception that a field or an organization values brilliance and the perception that this field or organization is characterized by a masculinity-contest culture. This association was particularly strong among women. In turn, perceiving a masculinity-contest culture predicted lower interest and sense of belonging as well as stronger impostor feelings. Experimentally reducing the perception of a masculinity-contest culture eliminated gender gaps in interest and belonging in a brilliance-oriented organization, suggesting possible avenues for intervention.

Teacher Mindsets Help Explain Where a Growth-Mindset Intervention Does and Doesn't Work.

A growth-mindset intervention teaches the belief that intellectual abilities can be developed. Where does the intervention work best? Prior research examined school-level moderators using data from the National Study of Learning Mindsets (NSLM), which delivered a short growth-mindset intervention during the first year of high school. In the present research, we used data from the NSLM to examine moderation by teachers' mindsets and answer a new question: Can students independently implement their growth mindsets in virtually any classroom culture, or must students' growth mindsets be supported by their teacher's own growth mindsets (i.e., the mindset-plus-supportive-context hypothesis)? The present analysis (9,167 student records matched with 223 math teachers) supported the latter hypothesis. This result stood up to potentially confounding teacher factors and to a conservative Bayesian analysis. Thus, sustaining growth-mindset effects may require contextual supports that allow the proffered beliefs to take root and flourish.