Does anxiety explain why math-anxious people underperform in math?

Math-anxious people consistently underperform in math. The most widely accepted explanation for why this underperformance occurs is that math-anxious people experience heightened anxiety when faced with math, and this in-the-moment anxiety interferes with performance. Surprisingly, this explanation has not been tested directly. Here, using both self-report and physiological indices of anxiety, we directly test how much in-the-moment anxiety explains math-anxious underperformance. Results indicate that in-the-moment anxiety indeed explains why math-anxious people underperform-but only partially, suggesting a need to seriously consider alternative mechanisms. Results also showed that while some highly math-anxious individuals-those with high levels of heart rate variability-experienced less in-the-moment anxiety, they nevertheless performed no better at math. For these individuals, math-anxious underperformance must occur for reasons unrelated to in-the-moment anxiety. More broadly, our findings point to substantial individual heterogeneity in the mechanisms underlying math-anxious underperformance. Accounting for this mechanistic heterogeneity may prove vital for optimally boosting math performance in math-anxious individuals.

Rules of order: Evidence for a novel influence on ordinal processing of numbers.

Research on how people process numerical order carries implications for our theoretical understanding of what a number means and our practical understanding of the foundation upon which more sophisticated mathematics is built. Current thinking posits that ordinal processing of numbers is linked to repeated practice with the integer count list, but the mechanisms underlying this link remain unclear. For instance, in standard ordinal verification paradigms, participants more rapidly and accurately verify that count-list sequences (e.g., 3-4-5) are "in-order" than non-count-list sequences (e.g., 2-4-6), although it remains unclear whether this is due to strong count-list processing or poor non-count-list processing. If the count list primarily facilitates ordinal processing of count-list sequences, then forcing participants to classify sequences like 3-4-5 as "not-in-order" should adversely affect ordinal verification performance. We found that it does, but only moderately in single-digit sequences (d = -.26), and not at all in the case of double-digit sequences (d = -.02). Alternatively, the count list may influence ordinal processing in an exclusionary manner, creating a tendency to view anything that does not match the count-list as not-in-order. If so, then allowing participants to classify ordered (but non-count-list) sequences like 2-4-6 as not-in-order should improve ordinal verification performance. It did, with strong effects for both single-digit (d = .74) and double-digit sequences (d = 1.04). Furthermore, we demonstrated that the reverse distance effect found in standard ordinal verification paradigms is driven primarily by poor non-count-list processing. Taken together, our results advance our understanding of the mechanisms by which the count list shapes ordinal processing, even in highly numerate adults. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

First-year students' math anxiety predicts STEM avoidance and underperformance throughout university, independently of math ability.

Math anxiety is widely considered a potential barrier to success in STEM. Current thinking holds that math anxiety is directly linked to avoidance of and underperformance in STEM domains. However, past evidence supporting these claims is limited in important ways. Perhaps most crucially, it is possible that math anxiety predicts STEM outcomes merely as a proxy for poor math skills. Here, we tested the link between math anxiety and subsequent STEM outcomes by measuring math anxiety, math ability, and several covariates in 183 first-semester university students. We then tracked students' STEM avoidance and achievement through four years at university via official academic transcripts. Results showed that math anxiety predicted both a reduction in how many STEM courses students took and, separately (i.e., controlling for one another), lower STEM grades. Crucially, these associations held after controlling for math ability (and other covariates). That math anxiety predicts math-related academic achievement independently of Math Ability suggests that, contrary to current thinking, math anxiety's effects on academic performance likely operate via mechanisms other than negatively affecting math ability. Beyond this, we show evidence that math anxiety can account for associations between math ability and STEM outcomes, suggesting that past links between math ability and real-world outcomes may, in fact, be at least partially explainable by attitudes toward math. These findings provide clear impetus for developing and testing interventions that target math anxiety specifically and suggest that focusing on math ability without additional attention to math anxiety may fail to optimally boost STEM outcomes.