Monthly Archives: May 2016

“I am a lean, mean, mathing machine.” 

In college, I’d repeat this phrase to myself, muttering under my breath before every calculus exam. This mantra reminded me that I was tough, prepared, and capable of setting aside my nerves.

People engage in self-talk all day long, and it’s a powerful tool for shaping emotional well-being. The pep talks we give ourselves can make daily stressors more manageable, helping us to push past bumps in the road. And changing the way we talk to ourselves may be a powerful tool for regulating our emotions. For example, in one study, adults at risk for depression who were coached to talk to themselves in ways that fought back at their “inner critic” saw a reduction in depressive symptoms.¹

Being deliberately strategic about the way that we talk to ourselves in frustrating, stressful, or tempting situations may help us persist on challenging tasks, pursue actions aligned with our goals, and perform our best. So what does science suggest about the kinds of self-talk that might be more effective at steering yourself (and your students) toward better regulation?

Below are three lessons from current research on self-talk:

1. Avoid “I”

Using your own name instead of first person pronouns (I, my, etc.) during self-talk may help you approach challenges more effectively.

In one experiment, scientists told participants that they were studying first impressions.² They instructed participants to try to make a good impression when meeting a member of the opposite sex—a situation that usually provokes some anxiety. The researchers gave people 2 minutes to prepare. In one group, participants were instructed to use first-person pronouns while preparing. In the other group, they were instructed to use their own names.

People who used their own names reported greater decreases in anxiety after the interaction. Independent judges that watched videos of the interaction rated these participants as having made a better impression overall.

Because people use names and third-person pronouns to refer to other people, the authors of the study suggest that using this voice helps people move away from self-centered perspectives toward more objective thinking.

This fits into research on “psychological distancing,” which suggests that putting distance between yourself and the situation can support self regulation. In another study, using the third person and pretending to be a fictitious character (such as Batman or Dora) were both related to better executive functioning* in 5-year olds, but not in 3-year-olds.³ This suggests that pretend play may also be able to generate psychological distance. The authors suggest that the 3-year-olds in the study didn’t benefit from psychological distancing because they weren’t yet able to effectively take on different perspectives.

Why does psychological distancing help? In one study, 226 African-American adolescents were asked to reflect on a recent experience that made them angry. After reflecting, they were asked some questions about how they remembered the episode. The more teens reported feeling distant from the experience (e.g., like they were watching it from far away, or that it seemed like a movie), the less upset they felt.⁴ When researchers read the teens’ written reflections on the angry scenarios, describing the situation with more distance was linked to re-interpreting the situation with some potentially productive insight, rather than a straightforward summary of the experience.

2. Embrace labels

Putting a label on your feelings may help regulate negative emotions. Some studies suggest that labeling emotions reduce people’s physical responses (specifically heart rate and sweat) after a stressful experience. In one study, the more anxiety-related words people identified (from a set) as describing their emotional state during exposure therapy, the more their body responses dropped after a stressful experience.⁵

The authors of this study suggest that practice with labeling emotions may help your brain learn to support better regulation. What do they mean?

Labeling the emotions is found to increase blood flow (suggesting neural activity) to an area in the far right part of the prefrontal cortex known as the right ventrolateral PFC.⁶ In one study, greater blood flow to this part of the brain was linked to less neural activity (inferred from from blood flow) in the amygdala, a brain region important in processing fear. This link between the prefrontal cortex-amygdala suggests a possible mechanism for emotional regulation supported by labeling the emotions. It is important to note that these brain regions are also involved in many other behaviors and emotions, so more work is needed to confirm this connection. However, it converges with other research suggesting that labels have value.

Unlike switching to using third-person language, emotion labeling seems to only change people’s body responses, not how anxious people report feeling.⁵ Some suggest that this means that labeling feelings isn’t helpful. But others suggest that people who have labeled their emotions still experience anxious feelings, but simply aren’t as upset by them, which is reflected in their body responses.

3. Be specific

Some people tend to use more specific words to describe their experiences, while others use more general ones. For example, some people might describe a car accident they experienced as scary, terrifying, or harrowing, while others might describe the same situation as simply “bad.”

In general, more clarity and specificity regarding personal experiences is what some psychologists call “emotional granularity.” In adults, having higher emotional granularity is associated with better responses to different stressors, including less aggression and drinking when experiencing stress.⁷

Why is this the case? While no one knows for sure, some researchers speculate that by using more detailed language in their self-talk, people are giving themselves more information about the situation. This explanation suggests that people are perhaps then able to act on this information more clearly when deciding what to do next.⁷

Putting this in practice: the RULER program

The RULER Feeling Words K-8 curriculum puts these suggestions into practice using feeling-based units to teach students how to recognize, understand, label, express, and regulate their emotions.⁸

Fifth and 6^th grade students in classrooms with the RULER Feeling Words curriculum demonstrated improved language arts grades and work habits grades as compared to students in classrooms that did not implement this curriculum. Students in this program also showed higher teacher ratings related to positive relationships, leadership, and studying, as well as lower teacher ratings of problem behaviors. This research suggests that social and emotional curriculum can go hand in hand with educational goals.

Looking beyond Western culture

When moving research from psychological theory into practice, it also may be important to consider students’ cultural backgrounds. Much of the research featured here has emerged from Western frameworks about emotion and research with Western participants. However, some cross-cultural work suggests that, on average, East Asians may rely on less body-driven processes for understanding their emotions,⁹ with different implications for what regulation strategies may then be effective. In an era where classrooms are looking increasingly diverse, it may be important to seek a better understanding of how people from many cultures experience and regulate emotions.

Pass it on 

How can children get better at regulating their emotions and behaving in ways that support their goals, particularly when faced with frustration, stress, or temptation? This complex question about human development is far from resolved. However, educators have opportunities to share strategies that may help students get themselves through difficult moments—and these self-talk strategies may be among them!

* Previously, I’ve written about EF as an umbrella term for cognitive processes that regulate thoughts and actions. In this case, researchers studied children’s ability to switch between tasks, hold information in memory, and inhibit their responses.

References

1. Kelly, A. C., Zuroff, D. C., & Shapira, L. B. (2009). Soothing oneself and resisting self-attacks: The treatment of two intrapersonal deficits in depression vulnerability. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 33(3), 301–313. [Paper]
2. Kross, E., Bruehlman-Senecal, E., Park, J., Burson, A., Dougherty, A., Shablack, H., Bremner, R., Moser, J., Ayduk, O. (2014). Self-talk as a regulatory mechanism: how you do it matters. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(2), 304–24. [Paper]
3. White, R. E., & Carlson, S. M. (2015). What would Batman do? Self-distancing improves executive function in young children. Developmental Science, 3, 419–426. [Paper]
4. White, R. E., Kross, E., & Duckworth, A. L. (2015). Spontaneous Self-Distancing and Adaptive Self-Reflection Across Adolescence. Child Development, 86(4), 1272–1281. [Paper]
5. Niles, A. N., Craske, M. G., Lieberman, M. D., & Hur, C. (2015). Affect labeling enhances exposure effectiveness for public speaking anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 68, 27–36. [Paper]
6. Lieberman, M. D., Eisenberger, N. I., Crockett, M. J., Tom, S. M., Pfeifer, J. H., & Way, B. M. (2007). Putting Feelings into Words: Affect Labeling Disrupts Amygdala Activity in Response to Affective Stimuli. Psychological Science, 18(5), 421–428. [Paper]
7. Kashdan, T. B., Barrett, L. F., & McKnight, P. E. (2015). Unpacking Emotion Differentiation: Transforming Unpleasant Experience by Perceiving Distinctions in Negativity. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(1), 10–16. [Paper]
8. Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., Reyes, M. R., & Salovey, P. (2012). Enhancing academic performance and social and emotional competence with the RULER feeling words curriculum. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(2), 218–224. [Paper]
9. Immordino-Yang, M. H., Yang, X.-F., & Damasio, H. (2014). Correlations between social-emotional feelings and anterior insula activity are independent from visceral states but influenced by culture. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8(September), 728. [Paper]

Dr. Sara Lazar began a yoga and mindfulness practice after a sports injury in the 1990s. Mindfulness – a practice rooted in Eastern philosophy of tuning into the body, mind, and environment – is quickly gaining credibility in the research world. Dr. Lazar has published several papers on the effects of mindfulness meditation on the brain, body, and wellbeing and is currently leading two studies in the Department of Psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital. I recently had the opportunity to speak with her about the history and future of mindfulness meditation in scientific research and its reach into classrooms.

Deshpande: What benefits can meditation have on the brain and wellbeing?

Lazar: Meditation practice is associated with changes in brain structure. Some of these changes are correlated with positive benefits.

Two structural changes in the brain are actually associated with decreased stress and increased wellbeing.  In other words, it’s not just self-reported measures – it’s that there is brain change (seen with magnetic resonance imaging) behind self-reports of lower stress, emotion-regulation, and greater wellbeing.

Research also suggests a preservation effect of brain structure and function with normal aging.  Our first data showed the brain structure was preserved with aging,¹ and newer research supports that meditation may help preserve function.² We also see increases in the hippocampus and in memory and more.

Deshpande: Can children and adolescents benefit from mindfulness practice in schools?

Lazar: There’s quite a bit of research on this actually, and the data is pretty clear. Mindfulness practice has a positive impact on stress and emotional regulation in children, teens, and young adults.

As a mother, I can tell you that stress in school these days is much higher than when I was in school. Drugs are being prescribed in record numbers. So from a stress-reduction standpoint, mindfulness practice would be highly beneficial for students.

There is also growing literature that mindfulness meditation can enhance various cognitive skills, which I think should be thought of as a secondary benefit. To me, the primary goal should be stress reduction and emotion regulation, rather than using meditation to try to achieve some goal, which will just create more stress. Plus, it might defeat the purpose.

There should not be pressure to meditate ever for any reason.  Children should enjoy the benefits of reduced stress so then they may actually choose to start practicing on their own and perhaps maintain a regular practice. With more pressure for a certain outcome, they’ll likely see it as a chore and stop doing it.  It’s basically just mental exercise. You really just want them to start practicing for themselves and like the experience. Mindfulness practice that has been incentivized by promising cognitive benefits likely won’t be as rewarding, at least probably not for the long-term.

Deshpande: Do you have any reflections on existing mindfulness research or curriculum for the classroom?

Not being a teacher, I don’t know that I can make a formal recommendation for what’s useful or feasible for a particular classroom. What I’ve heard is that teachers like to offer mindfulness practice at the beginning of class for a minute or two to help students get settled.

I would say that it’s important to not to make it a forced thing no matter when it’s offered. Hopefully teachers and curriculum developers will figure out ways to make it a natural and effective offer. I don’t have the formula yet. And it might not be for everyone. Not everyone takes to it.  For example, children who may not want to participate in morning practice could sit and doodle. For some kids, it might not take it right away but then they might start liking it at some later time. If there’s a way to make it available to students but not necessarily mandate it, it may be more likely that these practices would be used as tools for self-management.

Deshpande: Do you engage in a personal mindfulness practice?

Lazar: Yes. My practice is highly erratic. Some days it’s 40 minutes, and other days it may be 5 minutes. It also goes through phases; sometimes more, sometimes less. My meditation practice varies tremendously.

Deshpande: How did you first become interested mindfulness meditation practice?

Lazar: A sports injury brought me to yoga in ‘94. The yoga teacher included five or ten minutes of mindfulness at the end of class, and I gradually switched over. Eventually I began practicing Vipassana, an insight meditation.

I started to go on retreats, and that deepened my practice in a lot of interesting ways. It made me practice more regularly than before and my metta practice – openness and loving kindness toward others- got deeper over time. I’d usually go on a one-week retreat about once a year here in Massachusetts. A few times, I went on a two-week retreat. By two weeks in, you’re really able to be more settled. It’s nice to have that second week.

Deshpande: Any personal reflections for people new to or considering a mindfulness practice?

Lazar: I was so nervous on my first retreat. I had done some regular daily practice for a few years and a few one-day retreats that helped prepare me.  I was just so nervous to practice all day for a whole week. But it completely changed my world. You get a to a place you might not normally know. Quiet, very quiet. And very centered. It’s hard to explain, but it’s a wonderful experience.

—–

Traditional mindful practice was intended to alleviate our human suffering. As Dr. Lazar emphasizes, today’s research supports mindfulness meditation, body scan, mindful breathing, walking, and more as tools for emotion regulation and stress reduction both in child and adult populations.

While more research is needed to determine mindfulness’s effect on student performance in academics, I agree with Sara: mindfulness practice ideally should retain a primary purpose of psychological and physiological relief for students and teachers. In high stakes testing environments, mindfulness as a tool for stress alleviation – quieting the mind – would organically support a secondary purpose of enhanced focus and school performance.

Looking for more mindfulness resources?  

• MARC: The Mindful Attention Research Center (MARC) at UCLA offers some of the latest research and curricular resources for schools. Influential mindfulness researchers, like Dr. Lisa Flook, study the effects of Mindful Awareness Practices for pre-K through college classrooms.

• 
MindUp: The Hawn Foundation enlisted educators and scientists to design this 15-lesson mindful awareness program. Accredited by CASEL, MindUp blends neuroscience research in executive functioning – self-regulation and more – with academic learning standards.

• Yoga Ed: This program is more based in yoga movement (asana) than in seated meditation. It offers classroom practices that also align with national standards.

References & Further Reading

1. Lazar, S. W., Kerr, C. E., Wasserman, R. H., Gray, J. R., Greve, D. N., Treadway, M. T., . . . Fischl, B. (2005). Meditation experience is associated with increased cortical thickness. NeuroReport,16(17), 1893-1897. [Article]
2. Gard, T., Taquet, M., Dixit, R., Hölzel, B., De Montjoye, Y., Brach, N., . . . Lazar, S. (2014). Fluid intelligence and brain functional organization in aging yoga and meditation practitioners. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience [Article]

Ah, April what a beautiful time of year! We have all heard the jingle: April showers bring May…test preparation?!

Yes, that’s right, it’s that time of year again for students and teachers in high schools and colleges across the country. To help students prepare for the end of year and semester exams, instructors assign review packets, create practice tests, and recap many of the key concepts from the year. For students, it’s one of the last academic commitments before their two-month long summer vacation. Many are anxious to perform well and validate their hard work from the academic year.

Enter procrastination (cue ominous orchestral music): students begin to engage in habitual avoidance behaviors, to the disapproval of their teachers. As a result, some students have trouble budgeting their study time, attending after-school extra help or office hours, and spending far less time than they originally intended to spend on their studying. This behavior is often bound up in a surfeit of emotions and confusion, leaving students wondering what to tackle first. Although procrastination is often seen as a negative phenomenon, some students report that it helps their academic performance.

We are all familiar with this phenomenon but what do we do about it? Why do students procrastinate in the first place? What can teachers, students, and parents do to help curb this and get students back on track?

The Basics

Procrastination, delaying the completion of an intended task, is a widespread phenomenon, with 80-95% of college students reporting that they engage in the behavior.¹ It has been found to be associated with a variety of cognitive, behavioral, and emotional characteristics² including fear of failure³, anxiety², and task aversiveness, or the avoidance of a particular type of activity.³ In order to manage these uncomfortable feelings and task demands, students employ a range of coping strategies. Much of the recent research on procrastination underscores the importance of thinking about procrastination as being related to more than just a lack of time management skills.

In one study, procrastination was correlated with both short-term benefits such as reduced stress and long-term drawbacks such as higher levels of stress later in the semester and lower quality academic work⁴. Even when considering the short-term positive effects of procrastination early in the semester, the total effect of procrastination across the semester was negative. Interestingly, some research suggests that procrastination may increase the further students advance in college!⁵

Benefits of Procrastination?

As alluded to above, procrastination is often perceived as a negative and unitary phenomenon: all students who delay starting tasks hurt their academic performance, whether it be tests, homework assignments or other school-related responsibilities. However, some research suggests that this story many be more nuanced.

In their model of academic procrastination, Gregory Schraw and colleagues⁶ identified various adaptive aspects of procrastination, in addition to the maladaptive characteristics that many are familiar with. In their interviews some students reported that they needed the time pressure associated with procrastination in order to reach what researchers call a state of “flow”⁷,or the engaged experience commonly referred to as being “in the zone”. As opposed to more passive procrastinators, these “active” procrastinators may deliberately delay beginning an assignment because they work more efficiently under pressure.⁸ Some evidence suggests that active procrastination is associated with less stress and higher grades, as compared to passive procrastination.⁸ However, other research has failed to find replicate this type of result, muddling our understanding of this relationship.⁹

Should teachers let students who claim to benefit from delaying assignments continue to procrastinate?

The answer to this question isn’t completely clear and other researchers have argued against the notion that procrastination is beneficial for learning. In a 2015 meta-analysis¹⁰, researchers Kyung Ryung Kim and Eun Hee Seo found an overall negative association between procrastination and learning across 33 studies. While it’s safe to say that some students believe that there are positive benefits of procrastination, the important question is whether they would be better off not procrastinating. This research does highlight the importance of thinking about the reasons why students are procrastinating, how they cope with stress, and if they usually succeed under conditions of procrastination. As with many issues in the classroom, understanding individual students is key. In order to begin addressing the complexities of procrastination in the classroom, consider the following strategies:

1. Cultivate student interest

In a qualitative study of college students’ procrastination behaviors, Schraw, Wadkins, and Olafson⁶ found that many students attributed their procrastination to being bored. The researchers speculated that these students may have procrastinated to make the assignment more exciting or thrilling, under the pressure of a near deadline. For students who seem to fit this profile, try to think of ways to make the assignment more relevant and authentic.

2. Break down a task into more frequent deadlines

The theory of temporal discounting (as mentioned in a previous post on rewards) says that people are more influenced by immediately available incentives and may not act if the costs or benefits are too far in the future¹¹, a theory that researchers have tied to procrastination. In order to make the incentives more immediate try to break down the task into smaller chunks and communicate and enforce clear expectations for the completion of those sub-tasks.⁶ It may also be helpful to talk about the interdependence of the tasks, or how each tasks fits into the larger assignment.¹²

3. Encourage students to choose productive environments

It may be useful for students to reflect on the contexts where they are most productive and least distracted and commit in advance to a certain plan.¹¹ Anticipating conflicts before they arise and avoiding certain environments could make it easier to exercise the self-control they need to maintain a consistent study schedule.^{1, 12}

4. Address the cognitive distortions

One of the leading experts in procrastination research, Joseph Ferrari and colleagues, developed an intervention¹³ that attempts to reduce procrastination by having students in a group setting reflect on their behavior and coping styles, identify unhealthy or unrealistic thinking patterns, and discuss reasons why it is important to alter their behavior and consider other ways of dealing with procrastination. Coming up with similar activities for your classroom may be useful in addressing some of the underlying reasons why your students are procrastinating.

Other Helpful Resources

The Procrastination Research Group at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canda has a website that lists recent research on procrastination, useful strategies, and other articles on the topic. Dr. Joseph Ferrari, the expert mentioned above, has also written a book on procrastination, for those who want to learn more!

So what about those procrastination specialists that many of us have the pleasure of teaching in our classrooms?! We now know that procrastinators are a complex bunch. They have many different motivations and degrees of academic success, depending on individual circumstances. For teachers confronting this issue in their classrooms (I’d be interested in talking to you if you aren’t!), hopefully these strategies and resources are a helpful starting point improving your students’ academic habits and performing as well as they can on that state test or end of semester exam. We would also love to hear about strategies you have tried and how they worked out! Feel free to leave a comment or share a resource below.

References and Further Reading:

1. Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: a meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological bulletin, 133(1), 65. [Paper]
2. Solomon, L. J., & Rothblum, E. D. (1984). Academic procrastination: Frequency and cognitive-behavioral correlates. Journal of counseling psychology, 31(4), 503. [Paper]
3. Ferrari, J. R., & Tice, D. M. (2000). Procrastination as a self-handicap for men and women: A task-avoidance strategy in a laboratory setting. Journal of Research in personality, 34(1), 73-83. [Paper]
4. Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Longitudinal study of procrastination, performance, stress, and health: The costs and benefits of dawdling. Psychological science, 454-458. [Paper]
5. Ferrari, J. R. (1991). Self-handicapping by procrastinators: Protecting self-esteem, social-esteem, or both?. Journal of Research in Personality, 25(3), 245-261. [Paper]
6. Schraw, G., Wadkins, T., & Olafson, L. (2007). Doing the things we do: A grounded theory of academic procrastination. Journal of Educational psychology, 99(1), 12. [Paper]
7. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: HarperCollins. [Book]
8. Chun Chu, A. H., & Choi, J. N. (2005). Rethinking procrastination: Positive effects of” active” procrastination behavior on attitudes and performance.The Journal of social psychology, 145(3), 245-264. [Paper]
9. Lee, E. (2005). The relationship of motivation and flow experience to academic procrastination in university students. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 166(1), 5-15. [Paper]
10. Kim, K. R., & Seo, E. H. (2015). The relationship between procrastination and academic performance: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 82, 26-33. [Paper]
11. Ariely, D., & Wertenbroch, K. (2002). Procrastination, deadlines, and performance: Self-control by precommitment. Psychological science, 13(3), 219-224. [Paper]
12. Tuckman, B. W., & Schouwenburg, H. C. (2004). Behavioral Interventions for Reducing Procrastination Among University Students. In Schouwenburg, H. C., Lay, C. H., Pychyl, T. A., & Ferrari, J. R. Counseling the procrastinator in academic settings (91-103). American Psychological Associtation. [Chapter]
13. Ozer, B. U., Demir, A., & Ferrari, J. R. (2013). Reducing academic procrastination through a group treatment program: A pilot study. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 31(3), 127-135. [Paper]

• Urban, Tim. Inside the Mind of a Master Procrastinator. [Ted Talk]
• The Procrastination Research Group, Carleton University. [Link]
• Ferrari, J. R. (2010). Still procrastinating: The no regrets guide to getting it done. John Wiley & Sons. [Book]

It’s no secret that the American education system is saturated with standardized tests.

As of 2016, the average student in America takes a staggering 112 mandatory standardized tests before graduating high school. This averages out to be eight a year according to one 2-year study by the Council of Great City Schools¹.

The tests are “standardized” because all students answer the same questions under comparable conditions and their responses are scored using measured criteria, whether the questions are multiple choice or open-ended².

However, there are numerous reasons to believe that high stakes standardized tests are actually quite damaging to education and have received forceful criticism over the past dozen years as a result. Examples include their propensity to drive out teachers, encouraging teaching “to the test” as well as increasing grade retention and school dropout rates, all of which question the imposition of high quantities of standardized tests throughout a student’s school career².

Furthermore, the disadvantages that standardized tests pose for the many students who take them are substantial. Although these tests were conceptualized to ensure fairness and equity for all, the reality is much more grim. In addition to the problematic application for students with diagnosed (and undiagnosed) learning disabilities and to non-native English speakers, these tests are unfair to countless others due to a host of social, cultural, economic and even biological reasons. One example is the marked disadvantage for students from underprivileged groups, for which there is a proven departure between test scores and actual academic potential³.

In other words, standardized tests can undermine the very abilities they seek to assess.

The goal of this article is to look “under the hood” into some of the research investigating what occurs in the brains and minds of test takers, with an emphasis on studies that employ neurophysiological (e.g. EEG) and functional neuroimaging (e.g. fMRI) methods. These methods allow researchers to look inside the working brain to explore the neural underpinnings of the psychological processes that so many students experience during test taking. The hope is that, by better understanding these mechanisms, we can craft better environments for teaching and evaluating our students.

This article will be limited to discussing neuroscience research on three interrelated psychological processes that occur during standardized test taking, namely i) testing anxiety, ii) “choking” under pressure and iii) stereotype threat. However, it should be noted that this is by no means a comprehensive list and should be viewed as a small glimpse into what happens in the brain during high-pressure standardized testing. 

The consequences of falling into socially constructed stereotypes 

Over the past twenty years, stereotype threat has become one of the most investigated topics in social psychology. It invokes the age-old nature vs nurture debate, as well as questions related to group differences observed in cognitive performance.

Broadly speaking, stereotype threat can be defined as a situation in which individuals believe they are at risk for confirming negative beliefs about their social group. It rose to prominence via a pioneering 1995 study by Steele and Aronson⁴, which found that African American student performance varied depending on the immediate messaging from the environment. Aware of the negative stereotypes regarding their intellectual abilities and thus fearing confirming the stereotype, students exhibited suboptimal performance when asked to display such abilities (in the case of Steele and Aronson, a difficult verbal test) after being reminded of their stereotyped group membership. African American students performed better in a control condition, in which they were not primed with the threat. As a result, the concept is considered highly salient within education.

These findings have been replicated by many others over the years and are generalizable to other stereotyped groups, including (but not limited to) women’s mathematical abilities⁵ and memory recall abilities in elderly populations⁶. Importantly, enthusiasm for this work is bolstered by the notion that these findings help explain the discrepancies observed in academic and cognitive performance among at-risk groups⁷, undermining the assumption that the differences are a result of innate (in)ability.

In an attempt to review the reasons behind impaired performance, one review article⁸ revealed patterns of activation demonstrating that individuals “under threat” have heightened activity in parts of the brain devoted to regulating emotions. Simultaneously, they showed decreased activation in areas typically associated with executive function (such as working memory and attention).

In another study⁹ evaluating a negative stereotype regarding women’s spatial reasoning skills, researchers found that in addition to activation in areas of the brain associated with spatial rotation, participants in the threat condition also had increased activity in regions of the brain associated with emotion regulation and social knowledge (e.g. the rostral-ventral anterior cingulate cortex and right orbital gyrus) synonymous with feelings of anxiety regarding one’s social group.

These results are consistent with a study from 2014 using EEG¹⁰ – a physiological measure favored for its ability to secure very accurate readings of when electrical activity occurs in the brain – which investigated the effect of stereotype threat on women’s performance on a series of math problems. Here, the authors reported that the threat condition negatively affects the anterior cingulate cortex and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, which was not found in women placed in the condition in which the stereotype threat was not activated. In other words, the bias caused by the stereotype threat had damaging consequences for attention, memory and general information processing – systems highly likely to play a key role in undermining performance in the math task.

Collectively, what these studies illustrate is that participants under stereotype threat are hypothesized to do worse due to the allocation of important cognitive resources to things like emotion regulation and social knowledge as opposed to concentrating on the task at hand.

Although these studies test abilities within an isolated experimental environment, educational neuroscientists studying the effects of high-stakes testing argue that even when not primed, at-risk groups “underperform relative to their ability merely because they are aware of a negative stereotype about how they should perform”¹¹. An example of these worries can be seen in the female math test-taker who is apprehensive given the stereotype that “guys are better than girls at math”¹¹. 

“Choking” under pressure & testing anxiety

Another dire consequence of high-stakes testing is choking under pressure, a phenomenon associated with poor performance on a cognitive task and one easily relatable to standardized test taking. This is the tendency for some individuals to have their performance hindered by the stress of a given situation. In the case of standardized testing, many controlled laboratory experiments have found evidence of this on a wide range of tasks, most notably math problem solving, category learning, and tests of fluid intelligence.^12,13,14

But what are the mechanisms behind choking under pressure? Researchers have detailed three (not mutually exclusive) explanations for why testers choke under pressure; i) the “distraction account” whereby the pressure of doing well distracts the individual from the task(s) at hand, ii) the “over-monitoring account”, when task performance is worsened due to a hyper vigilance in attending to every required step and finally iii) the “over-arousal account” leaving the person in a heightened, and often stressed, emotional state due to the lingering fear of large losses.^{15, 16}

The Distraction Model vs. The Over-Monitoring Model 

The “distraction” model can be understood in terms of a distraction caused by the pressure to do well on a demanding task (e.g. math problem solving), making it difficult for a person’s working memory to perform optimally. By contrast the “over-monitoring” model argues the opposite of the “distraction” model: instead of being distracted by the pressure to do the task at hand, this theory argues that the extra attention, control and motor operation given to the task actually hinders performance¹⁶. In other words, focusing too much on specific details of a task can take away from the cognitive “horsepower” (e.g. executive function) needed to complete the task successfully.

Although these theories diverge, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive; both can occur simultaneously depending on the nuances and demands of the task as well as the source(s) of motivation provided. Indeed, both theories are supported by fMRI evidence revealing a statistically meaningful relationship between choking and compromised executive control in prefrontal areas of the brain.

Strikingly, further analyses in this area has suggested that individuals with higher working memory capacities are actually even more susceptible to this kind of stress than people with lower working memory capacities, given their reliance on this strength to perform well.¹⁷

The Over Arousal Model 

The third model concerns the neural mechanisms behind reward and motivation. One theory favored by behavioral economists suggests that degraded performance is a result of the flooding of emotion due to high pressure or incentive. You can think of it along the lines of being stressed out by thinking about how big the stakes are. To make matters worse for standardized test takers, many studies have shown that performance is only diminished when the task at hand is one that is complex or not well-learned, such as the ones required during test taking^{18, 19}. By contrast, this phenomenon is not observed during very simple conditioning tasks such as those that require considerable physical effort (e.g. weight lifting), whereby the increased incentive or social pressure can actually enhance performance.²⁰

From a neural perspective, one study found significant deactivation in areas of the brain that are crucial for memory recall as well as hormone and emotion regulation (e.g. the hippocampus, hypothalamus, medial orbital cortex and ACC) in participants subjected to the stress condition. These participants also displayed increased levels of cortisol, which is linked to heightened stress or emotion²¹. Specifically, the extent of deactivation in the parts of the brain implicated in memory was strongly related to the release of cortisol in response to a stress task.

Test Anxiety

A similar yet distinct notion common amongst standardized test takers is that of test anxiety, which can come into play during any of the situations discussed previously. Generally speaking, test anxiety refers to an unpleasant emotional and physiological reaction that can include feelings of worry, fear of failure or dread before or during a test. The two key features of test anxiety are thought to be i) emotionality (i.e. feeling anxious) and ii) worry. This is corroborated by neuroimaging evidence showing test anxiety to involve enhanced attention devoted to the threat and poor ability to control the feelings of threat.

Some theorists have conceptualized test anxiety as a dispositional factor, whereby “test trait anxiety” can be considered a trait of a person’s personality that make them predisposed to experience greater-than-average levels of stress or anxiety during a testing situation²². Others have defined it as a genuine phobia, based on the elevated physiological responses linked to heightened emotion and stress²³.

Regardless of its characterization, test anxiety (with math anxiety specifically being the most common) is highly prevalent, with one source claiming it affects an estimated 25% of 4-year college students and up to 80% of community college students in the U.S.²⁴. One such sources comes from outside the U.S., where researchers from the University of Grenada found 6 in 10 Spanish university students to suffer from math anxiety, with greater incidence among women compared to men²⁵.

Crucially, a fascinating 2011 study showed math anxiety doesn’t just occur during math problem solving, but also in anticipation of doing math. Using fMRI, the researchers were able to detect differences in brain activation between the anticipation stage and actually doing the math task²⁶. What they found was that high-anxiety individuals showed increased fronto-parietal network, which is linked with control of negative emotions. In a follow-up study, they revealed that this anticipation stage is also associated with pain networks in the brain (e.g. mid-cingulate cortex and insula).

This suggests that for some people, merely being faced with the prospect of doing math can be psychologically painful²⁷.

To muddy the waters, reports have pointed to the similarities between stereotype threat and test anxiety and how they may overlap¹¹. Although further research is needed to pinpoint interactive effects, recent studies have indicated test anxiety and stereotype threat might share certain mechanisms within the brain, such as their mutual negative impact on working memory. Furthermore, it has been found that stereotype threat perpetuates states of worry, with worry being a key element in test anxiety. However their interaction is a complex one not yet fully fleshed out in the literature²².

Despite this evidence, it stands today that the primary objective of standardized tests is to reliability measure a student’s academic potential. 

So, now what?

So if we shouldn’t use standardized tests, then what should we use?

It is established that standardized tests can be incredibly debilitating, not only for students with disabilities or those from underprivileged backgrounds, but also for many others who suffer from the high-stakes pressure and/or testing anxiety. Yet individual differences along with the complex interplay of social-economic status, culture, social pressure, motivation and reward are all important determinants of performances success or failure. Based on the research that is currently available, it’s hard to dispute the notion that standardized tests are a far from perfect measure of academic ability and assessment, with many students being unfairly penalized and undermined for things that they cannot control.

Many have proposed plausible solutions to the standardized test epidemic. Examples include i) simply reducing the number of standardized tests given, ii) replacing data from assessments with data collected “passively” over long periods of time iii) increasing the prevalence of game-based assessments, or iv) implementing more social and emotional skill surveys. Further details on these proposals can be found in the 2015 book by Anya Kamenetz.

As the field of educational neuroscience continues to expand, it behooves the test prep industry to take into consideration the latest research on how the brain works under test conditions. In addition, given the relatively small number of students with the background and resources necessary to achieve very high scores on standardized tests, the scientific markers discussed in this article should play an active role in redefining ability and educational assessment, in the hopes that one day, educational decisions will never be based solely on a number.

References & Further Reading

1. ­­­­Strauss, V. (2015, October 24). Confirmed: Standardized testing has taken over our schools. But who’s to blame? The Washington Post. [Article]
2. The National Center for Fair & Open Testing. (2007, December 17). The Dangerous Consequences of High-Stakes Standardized Testing.  [Article]
3. Rooks, N. (2012, October). Why It’s Time to Get Rid of Standardized Tests,  [Article]
4. 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. [Paper]
5. Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4–28. [Paper]
6. Hess, T.M., Auman, C., Colcombe, S.J. Rahhal, T.A. (2003). The impact of stereotype threat on age differences in memory performance. Journals of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 58(B):3–11. [Paper]
7. Schmader, T., Johns, M., & Forbes, C. (2008). An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance. Psychological Review, 115, 336–356. [Paper]
8. Derks, B., Inzlicht, M., & Kang, S. K. (2008). The neuroscience of stigma and stereotype threat. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 11, 163–181. [Paper]
9. Wraga, M., Helt, M., Jacobs, E., & Sullivan, K. (2007). Neural basis of stereotype-induced shifts in women’s mental rotation performance. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 2, 12–19. [Paper]
10. Forbes, C.E., Leitner, J.B. (2014). Stereotype threat engenders neural attentional bias toward negative feedback to undermine performance. Biological psychology, 102, 98–107. [Paper]
11. Maloney, E.A., Schaeffer, M.W., & Beilock, S.L. (2013). Mathematics anxiety and stereotype threat: shared mechanisms, negative consequences and promising interventions, Research in Mathematics Education, 15:2, 115-128. [Paper]
12. Beilock, S.L., Carr, T.H. (2005). When high-powered people fail: working memory and “choking under pressure” in math. Psychological Science, 16, 101–105. [Paper]
13. Markman, A.B., Maddox, W.T., Worthy, D.A. (2006). Choking and excelling under pressure. Psychological Science, 17, 944–948. [Paper]
14. Gimmig, D., Huguet, P., Caverni, J.P., Cury, F. (2006). Choking under pressure and working memory capacity: when performance pressure reduces fluid intelligence. Psychonomic Bulletin Review, 13, 1005–1010. [Paper]
15. Yu, R. (2015). Choking under pressure: the neuropsychological mechanisms of incentive-induced performance decrements. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 9, 19. Doi: http://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00019 [Paper]
16. Lee T. G., Grafton S. T. (2015). Out of control: diminished prefrontal activity coincides with impaired motor performance due to choking under pressure. Neuroimage,105, 145–155. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.10.058 [Paper]
17. Mattarella-Micke A., Mateo J., Kozak M. N., Foster K., Beilock S. L. (2011). Choke or thrive? The relation between salivary cortisol and math performance depends on individual differences in working memory and math-anxiety. Emotion, 11, doi: 1000–1005. 10.1037/a0023224 [Paper]
18. Yerkes RM, Dodson JD (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology, doi:18: 459–482.doi:10.1002/cne.920180503 [Paper]
19. Eysenck, M. W., & Calvo, M. G. (1992). Anxiety and performance: The processing efficiency theory. Cognition and Emotion, 6, 409 – 434. [Paper]
20. Strauss, B. (2002). Social facilitation in motor tasks: A review of research and theory. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 3, 237 – 256. [Paper]
21. Pruessner J. C., Dedovic K., Khalili-Mahani N., Engert V., Pruessner M., Buss C., et al. . (2008). Deactivation of the limbic system during acute psychosocial stress: evidence from positron emission tomography and functional magnetic resonance imaging studies. Biological Psychiatry, 63, 234–240. 10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.04.041 [Paper]
22. Temple, T., & Neumann, R. (2014). Stereotype threat, test anxiety, and mathematics performance. Social Psychology of Education, 17, 491-501 [Paper]
23. Faust, M.W. (1992). Analysis of physiological reactivity in mathematics anxiety. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio
24. Adelson, R. (2014). Nervous About Numbers: Brain Patterns Reflect Math Anxiety. Observer: Association for Psychological Science, 27, September. [Article]
25. University of Granada. (2009, April 2). Six Out Of 10 University Students Have Math Anxiety, Spanish Study Finds. ScienceDaily. [Article]
26. Lyons, I. M., & Beilock, S. L. (2011). Mathematics anxiety: Separating the math from the anxiety. Cerebral Cortex, 22(9): 2102-10. [Paper]
27. Lyons, I. M., & Beilock, S. L. (2012). When Math Hurts: Math Anxiety Predicts Pain Network Activation in Anticipation of Doing Math. PLOS ONE.7(10): e48076. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0048076 [Paper]