New Directions for Research on the Role of Parents and Teachers in the Development of Gender-Related Math Attitudes: Response to Commentaries

We frame our response to the commentaries by Cheryan (2011), Lane (2011), and Shapiro and Williams (2011), in terms of two broad points made by Lane (2011). First, we agree that the various constructs that we termed “math attitudes”—including math-gender stereotypes, math anxiety, math self-concepts, and achievement motivation in math—are in fact distinct (Gunderson et al. 2011b). Nevertheless, we argue that investigating common mechanisms underlying the transmission of these constructs from adults to children is a productive approach because it can lead to general interventions to boost children’s performance and dispositions toward math. Second, we argue that research on the development of gender-related math attitudes exists at the intersection of multiple research areas, including research on attitudes (broadly defined), math, gender, social learning, and child development, and that drawing on well-developed theories in these areas can lead to novel research questions and predictions. The three excellent commentaries broaden the scope of our article on gender-related math attitudes to include the transmission of implicit attitudes from adults to children, stereotype threat, and gender roles in math-related careers (Cheryan 2011; Gunderson et al. 2011b; Lane 2011; Shapiro and Williams 2011).     

Two Studies Examining the Error Theory Underlying the Measurement Model of the Verbal Aggressiveness Scale

Meta‐analysis indicates moderate correlations between the Verbal Aggressiveness Scale (VAS) and other self‐report measures but near‐zero correlations with behavioral measures. Accurately interpreting correlations between the VAS and other variables, however, requires an examination of the untested error theory underlying the measurement model for the VAS. In two separate studies, the results of single‐factor correlated uniqueness confirmatory factor analytic models revealed a pattern of significant error covariances indicating that VAS item scores are confounded by systematic error attributable to multiple unspecified latent effects. After pruning the item sets, we identified 4 items that were free of latent variable influences other than trait verbal aggressiveness. Implications for interpreting the verbal aggressiveness literature are discussed along with recommendations for revising the VAS.     

Behavioral Adaptation,Confidence, and Heuristic-Based Explanations of the Probing Effect

Researchers have found that asking probing questions of message sources does not enhance deception detection accuracy. Probing does, however, increase recipient and observer perceptions of source honesty, a finding we label the probing effect. This project examined 3 potential explanations for the probing effect: behavioral adaptation, confidence bias, and a probing heuristic. In Study 1, respondents (N = 337) viewed videotaped interviews in which probes were present or not present, and in which message source behaviors were controlled. Inconsistent with the behavioral adaptation explanation, respondents perceived probed sources as more honest than nonprobed sources, despite the fact that source behaviors were constant across conditions. The data also were inconsistent with the confidence bias explanation. Studies 2 and 3 investigated the probing heuristic explanation. The data from Study 2 (N = 136) were ambiguous, but the results of third study (N = 143) were consistent with the heuristic processing explanation of the probing effect.