Solving for Why: Some Children Are More Likely to be Vulnerable to Math Anxiety

A high school math class experience is likely one of the more polarizing topics of conversation. You can mention your experiences in a math class and be guaranteed that someone will explain how they hated math in school and now avoid it at all costs. However, research is shedding some light on just how important math is to our daily lives. Low math achievement has a profoundly negative association in an individual’s life outcomes. Individuals are more likely locked-out of advanced math courses if they were unsuccessful in earlier classes. Job opportunities are less likely to go to those without proper math credentials. On top of that, poor math skills are tied to poor financial planning (Bynner and Parsons, 2006). 

Unfortunately, math anxiety is associated with low achievement in math classes. Not only is math anxiety associated with avoidance, but it is also linked to impairment in a child’s ability to think about math in a way that would help them solve complex problems (Ramirez et al. 2016). It is important to understand why some kids struggle with math because of the foundational nature of skills learned early on.  

Present study:

Working memory is an important ability to store and manipulate pertinent information while ignoring confusing or extraneous information. Math Anxiety introduces negative thoughts that make it difficult to access working memory while solving math problems. Children initially use simple problem solving strategies, like finger counting, when they start learning math, but usually move on to more memory-based advanced strategies as they develop. Examples of these memory-based strategies include decomposition and retrieval. Decomposition is breaking a problem down into manageable steps, and retrieval is remembering a particular fact needed for the answer. These strategies seem easy to adults who’ve had a lot of practice, but for kids these strategies place a lot of demand on working memory. Decomposition and retrieval, require long term memory recall and keeping tracking a series of different steps while ignoring inapplicable answers that are competing for their attention.

Ramirez et al. looked at the levels of math anxiety, the use of problem solving strategies, and working memory capacity in 564 first and second grade children. The researchers wanted to understand more about how math anxiety effects a child’s problem solving strategies when working on math problems.  Ramirez et al. hypothesized that children with math anxiety are less likely to use memory-based strategies. To test this theory, children were given a math anxiety questionnaire, a working memory task, a math assessment, and a task that assessed what type of strategy they used to solve a word problem without pencil or paper.     

In theory, higher working memory capacity in children is associated with more advanced memory-based strategy use, like those listed above, because they have a larger pool of memory resources to use. However, Ramirez et al. found that children who reported high math anxiety and scored high on working memory were less likely to use advanced memory-based strategies. The assumption was that math anxious children with high working memory try to use the memory-based strategies at first, but their math anxiety interrupts that process. As a result, high math anxious children are less likely to develop math skills because they remain reliant on simpler problem solving strategies. Ramirez et al. expressed concern that children that who scored high on working memory are more likely to be disproportionately impaired by the effects of math anxiety, since they might otherwise be capable to solve more difficult problems.

Going Forward

What can we take from this? Having a better understanding of how math anxiety is correlated to working memory and how it influences math achievement is critical in the development of appropriate interventions. We want the best programs to help our kids who struggle in school. Ramirez et al. suggest that once math anxiety is appropriately dealt with, math anxious kids with high working memory are more likely to use advanced memory-based strategies in the classroom. Being able to use those advanced strategies goes with higher math achievement in the classroom.  As I mentioned above, there are negative effects of having poor math skills. The bright side of that relationship is that gaining more math skills early on is linked to more positive outcomes in employment, school, and financial stability later on in life.

Ramirez et al. were also hopeful about anxiety interventions like cognitive reappraisal that could be modified for children’s math anxiety. Originally for adults, cognitive reappraisal challenges people to think about negative stimulus in a way that is less threatening. Ramirez et al. viewed this as a promising intervention in math anxiety.  Whether through this or other strategies, a strong argument can be made that early intervention in a math anxious child’s life has the potential to lay a solid foundation for future achievement.

References:

Bynner,J.,andParsons,S.(2006). Does numeracy matter more? London: National Research and Development Centre for Adult Literacy and Numeracy

Ramirez, G., Chang, H., Maloney, E. A., Levine, S. C., & Beilock, S. L. (2016). On the relationship between math anxiety and math achievement in early elementary school: The role of problem solving strategies. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 141, 83–100. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.07.014

Author: Melissa Elfers

Bullying Linked to Long-Term Outcomes Similar to Child Abuse

Can being bullied by peers put children at equally as great of risk for mental health problems later in life as being physically, sexually or emotionally abused by adults? Yes, a recent study has found. In fact, the findings suggest that children who are bullied may be at even greater risk. 

Previous research has linked both bullying and childhood abuse to various adverse mental health outcomes such as anxiety, depression, self-harm and suicide. However, in the case of bullying especially, it has been less clear if these poor outcomes are attributable to having been both maltreated and bullied, to previous maltreatment only, or if they exist independent of maltreatment. In other words, is bullying alone enough to put children at risk of developing future mental health problems?

To help answer this question, researchers at Warwick and Duke universities in the UK analyzed data from two groups of people that had been tracked throughout childhood and into young adulthood. 4026 children from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children in the United Kingdom, and 1420 children from the Great Smoky Mountain Study in the United States were included in the study.

In the UK cohort, children were assessed for maltreatment between the ages of 8 weeks and 8.6 years based on reports from their mothers. Then, on three occasions between the ages of 8 and 13, the children were asked to report themselves how frequently they had been bullied. In the US cohort, the children and their parents were interviewed annually between the ages of 9 and 16, and asked to report on the occurrence of both maltreatment and bullying. In both samples, the researchers followed up on participants in young adulthood, between the ages of 18 and 25. They were assessed for depression, anxiety, self harm and suicidal thoughts.

So what did they find? In both cohorts, children who were both maltreated and bullied were at greater risk for depression, anxiety, and overall mental health problems, compared to children who were neither maltreated or bullied. In the UK sample, they were also at greater risk for self-harm and suicidal thoughts.

Once family hardship was taken into account, children who were maltreated only were at no greater risk for mental health problems in young adulthood, compared to children who were neither maltreated or bullied, in the UK sample. However, in the US sample, children who were maltreated only were four times more likely to suffer from depression later in life.

Perhaps most surprising were the findings comparing children who were maltreated only to children who were bullied only. In both cohorts, children who were bullied but not maltreated were significantly more likely to experience overall mental health problems, than children who were maltreated but not bullied.

For example, in the UK sample, children who were bullied were one and a half times more likely than children who were maltreated to experience overall mental health problems in young adulthood. In the US sample, the findings were even more striking, with the bullied children at almost four times greater risk.

Likewise, in the US sample, children who were bullied only were nearly five times more likely to suffer from anxiety in young adulthood, compared to children who were maltreated but not bullied. In the UK cohort, the children who were bullied only were also at greater risk of self-harm and suicidal thoughts than children who were maltreated only.

So what does this all go to say? Well, first and foremost, it seems that being bullied by peers in childhood may actually be associated with worse long-term mental health outcomes than being maltreated by adults. This certainly stands in contrast to long-held societal beliefs that bullying is not that big of a deal, and is nothing more than a rite of passage for children.

Second of all, the findings suggest that we should at least be equally concerned about the abuse kids experience at the hands of other children, as we are about abuse delivered at the hands of adults.

           
Yet, if we were to survey the population at large and ask them which they think is more serious, maltreatment or bullying, I would hazard to guess that most people would indicate the former. Bullying has been written off as a rite of passage for so long, that I imagine very few would even consider maltreatment and bullying to be in the same playing field. The point is not to place bullying and child abuse on a scale and measure which one is worse. It is instead to highlight the lack of recognition bullying has received in our society as a bona fide traumatic event that may have a lasting negative impact on a person’s life.

This lack of recognition is important to address. It may be damaging to children experiencing bullying when they don’t receive the level of support they need because teachers, school administrators, and even parents underestimate how harmful bullying may be to a child’s development. Furthermore, when children who have been bullied grow up to experience mental health problems, they may be reluctant to seek support and accept the role being bullied may have played, due to shame from having been affected by something that people so often write off as “kids just being kids.”

This findings of this study are correlational only. That is, we don’t know if bullying causes mental health problems later in life, or if children who are predisposed to mental health problems are the ones more likely to be bullied. Still though, the findings do indicate that being bullied is a risk factor for mental health problems in young adulthood. 

Children who are victimized by their peers deserve our attention and resources in order to help prevent the development of mental health problems. High profile cases like that of Amanda Todd and Rehteah Parsons have recently pushed bullying into the media spotlight and sparked legislative action, but more still needs to be done. As a society we need to start taking bullying more seriously, in the same way we do other forms of abuse. Children should have the right to grow up free from all forms of violence and abuse. That experienced at the hands of adults, and also that carried out by their peers.

Lereya, S.T., Copeland, W.E., Costello, E.J., Wolke, D. (2015). Adult mental health consequences of peer bullying and maltreatment in childhood: two cohorts in two countries. Lancet Psychiatry, (2), 524-531. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S2215-0366(15)00165-0


- Kathryn Pierce

Children and Mystery Man Team Up to Clear Innocent Suspects

The cornerstone of any criminal investigation is eye witness testimony. Amid the abundance of crime investigation shows saturating broadcast schedules, there is a common theme, the witness is brought in, shown a lineup of potential criminals that fit the description of the suspect, and asked to pick out which of the people in front of them is the one whodunit, or say that the real culprit is, in fact, not there. It shouldn’t be surprising that, contrary to what TV and movies would have you believe, these lineups are typically done with photos of suspects (rather than rounding up the lookalikes for in person lineups) to save time and money. Across the pond in Great Britain, investigators are beginning to use video lineups as a more refined alternative to the traditional photo lineups presented to witnesses. In these video lineups, a frontal view of the suspect is shown, followed by two profiles of the suspect; this slideshow is then repeated for the remaining suspects.

Sadly, we really aren’t that good at making the right decision in regards to police lineups. Child witnesses, who are often the only witnesses to crimes, are particularly bad at making the right lineup decision – especially when the real culprit isn’t there. In fact, some research shows that (when the real criminal isn’t in the lineup) child witnesses only make the correct decision one in four times – meaning they are three times more likely to pick an innocent person than to say “he’s not here!”. Child witnesses often feel compelled to choose someone – even when the actual criminal is nowhere to be found in the lineup of photos. So what’s the big deal if some kid makes a mistake and picks out the wrong guy from a police lineup? Surely, the other evidence will overturn the mistaken child’s judgement. Not so. Judges and jurors place a huge amount of emphasis on eye witness testimony. Children who identify innocent people as criminals in police lineups can contribute to sending these innocent people to court and because the identification from an eyewitness is so powerful, these innocents are sometimes falsely convicted, forcing them into jail for years before their appeals can be heard.

Researchers have developed a strategy to help reduce the chances that a child will mistakenly identify an innocent person in a lineup if the child doesn’t see the real criminal in the lineup. He’s called the mystery man. The mystery man is an additional set of pictures put into the video lineup that is simply a silhouetted man with a question mark on his face. The idea is that this mystery man is the catch-all option for children. Because children feel compelled to choose somebody from the lineup (even if they’re told that it’s okay to say “he’s not here”), the mystery man allows the child to make a choice without mistakenly picking a picture that looks close enough to the real criminal.

The researchers showed children a video of a man robbing an office and then, a few days later, gave the children a video lineup either with or without the mystery man, where the real robber was either pictured or not pictured in the lineup. The researchers found that children, as young as five, had a better chance of making the right decision when the real criminal wasn’t in the lineup with the mystery man included in the lineup, than when the mystery man was not included in the lineup. When the mystery man was included, children were over two times more likely to correctly say that the real criminal wasn’t really there. When the culprit was in the lineup as well as the mystery man, children correctly identified the criminal just as often as when the mystery man wasn’t included and the criminal was there. So, the mystery man did not hurt the children’s ability to pick out the criminal when he was actually in the lineup.

In a practical sense, the simple addition of a male silhouette with a question mark on his face can greatly increase a child’s ability to make the right decision in a police lineup. In many cases, children are the only witnesses and provide an important source of information about the crime. By using the mystery man in police lineups, investigators can help children to be better at making the right decisions when the real criminal is not in the lineup. The result is that fewer innocent people will be identified by these child witness, these innocent people will be less likely to go to court to face charges to crimes they did not commit. This next-to-free change in police lineup procedures will help children to be more accurate witnesses – even children as young as five years old!

Adam Newton

Havard, C., & Memon, A. (2013). The mystery man can help reduce false identification for child witnesses: Evidence from video line‐ups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(1), 50-59. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.2870