title: Dynamic social power modulates neural basis of math calculation.
abstract: Both situational (e.g., perceived power) and sustained social factors (e.g., cultural stereotypes) are known to affect how people academically perform, particularly in the domain of mathematics. The ability to compute even simple mathematics, such as addition, relies on distinct neural circuitry within the inferior parietal and inferior frontal lobes, brain regions where magnitude representation and addition are performed. Despite prior behavioral evidence of social influence on academic performance, little is known about whether or not temporarily heightening a person's sense of power may influence the neural bases of math calculation. Here we primed female participants with either high or low power (LP) and then measured neural response while they performed exact and approximate math problems. We found that priming power affected math performance; specifically, females primed with high power (HP) performed better on approximate math calculation compared to females primed with LP. Furthermore, neural response within the left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), a region previously associated with cognitive interference, was reduced for females in the HP compared to LP group. Taken together, these results indicate that even temporarily heightening a person's sense of social power can increase their math performance, possibly by reducing cognitive interference during math performance.
authors: Department of Psychology, Northwestern University Evanston, IL, USA.
authors: Tokiko
authors: T
authors: Harada
authors: Donna J
authors: DJ
authors: Bridge
authors: Joan Y
authors: JY
authors: Chiao
keywords: fMRI; inferior frontal gyrus; math achievement; priming; social class
references: Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2007 Aug;33(8):1076-87
references: 17575244
references: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003 Sep;85(3):453-66
references: 14498782
references: Brain. 2000 Nov;123 ( Pt 11):2240-55
references: 11050024
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 2004 Apr;8(4):170-7
references: 15050513
references: Behav Brain Sci. 2009 Aug;32(3-4):313-28; discussion 328-73
references: 19712504
references: Nature. 2008 Oct 2;455(7213):665-8
references: 18776888
references: Psychol Rev. 2003 Apr;110(2):265-84
references: 12747524
references: Neuropsychologia. 2009 Jan;47(2):354-63
references: 18992759
references: Psychol Sci. 2008 May;19(5):441-7
references: 18466404
references: Neuroimage. 1999 Oct;10(4):385-96
references: 10493897
references: Cogn Neuropsychol. 2003 May 1;20(3):487-506
references: 20957581
references: Psychol Sci. 2006 Dec;17(12):1068-74
references: 17201789
references: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2007 May;136(2):256-76
references: 17500650
references: Nat Rev Neurosci. 2002 Mar;3(3):243-9
references: 11994756
references: Psychol Sci. 2008 Feb;19(2):168-75
references: 18271865
references: Cognition. 1992 Aug;44(1-2):1-42
references: 1511583
references: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003 Sep;85(3):440-52
references: 14498781
references: Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2009 Jun;1167:174-81
references: 19580563
references: Neuroimage. 2011 Jul 15;57(2):642-50
references: 21549201
references: Prog Neurobiol. 2008 Feb;84(2):132-47
references: 18155348
references: Science. 1999 May 7;284(5416):970-4
references: 10320379
references: Cognition. 1992 Aug;44(1-2):75-106
references: 1511587
references: Mem Cognit. 1988 Jan;16(1):45-53
references: 3339998
references: Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2010 Dec;20(6):803-9
references: 20850964