Click here to load reader
Upload
trannhu
View
218
Download
4
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Supplemental Materials
Stereotype Threat as a Trigger of Mind-Wandering in Older Adults
By Megan L. Jordano and Dayna R. Touron, 2015, Psychology and Aging
Additional measures. Several single-item, Likert-scale post-task questions were included to
measure factors that might influence mind-wandering and Operation Span (OSPAN) letter recall
performance. We found that perceived overall task difficulty (F (3,110) = 1.992, p = .119) and
perceived difficulty of the letter recall portion of the OSPAN (F (3,110) = 1.106, p = .350) did
not differ by condition. Although older adults (OAs) did worse on average than younger adults
(YAs) on the OSPAN, they did not report finding the OSPAN or its subcomponents more
difficult than did YAs. Self-rated effort in completing the OSPAN likewise did not differ by
condition (F (3,110) = 2.231, p = .089). As shown in Table 2, greater recall and overall difficulty
were related to higher proportions of task-related interference (TRI), whereas greater effort was
related to lower proportions of task-unrelated thoughts (TUTs).
We also included a single-item Likert-scale question asking participants if they believed
there was a stereotype that OAs have worse memory ability than do YAs, and found that there
was an effect of condition of this response, F (3,110) = 5.186, p = .002. ST activated OAs had
higher scores for this question than did YAs and OA controls (all p values < .05 for t-test focused
comparisons), meaning that they were more likely to believe that the negative stereotype existed.
ST relief OAs were also more likely to believe the negative stereotype existed than did YAs and
OA controls (all p values < .05 for t-test focused comparisons). As shown in Table 2, greater
stereotype awareness was related to lower proportions of TUTs and to higher proportions of TRI.
Because the effect of stereotype threat (ST) on task performance has been proposed to be
mediated by the importance of good performance in the stereotype domain (Hess et al., 2013)
and anxiety during completion of the stereotype task (Chasteen, 2005; Abrams et al., 2005), we
included the Anxiety and Achievement subscales of the Metamemory in Adulthood (MIA)
Questionnaire (Dixon & Hultsch, 1984). There was no effect of condition on MIA Achievement
scores (F (3,113) = .212, p =.888) but there was on effect of condition on MIA Anxiety scores, F
(3,113) = 3.716, p = .014. As expected, OAs activated for stereotype threat had higher scores on
the anxiety scale of the MIA than did OA controls and OAs relieved of stereotype threat (all p
values < .05 for t-test focused comparisons), indicating that activated OAs reported experiencing
greater anxiety while completing everyday memory tasks. YAs also reported significantly higher
scores on the anxiety scale of the MIA than did OA controls and ST relief OAs relieved
stereotype threat (all p values < .05 for t-test focused comparisons). As shown in Table 2, higher
MIA achievement scores were related to lower proportions of TUTs and to higher proportions of
TRI, and higher MIA Anxiety scores were related to lower proportions of TUTs.
The Influence of Age, Task difficulty, and Importance of Task Performance on TRI.
Different mechanisms have been proposed to explain how stereotype threat affects task
performance. In the current study, we conducted exploratory mediational analyses to gain a
better understanding of which factors influence proportion of probe-caught TRI. We also wished
to gain a better understanding of how mind-wandering (particularly TRI) may mediate the
relationship between factors such as task engagement, perceived task difficulty, and mood, and
performance on the stereotyped task. To do this, we conducted a regression predicting letter
recall accuracy, as well as an additional mediational analyses using bootstrapping.
When looking at the entire sample of participants, the following factors were
significantly correlated with TRI and with letter recall accuracy during the OSPAN:
chronological age, perceived overall OSPAN difficulty, perceived letter recall difficulty, self-
rated task effort, self-rated stress, self-rated focus on the letter recall portion of the OSPAN,
importance of good memory performance (as measured by the Achievement scale of the MIA),
memory anxiety (as measured by the Anxiety scale of the MIA), and belief in the existence of a
negative aging and memory stereotype (see Table 2). When excluding YA participants and only
looking at OA participants, the only factor significantly correlated with TRI variables and with
letter recall accuracy during the OSPAN was perceived letter recall difficulty (see Table 3).
To better understand which factors are most important in predicting proportion of probe-
caught TRI, we conducted three regression analyses using our entire sample of participants in
which chronological age, OSPAN difficulty, letter recall difficulty, task effort, stress, focus on
the letter recall portion of the OSPAN, MIA Achievement scores, and MIA anxiety scores were
simultaneously entered to predict proportion of probe-caught TRI, proportion of probe-caught
proactive TRI, and proportion of probe-caught reactive TRI (see Table 4). Chronological age (
= .033, p = .012) and participants’ self-rated importance of good memory performance as
measured by MIA Achievement scores ( = .009, p = .031) both emerged as significant
predictors of overall proportion of probe-caught TRI. Chronological age also emerged as a
significant predictor of reactive TRI about task performance evaluation ( = .001, p = .002).
Conversely, for proportion of proactive TRI about task-strategy or task approach, participants’
self-rated letter recall difficulty was the only factor that emerged as a significant predictor (
= .002, p = .011). These regression analyses indicate that different participant characteristics
predict different types of TRI experiences. Wihtin our older adult sample, self-rated letter recall
difficulty was a significant predictor of mean proportion of overall probe-caught TRI ( = .051,
p = .002).
TRI as a Mediator in the Relationships between Stress, Task Difficulty, and Task
Performance. In addition to the regression analyses, we conducted exploratory mediational
analyses to determine whether probe-caught TRI mediates the relationship between the
aforementioned factors and letter recall accuracy. Using our entire sample of participants, we
examined overall TRI as a mediator for the stress, OSPAN difficulty, and recall difficulty
factors, while the fourth examined proactive TRI as a mediator for recall difficulty. The results
of these analyses are displayed in Figure 1.
First, using 6000 resamples, we tested for indirect effects of overall probe-caught TRI on
letter recall accuracy. Bootstrapping was used to calculate the confidence interval around the
indirect effect. The 95% confidence interval (CI) was [-2.236, -.167] with zero falling outside of
this confidence interval, indicating that probe-caught TRI mediates the relationship between
stress and letter recall accuracy, p = .03. Probe-caught TRI was also found to mediate the
relationship between perceived OSPAN task difficulty and letter recall accuracy and between
perceived letter recall difficulty and letter recall accuracy. The 95% CIs were [-3.20, -.233] and
[-3.212, -.326], respectively, with zero falling outside of these intervals (p = .021 and p = .047,
respectively). Finally, we tested for an indirect effect of proactive TRI on recall accuracy,
finding that proactive TRI likewise mediated the relationship between perceived letter recall
difficulty and recall accuracy (95% CI [-2.367, -.071], p = .025).
We were interested in whether these patterns would hold for older adults. Accordingly,
excluding the YA sample and only looking at our OA sample, we conducted an additional
mediational analysis to determine whether probe-caught TRI mediates the relationship between
older adults’ self-rated letter recall difficulty and letter recall accuracy. We did not test the
mediation models for the relationships between stress and overall difficulty ratings with TRI and
recall accuracy, due to having obtained nonsignificant correlations between these variables in the
OA sample. The result of our analysis is displayed in Figure 2. Using 6000 resamples, we tested
for indirect effects of overall probe-caught TRI on letter recall accuracy. Bootstrapping was used
to calculate the confidence interval around the indirect effect. The 95% confidence interval (CI)
was [-.177, .002] with zero falling inside of this confidence interval, indicating that probe-caught
TRI did not mediate the relationship between self-rated letter recall difficulty and letter recall
accuracy, p = .06 in older adults.
The difference in correlation and mediation model patterns when we restrict analysis to
the OA sample likely reflects the reduced statistical power of these tests. However, it is also
possible that the effects obtained for the full sample are inflated by the low levels of TRI and
higher recall accuracy by the young adult group. Given the exploratory nature of these models,
the outcomes should be considered tentative and should be further investigated in future
research.
Table 1. Experimental task verbal instructions.
Instructions for Younger Adult and Older Adult Control Groups:
“You will soon complete a variety of tasks presented on our lab computers. For the first task, you will be required to alternate between verifying mathematical equations and remembering letters in a specified order. You will have opportunity to practice the task before data collection actually begins. Feedback will be provided. Occasionally, questions will come up during the task asking you to report whether or not you were completely focused on the task. Having some off-task thoughts is normal, so please answer these questions as honestly and accurately as possible. Following this task, you will complete a few additional questionnaires. A more detailed set of instructions will be presented on the computer screen as you move through the experiment.”
Instructions for the Older Adult Stereotype Threat Relief Group:
“You will soon complete a variety of tasks presented on our lab computers. For the first task, you will complete a task that is specifically designed to measure mathematical ability. For this task, you will be required to alternate between verifying mathematical equations and remembering letters in a specified order. You will have opportunity to practice the mathematical task before data collection actually begins. Feedback will be provided. Occasionally, questions will come up during the mathematical task asking you to report whether or not you were completely focused on the task. Having some off-task thoughts is normal, so please answer these questions as honestly and accurately as possible. Following this mathematical task, you will complete a few additional questionnaires. A more detailed set of instructions will be presented on the computer screen as you move through the experiment.”
Instructions for the Older Adult Stereotype Threat Activated Group:
“You will soon complete a variety of tasks presented on our lab computers. For the first task, you will complete a task that is specifically designed to measure memory ability. For this task, you will be required to alternate between verifying mathematical equations and remembering letters in a specified order. You will have opportunity to practice the memory task before data
collection actually begins. Feedback will be provided. Occasionally, questions will come up during the memory task asking you to report whether or not you were completely focused on the task. Having some off-task thoughts is normal, so please answer these questions as honestly and accurately as possible. Following this memory task, you will complete a few additional questionnaires. A more detailed set of instructions will be presented on the computer screen as you move through the experiment.”
Table 2
Overall Correlations for Mind-Wandering Variables and Letter Recall
Variable OT TUT TRI Proactive TRI
Reactive TRI
Recall Accuracy
Age .059 -.349** .210* .135 .195* -.109DSSQ TUT -.340** .416** .052 -.030 .096 -.027DSSQ TRI -.247** -.060 .347** .173 .324** -.119Recall Difficulty -.172 -.096 .291** .336** .128 -.279**Overall Difficulty -.067 -.164 .236* .212* .121 -.284**Recall Focus .209* -.238** -.050 .023 -.071 .367**Stress -162 -.005 .197* .152 .157 -.202*Fatigue -.068 .063 .018 .008 .033 -.206*Effort .175 -.400** .145 .134 .079 -.040Stereotype Awareness
-.074 -.240** .283** .226* .226* -.148
MIA Achievement -.039 -.215* .220* .185* .168 -.120MIA Anxiety -.129 -.214* .155 .021 .142 -.116Positive Mood .104 -.305** .128 .175 .052 -.045Negative Mood -.144 .048 .154 -.056 .101 -.055
Note. OT = proportion of probe-caught on-task thoughts. TUT = proportion of probe-caught task-unrelated thoughts. TRI =proportion of probe-
caught task-related interference. Proactive TRI = proportion of probe-caught TRI regarding task approach or strategy. Reactive TRI = proportion
of probe-caught TRI regarding evaluation of task performance. Recall accuracy = accuracy on the letter recall portion of the OSPAN. Age =
Chronological age in years. DSSQ TUT= score on the TUT subscale of the DSSQ (out of 40), with higher scores indicating more TUTs. DSSQ TRI=
score on the TRI subscale of the DSSQ (out of 40), with higher scores indicating more TRI. Recall difficulty = self-rated perceived difficulty of the
recall portion of the OSPAN (out of 5, where 1=not at all difficulty, 5= very difficult). Overall difficulty = self-rated perceived difficulty of the
OSPAN task overall (out of 5, where 1= not at all difficult, 5 = very difficult. Stress = self-rated perceived stress or anxiety during the OSPAN (out
of 5, where 1= not at all stressed, 5 = very stressed). Fatigue = how fatiguing the OSPAN was perceived to be (out of 5, where 1= not at all
fatiguing, 5 = very fatiguing). Effort = self-rated effort during the OSPAN task (out of 5, where 1= no effort at all, 5 = a lot of effort). Stereotype
awareness = self-rated belief that a negative stereotype regarding aging and cognitive decline exists (out of 5, where 1= strongly disagree that
there is a stereotype that OAs are inferior to YAs in terms of cognitive ability, 5 = strongly agree that there is a stereotype that OAs are inferior to
YAs in terms of cognitive ability). MIA Achievement = Score on the memory achievement scale of the MIA (out of 75), with higher scores
indicating more self-rated importance of good memory performance. MIA Anxiety = Score on the memory anxiety scale of the MIA (out of 65) ,
with higher scores indicating more self-rated anxiety while completing daily task that have a memory component. Positive mood = score on the
positive affect scale of the PANAS (out of 50), with higher scores indicating more positive mood. Negative mood = score on the negative affect
scale of the PANAS (out of 50), with higher scores indicating more negative mood.
* indicates p < .05. ** indicates p < .001.
Table 3
Correlations for Mind-Wandering Variables and Letter Recall for the Older Adult Sample
Variable OT TUT TRI Proactive TRI
Reactive TRI
Recall Accuracy
Age .035 .114 -.115 -.051 .035 .238*DSSQ TUT -.393** .286** .052 .074 .293** -.076DSSQ TRI -.391** .015 .431** .167 .433** -.117Recall Difficulty -.222* -.042 .284** .326** .120 -.271*Overall Difficulty -.113 -.081 .203 .170 .107 -.308**Recall Focus .216* -.111 -.177 -.068 -.162 .521**Stress -182 -.008 .210 .143 .182 -.200Fatigue -.101 -.007 .105 .035 .139 -.302**Effort .131 -.282** .055 .056 .012 -.009Stereotype Awareness
-.164 -.172 .290** .193 .255* -.129
MIA Achievement -.107 -.175 .222* .153 .201 -.094MIA Anxiety -.175 -.029 .251* .057 .226* -.170Positive Mood .123 -.135 -.061 .087 -.134 .115Negative Mood -.174 .109 .130 -.019 .183 -.109
Note. OT = proportion of probe-caught on-task thoughts. TUT = proportion of probe-caught task-unrelated thoughts. TRI =proportion of probe-
caught task-related interference. Proactive TRI = proportion of probe-caught TRI regarding task approach or strategy. Reactive TRI = proportion
of probe-caught TRI regarding evaluation of task performance. Recall accuracy = accuracy on the letter recall portion of the OSPAN. Age =
Chronological age in years. DSSQ TUT= score on the TUT subscale of the DSSQ (out of 40), with higher scores indicating more TUTs. DSSQ TRI=
score on the TRI subscale of the DSSQ (out of 40), with higher scores indicating more TRI. Recall difficulty = self-rated perceived difficulty of the
recall portion of the OSPAN (out of 5, where 1=not at all difficulty, 5= very difficult). Overall difficulty = self-rated perceived difficulty of the
OSPAN task overall (out of 5, where 1= not at all difficult, 5 = very difficult. Stress = self-rated perceived stress or anxiety during the OSPAN (out
of 5, where 1= not at all stressed, 5 = very stressed). Fatigue = how fatiguing the OSPAN was perceived to be (out of 5, where 1= not at all
fatiguing, 5 = very fatiguing). Effort = self-rated effort during the OSPAN task (out of 5, where 1= no effort at all, 5 = a lot of effort). Stereotype
awareness = self-rated belief that a negative stereotype regarding aging and cognitive decline exists (out of 5, where 1= strongly disagree that
there is a stereotype that OAs are inferior to YAs in terms of cognitive ability, 5 = strongly agree that there is a stereotype that OAs are inferior to
YAs in terms of cognitive ability). MIA Achievement = Score on the memory achievement scale of the MIA (out of 75), with higher scores
indicating more self-rated importance of good memory performance. MIA Anxiety = Score on the memory anxiety scale of the MIA (out of 65) ,
with higher scores indicating more self-rated anxiety while completing daily task that have a memory component. Positive mood = score on the
positive affect scale of the PANAS (out of 50), with higher scores indicating more positive mood. Negative mood = score on the negative affect
scale of the PANAS (out of 50), with higher scores indicating more negative mood.
* indicates p < .05. ** indicates p < .001.
Table 4
Regression models for TRI, Proactive TRI, and Reactive TRI
TRI Proactive TRI Reactive TRIEstimate SE p Estimate SE p Estimate SE p
Intercept -.677 .246 <.001 -.306 .157 .053 -.357 .185 .055Age .003 .001 .012 .001 .001 .320 .002 .001 .011Recall Difficulty .044 .027 .108 .050 .017 .005 <.001 .020 .987Overall Difficulty .006 .028 .084 .001 .018 .954 -.003 .021 .869Recall Focus -.044 .027 .107 -.006 .017 .730 -.034 .020 .094Stress -.003 .025 .897 -.007 .016 .668 .001 .019 .615Effort .004 .026 .891 .001 .017 .978 -.002 .020 .886Stereotype Awareness
.024 .025 .339 .009 .016 .586 .019 .018 .311
MIA Achievement .009 .004 .031 .005 .003 .076 .005 .003 .104MIA Anxiety .005 .003 .132 -.001 .002 .686 .004 .002 .164
Note. Age = Chronological age in years. Recall difficulty = self-rated perceived difficulty of the recall portion of the OSPAN (out of 5, where 1=not
at all difficulty, 5= very difficult). Overall difficulty = self-rated perceived difficulty of the OSPAN task overall (out of 5, where 1=not at all
difficulty, 5= very difficult). Recall focus = self-rated focus on the letter recall portion of the OSPAN (out of 5, where 1= not at all focused, 5 = very
much focused). Stress = self-rated perceived stress or anxiety during the OSPAN (out of 5, where 1= not at all stressed, 5 = very stressed). Effort =
self-rated effort during the OSPAN task (out of 5, where 1= no effort at all, 5 = a lot of effort). Stereotype awareness = self-rated belief that a
negative stereotype regarding aging and cognitive decline exists (out of 5, where 1= strongly disagree that there is a stereotype that OAs are
inferior to YAs in terms of cognitive ability, 5 = strongly agree that there is a stereotype that OAs are inferior to YAs in terms of cognitive ability ).
MIA Achievement = Score on the memory achievement scale of the MIA (out of 75), with higher scores indicating more self-rated importance of
good memory performance. MIA Anxiety = Score on the memory anxiety scale of the MIA (out of 65), with higher scores indicating more self-
rated anxiety while completing daily task that have a memory component.
Figure 1. Analysis 1 examined overall TRI as a mediator of the relationship between stress and recall accuracy. Analysis 2 examined overall TRI as
a mediator of the relationship between overall OSPAN difficulty and recall accuracy. Analysis 3 examined overall TRI as a mediator of the
relationship between recall difficulty and recall accuracy. Analysis 4 examined proactive TRI as a mediator of the relationship between recall
difficulty and recall accuracy. Overall probe-caught TRI mediated the relationship between stress and recall accuracy, perceived task difficulty
and recall accuracy, and perceived recall difficulty and recall accuracy. Proactive probe-caught TRI mediated the relationship between perceived
recall difficulty and recall accuracy. a paths indicate the effects of the IVs on the mediators, b paths indicate the direct effects of mediators on
the DVs, c paths indicate the total effect of the IVs on the DVs, and c’ paths indicate the direct effect of the IVs on the DVs. * indicates p < .05. **
indicates p < .001.
Figure 2. Mediation analyses excluding younger adults. The analysis examined overall TRI as a mediator of the relationship between recall
difficulty and recall accuracy. a paths indicate the effects of the IVs on the mediators, b paths indicate the direct effects of mediators on the DVs,
c paths indicate the total effect of the IVs on the DVs, and c’ paths indicate the direct effect of the IVs on the DVs. * indicates p < .05. ** indicates
p < .001.