Момент истины. Почему мы ошибаемся, когда все поставлено на карту, и что с этим делать?

68. В 2001 г. 90% всех комплектов Lego, проданных в США, предназначались для мальчиков. См.: Mattel sees untapped market for blocks: Little girls // Wall Street Journal, 2002. June 6. Более того, как сообщала Wall Street Journal 24 декабря 2009 г., Lego практически отсутствуют на рынке игрушек для девочек: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704254604574613791179449708.html.

69. Hassett J. M., Siebert E. R., Wallen K. Sex differences in rhesus monkey toy preferences parallel those of children // Hormones & Behavior, 2008. Vol. 54. Pp. 359–364.

70. Wallen K. Hormonal influences on sexually differentiated behavior in nonhuman primates // Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 2005. Vol. 26. Pp. 7–26.

71. Connellan J. et al. Sex differences in human neonatal social perception // Infant Behavior & Development, 2000. Vol. 23. Pp. 113–118.

72. Дополнительно см.: Spelke E. S. Sex Differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics and science? A critical review // American Psychologist, 2005. Vol. 60. Pp. 950–958.

73. Guiso L., Monte F., Sapienza P., Zingales L. Culture, gender, and math // Science, 2008. Vol. 320. Pp. 1164–1165.

74. Mattel says it erred; Teen Talk Barbie turns silent on math // New York Times, 1992. October 21 // http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/21/business/company-news-mattel-says-it-erred-teen-talk-barbie-turns-silent-on-math.html.

75. Figlio D. N. Why Barbie says ‘Math is Hard’ // Working Paper, University of Florida, December 2005.

76. Больше прочесть о гендерных различиях в привязке к именам можно здесь: Пинкер С. Субстанция мышления: язык как окно в человеческую природу. М. : КД Либроком, 2013.

77. Murphy M. C., Steele C. M., Gross J. J. Signaling threat: how situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings // Psychological Science, 2007. Vol. 18. Pp. 879–885.

78. Steele C. M. A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance // American Psychologist, 1997. Vol. 6. Pp. 613–629.

79. Tyre P. The Trouble with Boys: A Surprising Report Card on Our Sons, Their Problems at School, and What Parents and Educators Must Do. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2008.

80. College Board, Summary Reports: 2007: National Report // http://www.collegeboard.com/.

Глава 5

81. Hembree R. The nature, effects, and relief of mathematics anxiety // Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 1990. Vol. 21. Pp. 33–46. См. также: Beilock S. L., Gunderson L. A., Ramirez G., Levine S. C. Female teachers’ math anxiety affects girls’ math achievement // Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 2010. Vol. 107. Pp. 1860–1863.

82. Alexander L., Martray C. The development of an abbreviated version of the Mathematics Anxiety Rating Scale // Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 1989. Vol. 22. Pp. 143–150. Перепечатано с разрешения.

83. Foundations for Success: The Final Report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel, 2008 // http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/report/final-report.pdf.

84. Ashcraft M. H., Kirk E. P. The relationships among working memory, math anxiety, and performance // Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2001. Vol. 130. Pp. 224–237.

85. Steele C. M., Aronson J. Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African-Americans // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1995. Vol. 69. Pp. 797–811.

86. Aronson J. et al. When white men can’t do math: Necessary and sufficient factors in stereotype threat // Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1999. Vol. 35. Pp. 29–46.

87. Smith E. E., Jonides J. Storage and executive processes in the frontal lobes // Science, 1999. Vol. 283. Pp. 1657–1661.

88. Rothmayr C. et al. Dissociation of neural correlates of verbal and non-verbal visual working memory with different delays // Behavioral and Brain Functions, 2007. Vol. 3. P. 56. Воспроизведено с разрешения.

89. Beilock S. L., Rydell R. J., McConnell A. R. Stereotype threat and working memory: Mechanisms, alleviation, and spill over // Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2007. Vol. 136. Pp. 256–276.

90. DeCaro M. S., Rotar K. E., Kendra M. S., Beilock S. L. Diagnosing and alleviating the impact of performance pressure on mathematical problem solving // Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 2010 // https://hpl.uchicago.edu/sites/hpl.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/QJEP_2010.pdf.

91. Wang J. et al. Perfusion functional MRI reveals cerebral blood flow pattern under psychological stress // PNAS, 2005. Vol. 102. Pp. 17804–17809.

92. Beilock S. L., Carr T. H. When high-powered people fail: Working memory and ‘choking under pressure’ in math // Psychological Science, 2005. Vol. 16. Pp. 101–105.

93. Gimmig D., Huguet P., Caverni J., Cury F. Choking under pressure and working memory capacity: When performance pressure reduces fluid intelligence // Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2005. Vol. 13. Pp. 1005–1010.