Beyond cognitive deficits: how social class shapes social cognition

Math items about real-world content lower test-scores of students from families with low socioeconomic status

In many countries, standardized math tests are important for achieving academic success. Here, we examine whether content of items, the story that explains a mathematical question, biases performance of low-SES students. In a large-scale cohort study of Trends in International Mathematics and Science Studies (TIMSS)-including data from 58 countries from students in grades 4 and 8 (N = 5501,165)-we examine whether item content that is more likely related to challenges for low-SES students (money, food, social relationships) improves their performance, compared with their average math performance. Results show that low-SES students scored lower on items with this specific content than expected based on an individual's average performance. The effect sizes are substantial: on average, the chance to answer correctly is 18% lower. From a hidden talents approach, these results are unexpected. However, they align with other theoretical frameworks such as scarcity mindset, providing new insights for fair testing.

Unraveling the social hierarchy: Exploring behavioral and neural dynamics in shaping inhibitory control

Inhibitory control is crucial for regulating emotions, suppressing biases, and inhibiting inappropriate responses in social interactions. Social rank, or perceived position in the hierarchy, can influence inhibitory control, with high-rank individuals requiring it to regulate dominant behavior and low-rank individuals requiring it to regulate emotional reactions or avoid submissive behaviors. Furthermore, research suggests that social status can affect the neural mechanisms underlying inhibitory control, leading to differences in abilities and strategies based on perceived rank. In this study, we investigated the effects of social rank on inhibitory control using a dot estimation task to prime social hierarchy. Subsequently, we assessed the inhibitory control of the participants using a Go/Nogo task with photos of individuals in different social ranks. The study recruited a total of 43 students (22 males and 21 females), with a mean age of 26.8 years (SD=4.08). We measured both behavioral (reaction time and response accuracy) and electrophysiological (N200 and P300 event-related potentials) responses to investigate the neural correlates of inhibitory control. Results showed that participants responded slower to lower-rank individuals but had higher accuracy when inhibiting their response to them. The N200 amplitude was greater when presented with higher ranks stimuli in Go trials, indicating greater conflict monitoring, while the P300 amplitude was significantly higher in Nogo trials compared to Go trials. These findings suggest that social rank can influence inhibitory control and highlight the importance of considering the impact of social hierarchy in social interactions.

The Misguided Veneration of Averageness in Clinical Neuroscience: A Call to Value Diversity over Typicality

Research and practice in clinical neurosciences often involve cognitive assessment. However, this has traditionally used a nomothetic approach, comparing the performance of patients to normative samples. This method of defining abnormality places the average test performance of neurologically healthy individuals at its center. However, evidence suggests that neurological 'abnormalities' are very common, as is the diversity of cognitive abilities. The veneration of central tendency in cognitive assessment, i.e., equating typicality with healthy or ideal, is, I argue, misguided on neurodiversity, bio-evolutionary, and cognitive neuroscientific grounds. Furthermore, the use of average performance as an anchor point for normal performance is unreliable in practice and frequently leads to the mischaracterization of cognitive impairments. Examples are explored of how individuals who are already vulnerable for socioeconomic reasons can easily be over-pathologized. At a practical level, by valuing diversity rather than typicality, cognitive assessments can become more idiographic and focused on change at the level of the individual. The use of existing methods that approach cognitive assessment ideographically is briefly discussed, including premorbid estimation methods and informant reports. Moving the focus away from averageness to valuing diversity for both clinical cognitive assessments and inclusion of diverse groups in research is, I argue, a more just and effective way forward for clinical neurosciences.