The Mathematical Intelligencer

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 19–26 | Cite as

Gender Gaps in Science: The Creativity Factor



Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [Ad]
    Alfred Adler, “Mathematics and creativity”, The New Yorker Magazine (February 19, 1972)Google Scholar
  2. [An]
    Mike Antonucci, “Sparks Fly”, Stanford Magazine March/April 2011, 1-6, (accessed January 26, 2012)
  3. [BK]
    John Baer and James C. Kaufman, “Gender differences in creativity”, Journal of Creative Behavior 42(2), 75–105 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [Ba]
    Lotte Bailyn, (accessed January 26, 2012)
  5. [BL]
    David P. Barash and Judith Eve Lipton, Gender Gap: the Biology of Male-Female Differences, Transaction Publishers (2001)Google Scholar
  6. [BMS]
    James P. Byrnes, David C. Miller, and William D. Schafer, “Gender Differences in Risk Taking: A Meta-Analysis”, Psychological Bulletin, 125(3), 367–383 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [Br]
    Tim Brown, TED lecture “Serious Play”, Art Center Design Conference May 2008, (accessed January 26, 2012)
  8. [Col]
    Susan Jane Colley, Review of “The Mathematics of Sex”, American Mathematical Monthly 118, 379–382 (2011)Google Scholar
  9. [CIWS]
    Cornell Institute for Women in Science, (accessed January 26, 2012)
  10. [Cr]
    Gary Cross, Men to Boys: The Making of Modern Immaturity, Columbia University Press (2008)Google Scholar
  11. [CW1]
    Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams (Editors), Why Aren’t More Women in Science? Top Researchers Debate the Evidence, American Psychological Association (2006)Google Scholar
  12. [CW2]
    Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams, “Sex Differences in Math-Intensive Fields”, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(5), 275–279 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [CW3]
    Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams, The Mathematics of Sex: How Biology and Society Conspire to Limit Talented Women and Girls, Oxford University Press (2010)Google Scholar
  14. [CW4]
    Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams, “Understanding Current Causes of Women’s Underrepresentation in Science”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (February 7, 2011)Google Scholar
  15. [CWB]
    Stephen J. Ceci, Wendy M. Williams, and Susan M. Barnett, “Women’s Underrepresentation in Science: Sociocultural and Biological Considerations”, Psychological Bulletin 135, 218–261 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [FBAM]
    Adrian Furnham, Mark Batey, Katen Anand, and James Manfield, “Personality, hypomania, intelligence and creativity”, Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1060–1069 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [GK]
    Ann Gallagher and James Kaufman, Gender Differences in Mathematics, Cambridge University Press (2005)Google Scholar
  18. [GL]
    Matthew W. Gallagher and Shane J. Lopez, “Curiosity and well-being”, The Journal of Positive Psychology 2(4), 236–248 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [Ha]
    Laurilyn J. Harris, “Two sexes in the mind: perceptual and creative differences between women and men”, The Journal of Creative Behavior, 23(1), 14–25 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [He]
    Reuben Hersh, “Under-represented, then over-represented: a memoir of Jews in American mathematics”, College Mathematics Journal 41(1), 2–9 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [Ho]
    Alice S. Honig, “Promoting Creativity, Giftedness, and Talent in Young Children in Preschool and School Situations”, in M. Bloom & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Promoting Creativity across the Life Span, 83–125, CWLA Press (2001)Google Scholar
  22. [KM]
    Jonathan M. Kane and Janet E. Mertz, “Debunking myths about gender and mathematics performance”, Notices of the American Mathematical Society 59(1), 10–21 (2012)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [KRF]
    Todd B. Kashdan, Paul Rose, and Frank D. Fincham, “Curiosity and Exploration: Facilitating Positive Subjective Experiences and Personal Growth Opportunities”, Journal of Personality Assessment 82(3), 291–305 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [Le]
    David Leonhardt, “Why are men happier than women?” New York Times, September 25, 2007, (accessed January 26, 2012)
  25. [Li]
    Daniel E. Lieberman, “Our Hunter-Gatherer Bodies”, New York Times, May 13, 2011, (accessed January 26, 2012)
  26. [MR]
    Charalampos Mainemelis and Sarah Ronson, “Ideas are born in fields of play: Towards a theory of play and creativity in organizational settings”, Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 81–131 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [NSF1]
    National Science Foundation, “Advance Program”, (accessed January 26, 2012)
  28. [NSF2]
    National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics. 2011. Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2011. Special Report NSF 11-309. Arlington, VA, (accessed January 26, 2012)
  29. [NSF3]
    National Science Foundation, Professional Opportunities for Women in Research and Education (POWRE), (accessed January 26, 2012)
  30. [P1]
    Jane Piirto, “Why are there so few? (Creative women: Visual artists, mathematicians, musicians)”, Roeper Review 13(3), 142–147 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. [P2]
    Jane Piirto, Understanding Creativity, Great Potential Press (2004)Google Scholar
  32. [RB]
    Jan-Erik Ruth and James E. Birren, “Creativity in adulthood and old age: Relation to intelligence, sex, and mode of testing”, International Journal of Behavorial Development 8, 99–101 (1985)Google Scholar
  33. [RH]
    Betty B. Rossman, and John L. Horn, “Cognitive, Motivational and Temperamental Indicants of Creativity and Intelligence”, Journal of Educational Measurement, 9(4), 265–286 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. [Sc]
    Londa Schiebinger, “Changing assumptions”, Book Review of Why Aren’t More Women in Science? Top Researchers Debate the Evidence, and Motherhood, the Elephant in the Laboratory: Women Scientists Speak Out, American Scientist 96(5) p 428 (Sept/Oct 2008), (accessed January 26, 2012)
  35. [Sp]
    Terry Speed, “Gender Equity”, IMS Bulletin 40, p 13 (August 2011)Google Scholar
  36. [UCB]
    Sponsored Projects Office, University of California, Berkeley “Funding opportunities for women and minorities”, (accessed January 26, 2012)

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Georgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations