Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 39, Issue 4, pp 990–997 | Cite as

Sex Differences in Mental Rotation and Line Angle Judgments Are Positively Associated with Gender Equality and Economic Development Across 53 Nations

  • Richard A. Lippa
  • Marcia L. Collaer
  • Michael Peters
Original Paper


Mental rotation and line angle judgment performance were assessed in more than 90,000 women and 111,000 men from 53 nations. In all nations, men’s mean performance exceeded women’s on these two visuospatial tasks. Gender equality (as assessed by United Nations indices) and economic development (as assessed by per capita income and life expectancy) were significantly associated, across nations, with larger sex differences, contrary to the predictions of social role theory. For both men and women, across nations, gender equality and economic development were significantly associated with better performance on the two visuospatial tasks. However, these associations were stronger for the mental rotation task than for the line angle judgment task, and they were stronger for men than for women. Results were discussed in terms of evolutionary, social role, and stereotype threat theories of sex differences.


Evolutionary theory Sex differences Social role theory Stereotype threat theory Visuospatial ability 


  1. Benton, A., Varney, N., & Hamsher, K. (1978). Visuospatial judgment: A clinical test. Archives of Neurology, 35, 364–367.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Buss, D. M. (1999). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  3. Cherney, I. D., & Collaer, M. L. (2005). Sex differences in line judgment: Relation to mathematics preparation and strategy use. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 100, 615–627.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Collaer, M. L. (2001). Judgment of Line Angle and Position Test-15 line version (JLAP-15). Unpublished test. Middlebury, VT: Middlebury College.Google Scholar
  5. Collaer, M. L., & Nelson, J. D. (2002). Large visuospatial sex difference in line judgment: Possible role of attentional factors. Brain and Cognition, 49, 1–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Collaer, M. L., Reimers, S., & Manning, J. T. (2007). Visuospatial performance on an Internet line judgment task and potential hormonal markers: Sex, sexual orientation, and 2D:4D. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 177–192.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Costa, P. T., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 322–331.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Dar-Nimrod, I., & Heine, S. J. (2006). Exposure to scientific theories affects women’s math performance. Science, 314, 435.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eccles, J. S., & Jacobs, J. E. (1986). Social forces shape math attitudes and performance. Signs, 11, 367–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ecuyer-Dab, I., & Robert, M. (2004). Have sex differences in spatial ability evolved from male competition for mating and female concern for survival? Cognition, 91, 221–257.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Geary, D. C. (1998). Male, female: The evolution of human sex differences. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Good, C., Aronson, J., & Harder, J. A. (2008). Problems in the pipeline: Stereotype threat and women’s achievement in high-level math classes. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29, 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Guimond, S. (2007). Psychological similarities and differences between women and men across cultures. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 494–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guimond, S., Branscombe, N. R., Brunot, S., Buunk, A. P., Chatard, A., Desert, M., et al. (2007). Culture, gender, and the self: Variations and impact of social comparison processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 1118–1134.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Halpern, D., Benbow, C., Geary, D. C., Gur, R., Hyde, J., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (2007). The science of sex differences in science and mathematics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 8, 1–52.Google Scholar
  17. Levine, S. C., Vasilyeva, M., Lourenco, S. F., Newcombe, N. S., & Huttenlocher, J. (2005). Socioeconomic status modifies the sex difference in spatial skill. Psychological Science, 16, 841–845.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Lippa, R. A. (2005). Gender, nature, and nurture (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Lippa, R. A. (in press). Sex differences in sex drive, sociosexuality, and height across 53 nations: Testing evolutionary and social structural theories. Archives of Sexual Behavior. Google Scholar
  20. Lott, B., & Maluso, D. (1993). The social learning of gender. In A. E. Beall & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of gender (pp. 99–126). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  21. Peters, M., Laeng, B., Latham, K., Jackson, M., Zaiyouna, R., & Richardson, C. (1995). A redrawn Vandenberg & Kuse mental rotations test: Different versions and factors that affect performance. Brain and Cognition, 28, 39–58.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Peters, M., Manning, J. T., & Reimers, S. (2007). The effects of sex, sexual orientation, and digit ratio (2D:4D) on mental rotation performance. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 251–260.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Reimers, S. (2007). The BBC Internet study: General methodology. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 147–161.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Ruble, D. N., & Martin, C. L. (1998). Gender development. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (5th ed., Vol. 3): Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 993–1016). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  25. Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. (2008). Why can’t a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in big five personality traits across 55 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 168–182.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Shih, M., Pittinsky, T. L., & Ambady, N. (1999). Stereotype susceptibility: Identity salience and shifts in quantitative performance. Psychological Science, 10, 80–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Silverman, I., & Phillips, K. (1998). The evolutionary psychology of spatial sex differences. In C. Crawford & D. L. Krebs (Eds.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology: Ideas, issues, and applications (pp. 595–612). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  28. Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613–629.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Vandenberg, S. G., & Kuse, A. R. (1978). Mental rotations, a group test of three-dimensional spatial visualization. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 47, 599–604.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Voyer, D., Voyer, S., & Bryden, M. P. (1995). Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 250–270.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 699–727.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard A. Lippa
    • 1
  • Marcia L. Collaer
    • 2
  • Michael Peters
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyCalifornia State University, FullertonFullertonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Psychology and Program in NeuroscienceMiddlebury CollegeMiddleburyUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada

Personalised recommendations