Sex Roles

, Volume 68, Issue 9–10, pp 521–535 | Cite as

Gender-Role Differences in Spatial Ability: A Meta-Analytic Review

Original Article

Abstract

Although gender-related differences in highly gender typed cognitive abilities are of considerable interest to educators and cognitive researchers alike, relatively little progress has been made in understanding the psychological processes that lead to them. Nash (1979) proposed a gender-role mediation hypothesis for such differences, with particular emphasis on spatial ability. However, changes in gender equality and gender stereotypes in the decades since merit a re-examination of whether a gender-role association still holds (Feingold 1988). A meta-analysis of 12 studies that examined gender-role identity and mental rotation performance was conducted. These included studies from the United Kingdom, Canada, Poland, Croatia, and the United States of America. The mean effect size for masculinity was r = .30 for men and r = .23 for women; no association was found between femininity and mental rotation. This effect size was slightly larger than that found previously by Signorella and Jamison (1986), and exceeds many other factors known to influence spatial ability. The implications of gender-role mediation of gender differences are discussed and future research directions are identified.

Keywords

Gender differences Spatial ability Gender-role mediation Gender roles Mental rotation Meta-analysis 

References

  1. Alpert-Gillis, L. J., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Gender and sex role influences on children’s self-esteem. Journal of Personality, 57, 97–114. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1989.tb00762.x.Google Scholar
  2. Arbuthnot, J. (1975). Sex, sex-role identity, and cognitive style. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 41, 435–440. doi:10.2466/pms.1975.41.2.435.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Auster, C. J., & Ohm, S. C. (2000). Masculinity and femininity in contemporary American society: A reevaluation using the Bem Sex-Role Inventory. Sex Roles, 43, 499–528. doi:10.1023/A:1007119516728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baenninger, M., & Newcombe, N. S. (1989). The role of experience in spatial test performance: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 20, 327–344. doi:10.1007/BF00287729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bell, S. (2010). Women in science: The persistence of gender in Australia. Higher Education Management and Policy, 22, 1–19. doi:10.1787/hemp-v22-art3-en.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162. doi:10.1037/h0036215.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bem, S. L. (1975). Sex role adaptability: One consequence of psychological androgyny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 634–643. doi:10.1037/h0077098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bem, S. L. (1977). On the utility of alternate procedures for assessing psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 196–205. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.45.2.196.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender Schema Theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354–364. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.88.4.354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bem, S. L. (Ed.). (1984). Androgyny and gender schema theory: A conceptual and empirical integration. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bem, S. L., & Lenney, E. (1976). Sex typing and the avoidance of cross-sex behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 48–54. doi:10.1037/h0078640.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Benbow, C. P. (1988). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability in intellectually talented preadolescents: Their nature, effects, and possible causes. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 169–232. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00049670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bernard, M. E., Boyle, G. J., & Jackling, B. F. (1990). Sex-role identity and mental ability. Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 213–217. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(90)90234-I.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Borenstein, M., & Rothstein, H. R. (1999). Comprehensive meta-analysis: A computer program for research synthesis. Englewood: BioStat.Google Scholar
  15. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Boyle, G. J., Neumann, D. L., Furedy, J. J., & Westbury, H. R. (2010a). Combining the methods of differential and experimental psychology to study sex differences in human cognitive psychological functions. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 110, 392–410. doi:10.2466/pms.110.2.396-410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Boyle, G. J., Neumann, D. L., Furedy, J. J., & Westbury, H. R. (2010b). Sex differences in verbal and visual-spatial tasks under different hemispheric visual-field presentation conditions. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 110, 396–410. doi:10.2466/pms.110.2.396-410.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Brosnan, M. J. (1998). The implications for academic attainment of perceived gender-appropriateness upon spatial task performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 203–215. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1998.tb01284.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Caplan, P. J., & Caplan, J. B. (1994). Thinking critically about research on sex and gender. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  20. Carrol, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Casey, M. B., Nuttall, R., Pezaris, E., & Benbow, C. P. (1995). The influence of spatial ability on gender differences in mathematics college entrance test scores across diverse samples. Developmental Psychology, 31, 697–705. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.31.4.697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Casey, M. B., Nuttall, R. L., & Pezaris, E. (1997). Mediators of gender differences in mathematics college entrance test scores: A comparison of spatial skills with internalized beliefs and anxieties. Developmental Psychology, 33, 669–680. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.33.4.669.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ceci, S. J., Williams, W. M., & Barnett, S. M. (2009). Women’s underrepresentation in science: Sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 218–261. doi:10.1037/a0014412.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  25. Connor, J. M., & Serbin, L. A. (1977). Behaviorally based masculine-and feminine-activity-preference scales for preschoolers: Correlates with other classroom behaviors and cognitive tests. Child Development, 48, 1411–1416. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1977.tb03947.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Constantinople, A. (1973). Masculinity-femininity: An exception to a famous dictum? Psychological Bulletin, 80, 389–409. doi:10.1037/h0035334.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cooper, H. M. (1981). On the significance of effects and the effects of significance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 1013–1018. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.41.5.1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Cooper, L. A., & Shepard, R. N. (1973). Chronometric studies of the rotation of mental images. In W. G. Chase (Ed.), Visual information processing (pp. 75–176). Oxford: Academic.Google Scholar
  29. Crawford, M., Chaffin, R., & Fitton, L. (1995). Cognition in social context. Learning and Individual Differences, 7, 341–362. doi:10.1016/1041-6080(95)90006-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Delgado, A. R., & Prieto, G. (2004). Cognitive mediators and sex-related differences in mathematics. Intelligence, 32, 25–32. doi:10.1016/S0160-2896(03)00061-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Doyle, R. A., Voyer, D., & Cherney, I. D. (2012). The relation between childhood spatial activities and spatial abilities in adulthood. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 33, 112–120. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2012.01.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Dwyer, C. A. (1973). Sex differences in reading: An evaluation and a critique of current theories. Review of Educational Research, 43, 455–467. doi:10.2307/1170076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Dwyer, C. A. (1974). Influence of children’s sex role standards on reading and arithmetic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 811–816. doi:10.1037/h0021522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Eagly, A. H., & Mitchell, A. A. (2004). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: Implications for the sociopolitical attitudes of men and women. In M. A. Paludi (Ed.), Praeger guide to the psychology of gender (pp. 183–206). Westport: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
  35. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408–423. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.6.408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Eccles, J. S. (1987). Gender roles and women’s achievement-related decisions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 135–172. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1987.tb00781.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Eccles, J. S. (2007). Where are all the women? Gender differences in participation in physical science and engineering. In S. J. Ceci (Ed.), Why aren’t more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 199–210). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Eccles, J. S., Jacobs, J. E., & Harold, R. D. (1990). Gender role stereotypes, expectancy effects, and parents’ socialization of gender differences. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 183–201. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1990.tb01929.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Harold, R. D., & Blumenfeld, P. (1993). Age and gender differences in children’s self- and task perceptions during elementary school. Child Development, 64, 830–847. doi:10.2307/1131221.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (2010). Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 103–127. doi:10.1037/a0018053.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Emmott, S. (1985). Sex differences in children’s play: Implications for cognition. International Journal of Women’s Studies, 8, 449–456.Google Scholar
  42. Evardone, M., & Alexander, G. (2009). Anxiety, sex-linked behaviors, and digit ratios (2D:4D). Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 442–455. doi:10.1007/s10508-007-9260-6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Eysenck, H. J., Wilson, G. D., & Jackson, C. (1996). Eysenck Personality Profiler. Surrey: PSI Press.Google Scholar
  44. Feingold, A. (1988). Cognitive gender differences are disappearing. American Psychologist, 43, 95–103. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.43.2.95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. A. (1977). Sex-related differences in mathematics achievement, spatial visualization and affective factors. American Educational Research Journal, 14, 51–71. doi:10.3102/00028312014001051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Field, A. P. (2001). Meta-analysis of correlation coefficients: A Monte Carlo comparison of fixed-and random-effects methods. Psychological Methods, 6, 161–180. doi:10.1037//1082-989X.6.2.161.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. French, J. W., Ekstrom, R. B., & Price, L. A. (1963). Manual for kit of reference tests for cognitive factors. Princeston: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  48. Frieze, I. H., & Chrisler, J. C. (2011). Editorial policy on the use of the terms “Sex” and “Gender”. Sex Roles, 64, 789–790. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9988-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Gallagher, A. M., & Kaufman, J. C. (Eds.). (2005). Gender differences in mathematics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Gilger, J. W., & Ho, H.-Z. (1989). Gender differences in adult spatial information processing: Their relationship to pubertal timing, adolescent activities, and sex-typing of personality. Cognitive Development, 4, 197–214. doi:10.1016/0885-2014(89)90015-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Guiso, L., Monte, F., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2008). Culture, gender, and math. Science, 320, 1164–1165. doi:10.1126/science.1154094.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Halpern, D. F. (2000). Sex differences in cognitive abilities (3rd ed.). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  53. Halpern, D. F. (2007). Science, sex, and good sense: Why women are underrepresented in some areas of science and math. In S. J. Ceci (Ed.), Why aren’t more women in science?: Top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 121–130). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Halpern, D. F. (2011). Sex differences in cognitive abilities (4th ed.). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  55. Halpern, D. F., & Lamay, M. (2000). The smarter sex: A critical review of sex differences in intelligence. Educational Psychology Review, 12, 229–246. doi:10.1023/A:1009027516424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Halpern, D. F., & Tan, U. (2001). Stereotypes and steroids: Using a psychobiosocial model to understand cognitive sex differences. Brain and Cognition, 45, 392–414. doi:10.1006/brcg.2001.1287.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Halpern, D. F., Benbow, C. P., Geary, D. C., Gur, R. C., Hyde, J. S., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (2007). The science of sex differences in science and mathematics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 8, 1–51. doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2007.00032.x.Google Scholar
  58. Halpern, D. F., Beninger, A. S., & Straight, C. A. (2011). Sex differences in intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg & S. B. Kaufman (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence (pp. 253–272). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Halpern, D. F., Straight, C. A., & Stephenson, C. L. (2011). Beliefs about cognitive gender differences: Accurate for direction, underestimated for size. Sex Roles, 64, 336–347. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9891-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Hamilton, C. J. (1995). Beyond sex differences in visuo-spatial processing: The impact of gender trait possession. British Journal of Psychology, 86, 1–20. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1995.tb02542.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Hedges, L. V., & Becker, B. J. (1986). Statistical methods in the meta-analysis of research on gender differences. In J. S. Hyde & M. C. Linn (Eds.), The psychology of gender: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 14–50). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Hedges, L. V., & Nowell, A. (1995). Sex differences in mental test scores, variability, and numbers of high-scoring individuals. Science, 269, 41–45. doi:10.1126/science.7604277.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Hoffman, L. W. (1972). Early childhood experiences and women’s achievement motives. Journal of Social Issues, 28, 129–155. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1972.tb00022.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Hromatko, I., Tadinac, M., & Vranic, A. (2008). Femininity and masculinity across the menstrual cycle: A relation to mate value. Collegium Antropologicum, 32, 81–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Hyde, J. S. (1990). Meta-analysis and the psychology of gender differences. Signs, 16, 55–73. doi:10.1086/494645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Hyde, J. S. (1996). Where are the gender differences? Where are the gender similarities? In D. M. Buss & N. M. Malmouth (Eds.), Sex, power and conflict (pp. 107–118). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581–592. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Hyde, J. S. (2006). Gender similarities still rule. American Psychologist, 61, 641–642. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.61.6.641b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Hyde, J. S. (2007a). New directions in the study of gender similarities and differences. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 259–263. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00516.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Hyde, J. S. (2007b). Women in science: Gender similarities in abilities and sociocultural forces. In S. J. Ceci (Ed.), Why aren’t more women in science?: Top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 131–145). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Hyde, J. S., & Lindberg, S. M. (2007). Facts and assumptions about the nature of gender differences and the implications for gender equity. In S. S. Klein (Ed.), Handbook for achieving gender equity through education (2nd ed., pp. 19–32). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  72. Jagieka, A., & Herman-Jeglińska, A. (1998). The effect of masculinity and sex hormones on a mental rotation task in right-and left-handed males. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 30, 111–112. doi:10.1016/S0167-8760(98)90282-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Jamison, W., & Signorella, M. L. (1980). Sex-typing and spatial ability: The association between masculinity and success on Piaget’s water-level task. Sex Roles, 6, 345–353. doi:10.1007/BF00287356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Jamison, W., & Signorella, M. L. (1987). Relations of masculinity and femininity in self-concept to spatial performance in adolescents. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 148, 249–251. doi:10.1080/00221325.1987.9914554.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Kagan, J. (1964a). Acquisition and significance of sex-typing and sex-role identity. In M. L. Hoffman & L. W. Hoffman (Eds.), Review of child development research (Vol. 1, pp. 137–168). New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  76. Kagan, J. (1964b). The child’s sex role classification of school objects. Child Development, 35, 1051–1056. doi:10.2307/1126852.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Kalichman, S. C. (1989). Sex roles and sex differences in adult spatial performance. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 150, 93–100. doi:10.1080/00221325.1989.9914579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Kelley, G., & Kelley, K. (2012). Statistical models for meta-analysis: A brief tutorial. World Journal of Methodology, 2, 27–32. doi:10.5662/wjm.v2.i4.27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Kimura, D. (2000). Sex and cognition. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  80. Knafo, A., Iervolino, A. C., & Plomin, R. (2005). Masculine girls and feminine boys: Genetic and environmental contributions to atypical gender development in early childhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 400–412. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.2.400.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Kohlberg, L. (1966). A cognitive-developmental analysis of children’s sex-role concepts and attitudes. In E. E. Maccoby & R. G. D’Andrade (Eds.), The development of sex differences (pp. 82–172). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  82. Kohlberg, L., & Ullian, D. (1974). Stages in the development of psycho-sexual concepts and attitudes. In R. C. Friedman, R. M. Richart, & R. Vande Wiele (Eds.), Sex differences in behavior (pp. 209–222). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  83. Lane, K., Goh, J., & Driver-Linn, E. (2012). Implicit science stereotypes mediate the relationship between gender and academic participation. Sex Roles, 66, 220–234. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-0036-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Lau, S. (1989). Sex role orientation and domains of self-esteem. Sex Roles, 21, 415–422. doi:10.1007/BF00289600.
  85. Lever, J. (1976). Sex differences in the games children play. Social Problems, 23, 478–487. doi:10.1525/sp.1976.23.4.03a00100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 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. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01623.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Lewis, S., & Clarke, M. (2001). Forest plots: Trying to see the wood and the trees. BMJ, 322, 1479–1480. doi:10.1136/bmj.322.7300.1479.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Li, Q. (1999). Teachers’ beliefs and gender differences in mathematics: A review. Educational Research, 41, 63–76. doi:10.1080/0013188990410106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Liben, L. S., Bigler, R. S., & Krogh, H. R. (2002). Language at work: Children’s gendered interpretations of occupational titles. Child Development, 73, 810–828. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00440.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Lindberg, S. M., Hyde, J. S., Petersen, J. L., & Linn, M. C. (2010). New trends in gender and mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 1123–1135. doi:10.1037/a0021276.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Linn, M. C., & Petersen, A. C. (1985). Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 56, 1479–1498. doi:10.2307/1130467.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Lytton, H., & Romney, D. M. (1991). Parents’ differential socialization of boys and girls: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 267–296. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Maccoby, E. E. (1990). The role of gender identity and gender constancy in sex-differentiated development. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 1990, 5–20. doi:10.1002/cd.23219904703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  95. Martin, C. L., & Ruble, D. (2004). Children’s search for gender cues: Cognitive perspectives on gender development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 67–70. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00276.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Mathewson, J. H. (1999). Visual-spatial thinking: An aspect of science overlooked by educators. Science Education, 83, 33–54. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199901)83:1<33::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-Z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Matthews, J. (2007). Hidden sexism: Facial prominence and its connections to gender and occupational status in popular print media. Sex Roles, 57, 515–525. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9276-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. McCartney, K., & Rosenthal, R. (2000). Effect size, practical importance, and social policy for children. Child Development, 71, 173–180. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00131.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Milton, G. A. (1957). The effects of sex-role identification upon problem-solving skill. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55, 208–212. doi:10.1037/h0044103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Nash, S. C. (1975). The relationship among sex-role stereotyping, sex-role preference, and the sex difference in spatial visualization. Sex Roles, 1, 15–32. doi:10.1007/BF00287210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Nash, S. C. (1979). Sex role as mediator of intellectual functioning. In M. A. Wittig & A. C. Petersen (Eds.), Sex-related differences in cognitive functioning: Developmental issues (pp. 263–302). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  102. National Science Foundation. (2011). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2011. Arlington: National Science Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/pdf/wmpd2011.pdf.Google Scholar
  103. Neisser, U. C., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T. J., Jr., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., et al. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51, 77–101. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Neumann, D. L., Fitzgerald, Z. T., Furedy, J. J., & Boyle, G. J. (2007). Sexually dimorphic effects of acute nicotine administration on arousal and visual-spatial ability in non-smoking human volunteers. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, 86, 758–765. doi:10.1016/j.pbb.2007.03.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Neumann, D. L., Sturm, A. C., Boyle, G. J., & Furedy, J. J. (2010). Effects of nicotine administration via a sublingual tablet on arousal and verbal ability in non-smokers. Australian Journal of Psychology, 62, 75–81. doi:10.1080/00049530902795458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Newcombe, N. S. (2007). Taking science seriously: Straight thinking about spatial sex differences. In S. J. Ceci (Ed.), Why aren’t more women in science?: top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 69–77). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Newcombe, N. S., & Dubas, J. S. (1992). A longitudinal study of predictors of spatial ability in adolescent females. Child Development, 63, 37–46. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb03593.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Newcombe, N. S., & Frick, A. (2010). Early education for spatial intelligence: Why, what, and how. Mind, Brain, and Education, 4, 102–111. doi:10.1111/j.1751-228X.2010.01089.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002). Math= male, me= female, therefore math≠ me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 44–59. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.83.1.44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Nosek, B. A., Smyth, F. L., Sriram, N., Lindner, N. M., Devos, T., Ayala, A., et al. (2009). National differences in gender–science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 10593–10597. doi:10.1073/pnas.0809921106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Nuttall, R. L., Casey, M. B., & Pezaris, E. (2005). Spatial ability as a mediator of gender differences on mathematics tests: A biological-environmental framework. In A. M. Gallagher & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Gender differences in mathematics: An integrative psychological approach (pp. 121–142). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  112. Orwin, R. G. (1983). A fail-safe N for effect size in meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, 8, 157–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Oswald, D. L. (2008). Gender stereotypes and women’s reports of liking and ability in traditionally masculine and feminine occupations. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 196–203. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00424.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Pajares, F., & Miller, D. (1994). Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical problem solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 193–203. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.86.2.193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Peters, M., Lehmann, W., Takahira, S., Takeuchi, Y., & Jordan, K. (2006). Mental rotation test performance in four cross-cultural samples (N= 3367): Overall sex differences and the role of academic program in performance. Cortex, 42, 1005–1014. doi:10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70206-5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Piaget, J. (1968). Six psychological studies. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  117. Popiel, E. M., & De Lisi, R. (1984). An examination of spatial ability in relation to factors from the Bem Sex-Role Inventory. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 59, 131–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Priess, H. A., & Hyde, J. S. (2010). Gender and academic abilities and preferences. In J. C. Chrisler & D. R. McCreary (Eds.), Handbook of gender research in psychology (pp. 297–316). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Rahman, Q., Wilson, G. D., & Abrahams, S. (2004). Biosocial factors, sexual orientation and neurocognitive functioning. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 29, 867–881. doi:10.1016/S0306-4530(03)00154-9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Reilly, D. (2012). Gender, culture and sex-typed cognitive abilities. PLoS One, 7, e39904. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0039904.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Ritter, D. (2004). Gender role orientation and performance on stereotypically feminine and masculine cognitive tasks. Sex Roles, 50, 583–591. doi:10.1023/B:SERS.0000023077.91248.f7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Robison-Awana, P., Kehle, T. J., & Jenson, W. R. (1986). But what about smart girls? Adolescent self-esteem and sex role perceptions as a function of academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 179–183. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.78.3.179.Google Scholar
  123. Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638–641. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Rosenthal, R. (1984). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  125. Rosenthal, R. (1995). Writing meta-analytic reviews. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 183–192. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.118.2.183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Rosenthal, R., & DiMatteo, M. R. (2001). Meta-analysis: Recent developments in quantitative methods for literature reviews. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 59–82. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1982). A simple, general purpose display of magnitude of experimental effect. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 166–169. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.74.2.166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Rosenthal, L., London, B., Levy, S., & Lobel, M. (2011). The roles of perceived identity compatibility and social support for women in a single-sex STEM program at a co-educational university. Sex Roles, 65, 725–736. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9945-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Ruble, D. N., Martin, C. L., & Berenbaum, S. A. (2006). Gender development. In N. Eisenberg, W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development, pp. 858–932). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  130. Saucier, D. M., McCreary, D. R., & Saxberg, J. K. J. (2002). Does gender role socialization mediate sex differences in mental rotations? Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 1101–1111. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00106-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Scarbrough, P. S., & Johnston, V. S. (2005). Individual differences in women’s facial preferences as a function of digit ratio and mental rotation ability. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 509–526. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.03.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Schmader, T. (2002). Gender identification moderates stereotype threat effects on women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 194–201. doi:10.1006/jesp.2001.1500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Serbin, L. A., & Connor, J. M. (1979). Sex-typing of children’s play preferences and patterns of cognitive performance. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 134, 315–316. doi:10.1016/0022-0965(79)90050-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Serbin, L. A., Zelkowitz, P., Doyle, A. B., Gold, D., & Wheaton, B. (1990). The socialization of sex-differentiated skills and academic performance: A mediational model. Sex Roles, 23, 613–628. doi:10.1007/BF00289251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Shea, D. L., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2001). Importance of assessing spatial ability in intellectually talented young adolescents: A 20-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 604–614. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.93.3.604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Shepard, R. N., & Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science, 171, 701–703. doi:10.1126/science.171.3972.701.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Sherman, J. A. (1967). Problem of sex differences in space perception and aspects of intellectual functioning. Psychological Review, 74, 290–299. doi:10.1037/h0024723.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Signorella, M. L., & Jamison, W. (1978). Sex differences in the correlations among field dependence, spatial ability, sex role orientation, and performance on Piaget’s water-level task. Developmental Psychology, 14, 689–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Signorella, M. L., & Jamison, W. (1986). Masculinity, femininity, androgyny, and cognitive performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 207–228. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.100.2.207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Signorella, M. L., Jamison, W., & Krupa, M. H. (1989). Predicting spatial performance from gender stereotyping in activity preferences and in self-concept. Developmental Psychology, 25, 89–95. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.25.1.89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Silverman, I., Choi, J., & Peters, M. (2007). The Hunter-Gatherer theory of sex differences in spatial abilities: Data from 40 countries. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 261–268. doi:10.1007/s10508-006-9168-6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Spence, J. T. (1984). Gender identity and its implications for masculinity and femininity. In T. B. Sonderegger (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motiuation: Psychology and Gender (pp. 59–95). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  143. Spence, J. T. (1993). Gender-related traits and gender ideology: Evidence for a multifactorial theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 624–635. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.4.624.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Spence, J. T., & Buckner, C. (2000). Instrumental and expressive traits, trait stereotypes, and sexist attitudes: What do they signify? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 44–62. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb01021.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Stapp, J. (1974). The Personal Attributes Questionnaire: A measure of sex role stereotypes and masculinity-femininity. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 4, 127.Google Scholar
  146. Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Stapp, J. (1975). Ratings of self and peers on sex-role attributes and their relation to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 29–39. doi:10.1037/h0076857.Google Scholar
  147. Steffens, M., & Jelenec, P. (2011). Separating implicit gender stereotypes regarding math and language: Implicit ability stereotypes are self-serving for boys and men, but not for girls and women. Sex Roles, 64, 324–335. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9924-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Stein, A. H., & Bailey, M. M. (1973). The socialization of achievement orientation in females. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 345–366. doi:10.1037/h0035261.Google Scholar
  149. Szymanowicz, A., & Furnham, A. (2011). Gender differences in self-estimates of general, mathematical, spatial and verbal intelligence: Four meta analyses. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 493–504. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.07.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Taylor, M. C., & Hall, J. A. (1982). Psychological androgyny: Theories, methods, and conclusions. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 347–366. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.92.2.347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Thurstone, T. G. (1958). SRA Primary Mental Abilities (test). Chicago: Science Research Associates.Google Scholar
  152. Titze, C., Jansen, P., & Heil, M. (2010). Mental rotation performance in fourth graders: No effects of gender beliefs (yet?). Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 459–463. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2010.04.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Tracy, D. M. (1987). Toy-playing habits, spatial ability, science and mathematics achievement: Are they related? Sex Roles, 17, 115–138. doi:10.1007/BF00287620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. Tuttle, G. E., & Pillard, R. C. (1991). Sexual orientation and cognitive abilities. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 20, 307–318. doi:10.1007/BF01541849.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. Vandenberg, S. G., & Kuse, A. R. (1978). Mental rotations, a group test of three-dimensional spatial visualization. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 47, 599–604. doi:10.2466/pms.1978.47.2.599.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. Vonnahme, P. (2005). Facial preferences of Caucasian males as a function of 2D:4D digit ratio and mental rotation ability (Unpublished dissertation). New Mexico State University, Las Crues, New Mexico.Google Scholar
  157. Voyer, D., & Bryden, M. (1990). Mental rotation: A study of gender differences and sex role identity. Canadian Psychology, 31, 253.Google Scholar
  158. 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. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.117.2.250.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 817–835. doi:10.1037/a0016127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. Whitley, B. E. (1983). Sex role orientation and self-esteem: A critical meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 765–778. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.44.4.765.Google Scholar
  161. Whitley, B. E. (1988). Masculinity, femininity, and self-esteem: A multitrait-multimethod analysis. Sex Roles, 18, 419–431. doi:10.1007/bf00288393.
  162. Wilkinson, L. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist, 54, 594–604. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.8.594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. Williams, W. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2007). Introduction: Striving for perspective in the debate on women and science. In S. J. Ceci (Ed.), Why aren’t more women in science?: Top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 3–23). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Applied PsychologyGriffith UniversitySouthportAustralia
  2. 2.Behavioural Basis of Health ProgramGriffith Health InstituteQueenslandAustralia

Personalised recommendations