Gender Differences in Mathematics: What We Know and What We Need to Know

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511614446.016

15 - Gender Differences in Mathematics: What We Know and What We Need to Know

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012

Ann M. Gallagher and

James C. Kaufman

Edited by

Ann M. Gallagher and

James C. Kaufman

Show author details

Ann M. Gallagher: Affiliation:
Research Scientist, Law School Admission Council
James C. Kaufman: Affiliation:
Assistant Professor of Psychology, California State University, San Bernadino
Ann M. Gallagher: Affiliation:
Law School Admissions Council, Newton, PA
James C. Kaufman: Affiliation:
California State University, San Bernardino

Book contents

Get access

Summary

The true nature of the relationship between gender and mathematics is much more complex than most people have been led to believe. Differences are found in relatively few aspects of mathematics performance (as noted by several authors in this volume), and when they are found, their causes are varied and often elusive. Indeed, individual differences in ability and achievement within gender are probably much larger than the differences between genders.

Yet, there persists a monolithic stereotype that girls don't like math and aren't as good at it as boys. This common perception is a poor reflection of reality and is likely to discourage girls from engaging in mathematics study and thus to limit opportunities for women in mathematics and related fields. Why do data from some standardized tests of mathematics show a gender gap, while nontest data show women matching or exceeding men in the classroom? Chapters in this book explore the issue from a variety of disciplines and perspectives. Some use a cognitive processing perspective, others use the lens of social psychology, and others bring in aspects of education and environment. Taken together, these perspectives complement each other in painting a picture of how the gender gap in test performance arises despite the many areas of gender parity in performance and ability.

BACKGROUND ISSUES

Chipman's personal history of her involvement in research on gender and mathematics chronicles the factors influencing early research efforts in this area, and presents some important contemporary issues that illustrate the complexity and contradictory nature of the evidence for and against gender differences in performance and participation.

Type: Chapter
Information: Gender Differences in Mathematics
An Integrative Psychological Approach
, pp. 316 - 332

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614446.016 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and the National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association

Baenninger, M., & Newcomb, N. (1989). The role of experience in spatial test performance: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 20, 327–344CrossRef Google Scholar

Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Byrnes, J. P., Millar, D. C., & Schafer, W. D. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 367–383CrossRef Google Scholar

Carr, M., Jessup, D. L., & Fuller, D. (1999). Gender differences in first-grade mathematics strategy use: Parent and teacher contributions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 20–46CrossRef Google Scholar

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 322–331CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Davis, H., & Carr, M. (2002). Gender differences in mathematics strategy use: The influence of temperament. Learning and Individual Differences, 13, 83–95CrossRef Google Scholar

Gallagher, A. M. (1992). Sex differences in problem-solving strategies used by high-scoring examinees on the SAT-M. (ETS RR 92–2). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing ServiceCrossRef

Gallagher, A. M. (1998). Gender and antecedents of performance in mathematics testing. Teachers College Record, 100, 297–314Google Scholar

Gallagher, A. M., & Lisi, R. (1994). Gender differences in Scholastic Aptitude Test: Mathematics problem solving among high-ability students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 204–211CrossRef Google Scholar

Gallagher, A. M., Lisi, R., Holst, P. C., McGillicuddy-De Lisi, A. V., Morley, M., & Cahalan, C. (2000). Gender differences in advanced mathematical problem solving. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 75, 165–190CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Gallagher, A. M., Levin, J., & Cahalan, C. (2002). Cognitive patterns of gender differences on mathematics admissions tests (ETS RR 96–17). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service

Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language. Greenwich, CT: Fawcett

Ibarra, R. A. (2001). Beyond affirmative action: Reframing the context of higher education. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press

Kaufman, A. S. (1979). Role of speed on WISC-R performance across the age range. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 595–597CrossRef Google Scholar

Kaufman, J. C. (2002). Narrative and paradigmatic thinking styles in creative writing and journalism students. Journal of Creative Behavior, 36(3), 201–220CrossRef Google Scholar

Kaufman, J. C., & Boodoo, G. M. (2003). Enhancing fairness: A new look at creativity in assessment. Manuscript in preparation

Kessel, C., & Linn, M. C. (1996). Grades or scores: Predicting future college mathematics performance. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 15(4), 10–14CrossRef Google Scholar

Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons' responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741–749CrossRef Google Scholar

Newcomb, N. S., Mathason, L., & Terlecki, M. (2002). Maximization of spatial competence: More important than finding the cause of sex differences. In A. McGillicuddy-De Lisi & R. De Lisi (Eds.), Biology, society, and behavior: The development of sex differences in cognition (pp. 183–206). Westport: Ablex

Pacini, R., & Epstein, S. (1999). The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 76, 972–987CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Sorrentino, R. M., Hewitt, E. C., & Raso-Knott, P. A. (1992). Risk-taking in games of chance and skill: Informational and affective influences on choice behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 522–533CrossRef Google Scholar

Spence, D. P. (1989). Narrative appeal vs. historical validity. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 25, 517–524CrossRef Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. New York: Cambridge University Press

Stricker, L. J., & Bejar, I. I. (in press). Test difficulty and stereotype threat on the GRE general test. Journal of Applied Social Psychology

Willingham, W. W., & Cole, N. S. (1997). Gender and fair assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum