Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T08:09:23.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN INTELLECTUAL PERFORMANCE PERSIST AT THE LIMITS OF INDIVIDUAL CAPABILITIES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 April 2013

ROBERT W. HOWARD
ROBERT W. HOWARD*
Affiliation:
University of New South Wales, Australia
*
1Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Males predominate at the top in chess, and chess is a useful domain to investigate possible causes of gender differences in high achievement. Opportunity, interest and extent of practice can be controlled for. Organized chess has objective performance measures, extensive longitudinal population-level data and little gatekeeper influence. Previous studies of gender differences in chess performance have not controlled adequately for females on average playing fewer rated games and dropping out at higher rates. The present study did so by examining performance of international chess players at asymptote and over equal numbers of rated games. Males still were very disproportionately represented at the top. Top female players showed signs of having less natural talent for chess than top males, such as taking more rated games to gain the grandmaster title. The hypothesis that males predominate because many more males play chess was tested by comparing gender performance differences in nations with varying percentages of female players. In well-practised participants, gender performance differences stayed constant even when the average national percentage of female international players increased from 4.2% to 32.3%. In Georgia, where women are encouraged strongly to play chess and females constitute nearly 32% of international players, gender performance differences are still sizeable. Males on average may have some innate advantages in developing and exercising chess skill.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Biosocial Science , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , May 2014 , pp. 386 - 404
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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.)

References

Baltes, P. B. (1998) Testing the limits of the ontogenetic sources of talent and excellence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21, 407–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benbow, C. P., Lubinski, D., Shea, D. L. & Eftekhari-Sanjani, H. (2000) Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability at age 13: their status 20 years later. Psychological Science 11, 474–480.Google Scholar
Bilalic, M., Smallbone, K., McLeod, P. & Gobet, F. (2009) Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 276, 1161–1165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ceci, S. J. & Williams, W. M. (2010) Sex differences in math-intensive fields. Current Directions in Psychological Science 19, 275–279.Google Scholar
Ceci, S. J., Williams, W. M. & Barnett, S. M. (2009) Women's under-representation in science: sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychological Bulletin 135, 218–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chabris, C. F. & Glickman, M. E. (1996) Sex differences in intellectual performance. Psychological Science 17, 1040–1046.Google Scholar
Deaner, R. O. (2011) More men run relatively fast in U.S. road races, 1981–2006: a stable difference in non-elite runners. Evolutionary Psychology 9, 600–621.Google Scholar
Deary, I. J., Thorpe, G, Wilson, V., Starr, J. M. & Whalley, L. J. (2003) Population sex differences in IQ at age 11: the Scottish mental survey 1932. Intelligence 31, 533–542.Google Scholar
Der Spiegel (1987) Genieblitz und blackouts: Der Spiegel testete intelligenz, Gedachtnis und schachkunst Garri Kasparows. Der Spiegel, 21st December 1987, pp. 126–140.Google Scholar
Eklund, E. S., Lincoln, A. E. & Tansey, C. (2012) Gender segregation in elite academic science. Gender & Society 26, 693–717.Google Scholar
Elo, A. E. (1986) The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present. Arco, New York.Google Scholar
Freeman, J. (2003) Gender differences in gifted achievement in Britain and the U.S. Gifted Child Quarterly 47, 202–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frydman, M. & Lynn, R. (1992) The general intelligence and spatial abilities of gifted young Belgian players. British Journal of Psychology 83, 233–235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galton, F. (1979) Hereditary Genius: An Inquiry into its Laws and Consequences. Julian Freeman, London (originally published 1869).Google Scholar
Gardner, H. (1995) Expert performance: its structure and acquisition: Comment. American Psychologist 50, 802–803.Google Scholar
Geary, D. C. (1998) Male, Female: The Evolution of Human Sex Differences. APA Press. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Horgan, D. E. & Morgan, D. (1990) Chess expertise in children. Applied Cognitive Psychology 4, 109–128.Google Scholar
Howard, R. W. (2005) Are gender differences in high achievement disappearing? A test in one intellectual domain. Journal of Biosocial Science 37, 371–380.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Howard, R. W. (2006) A complete database of international chess players and performance ratings for varied longitudinal studies. Behavior Research Methods 38, 698–703.Google Scholar
Howard, R. W. (2009) Individual differences in expertise development over decades in a complex intellectual domain. Memory & Cognition 37, 194–209.Google Scholar
Howard, R. W. (2012) Longitudinal effects of different types of practice on the development of chess expertise. Applied Cognitive Psychology 26, 359–369.Google Scholar
Howard, R. W. (2013) Practice other than playing games apparently plays only a modest role in the development of chess expertise. British Journal of Psychology 104, 39–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howe, M. J. A., Davidson, J. W. & Sloboda, J. A. (1998) Innate talents: reality or myth? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21, 399–442.Google Scholar
Hunt, E. (2011) Human Intelligence. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Kanazawa, S. (2003) Why productivity fades with age: the crime-genius connection. Journal of Research in Personality 37, 257–272.Google Scholar
Knapp, M. (2010) Are participation rates sufficient to explain gender differences in chess performance? Proceedings of the Royal Society B 277, 2269–2270.Google Scholar
Lindberg, S. M., Hyde, J. S., Linn, M. C. & Petersen, J. L. (2010) New trends in gender and mathematics performance: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 136, 1123–1135.Google Scholar
Lynn, R. (1999) Sex differences in intelligence and brain size: a developmental theory. Intelligence 27, 1–12.Google Scholar
Lynn, R. & Irwing, P. (2004) Sex differences on the progressive matrices: a meta-analysis. Intelligence 32, 481–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maass, A., D'Ettole, C. & Cadinu, M. (2008) Checkmate? The role of gender stereotypes in the ultimate intellectual sport. European Journal of Social Psychology 38, 231–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, C. A. (2003) Human Accomplishment. Harper, New York.Google Scholar
Nyborg, H. (2003) Sex differences in g. In Nyborg, H. (ed.) The Scientific Study of General Intelligence. Pergamon, Kiddington, UK.Google Scholar
Penner, A. M. (2008) Gender differences in extreme mathematical achievement: an international perspective on biological and social factors. American Journal of Sociology 114, 138–170.Google Scholar
Simon, H. & Chase, W. G. (1973) Skill at chess. American Scientist 61, 394–403.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2008) Scientific talent, training and performance: intellect, personality, and genetic endowment. Review of General Psychology 12, 28–46.Google Scholar
Wilgosh, L. (2001) Enhancing gifts and talents of women and girls. High Ability Studies 12, 45–59.Google Scholar