What do you think?
Rate this book
Gender Differences in Mathematics: An Integrative Psychological Approach
This book explores gender differences in math performance--and why males outperform females on high stakes standardized tests but not in the classroom. These differences are important because scores on such tests are generally used in decisions that have important consequences for students such as college admissions and job placement. The contributions in this volume present a variety of theories and research that help to explain the differences, and highlight the consequences. Illustratively, if females receive lower scores on the tests, they are likely to be exposed to fewer opportunities thereafter.
- GenresPsychology
Hardcover
First published March 23, 2001
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
June 28, 2026
A COLLECTION OF ESSAYS DEALING WITH VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THESE ISSUES
The introductory page of this 2005 book explains, “Females consistently score lower than males on standardized tests of mathematics, yet no such differences exist in the classroom. These differences are not trivial, nor are they insignificant. Test scores help determine entrance to college and graduate school and, therefore, by extension, a person’s job and future success. If females receive lower test scores, then they also receive fewer opportunities. Why does this discrepancy exist? This book presents a series of chapters that address these issues by integrating the latest research findings and theories. Authors… tackle these questions from a variety of perspectives. Many different branches of psychology are represented, including cognitive, social personality/self-oriented, and psychobiological. The editors then present an integrative chapter that discusses the ideas presented and other areas that the field should explore.”
Editors Ann Gallagher and James Kaufman wrote in the Preface, “Think of the stereotype of the female mathematician as the homely spinster, or the female high school student who opts out of math courses as early as possible, or the Barbie doll that says, ‘Math is hard!’ The gender gap that exists in the field of mathematics has permeated our society and become entrenched in our culture. Unlike many such popularlizations of psychological research, gender differences in the field of mathematics are persistent and tangible.
“From Maccoby and Jacklin’s ‘The Psychology of Sex Difference,’ to Halpern’s ‘Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities’ analyses of gender and cognition, the one consistent finding has been the performance gap in standardized tests of mathematics favoring males… Why this discrepancy? If we just look at test performance, then we might conclude that women have less mathematical ability than men, but test performance does not tell the whole story…
“If males and females are viewed as coming to math from two different ‘cultures,’ then standardized test differences can be seen in a different light. Specifically, the fields of cognitive psychology, educational psychology, and social psychology provide clues to the sources of the differences and ways to measure these abilities in a more equitable fashion. Our hope is that this book will eventually lead to an expanded view of talent assessment in mathematics.” (Pg. ix-x)
They explain in the concluding chapter, “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 … 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?” (Pg. 316)
They note, “the construct ‘mathematical reasoning’ is only vaguely defined in most testing organizations that produce measures of this conduct. Specifications for the contents of such tests are often based more on historical precedent than on theoretical work defining which cognitive processes are critical components of mathematical or quantitative reasoning and which are not… An example of one generally irrelevant element in most high-stakes mathematics assessments is the ‘speediness’ element. Most of these tests require students to respond to unfamiliar (and sometimes contrived) mathematical questions in less than two minutes each. The relationship between effectiveness in math problem solving and speediness is unclear.” (Pg. 317-318)
They note, “Another variable that interacts with gender and math performance is ethnicity… gender differences on high-stakes tests tend to be largest among Hispanic and European American students, and smallest among African-American students… Hispanic students tend to show the largest gender gap in attitudes toward math, with females showing less positive attitudes … in mathematics classroom achievement, the gap is reversed among African American students, with women achieving at higher levels than men.” (Pg. 320)
They acknowledge, “Findings have, as yet, only been replicated in laboratory settings (as opposed to ‘real’ testing situations). The few studies that have been done in authentic high-stakes testing environments … have not been successful in manipulating performance gaps. Nonetheless, this work brings to light the existence of the stereotype threat effect and begins to explore the mechanisms by which it affects test performance.” (Pg. 321)
They suggest, “females as a group may tend to prefer narrative thought or highly contextualized verbally based strategies… If so, this may explain the differences found on many math items requiring reductionist thinking, spatial abilities, or concrete solution patterns. Such a preference may give women an advantage in verbal performance, but may be harmful in solving mathematical problems. The most harm may occur in timed tests… in which the extra minutes spent ‘converting’ a paradigmatic problem into a narrative framework may require more time.” (Pg. 326)
They conclude, “Some of the factors discussed in this book that influence the gender-based score gap in mathematics could potentially be manipulated to change the size of that gap, but they must first be subject to policy evaluations regarding their importance to predicting performance. For instance, the elimination of the need for spatial skills could potentially shrink the gender gap on some mathematics tests, but before this is done, consensus must be reached regarding the relevance of specific spatial skills in predicting mathematics performance in college or graduate school. Other factors such as stereotype threat are likely to be much more difficult to manipulate, and may take years for any type of change to be implemented. We believe, however, that beginning a dialogue about how the tests may be modified is essential, and we hope that our book has been a continuing step in this direction.” (Pg. 330)
This book will be of great interest to anyone studying such gender differences in mathematics, as well as in other areas.
The introductory page of this 2005 book explains, “Females consistently score lower than males on standardized tests of mathematics, yet no such differences exist in the classroom. These differences are not trivial, nor are they insignificant. Test scores help determine entrance to college and graduate school and, therefore, by extension, a person’s job and future success. If females receive lower test scores, then they also receive fewer opportunities. Why does this discrepancy exist? This book presents a series of chapters that address these issues by integrating the latest research findings and theories. Authors… tackle these questions from a variety of perspectives. Many different branches of psychology are represented, including cognitive, social personality/self-oriented, and psychobiological. The editors then present an integrative chapter that discusses the ideas presented and other areas that the field should explore.”
Editors Ann Gallagher and James Kaufman wrote in the Preface, “Think of the stereotype of the female mathematician as the homely spinster, or the female high school student who opts out of math courses as early as possible, or the Barbie doll that says, ‘Math is hard!’ The gender gap that exists in the field of mathematics has permeated our society and become entrenched in our culture. Unlike many such popularlizations of psychological research, gender differences in the field of mathematics are persistent and tangible.
“From Maccoby and Jacklin’s ‘The Psychology of Sex Difference,’ to Halpern’s ‘Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities’ analyses of gender and cognition, the one consistent finding has been the performance gap in standardized tests of mathematics favoring males… Why this discrepancy? If we just look at test performance, then we might conclude that women have less mathematical ability than men, but test performance does not tell the whole story…
“If males and females are viewed as coming to math from two different ‘cultures,’ then standardized test differences can be seen in a different light. Specifically, the fields of cognitive psychology, educational psychology, and social psychology provide clues to the sources of the differences and ways to measure these abilities in a more equitable fashion. Our hope is that this book will eventually lead to an expanded view of talent assessment in mathematics.” (Pg. ix-x)
They explain in the concluding chapter, “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 … 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?” (Pg. 316)
They note, “the construct ‘mathematical reasoning’ is only vaguely defined in most testing organizations that produce measures of this conduct. Specifications for the contents of such tests are often based more on historical precedent than on theoretical work defining which cognitive processes are critical components of mathematical or quantitative reasoning and which are not… An example of one generally irrelevant element in most high-stakes mathematics assessments is the ‘speediness’ element. Most of these tests require students to respond to unfamiliar (and sometimes contrived) mathematical questions in less than two minutes each. The relationship between effectiveness in math problem solving and speediness is unclear.” (Pg. 317-318)
They note, “Another variable that interacts with gender and math performance is ethnicity… gender differences on high-stakes tests tend to be largest among Hispanic and European American students, and smallest among African-American students… Hispanic students tend to show the largest gender gap in attitudes toward math, with females showing less positive attitudes … in mathematics classroom achievement, the gap is reversed among African American students, with women achieving at higher levels than men.” (Pg. 320)
They acknowledge, “Findings have, as yet, only been replicated in laboratory settings (as opposed to ‘real’ testing situations). The few studies that have been done in authentic high-stakes testing environments … have not been successful in manipulating performance gaps. Nonetheless, this work brings to light the existence of the stereotype threat effect and begins to explore the mechanisms by which it affects test performance.” (Pg. 321)
They suggest, “females as a group may tend to prefer narrative thought or highly contextualized verbally based strategies… If so, this may explain the differences found on many math items requiring reductionist thinking, spatial abilities, or concrete solution patterns. Such a preference may give women an advantage in verbal performance, but may be harmful in solving mathematical problems. The most harm may occur in timed tests… in which the extra minutes spent ‘converting’ a paradigmatic problem into a narrative framework may require more time.” (Pg. 326)
They conclude, “Some of the factors discussed in this book that influence the gender-based score gap in mathematics could potentially be manipulated to change the size of that gap, but they must first be subject to policy evaluations regarding their importance to predicting performance. For instance, the elimination of the need for spatial skills could potentially shrink the gender gap on some mathematics tests, but before this is done, consensus must be reached regarding the relevance of specific spatial skills in predicting mathematics performance in college or graduate school. Other factors such as stereotype threat are likely to be much more difficult to manipulate, and may take years for any type of change to be implemented. We believe, however, that beginning a dialogue about how the tests may be modified is essential, and we hope that our book has been a continuing step in this direction.” (Pg. 330)
This book will be of great interest to anyone studying such gender differences in mathematics, as well as in other areas.
Displaying 1 of 1 review