Sex differences in math-intensive fields

Current Directions in Psychological Science

Volumn 19, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 275-279

  Ceci, Stephen J ^a   Williams, Wendy M ^a  

^a Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

Author keywords

career aspirations; discrimination; mathematic ability; sex differences; spatial ability

Indexed keywords

EID: 78649436403     PISSN: 09637214     EISSN: 14678721     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0963721410383241     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Ceci, S.J., & Williams, W.M. (2010). (See References). Provides a comprehensive, highly accessible overview of what is known about sex differences in math-intensive fields, based on more than 400 published studies, and containing the references for many of the claims made in this article.
2. Committee on Gender Differences in the Careers of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Faculty; Committee on Women in Science, Engineering, and Medicine; National Research Council. (2010). (See References). An in-depth analysis of the academic interviewing, hiring, institutional resources, climate, and tenure and promotion statistics of top research universities in six areas of natural science.
3. Ferriman, K., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C.P. (2009). Work preferences, life values, and personal views of top math/science graduate students and the profoundly gifted: Developmental changes and sex differences during emerging adulthood and parenthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 517- 532. A pair of longitudinal analyses of sex differences among 265 profoundly gifted men and 84 women, and of 255 top female graduate students and 275 top male graduate students, assessed on a variety of career and lifestyle preferences (with intriguing sex differences uncovered).
4. Hyde, J.S., Lindberg, S.M., Linn, M.C., Ellis, A.B., & Williams, C.C. (2008). (See References). Presents analyses of findings of math achievement for more than 7 million U.S. students in 2nd through 11th grade on the No Child Left Behind tests.
5. Marsh, H.W., Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Daniel, H.-D., & O'Mara, A. (2009). (See References). A comprehensive review of contradictory findings on whether peer review discriminates against women, finding that there is no bias against grant applications by women.
6. Baenninger, M.A., & Newcombe, N. (1995). Environmental input to the development of sex-related differences in spatial and mathematical ability. Learning and Individual Differences, 7, 363-379.
7. Benbow, C.P., & Stanley, J.C. (1983). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability: More facts. Science, 222, 1029-1031.
8. Blau, F., Currie, J., Croson, R., & Ginther, D. (2010). Can mentoring help female assistant professors? Interim results from a randomized trial (NBER Working Paper No. 15707. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
9. Ceci, S.J., & Williams, W.M. (2010). The mathematics of sex: How biology and society conspire to limit talented women and girls. NY: Oxford University Press.
10. Ceci, S.J., Williams, W.M., & Barnett, S.M. (2009). Women's underrepresentation in science: Sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 218-261.
11. Committee on Gender Differences in the Careers of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Faculty; Committee on Women in Science, Engineering, and Medicine; National Research Council. (2010). Gender differences at critical transitions in the careers of science, engineering, and mathematics faculty. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
12. Gallagher, A.M., & Kaufman, J.C. (2005). Gender differences in mathematics: An integrative psychological approach. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
13. Ginther, D.K., & Kahn, S. (2006). Does science promote women? Evidence from academia 1973-2001. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nber.org/papers/w12691.
14. Hill, C., Corbett, C., & St Rose. A. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women.
15. Hyde, J.S., Lindberg, S.M., Linn, M.C., Ellis, A.B., & Williams, C.C. (2008). Gender similarities characterize math performance. Science, 321, 494-495.
16. Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C.P. (2006). Study of mathematically precocious youth after 35 years: Uncovering antecedents for math science expertise. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 316-345.
17. Marsh, H.W., Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Daniel, H.-D., & O'Mara, A. (2009). Gender effects in the peer reviews of grant proposals: A comprehensive meta-analysis comparing traditional and multilevel approaches. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1290-1326.
18. Nelson, D.J., & Brammer, C.N. (2010). A national analysis of minorities in science and engineering faculties at research universities. Retrieved fromhttp://chem.ou.edu/&z.ast;djn/diversity/faculty_Tables_FY07/FinalReport07.html.
19. Park, G., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C.P. (2008). Ability differences among people who have commensurate degrees matter for scientific creativity. Psychological Science, 19, 957-961.
20. Steinpreis, R.E., Anders, K.A., & Ritzke, D. (1999). The impact of gender on the review of the CVs of job applicants and tenure candidates: A national empirical study. Sex Roles, 41, 509-528.
21. Su, R., Rounds, J., & Armstrong, P.I. (2009). Men and things, women and people: A meta-analysis of sex differences in interests. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 859-884.
22. Terlecki, M.S., Newcombe, N.S., & Little, M. (2007). Durable and generalized effects of spatial experience on mental rotation: Gender differences in growth patterns. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 996-1013.
23. Trix, F., & Psenka, C. (2003). Exploring the color of glass: Letters of recommendation for female and male medical faculty. Discourse & Society, 14, 191-220.
24. Wai, J., Cacchio, M., Putallaz, M., & Makel, M.C. (2010). Sex differences in the right tail of cognitive abilities: A 30-year examination. Intelligence, 38, 412-423.
25. 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.
26. Wainer, H., & Steinberg, L.S. (1992). Sex differences in performance on the Mathematics section of the Scholastic Aptitude Test: A bidirectional validity study. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 323-336.
27. Wenneras, C., & Wold, A. (1997). Nepotism and sexism in peer review. Nature, 387, 341-343.