Androgyny versus gender schema: A comment on Bem's gender schema theory.

S. L. Bem (see PA, Vol 66:00000) proposes that the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) measures individual differences in a unidimensional construct in addition to 2 independent dimensions, global self-concepts of masculinity and femininity. Evidence suggests that the BSRI measures primarily self-images of instrumental and expressive personality traits and that these trait clusters show little or no relationship to global self-images of masculinity and femininity or to unidimensional constructs such as the tendency to utilize gender schemata. (12 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Further meta-analytic procedures for assessing cognitive gender differences.

Outlined procedures for assessing the heterogeneity of a set of effect sizes derived from a meta-analysis, testing for trends with contrasts among the effect sizes obtained, and evaluating the practical importance of the average effect size obtained. These procedures were applied to data presented by J. S. Hyde (1981) regarding cognitive gender differences. The authors conclude that (a) for all 4 areas of cognitive skill investigated, effect sizes for gender differences differed significantly across studies; (b) recent studies of gender differences show a substantial gain in cognitive performance by females relative to males; and (c) studies of gender differences show male vs female effect sizes of practical importance equivalent to outcome rates of 60 vs 40%. (6 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Cognitive gender differences in very young children parallel biologically based cognitive gender differences in monkeys.

Infant humans were trained on 2 cognitive tests that have previously revealed, in infant monkeys, a double dissociation that was reversible by perinatal manipulations of androgens and ablations of specific brain sites. Children showed the same sex-linked behavior found with infant monkeys: young boys were superior on the object reversal task and young girls were superior on the concurrent discrimination task. As happened previously with infant monkeys, the gender difference was not apparent in older human subjects. Thus, early in ontogeny, cognitive gender differences have now been discovered in both humans and monkeys, probably a result of gender differences in androgens that influence the maturation rate of specific brain systems. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A model for representing gender differences in the pattern of cognitive abilities.

Comments on A. Feingold's (see record 1988-18577-001) meta-analytic assessment of gender-related performance on the Differential Aptitude Tests, which indicated a trend toward disappearing gender differences in the profile of cognitive abilities (CAs). In a review of potential explanatory models for this finding, the present author considers the mechanisms by which both biological and sociocultural factors might influence the developing pattern of human CAs. A satisfactory model might include the identification of a mechanism such as gender, and individual, differences in the frequency of engagement in sex-dimorphic behaviors. This model would predict a specific relationship between early activity patterns and the pattern of later CAs. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The disappearance of cognitive gender differences: What you see depends on where you look.

Comments on A. Feingold's (see record 1988-18577-001) review of gender differences (GDs) on the Differential Aptitude Tests and Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test/Scholastic Aptitude Test, which argues that cognitive GDs are disappearing. The present author offers observations regarding sampling issues in high school populations, verbal abilities (VAs), and visual–spatial abilities (VSAs), suggesting that Feingold's conclusions regarding VAs and VSAs are unwarranted. It is contended that (1) the implicit assumption that the disappearance of cognitive GDs is good and (2) the prevailing notion that differences denote deficiencies may also be unwarranted. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Discriminant analysis: A comment.

Discusses 3 topics related to the interpretation of discriminant analyses (DAs): (a) partial F ratios and partial Wilks's lambdas for predictor variables in standard, step-down and stepwise DAs; (b) relation of goals of classification to the definition and evaluation of classification rules; and (c) significance tests for total hit rates in internal versus external analyses. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Examining the origins of gender differences in marital quality: A behavior genetic analysis.

Numerous researchers have examined gender differences in marital quality, with mixed results. In this study, the authors further this investigation by looking for genetic and environmental sources of variation in marital quality. The 1st aim of the study was to replicate previous findings of genetic and nonshared environmental influences on marital quality. The 2nd was to explore the etiology of gender differences in marital quality. The Virginia Adult Twin Study of Psychiatric and Substance Use Disorders sample of twin men and twin women was used. Genetic and nonshared environmental factors were again found to influence marital quality. Findings also suggest small differences between men and women in the levels of genetic and environmental influence on variance in marital quality. The men's reports of marital warmth and conflict were influenced by the same genetic factors, but women's reports of marital warmth and conflict were influenced by different genetic factors. Results are discussed in the context of previous research on social support and implications for future studies of the etiology of marital quality. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Estimation and testing for differences in effect size: A comment on Hsu.

Responds to L. M. Hsu's (see record 1981-06910-001) proposal of a statistical procedure for testing the difference between effect sizes in independent studies. It is shown that the test proposed by Hsu is incorrect and that it tends to reject the null hypothesis of equal effect sizes too often. The statistical model underlying effect size estimation is clarified, and the exact distribution of the effect size estimator is given. The distribution is used to show that the usual size estimator is biased. (6 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: A meta-analysis.

[Correction Notice: An erratum for this article was reported in Vol 136(2) of Psychological Bulletin (see record 2010-03383-012). On page 118 of the article “Cross-National Patterns of Gender Differences in Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis,” by Nicole M. Else-Quest, Janet Shibley Hyde, and Marcia C. Linn (Psychological Bulletin, 2010, Vol. 136, No. 1, pp. 103–127), the images on Figures 1 and 2 are incorrectly reversed. The legends for Figures 1 and 2 are in the correct order.] A gender gap in mathematics achievement persists in some nations but not in others. In light of the underrepresentation of women in careers in science, technology, mathematics, and engineering, increasing research attention is being devoted to understanding gender differences in mathematics achievement, attitudes, and affect. The gender stratification hypothesis maintains that such gender differences are closely related to cultural variations in opportunity structures for girls and women. We meta-analyzed 2 major international data sets, the 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study and the Programme for International Student Assessment, representing 493,495 students 14–16 years of age, to estimate the magnitude of gender differences in mathematics achievement, attitudes, and affect across 69 nations throughout the world. Consistent with the gender similarities hypothesis, all of the mean effect sizes in mathematics achievement were very small (d     

How large are cognitive gender differences? A meta-analysis using !w2 and d..

E. E. Maccoby and C. N. Jacklin (1974) concluded that the following cognitive gender differences were well-established: verbal ability, quantitative ability, and visual–spatial ability. The present study applied meta-analysis techniques to studies cited by Maccoby and Jacklin, assessing the magnitude of gender differences using both ω–2 and d statistics. Results indicate that gender differences in all of these abilities were small: For verbal ability, the median ω–2 was .01 and the median d was .24; for quantitative ability, the median values of ω–2 and d were .01 and .43; for visual–spatial ability, they were .043 and .45; and for field articulation, ω–2 was .025 and d was .51. Discussion focuses on the practical implications of the finding that these "well-established" differences were in fact very small. Concerns about sampling are raised. The problem is also discussed in the context of a larger issue in psychological research: the limitations of the hypothesis-testing approach and the need to estimate the magnitude of effects. (63 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A current perspective on gender differences: Implications for research in counseling.

This selective review of the literature examines gender differences in counseling process and outcome. Although trends in the findings have revealed that female clients may be more successful with female counselors, most findings have been inconclusive. This problem may stem from applying a traditional individual differences methodology to the study of gender differences. As a result, most effect sizes for gender have been small to moderate. A social psychological model of gender differences that might inform the research on counseling process and outcome is presented, and related recommendations for future research are made. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Quantifying gender differences in physical performance: A developmental perspective.

The purpose was to quantify the contribution of anthropometric variables to gender differences in performance during childhood and adolescence. Measures of height, percentage body fat, and fat-free body weight were obtained for 2,142 students in Grades 3, 7, and 11 (ages 9, 13, and 17 years), and the subjects were tested on 6 motor tasks. Multivariate analysis of variance indicated that performance decrements resulting from greater adiposity affects boys and girls equally. Furthermore, this male–female similarity in the degree that fatness handicaps performance holds constant across grades. Percentage-variance analyses revealed that childhood gender differences are substantially influenced by anthropometric variables, with approximately 50% of between-gender variance being accounted for by fatness alone. Boys exhibited progressively greater performance superiority from Grade 3 to Grade 11. However, for specific tasks, there was an age-related decrease in the degree to which anthropometric variables contributed to these gender differences. This prompted the conclusion that with advancing age gender differences may become increasingly more a function of environmental factors. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Explaining gender differences on SAT-math items.

Used a cognitive process approach to explain gender differences on the math subtest of the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). This approach specifies that gender differences exist because male students may carry out certain cognitive operations (e.g., knowledge access, strategy assembly) more effectively than female students. High school students were given SAT items and measures of their prior knowledge and strategies. Results showed that male students performed better than female students on the SAT items. Regression analyses, however, showed that whereas prior knowledge and strategies explained nearly 50% of the variance in SAT scores, gender explained no unique variance. These findings suggest that it is not one's gender that matters as much as one's prior knowledge and strategies. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: A meta-analysis Correction.

Reports an error in Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: A meta-analysis by Nicole M. Else-Quest, Janet Shibley Hyde and Marcia C. Linn (Psychological Bulletin, 2010[Jan], Vol 136[1], 103-127). On page 118 of the article, the images on Figures 1 and 2 are incorrectly reversed. The legends for Figures 1 and 2 are in the correct order. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2009-24669-002.) A gender gap in mathematics achievement persists in some nations but not in others. In light of the underrepresentation of women in careers in science, technology, mathematics, and engineering, increasing research attention is being devoted to understanding gender differences in mathematics achievement, attitudes, and affect. The gender stratification hypothesis maintains that such gender differences are closely related to cultural variations in opportunity structures for girls and women. We meta-analyzed 2 major international data sets, the 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study and the Programme for International Student Assessment, representing 493,495 students 14–16 years of age, to estimate the magnitude of gender differences in mathematics achievement, attitudes, and affect across 69 nations throughout the world. Consistent with the gender similarities hypothesis, all of the mean effect sizes in mathematics achievement were very small (d     

A correction to the hierarchical regression analysis used by Smyth: A comment on Pedhazur.

The author acknowledges that E. J. Pedhazur (see record 1984-13952-001) correctly pointed out errors in the present author's (see record 1983-07281-001) use of ANCOVA via hierarchical regression analysis in a study on psychopathology as a function of neuroticism. One of the conclusions reached in the study required modification once the errors were corrected. That is, J. Reyher's (1962) paradigm did produce psychopathology in highly hypnotically susceptible Ss, but the Ss' neuroticism did not influence their reports of psychopathology. (5 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Determinants of individual differences and gender differences in knowledge.

The authors investigated the abilities, self-concept, personality, interest, motivational traits, and other determinants of knowledge across physical sciences/technology, biology/psychology, humanities, and civics domains. Tests and self-report measures were administered to 320 university freshmen. Crystallized intelligence was a better predictor than was fluid intelligence for most knowledge domains. Gender differences favoring men were found for most knowledge domains. Accounting for intelligence reduced the gender influence in predicting knowledge differences. Inclusion of notability predictors further reduced the variance accounted for by gender. Analysis of Advanced Placement test scores largely supported the results of the knowledge tests. Results are consistent with theoretical predictions that development of intellect as knowledge results from investment of cognitive resources, which, in turn, is affected by a small set of trait complexes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Ethnic and gender subgroup differences in assessment center ratings: A meta-analysis.

Assessment centers are widely believed to have relatively small standardized subgroup differences (d). However, no meta-analytic review to date has examined ds for assessment centers. The authors conducted a meta-analysis of available data and found an overall Black-White d of 0.52, an overall Hispanic-White d of 0.28, and an overall male-female d of -0.19. Consistent with our expectations, results suggest that Black-White ds in assessment center data may be larger than was previously thought. Hispanic-White comparisons were smaller than were Black-White comparisons. Females, on average, scored higher than did males in assessment centers. As such, assessment centers may be associated with more adverse impact against Blacks than is portrayed in the literature, but the predictor may have less adverse impact and be more "diversity friendly" for Hispanics and females. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Comments on an irrelevant comment: A rejoinder to McGrath.

Suggests that P. McGrath's (see record 1978-02304-001) criticisms corroborate the present author's (see record 1975-24400-001) views on the problems of behavioral psychologists (e.g., they prefer doing to thinking and are ignorant of the basic ideas in the philosophy of science). The distinction between behavioral psychology and behavior therapy is also discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Prediction analysis and developmental priority: A comment on Froman and Hubert.

T. Froman and L. J. Hubert (see record 1980-06671-001) attempted to show how recently developed prediction analysis techniques may be applied clarifying the interrelationship between 2 developing concepts. Although this work is in some respects an advance over earlier statistical techniques, it raises new problems: (a) It goes too far in identifying issues of developmental priority (sequence vs synchrony) with issues of statistical relationship (dependence vs independence), and thus (b) unjustifiably fails to consider certain information inherent in the data which, although irrelevant to issues of statistical relationship, is highly relevant to issues of developmental priority. (5 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A burden of proof: Stereotype relevance and gender differences in math performance.

Three studies explored gender differences in mathematics performance by investigating the possibility that men and women have different concerns when they take standardized math tests, and that when these gender-specific performance concerns are made relevant, performance may suffer. Results of 3 studies supported these hypotheses. In Study 1, women who believed a math test would indicate whether they were especially weak in math performed worse on the test than did women who believed it would indicate whether they were exceptionally strong. Men, however, demonstrated the opposite pattern, performing worse on the ostensible test of exceptional abilities. Studies 2 and 3 further showed that if these gender-specific performance concerns are alleviated by an external handicap, performance increases. Traditional interpretations of male–female differences on standardized math tests are discussed in light of these results. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)