The Biological Argument

In his second hypothesis, Summers explains that one reason there are less women in academic science is because there is a difference in the variability for men and women in many attributes, including “height, weight, propensity for criminality, overall IQ, mathematical ability,”, and “scientific ability”. In his speech, Summers argues that the reason there are less women in academic science and engineering is because there are simply more high-performing men than women in these fields. Because there is more variance in the mathematical ability for men, they will have higher proportions in the top 99th percentile. In this section, I will discuss the hypothesis that men have a higher biological aptitude for mathematics than women. Further, this section can be broken up into discussions of brain organization, strategy use, and spatial ability. This section aims to identify the truths and the falsehoods of the biological claim.

An MRI displaying the different parts of the brain in use.

Brain Organization

First, we will address the claim that there is some biological difference in the brain composition of men and women that affects their mathematical ability. First, the hypothesis that brain size plays a role in the intelligence of a person has not been proven in a conclusive way. For example, although men typically have larger brains than women, and may perform better in some cognitive abilities than women, there are also many cognitive domains where women excel over men [1]. Thus, there is little evidence that brain size is directly related to intelligence as a whole. Some researchers hypothesize that men and women use different parts of their brains more often, which could be a possible reasons for why men and women excel in different tasks [2].

Strategy

In this section, we will address the difference in strategies used by men and women. First, it is important to note that men and women, or as most research examines, boys and girls, typically use different strategies for mathematical thinking. In a study of fourth graders, Carr and Jessup [3] found that girls were more likely to use overt strategies, such as counting on fingers or using manipulatives, and boys were more likely to use covert strategies, such as mental calculation or retrieval from memory. Additional research has found that males and females are more likely to use certain parts of the brain in problem solving, leading males to be more inclined to use a coordinate approach and females more likely to use a categorical approach [4]. Lastly, Halpern et al. found that in the math portion of the Graduate Record Examinations (GREs), men performed better on problems with a spatially based solution strategy but not when the solution strategy was verbal in nature or was similar to typical textbook problems [5]. 

Despite these differences, we cannot immediately jump to the conclusion that men and women chose these strategies because of biology alone. In an article, Carr et. al examines how parents and teachers could intentionally or unintentionally affect the strategies boys and girls employ. For example, if a parent or teacher thinks that a boy is intrinsically better at math than a girl, they will teach the girl to use less sophisticated strategies than the boy [6]. For the case of math performance on the GRE, researchers found that if they emphasized what strategy was to be used for each problem, the male advantage was minimized [7]. Further, when boys and girls were instructed what strategy to use on a timed mathematics test, they were able to do so [8]. This shows that females have the cognitive ability to use the optimal strategies, they just choose other strategies. Lastly, several researchers have hypothesized that the female choice of less sophisticated strategies could be due to lack of confidence in mathematics. When girls are less confident in their own ability, they are more likely to use more elementary strategies to confirm their answers are correct[9].

 

An example of a test question on spatial abilty.

Spatial Ability

The second factor to consider is the gender difference in spatial ability. Spatial ability can be defined as “the ability to comprehend and conceptualize visual representations and spatial relationships in learning and in the performance of tasks such as reading maps, navigating mazes, conceptualizing objects in space from different perspectives, and executing various geometric operations.” [10]. In the previous section, we discussed how males and females are more likely to use different strategies, but this does not necessarily mean that women are unable to use the more sophisticated strategy, they choose not to for outside reasons. In this section, we will discuss the hypothesis that women and men have different spatial ability capabilities based on biological reasons. 

As with math performance, research has found that men perform better on spatial ability tests than women [11]. However, there has been no clear answer to why this is. Many researchers have investigated various biological differences between men and women, and how they might be related to spatial ability. Some studies found that there is an ideal level of testosterone for spatial ability, around the low-average for males [12]. However, some studies found that testosterone had no effect on spatial ability [13]. Additionally, many researchers have suggested environmental factors that could cause differences in spatial ability. For example, when female first-year engineering students received training intended to enhance spatial ability, their grades improved [14]. This suggests that the difference in ability is in response to training rather than biology [15]. In a study on spatial ability performance of fifth graders from the US and Taiwan, the US boys average score was 13.1 while the girls average score was 12.4. However, the Taiwanese girls outperformed the boys with an average score of 18.1, while the boys had an average score of 16.1 [16]. Overall, although there is a difference in spatial ability between men and women, there is not enough evidence to conclude that this is purely because of biological reasons.

In this discussion, we examined the various biological arguments that offer explanations to why there are so much less women in the top percentage of math performers. Although much of this evidence is intriguing, most researchers examining this topic have not found strong biological evidence for the math gender gap. In fact, most literature has found that the so-called ‘biological’ difference in math ability can be better explained by environmental factors.In the next section, we will further dive into the various societal factors that could be contributing to the difference in mathematical performance by men and women.

  1. Ceci, Stephen J., Wendy M. Williams, and Susan M. Barnett. “Women’s Underrepresentation in Science: Sociocultural and Biological Considerations.” Psychological Bulletin 135, no. 2 (March 2009): 218–61. doi:10.1037/a0014412.supp (Supplemental).
  2. Ceci, S. J., Williams, W. M. (2010a). “The Mathematics of Sex: How Biology and Society Conspire to Limit Talented Women and Girls.” New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  3. Carr, Martha, and Donna L. Jessup. “Gender Differences in First-Grade Mathematics Strategy Use: Social and Metacognitive Influences.” Journal of Educational Psychology 89, no. 2 (1997): 318–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.2.318.
  4. Ceci, Stephen J., Wendy M. Williams, and Susan M. Barnett. “Women’s Underrepresentation in Science: Sociocultural and Biological Considerations.” Psychological Bulletin 135, no. 2 (March 2009): 218–61. doi:10.1037/a0014412.supp (Supplemental).
  5. Halpern, Diane F, Camilla P Benbow, David C Geary, Ruben C Gur, Janet Shibley Hyde, and Morton Ann Gernsbacher. “The Science of Sex Differences in Science and Mathematics.” Psychological Science in the Public Interest 8, no. 1 (2007): 1–51.
  6. Carr, Martha, Donna L. Jessup, and Diana Fuller. “Gender Differences in First-Grade Mathematics Strategy Use: Parent and Teacher Contributions.” Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 30, no. 1 (1999): 20–46. https://doi.org/10.2307/749628.
  7. Halpern, Diane F, Camilla P Benbow, David C Geary, Ruben C Gur, Janet Shibley Hyde, and Morton Ann Gernsbacher. “The Science of Sex Differences in Science and Mathematics.” Psychological Science in the Public Interest 8, no. 1 (2007): 1–51.
  8. Ceci, S. J., Williams, W. M. (2010a). “The Mathematics of Sex: How Biology and Society Conspire to Limit Talented Women and Girls.” New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  9.  
    1. Carr, Martha, Donna L. Jessup, and Diana Fuller. “Gender Differences in First-Grade Mathematics Strategy Use: Parent and Teacher Contributions.” Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 30, no. 1 (1999): 20–46. https://doi.org/10.2307/749628. 
    2. Ceci, S. J., Williams, W. M. (2010a). “The Mathematics of Sex: How Biology and Society Conspire to Limit Talented Women and Girls.” New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  10. “APA Dictionary of Psychology.” Accessed December 7, 2021. https://dictionary.apa.org/.
  11.  
    • Ceci, Stephen J., Wendy M. Williams, and Susan M. Barnett. “Women’s Underrepresentation in Science: Sociocultural and Biological Considerations.” Psychological Bulletin 135, no. 2 (March 2009): 218–61. doi:10.1037/a0014412.supp (Supplemental). 
    1. Ceci, S. J., Williams, W. M. (2010a). “The Mathematics of Sex: How Biology and Society Conspire to Limit Talented Women and Girls.” New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  2.  
    • Ceci, S. J., Williams, W. M. (2010a). “The Mathematics of Sex: How Biology and Society Conspire to Limit Talented Women and Girls.” New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
    1. Halpern, Diane F, Camilla P Benbow, David C Geary, Ruben C Gur, Janet Shibley Hyde, and Morton Ann Gernsbacher. “The Science of Sex Differences in Science and Mathematics.” Psychological Science in the Public Interest 8, no. 1 (2007): 1–51.
  2. Ceci, Stephen J., Wendy M. Williams, and Susan M. Barnett. “Women’s Underrepresentation in Science: Sociocultural and Biological Considerations.” Psychological Bulletin 135, no. 2 (March 2009): 218–61. doi:10.1037/a0014412.supp (Supplemental).
  3. Ceci, S. J., Williams, W. M. (2010a). “The Mathematics of Sex: How Biology and Society Conspire to Limit Talented Women and Girls.” New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  4. Ceci, Stephen J., Wendy M. Williams, and Susan M. Barnett. “Women’s Underrepresentation in Science: Sociocultural and Biological Considerations.” Psychological Bulletin 135, no. 2 (March 2009): 218–61. doi:10.1037/a0014412.supp (Supplemental).
  5. Ceci, S. J., Williams, W. M. (2010a). “The Mathematics of Sex: How Biology and Society Conspire to Limit Talented Women and Girls.” New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Prev Next