Gender and Social Change

Sociocultural Factors

In the previous section, we determined that men do outperform women in mathematics, and that men and women do think about mathematics differently. However, we also determined that biology alone does not explain why this is. In this section, we will examine sociocultural factors that could influence women’s math performance. In order to do this, we will look at 3 main topics. First, we will look at how stereotyping and biases can affect how females of all ages perform in mathematics. Next, we will look at how educational systems such as schools, teachers, and curriculums may influence girls’ math performance. Lastly, we will examine how environmental factors outside of school affect math performance.

Stereotypes and Identity

One of the most obvious aspects of the math-gender gap is the ‘male’ stereotype surrounding much of STEM, including math. While children may not be exposed to the science stereotype until they begin taking more intensive science classes in high school, research shows that girls are exposed to the stereotype that ‘math is for boys’ as young as 5 years old [17]. It is important to note is that at this age and throughout early elementary school, there is no significant difference in math performance between girls and boys [18]. This means that young girls are receiving these stereotypes from societal messages alone, not from experience. Further, studies have shown that these biases toward math affect mathematics performance on older students [19].

In addition to the stereotype that ‘math is for boys’, many studies have shown that girls have much higher anxiety and lower self-confidence in their mathematics ability, even when performance is the same [20]. In an article by Meredith Kimball, she explains that because of girls high desire to perform well and low self-confidence, they will avoid difficult tasks and have a lower performance than their ability might indicate [21]. Kimball also explains that girls high desire to perform could be an explanation to why girls prefer subjective subjects (e.g English, Social Studies), where mistakes are not as obvious, as opposed to objective subjects (eg. Math, Science) where mistakes are more visible [22]. Lastly, another possible factor in women’s math performance is stereotype threat. Stereotype threat is the phenomenon that when women or minorities are told that they are being tested on a stereotype- relevant skill, they perform below their ability [23]. In this instance, when women are told they are being tested in order to evaluate their gender’s math performance, they score worse than they do when they are not told this. However, in a study by Johns et al., they found that when women were educated on stereotype threat, their scores were not impacted by stereotype threat [24].

Educational Systems

Another important factor that could affect math performance is educational systems. Environmental factors such as curriculums, teacher-student interactions, and classroom dynamics could play a large role in the gender gap in math performance. First of all, as addressed on the biology page, boys typically perform better on tests of spatial ability, which has been shown as a predictor of later mathematical ability. However, instruction of spatial skill is rarely taught in schools, and studies have shown that even minimal instruction on spatial skills can have large influences on mathematical performance [25]. Perhaps the introduction of spatial skill instruction in early education could have large effects on math performance later in life. Additionally, studies have shown that mathematics classroom environments are more beneficial to boys than to girls. For example, teachers in science and math classes are more likely to encourage boys to ask questions and explain concepts than girls [26]. Another study showed that when working in mixed-gender groups, girls are less likely to receive explanations or answers to questions directed at the group, especially when these questions are directed at male students [27]. Overall, these simple classroom interactions could affect girl’s performance in math, as well as their perception of the subject. 

Despite boys consistently outperforming girls in standardized testing, which most research is based on, there is a lack of performance looking at how girls typically outperform boys on classroom grades, including in science and mathematics [28]. In an article by Kimball, the author describes several reasons for this discrepancy. One explanation is that girls are able to perform better in classroom testing environments, as opposed to unfamiliar testing environments where standardized tests are often conducted [29]. Another explanation is that because boys are more likely to take more science and math classes, they have an advantage in standardized testing that does not always directly correlate with class material [30]. Thus, girls in general know the class material better than boys, but they struggle more when examining applications of the material not discussed in class.

Cultural Influences

This last section will discuss the influence of environmental factors outside of school by looking at factors such as extracurriculars and role models within American culture, as well as looking at how math performance varies by culture internationally. It is no surprise that from a young age, there are ‘boy’ activities and ‘girl’ activities. While girls play with Barbies, boys play with Legos. Many studies have been done examining how these early activities could have an effect on mental abilities later important for mathematical skill, the most obvious being spatial ability. Similarly, researchers have hypothesized that boys perform better on spatial ability tests later in life because as a child they are more likely to leave the house and explore new environments, which gives them more spatial and mathematical experience [31]. 

Another possible factor for the gender gap in math performance is the lack of female role models. If girls believe that STEM careers are not an option for them as a career, they are less likely to put the effort into their science and math classes. Additionally, the lack of female role models can also enforce the stereotype that ‘math is for boys’, which will cause girls more anxiety and lower their confidence in their math ability [32]. Studies have shown that when girls are given female role models and the necessary educational tools, they perform at the same level as their male classmates [33]. 

Lastly, it is also important to recognize larger societal factors by looking at math performance at an international level. For example, one study found that in samples of Hawaiian, Filipino, and Japanese students grades 4-10, there was actually a female advantage on math performance [34]. In a study by Guiso et al., researchers found that there is a direct relationship between the math-gender gap and cultural inequality [35]. This shows two things: (1) this variability strongly suggests that math performance is directly related to societal factors, as if it were biological performance should be relatively consistent over cultures [36], and (2) the math-gender gap is a large societal issue and there has to be widespread change to significantly narrow the gap.

 

In this section, we identified that there are many different societal factors that could affect female math performance. Although there is some overlap between these sections, it is important to realize the significance of the many possible factors. From conditioning as a child, to education, to adulthood, women have to overcome much more and work much harder to achieve similarly to men. In order to create a level playing field, for women in mathematics and women in STEM, extensive change must be done. 

17. Ceci, Stephen J., Donna K. Ginther, Shulamit Kahn, and Wendy M. Williams. “Women in Academic Science: A Changing Landscape.” Psychological Science in the Public Interest 15, no. 3 (December 2014): 75–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100614541236.

18. Cvencek, Dario, Andrew N. Meltzoff, and Anthony G. Greenwald. “Math-Gender Stereotypes in Elementary School Children: Gender Stereotypes.” Child Development 82, no. 3 (May 2011): 766–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01529.x.

19. Cvencek, Dario, Andrew N. Meltzoff, and Anthony G. Greenwald. “Math-Gender Stereotypes in Elementary School Children: Gender Stereotypes.” Child Development 82, no. 3 (May 2011): 766–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01529.x.

20. Else-Quest, Nicole M., Janet Shibley Hyde, and Marcia C. Linn. . “Cross-National Patterns of Gender Differences in Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis.” Psychological Bulletin 136 (1) (2010): 103–27. doi:10.1037/a0018053.

21. Kimball, Meredith M. “A New Perspective on Women’s Math Achievement.” Psychological Bulletin 105, no. 2 (March 1989): 198–214. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.105.2.198.

22. Kimball, Meredith M. “A New Perspective on Women’s Math Achievement.” Psychological Bulletin 105, no. 2 (March 1989): 198–214. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.105.2.198.

23. Johns, Michael, Toni Schmader, and Andy Martens. “Knowing Is Half the Battle.” Psychological Science (0956-7976) 16, no. 3 (March 2005): 175–79. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00799.x.

24. Johns, Michael, Toni Schmader, and Andy Martens. “Knowing Is Half the Battle.” Psychological Science (0956-7976) 16, no. 3 (March 2005): 175–79. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00799.x.

25. Else-Quest, Nicole M., Janet Shibley Hyde, and Marcia C. Linn. . “Cross-National Patterns of Gender Differences in Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis.” Psychological Bulletin 136 (1) (2010): 103–27. doi:10.1037/a0018053.

26. 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.

27. Kimball, Meredith M. “A New Perspective on Women’s Math Achievement.” Psychological Bulletin 105, no. 2 (March 1989): 198–214. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.105.2.198.

28. Kimball, Meredith M. “A New Perspective on Women’s Math Achievement.” Psychological Bulletin 105, no. 2 (March 1989): 198–214. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.105.2.198.

29. Kimball, Meredith M. “A New Perspective on Women’s Math Achievement.” Psychological Bulletin 105, no. 2 (March 1989): 198–214. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.105.2.198.

30. Kimball, Meredith M. “A New Perspective on Women’s Math Achievement.” Psychological Bulletin 105, no. 2 (March 1989): 198–214. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.105.2.198.

31. 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.

32. Else-Quest, Nicole M., Janet Shibley Hyde, and Marcia C. Linn. . “Cross-National Patterns of Gender Differences in Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis.” Psychological Bulletin 136 (1) (2010): 103–27. doi:10.1037/a0018053.

33. Else-Quest, Nicole M., Janet Shibley Hyde, and Marcia C. Linn. . “Cross-National Patterns of Gender Differences in Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis.” Psychological Bulletin 136 (1) (2010): 103–27. doi:10.1037/a0018053.

34. 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).

35. Guiso, L., F. Monte, P. Sapienza, and L. Zingales. “DIVERSITY: Culture, Gender, and Math.” Science 320, no. 5880 (May 30, 2008): 1164–65. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1154094.

36. 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).