The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Sex Differences in Intrinsic Aptitude for Mathematics and Science?: A Critical Review.
Abstract
This article considers 3 claims that cognitive sex differences account for the differential representation of men and women in high-level careers in mathematics and science: (a) males are more focused on objects from the beginning of life and therefore are predisposed to better learning about mechanical systems; (b) males have a profile of spatial and numerical abilities producing greater aptitude for mathematics; and (c) males are more variable in their cognitive abilities and therefore predominate at the upper reaches of mathematical talent. Research on cognitive development in human infants, preschool children, and students at all levels fails to support these claims. Instead, it provides evidence that mathematical and scientific reasoning develop from a set of biologically based cognitive capacities that males and females share. These capacities lead men and women to develop equal talent for mathematics and science.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The role of experience in spatial test performance: A meta-analysis
Baenninger, M., & Newcombe, N. (1989) · Sex Roles · doi:10.1007/bf00287729 · Cited by 545
Cited by
Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students
Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1211286109 · Cited by 3,150
Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: A meta-analysis.
Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (2010) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0018053 · Cited by 1,630
Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others?
Cheryan, S., Ziegler, S. A., Montoya, A. K., & Jiang, L. (2017) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000052 · Cited by 1,259
Women's underrepresentation in science: sociocultural and biological considerations
Ceci, S. J., Williams, W. M., & Barnett, S. M. (2009) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0014412 · Cited by 957
Diekman, A. B., Brown, E. R., Johnston, A. M., & Clark, E. K. (2010) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797610377342 · Cited by 878
Metadata
- Authors
- Spelke, E. S.
- Venue
- American Psychologist
- Published
- 2005
- Volume
- 60
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 950-958
- ISSN
- 0003-066X (ISSN-L)
- 1935-990X
- OpenAlex
- W2088645057
- Cited by
- 751
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 23.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Sex Differences in Intrinsic Aptitude for Mathematics and Science?: A Critical Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/0003-066x.60.9.950
- The paper
- Spelke, E. S. (2005). Sex Differences in Intrinsic Aptitude for Mathematics and Science?: A Critical Review. American Psychologist. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.60.9.950
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
