Cited by 1,630Education, Achievement, and GiftednessCareer Development and DiversityCognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills

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

Else-Quest, Nicole M., Hyde, Janet Shibley, Linn, Marcia C.·2010·Psychological Bulletin

Abstract

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 < 0.15); however, national effect sizes showed considerable variability (ds = -0.42 to 0.40). Despite gender similarities in achievement, boys reported more positive math attitudes and affect (ds = 0.10 to 0.33); national effect sizes ranged from d = -0.61 to 0.89. In contrast to those of previous tests of the gender stratification hypothesis, our results point to specific domains of gender equity responsible for gender gaps in math. Gender equity in school enrollment, women's share of research jobs, and women's parl…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0018053

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Evidence for social-structural theory exists for several psychological gender differences, including mate preferences, mathematics performance, and some aspects of sexuality.

    “Evidence for this theory exists for several psychological gender differences, including mate preferences, mathematics performance, and some aspects of sexuality”
  • Other studies have found smaller gender differences in nations with more gender inequality for outcomes such as self-reports of personality traits and attitudes about mathematics.

    “However, other studies have found smaller gender differences in nations with more gender inequality. This pattern has been found for outcomes such as self-reports of personality traits and attitudes about mathematics”
  • The Hedges and Nowell strategy has been used in other meta-analyses on gender differences in cognitive abilities.

    “The Hedges and Nowell strategy has since been used in other meta-analyses on gender differences in cognitive abilities”
  • For objective measures such as mathematics performance or ratings of others such as mate preferences, the gender gap is smaller in more equitable nations.

    “For objective measures such as mathematics performance, or for ratings of others such as mate preferences, the gender gap is smaller in more equitable nations (e.g., Else-Quest et al., 2010; Zentner & Mitura, 2012).”
  • In general, males performed at a higher level in Math, and this holds true for both young and old, although sex differences are lacking in data from TIMSS.

    “In general, males performed at a higher level in Math, and this holds true for both young and old (Dickerson et al., 2015; Else-Quest et al., 2010; Marks, 2008; Stoet & Geary, 2013, 2015; Tao & Michalopoulos, 2018; van Hek et al., 2017; Weber et al., 2014), although sex differences are lacking in data from TIMSS (Else-Quest et al., 2010).”

    From A Systematic Review and New Analyses of the Gender-Equality Paradox (2025) · cites this paper as Else-Quest et al., 2010

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C.
Affiliations
  • Villanova University (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Published
2010-01
Volume
136
Issue
1
Pages
103-127
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
OpenAlex
W2012805784
Cited by
1,630
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 108 · 2025: 109 · 2024: 99 · 2023: 124 · 2022: 119 · 2021: 112 · 2020: 169 · 2019: 115 · 2018: 102 · 2017: 95 · 2016: 108 · 2015: 77 · 2014: 80 · 2013: 85 · 2012: 64
FWCI
88.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (REC 0635444)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Career Development and Diversity
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Cognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
Keywords
gender differences in mathematics, gender equity, student attitudes toward mathematics, TIMSS, PISA, student enrollment, women's parliamentary representation, girls' agency
MeSH terms
Achievement, Cognition, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Mathematics, Sex Factors, United States

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