Cisgender male and cisgender female bodies are biologically different from one another, so it stands to reason that male and female brains may be wired differently–at least in some regards–as well. That said, gender is only one factor when it comes to determining cognitive abilities and talents. Cultural practices and socialization are two other very important factors when it comes to determining what someone is going to be “good at.” We have all heard the stereotypes: women are better with language and communication, while men have the advantage in spatial reasoning. Women have better fine motor skills; males are generally better at math. But why do these stereotypes exist? And, if they are indeed accurate in some cases, why is that?
In 1988, Alan Feingold, then of Yale University, argued that differences between genders in cognition were disappearing (Feingold, 1988). He asserted that differences in certain types of intelligence are not related to biology, but to social and cultural expectations, experiences, and circumstances. As our educational system and opportunities for women and girls had improved, and as gender roles had evolved, the performance gap between men and women had narrowed. This meant that male and female cognitive abilities were more similar than what many people previously believed, and at least some if not many of the different levels of performance on standardized assessments could be attributed to the two genders’ being taught to prepare for and value very different things. Mainstream ideas about what boys and men should aspire to vs. what girls and women should aspire to are constantly evolving, and they impact what students want to learn, what they study, and what they have access to.
David Reilly’s 2012 study took things international and analyzed gender differences in the areas of reading, math, and science literacy in 65 countries; he used data from the 2009 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA; Reilly, 2012). This study came out nearly a quarter-century after Feingold’s, yet the results point to some lingering differences according to gender. In all nations, girls consistently outperformed boys in reading, while boys often outperformed girls in math. Science literacy was fairly inconclusive, as the gender differences in that subject were not significant. Reilly found that gender disparities were more evident when looking at both ends of the spectrum: there were larger differences between genders among lower-achieving students and among higher-achieving ones. Like Feingold, Reilly emphasized the significant influence of external factors such as the countries’ different economic situations, gender equity, and power distance (the extent to which people accept the fact that power is distributed unevenly). Reilly affirms that we cannot draw any conclusions about innate cognitive differences between males and females because different societies and cultures afford women very different opportunities:
When we see consistent gender differences across many or all nations, and when they are large enough in magnitude to have a practical impact on the educational and occupational aspirations of boys and girls, then we might reasonably conclude some systemic process is responsible–be this biological or institutional. (p. 3)
This brings us to the present day, or at least pretty close to it. In 2023, Kristin Bartlett and Jorge Camba published an article titled, “Gender differences in spatial ability: A critical review” (Bartlett & Camba, 2023). They found that mental rotation, a skill that falls under the larger umbrella of spatial ability, “is widely accepted as the cognitive ability with the largest gender difference in favor of men” (p. 7). So does this mean that men are inherently superior to women when it comes to mental rotation and spatial ability? It does not. The authors argue that the MRT, or Mental Rotation Test, the instrument used to measure mental rotation skills, is not a valid assessment. They go on to insist that the construct of spatial ability has been created together with the construct of gender. For example, plenty of “feminized” pursuits such as sewing, interior design, fashion, and cosmetology, just to name a few, require substantial spatial skills; they just are not recognized as such. We can see here that if a spatial skills assessment does not include a diverse variety of types of these skills, it is biased and therefore not valid.
So, what’s the verdict? It’s that even with the assumption that a gender binary exists, we will never truly know the extent to which biological gender impacts cognitive ability, because we cannot control for it. There is–and rightfully so!—no way to take a large sample of infants from their families, raise them in complete isolation from societal and cultural gender norms, and then test their intelligence by looking at their performance on unbiased measures. What this boils down to, in my view, is the need for access and opportunities for all people along the gender spectrum. We should not simply accept that boys and men are going to struggle with reading and communication, just as we should not assume that women cannot be architects and engineers.
I was once at a professional development session in which the speaker said that teachers sometimes make predictions about students that become self-fulfilling prophecies. For example, a teacher might say, “He’s a poor, rambunctious boy from a bad neighborhood. He’ll always struggle with reading.” The speaker then asked us what would happen if our physicians did the same thing. I would definitely not want my doctor to say something like, “She is totally going to fail when she tries to implement some lifestyle changes,” and then write me off as a lost cause! Those of us in education, whether we are teaching, training, hiring, or researching, need to be as unbiased as possible so that everyone gets a fair shot. Gender and gender expression are characteristics that should never be tied to assumptions. The research and data do not support that approach, and it is simply not fair to limit a human being’s possibilities for a full and rewarding life based on their biological makeup.
About the author: Donielle Escalante is a doctoral student in Curriculum and Instruction and a high school assistant principal.
References
Bartlett, K. A., & Camba, J. D. (2023). Gender differences in spatial ability: A critical review. Educational Psychology Review, 35(1), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09728-2
Feingold, A. (1988). Cognitive gender differences are disappearing. American Psychologist, 43(2), 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.43.2.95
Reilly, D. (2012). Gender, culture, and sex-typed cognitive abilities. PLOS ONE, 7(7), e39904. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0039904ProQuest+2PLOS+2PMC+2
