Arak Journal

Analyzing the Math Gender Gap: Fact or Fiction?

By Abigail Rus

Women make up nearly half of the U.S. workforce, but only 27% of STEM workers (Martinez and Christnachtpar 2). This statistic, commonly cited to highlight the numerical gap between females and males in STEM careers, often captures people’s attention. However, there is a lack of in-depth exploration into the psychological and social factors contributing to this disparity. Drawing from personal experiences, such as tackling challenging math classes like AP Calculus in high school, I have gained insights into this broader phenomenon. In my pursuit of these challenging math classes, I often found myself seeking guidance from male peers, even if my test scores far surpassed theirs. However, these high test scores came with much stress and turmoil. The anxiety that accompanied each test would cloud my brain and make it difficult to access the knowledge I had acquired. I excelled in more challenging, low-pressure assignments outside the class but encountered difficulties with simpler concepts during tests. This issue of underperformance and the anxiety associated with math tests holds significant implications, leading many women to steer clear of entering STEM fields. Even for those, like myself, who venture into these fields, lingering doubts about their mathematical abilities may persist. Seeking to understand how this phenomenon extends past my own experiences and contributes to the underrepresentation of women in STEM careers, I researched gender disparities in mathematical abilities. I found there to be observable score disparities in standardized testing, yet women achieved higher math GPAs. There was no physiological difference in the makeup of women’s brains that would cause lower math scores. It is pre-existing gender roles and stereotypes that contribute to women underperforming in mathematics, leading them to explore alternative career paths and interests due to the perception of being less adept at math compared to men. Additional investigation revealed that the anxiety encountered by women during standardized math tests can be largely ascribed to the stereotype threat – a fear of conforming to clichés that leads to diminished performance. This threat can be triggered by various messages that reinforce the belief that abilities and intelligence are fixed traits. The gap in standardized test scores and math GPAs can be explained by the psychological phenomenon of the stereotype threat, which when triggered by factors such as fixed mindset cues or a lack of representation, contributes to underperformance among females.

Data obtained from the ACT, a widely used standardized test for college admissions in the United States, highlights disparities in Mathematics scores based on gender. The ACT assesses students in English, mathematics, scientific reasoning, and gauges their overall “college readiness.” Standardized scores, such as those from the SAT and ACT, are highly valued by colleges as they provide a so-called “uniform benchmark” for comparing students nationwide, unlike the varied nature of GPAs.

Richard Buddin, an associate researcher at Vanderbilt University recognized for his work on educational gaps in marginalized communities, conducted a study comparing GPA and ACT scores while considering gender as a variable. The data, sourced directly from the ACT website in 2013 and comprising almost 2 million data points, reflect a startling trend. The findings indicate that, on average, males outperform females by 0.86 points in the math section (Buddin 1663). However, when it came to GPAs, females boasted an average math GPA of 3.15, while males trailed behind with a 3.04—a 0.11-point difference (Buddin 1663). The inconsistency between standardized test scores and GPAs is troubling, especially considering the weight standardized test scores carry in college admissions. The data suggest that females might not be realizing their full potential in standardized testing environments. One explanation posited by Buddin is that standardized tests offer a “point-in-time estimate of academic achievement,” which may create high-pressure situations disproportionately affecting female performance in math (1663). I contend that standardized testing environments are causing more than just sweaty palms. They are hindering females’ performance in mathematics. In non-testing environments, females can perform equally, if not better than men.

To thoroughly assess the validity of this claim, I examined a comprehensive meta-analysis study that spanned over 17 years. This type of study involves gathering data from previously conducted studies. Conducted by psychology researchers from the University of California, Berkeley, this study compiled data from large government databases, boasting an impressive sample size of 1,209,587 individuals, to determine the “effect size.” The effect size is, “the mean difference between males and females on a continuous measure of mathematics performance” (Lindberg et al. 7). The magnitude of the effect size indicates the extent of the difference. The effect size, at a negligible number, suggests that “There is no longer a gender difference in mathematics performance” (Lindberg et al. 12). However, further data shows that the effect size was a significant value favoring male performance when the questions were multiple choice (Lindberg et al. 12). Despite the data’s age (gathered from 1990-2007), its substantial sample size enhances its credibility. Male performance is favored when questions are multiple-choice, a standardized test hallmark, which furthers my claim that math standardized testing performance is not an accurate gauge of ability.

Nevertheless, opponents argue that lower math scores reflect genuine differences in female achievement due to biological processing disparities favoring males in math-related subjects. This statement is backed by misogyny, not science. Research done by a professor at Carnegie Mellon University showed that there is “no gender difference in brain function or math ability” (Kish). There are no biological differences in mathematical aptitude. Other opponents claim that men underachieve in GPA scores due to behavior issues and non-intelligence variables. While this may be partly true, the large discrepancy in GPA and standardized scores cannot solely be attributed to men underachieving in GPA scores, but rather, it indicates that women underachieve in standardized testing. This reasoning is backed by data that shows women experience higher rates of anxiety during math tests than men. The notion of the “male math brain,” which suggests that male brains are inherently better suited for mathematics, is a myth. This misconception only amplifies the existing stress that women encounter when facing multiple-choice examinations. The existence of math-specific anxiety for women is a psychological phenomenon that underlies lower standardized testing scores.

The anxiety experienced by women, including myself, during math examinations, can be explained through the concept of “stereotype threat.” This condition occurs when a stereotype hinders cognitive performance because individuals from the affected group fear confirming the perceived idea. In essence, it operates similarly to a self-fulfilling prophecy. This psychological phenomenon is not exclusive to women but also impacts minority groups in society that encounter stereotyping. The prevailing stereotype suggests that women excel in English and social studies but struggle in math and science. The term “stereotype threat” was coined by Claude Steele, a social psychologist and dean at Stanford University. In a video interview, he simplifies the phenomenon, stating, “If you’re trying to perform in an area where your group is negatively stereotyped, you’re going to feel an extra pressure, a distracting kind of pressure. And that pressure can affect how you perform” (01:51-02:04). This added pressure can result in underperformance, even when a group is equally prepared, leading them to perform worse. As research on the stereotype threat continues to expand, it becomes evident that the triggering of this threat is what ultimately results in underperformance. A master thesis, published by a student at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, notes that the phenomenon “impairs the patient’s efficiency” and leads to a “self-protective withdrawal of effort” (Fellner 4). The fear of failure induces self-handicapping patterns of behavior within the stereotyped group, further exacerbating the impact on performance. Stereotype threat is a relatively recent concept, defined and researched in the past few decades. Previously, theories attributed underperformance in stereotyped groups, such as black men in verbal abilities and women in mathematics, to biological inferiority. The revelation of this psychological phenomenon helps dispel such theories, providing a more accurate explanation for the disparity in standardized test scores and actual ability.

To activate the impaired cognitive functioning that impacts math performances, the stereotype threat must be triggered. The triggering of the stereotype threat is intricate and multifaceted, with ongoing research actively exploring the phenomenon. One identified triggering mechanism for stereotype threat-induced anxiety is fixed-mindset teaching styles and the language used in conjunction with them. A fixed mindset is the belief that ability is innate and unchangeable, implying that students cannot improve their abilities over time. Women are disproportionately affected by teachers exhibiting fixed mindset teaching styles and this consequently influences their performance in mathematics. To examine this issue, a journal article by Psychology professors at Washington State University manipulated professors into adopting a fixed mindset through cues in a syllabus. The altered syllabi were then distributed to Calculus 11 students, who underwent evaluation through a math placement test. Fixed mindsight cues included statements like, “I do not give partial credit on answers” and “If you have not mastered those concepts, you should consider dropping this course” (Canning 931). Growth mindsight cues were “partial credit will be given” and “you should see me or a teaching assistant and we will provide resources” (Canning 931). The difference in wording in the growth mindsight syllabus implied that ability is malleable, and students would have the opportunity to improve their abilities. The study found that when teachers promote the idea that “students with innate ability are smart and competent, it makes all students feel more vulnerable and causes them to question their belonging” (Canning 927). However, women felt significantly less belonging, and men outperformed women when exposed to the fixed mindset syllabus, whereas there was no gender difference in performance with the growth mindset syllabus. While no study can perfectly imitate real-world situations, the wording used in the cues’ is similar to that experienced by myself and other students in numerous courses. The study’s findings underscore how the fixed mindset perpetuated by instructors can impact female students and hinder their performance.

Instructors’ teaching style plays a large role in females’ performance because, unlike men, they are primed to be more susceptible to believing that their abilities are inferior. This occurrence is highlighted by a journal article published by the Department of Education (DOE). The DOE collects data on schools and ensures equal access to education. The article investigated how growth mindset training would affect female students’ mathematical performance. An experimental group of female students attended a growth mindset training session, in which students practiced exercises that emphasized the process of learning rather than the result. Then, an excerpt about female performance being lower than men’s performance was read, and a math test was administered. This excerpt’s goal was to trigger the stereotype threat. The result was that “The math performance of girls who have received growth mindset training is unexpectedly, significantly better than that of those without such experience” (Song 1634). This indicates that placing emphasis on the learning process, rather than focusing solely on outcomes, can have a positive impact on the mathematical abilities of female students. While the research was carried out in China, its findings are universally relevant given the interconnected nature of societies through social media. Critics of this study’s conclusions attribute women’s higher susceptibility to fixed mindset cues to their “sensitive nature.” However, this perspective is unfounded and perpetuates the stereotype of women being emotionally fragile and irrational. Scientific evidence contradicts such beliefs, demonstrating that women experience heightened anxiety during math tests primarily due to stereotype threat, rather than any inherent traits.

The underrepresentation of women in mathematics significantly contributes to the activation of stereotype threat in females pursuing math-related fields. Early exposure to gender roles plays a crucial role in shaping future interests and career choices. If girls lack exposure to female mathematicians, they are more susceptible to stereotype threat conditions later in life.

A review of psychological research authored by professors from the Psychology Department of the University of Norway looked at the influence of exposure to counter-stereotype roles on stereotype formation. Children are exposed to gender roles through,” their parents, siblings, relatives, neighbors, peers, [….] but also through educational resources, media, and popular culture” (Olsson and Martiny 2). The research indicates that “a lack of females in STEM and top leadership positions may signal to women that members of their gender lack the skills necessary to be successful in these domains” (Olsson and Martiny 2). This notion is reinforced by the increasing influence of the media on childhood development. To mitigate stereotype threat anxiety, it is essential to expose young girls to more inclusive media sources, as media exposure can mold gender roles and influence later life perceptions. This is corroborated by an article written by Luong and Knobloch-Westerwick, Psychology researchers at Ohio State University. In their study, women who perceived themselves as having low math ability and identified with the role models depicted in the magazine showed improved math performance when exposed to pictures of a career magazine. However, women who identified more strongly with “traditional” female roles experienced negative effects when exposed to career magazines for longer durations. These findings suggest that for women who believe they struggle in math, the positive impact of exposure to such role models depends on how well they identify with them. This result underscores the need for representation that resonates with women, particularly those most vulnerable to stereotype threat in order to ensure that exposure to role models benefits rather than hinders their performance.

Additionally, media, particularly during childhood, contributes to the formation of gender roles in ways that can impact females’ experiences with stereotype threat as they grow older. Opponents of this perspective argue that women may choose alternative interests and perform less in math due to genuine disinterest. While there is some validity to this argument, it is crucial to recognize that women’s choice of interests may be subconsciously influenced by a belief that they lack the potential to excel in mathematics. Unfortunately, in today’s society, gender roles continue to influence women’s career choices significantly. Therefore, exposing young girls to female role models breaking traditional gender norms is essential to counter the impact of stereotype threat on career decisions.

Women are not inherently “worse than men at math.” The perpetuation of this belief is not always explicit, as in outright statements like “Women are bad at math.” It can be subtly reinforced through messages promoting a fixed mindset and a lack of representation of female figures in mathematical fields. As long as women hold the perception that they are incapable of achieving the same level of success in math as men, the grade discrepancy is likely to persist. So, dismantling the myth of inherent gender disparities in math proficiency requires challenging stereotypes, fostering a growth mindset, and promoting diverse role models. Society tells women that they are not good at math and then questions why they aren’t entering STEM careers. It is time to start subtracting stereotypes from classrooms and adding more women to the STEM workforce.

Works Cited

Buddin, Richard. “Gender Gaps in High School GPA and ACT Scores.” ACT, 2014, https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/Info-Brief-2014-12.pdf.

Canning, Elizabeth, et al. “Professors Who Signal a Fixed Mindset About Ability Undermine Women’s Performance in STEM.” Social Psychological and Personality Science, vol. 13, 2021, 927-937.

Fellner, David R. “Stereotype Threat and Achievement Motivation:: A Mediational Analysis.” Master Theses 1911- February 2014, 2000, 1-20, https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3495&context=theses

Kish, Stacy. “Study Finds Brains of Girls and Boys Are Similar, Producing Equal Math Ability News.” Carnegie Mellon University, 8 Nov. 2019, https://www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2019/november/girls-boys-brains-produce-eq ual-math-ability.html.

Lindberg, Sara M, et al. “New Trends in Gender and Mathematics Performance: A Meta-Analysis.” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 136.6, 2010, 1123-35. doi:10.1037/a0021276

Luong, Kate T. and Silvia Knobloch-Westerwick. “Can the Media Help Women Be Better at Math? Stereotype Threat, Selective Exposure, Media Effects, and Women’s Math Performance.” Human Communication Research 43, 2017,193-213.

Martinez, Anthony, and Cheridan Christnacht. “Women Making Gains in STEM Occupations but Still Underrepresented.” Census Bureau, 26 January 2021, https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/01/women-making-gains-in-stem-occupation s-but-still-underrepresented.html.

Olsson, Maria, and Sarah E. Martiny. “Does Exposure to Counterstereotypical Role Models Influence Girls’ and Women’s Gender Stereotypes and Career Choices? A Review of Social Psychological Research.” Frontiers in Psychology 9, 2018, 1-15

Song, S. “Growth Mindset Training and the Effect of Math Gender Stereotype Threat on Girl Students”. Best Evidence in Chinese Education, 2022, 1629-1634

Steele, Claude. “Stereotype threat: A Conversation with Claude Steele.” YouTube, uploaded by Not in Our School, July 18, 2013, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=failylROnrY&t=218s