Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706.
Bonn Center for Teacher Education, University of Bonn, Bonn 53115, Germany.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2023 Oct 3;120(40):e2305629120. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2305629120. Epub 2023 Sep 25.
Women remain underrepresented in most math-intensive fields. [Breda and Napp, , 15435 (2019)] reported that girls' comparative advantage in reading over math (i.e., the intraindividual differences between girls' reading vs. math performance, compared to such differences for boys) could explain up to 80% of the gender gap in students' intentions to pursue math-intensive studies and careers, in conflict with findings from previous research. We conducted a conceptual replication and expanded upon Breda and Napp's study by using new global data (PISA2018, = 466,165) and a recent US nationally representative longitudinal study (High School Longitudinal Study of 2009, = 6,560). We coded students' majors and careers and their college majors. The difference between a student's math vs. reading performance explained only small proportions of the gender gap in students' intentions to pursue math-intensive fields (0.4 to 10.2%) and in their enrollment in math-intensive college majors (12.3%). Consistent with previous studies, our findings suggest girls' comparative advantage in reading explains of the gender gap in math-related majors and occupational intentions and choices. Potential reasons for differences in the estimated effect sizes include differences in the operationalization of math-related choices, the operationalization of math and reading performance, and possibly the timing of measuring intentions and choices. Therefore, it seems premature to conclude that girls' comparative advantage in reading, rather than the cumulative effects of other structural and/or psychological factors, can largely explain the persistent gender gap in math-intensive educational and career choices.
女性在大多数数学密集型领域的代表性仍然不足。[Breda 和 Napp,, 15435 (2019)]报告称,女孩在阅读方面相对于数学的比较优势(即女孩阅读与数学表现之间的个体差异,与男孩相比)可能可以解释高达 80%的学生在数学密集型学习和职业方面的意向性别差距,这与之前的研究结果相矛盾。我们进行了概念复制,并通过使用新的全球数据(PISA2018,= 466,165)和最近的美国全国代表性纵向研究(2009 年高中纵向研究,= 6,560)扩展了 Breda 和 Napp 的研究。我们对学生的专业和职业以及他们的大学专业进行了编码。学生的数学与阅读成绩之间的差异仅能解释学生选择数学密集型领域的意向和选择数学密集型大学专业的性别差距的很小一部分(0.4%至 10.2%)。与之前的研究一致,我们的研究结果表明,女孩在阅读方面的比较优势解释了数学相关专业和职业意向和选择的性别差距的 。估计效应大小存在差异的潜在原因包括数学相关选择的操作性定义、数学和阅读表现的操作性定义,以及可能的意向和选择测量时间。因此,目前还为时过早,不能得出结论认为,女孩在阅读方面的比较优势,而不是其他结构性和/或心理因素的累积效应,可以在很大程度上解释数学密集型教育和职业选择中持续存在的性别差距。