Printer Friendly

A woman's plight: spatial slurs ....

So many studies over the years have reported that males are superior to females in spatial abilities (nonverbal tasks involving perception and movement within defined spaces) that the "superiority" has become "common belief," says researchers at tne Ontario Institute for Studies in Education in Toronto.

But according to those researchers, such studies have been so fraught with deficiencies and inconsistencies that "the conclusion that males are superior is unwarranted." In an in-depth review of the literature on the subject, Paula J. Caplan, Gael M. MacPherson and Patricia Tobin report their findings in the July AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST. "At most," they write, "sex-related differences that have been reported are very small and, despite what some reviewers and theorists have implied, are not reliably or consistently reported."

In their review, the researchers begin by scrutinizing "perhaps the best-known example of sex-related difference in spatial abilities that is said dramatically to show male superiority" -- the maze tests of Stanley D. Porteus, which have been in use for more than 50 years. In his series of tests, Porteus consistently reported that males scored higher than females when confronted with drawing their way through line mazes.

However, the Ontario researchers report that in only 18 of his 105 studies did Porteus perform a t test, which is designed to measure significant differences in the data -- and in only 14 of those did the results reach statistical significance.

Caplan and her colleagues found similar problems throughout the literature, not only in methodology but also in consistency in defining spatial abilities. "People invented the term spatial abilities," they write. "The fact that the term...exists does not prove that the humans' brains or cognitive abilities fit [the various definitions]." On the basis of their findings, the researchers conclude that their "sex differences in spatial ability do no exist" or the issue "is by no means clear as yet."
COPYRIGHT 1985 Science Service, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1985, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:new evaluation of research on sex-related differences
Publication:Science News
Date:Aug 3, 1985
Words:310
Previous Article:... And the 'mother-blaming' problem.
Next Article:Zeroing in on the blackbody.
Topics:


Related Articles
Back off veto threat.
Bed liner maker picks up.
'KNOCKED UP' IS PREGNANT WITH INSIGHT.
Progressive MS.
Taking "The Movement" to MS Awareness Week March 5-11, 2007.
Ten years of summer reading success: the eastern and central reading encouragement and development network (E.C.READ'N).
Women aren't "small men": women's health issues are different than men's and need to be addressed specifically.
Making the legislature a safe workplace: sexual harassment can occur anywhere, including in the legislature.
Risk factor: throat cancer linked to virus spread by sex.
Egg shell game: chicks' sex isn't just a matter of chance.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2016 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters