Search

Relative strength of math and verbal abilities and interests drive science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) career choices more than absolute math ability alone. Having one dominant aptitude (e.g., for mathematics) increases the likelihood of a strong self-concept in that domain and decreases the likelihood of equivocation about career choices in comparison with individuals with equivalent mathematical aptitude who have comparable strength in non-math areas. Males are more likely than females to have an asymmetrical cognitive profile of higher aptitude in math relative to verbal domains. Together, these two points suggest that the academic and career pursuits of high math ability males may be attributable to their narrower options among STEM fields, whereas females’ more symmetrical cognitive profile means their math and verbal interests compete in the formation of their ability self-concept and, hence, in their broader career choices. Such equivocation about STEM careers is in fact already evident in girls with high math aptitude as early as junior high school. Thus, we argue that asymmetry in interests and aptitudes is an underappreciated factor in sex differences in career choice. To the extent this is true, focusing on strengthening young women’s STEM-related abilities and ability self-concepts to increase female STEM representation may be an unproductive approach; to increase representation, it may be more effective to focus on harvesting the potential of those girls and women whose breadth of interest and high ability spans social/verbal and spatial/numerical domains. The use of interventions that play to this greater breadth by socially contextualizing STEM is one potential solution. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Brain organization theory posits a cascade of physiological and behavioral changes initiated and shaped by prenatal hormones. Recently, this theory has been associated with outcomes including gendered toy preference, 2D/4D digit ratio, personality characteristics, sexual orientation, and cognitive profile (spatial, verbal, and mathematical abilities). We examine the evidence for this claim, focusing on 2D/4D and its putative role as a biomarker for organizational features that influence cognitive abilities/interests predisposing males toward mathematically and spatially intensive careers. Although massive support exists for early brain organization theory overall, there are myriad inconsistencies, alternative explanations, and outright contradictions that must be addressed while still taking the entire theory into account. Like a fractal within the larger theory, the 2D/4D hypothesis mirrors this overall support on a smaller scale while likewise suffering from inconsistencies (positive, negative, and sex-dependent correlations), alternative explanations (2D/4D related to spatial preferences rather than abilities per se), and contradictions (feminine 2D/4D in men associated with higher spatial ability). Using the debate over brain organization theory as the theoretical stage, we focus on 2D/4D evidence as an increasingly important player on this stage, a demonstrative case in point of the evidential complexities of the broader debate, and an increasingly important topic in its own right. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]