A gender gap in mathematics achievement persists in some nations but not in others. In light of the underrepresentation of women in careers in science, technology, mathematics, and engineering, increasing research attention is being devoted to understanding gender differences in mathematics achievement, attitudes, and affect. The gender stratification hypothesis maintains that such gender differences are closely related to cultural variations in opportunity structures for girls and women. We meta-analyzed 2 major international data sets, the 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study and the Programme for International Student Assessment, representing 493,495 students 14-16 years of age, to estimate the magnitude of gender differences in mathematics achievement, attitudes, and affect across 69 nations throughout the world. Consistent with the gender similarities hypothesis, all of the mean effect sizes in mathematics achievement were very small (d < 0.15); however, national effect sizes showed considerable variability (ds = -0.42 to 0.40). Despite gender similarities in achievement, boys reported more positive math attitudes and affect (ds = 0.10 to 0.33); national effect sizes ranged from d = -0.61 to 0.89. In contrast to those of previous tests of the gender stratification hypothesis, our results point to specific domains of gender equity responsible for gender gaps in math. Gender equity in school enrollment, women's share of research jobs, and women's parliamentary representation were the most powerful predictors of cross-national variability in gender gaps in math. Results are situated within the context of existing research demonstrating apparently paradoxical effects of societal gender equity and highlight the significance of increasing girls' and women's agency cross-nationally.

The authors used meta-analytical techniques to estimate the magnitude of gender differences in mean level and variability of 35 dimensions and 3 factors of temperament in children ages 3 months to 13 years. Effortful control showed a large difference favoring girls and the dimensions within that factor (e.g., inhibitory control: d ϭ Ϫ0.41, perceptual sensitivity: d ϭ Ϫ0.38) showed moderate gender differences favoring girls, consistent with boys' greater incidence of externalizing disorders. Surgency showed a difference favoring boys, as did some of the dimensions within that factor (e.g., activity: d ϭ 0.33, high-intensity pleasure: d ϭ 0.30), consistent with boys' greater involvement in active rough-and-tumble play. Negative affectivity showed negligible gender differences.

Intersectionality has become something of a buzzword in psychology and is well-known in feminist writings throughout the social sciences. Across diverse definitions of intersectionality, we find three common assumptions: (1) There is a recognition that all people are characterized simultaneously by multiple social categories and that these categories are interconnected or intertwined. (2) Embedded within each of these categories is a dimension of inequality or power. (3) These categories are properties of the individual as well as characteristics of the social context inhabited by those individuals; as such, categories and their significance may be fluid and dynamic. Understanding intersectionality as an approach and critical theory, rather than as a falsifiable theory, we consider its potential within research using quantitative methods. We discuss positivism, social constructionism, and standpoint epistemology in order to examine the implications of these epistemologies for research methods and to explore how compatible an intersectional approach may be with each. With an eye toward expanding the incorporation of intersectional approaches in the psychology of women, we discuss both the challenges and the potential of combining quantitative methods and intersectionality. We contend that quantitative methods can be used within an intersectional approach and that doing so will expand and develop the study of intersectionality, insofar as more research tools will be available to intersectionality researchers. We also contend that quantitative researchers should incorporate an intersectional approach into their work and that doing so will enrich and deepen our understanding of psychological constructs and processes.

No abstract

Intersectional approaches, which consider how simultaneous membership in multiple social categories characterize our experiences and are linked to power and privilege, have deep roots in feminist psychology. While an intersectional approach is well suited to a variety of research questions and topics, its application to date has chiefly been found with qualitative methods; when quantitative methods are used, components of the approach are used but not clearly framed as intersectional. Building upon our previous discussion and analysis of the theoretical and epistemological issues that arise when combining intersectionality and quantitative methods, this article articulates how quantitative researchers might incorporate an intersectional approach into their work. The techniques we describe are frequently used within quantitative methods, but they are infrequently used within an intersectional approach. Techniques include framing social categories (e.g., gender and ethnicity) as person variables or as stimulus variables, using a between-groups design to examine multiple locations at an intersection, stratified random sampling and purposive sampling, and examining how measures demonstrate conceptual equivalence and measurement invariance across groups. We also focus on data-analytic methods, which include examination of multiple main effects and interactions, moderators in meta-analysis, multilevel modeling, moderated mediation, and person-centered methods. These methods are insufficient without also including intersectional interpretations and framing with attention to inequalities and power relations. Online slides for instructors who want to use this article (and the related response articles) for teaching are available on PWQ's website at http://pwq.sagepub.com/supplemental