Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38535164›Full record

ArticleJournal of Intelligence2024

Examining the Interplay between the Cognitive and Emotional Aspects of Gender Differences in Spatial Processing.

Cynthia M Fioriti, Raeanne N Martell, Richard J Daker, Eleanor P Malone, H Moriah Sokolowski, Adam E Green, Susan C Levine, Erin A Maloney, Gerardo Ramirez, Ian M Lyons

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of Intelligence, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Cynthia M FioritiDepartment of Psychology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20057, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6633-8176
Raeanne N MartellDepartment of Psychology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20057, USA.
Richard J DakerDepartment of Psychology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20057, USA.
Eleanor P MaloneDepartment of Psychology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20057, USA.ORCID 0009-0006-3286-5481
H Moriah SokolowskiDepartment of Psychology, Toronto Metropolitan University, Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canada.
Adam E GreenDepartment of Psychology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20057, USA.
Susan C LevineDepartment of Psychology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8579-9290
Erin A MaloneySchool of Psychology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5557-0842
Gerardo RamirezDepartment of Educational Psychology, Ball State University, Muncie, IN 47306, USA.
Ian M LyonsDepartment of Psychology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20057, USA.

Funding

Longitudinal Investigation into Declarative and Procedural Memory Brain Systems Supporting the Development of Math SkillsR01HD100429 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA · PI EVANS, TANYA MARIE, LYONS, IAN M · 2020 to 2024
$2.9M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD100429
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Women reliably perform worse than men on measures of spatial ability, particularly those involving mental rotation. At the same time, females also report higher levels of spatial anxiety than males. What remains unclear, however, is whether and in what ways gender differences in these cognitive and affective aspects of spatial processing may be interrelated. Here, we tested for robust gender differences across six different datasets in spatial ability and spatial anxiety (N = 1257, 830 females). Further, we tested for bidirectional mediation effects. We identified indirect relations between gender and spatial skills through spatial anxiety, as well as between gender and spatial anxiety through spatial skills. In the gender → spatial anxiety → spatial ability direction, spatial anxiety explained an average of 22.4% of gender differences in spatial ability. In the gender → spatial ability → spatial anxiety direction, spatial ability explained an average of 25.9% of gender differences in spatial anxiety. Broadly, these results support a strong relation between cognitive and affective factors when explaining gender differences in the spatial domain. However, the nature of this relation may be more complex than has been assumed in previous literature. On a practical level, the results of this study caution the development of interventions to address gender differences in spatial processing which focus primarily on either spatial anxiety or spatial ability until such further research can be conducted. Our results also speak to the need for future longitudinal work to determine the precise mechanisms linking cognitive and affective factors in spatial processing.

Indexed as

gender differencesspatial anxietyspatial skills

Identifiers

PMID38535164
PMCPMC10971478

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.