Gender Bias in Spatial Cognition and STEM Fields.

* What is spatial cognition; why is it important?

* Gender bias in spatial cognition
* Potential explanations for gender bias in spatial cognition
* Biological and evolutionary explanations
* Gendered toys and interactions account
* Stereotype threat in spatial cognition
* Stereotype threat and STEM participation
* Future Directions
 What is spatial cognition; why is it important?.
“Individuals' abilities in searching the visual field, apprehending the forms, shapes, and positions of objects as
visually perceived, forming mental representations of those forms, shapes, and positions, and manipulating such
representations "mentally."” (Carroll, 1993).

Everyday tasks like tool use and navigation (Mix et al., 2018; Newcombe et al., 2013)

Success in STEM disciplines (Lowrie et al., 2019; Uttal, Miller, et al., 2013; Wai et al., 2009)

Malleable (Casey et al., 2008; Uttal, Meadow, et al., 2013; Yang et al., 2020)
 What is spatial cognition?.
The three-tier framework of spatial ability (Ramful et al., 2016)

Spatial skill Definition Example

Spatial Orientation Mentally representing an environment

in its full shape from various perspectives.

Mental Rotation Bringing objects into more complex

placements, mentally rotating objects by a
certain angle

Spatial Visualization Manipulating or transforming spatial information

and generating new images.
Why is spatial cognition important?.
Success in STEM disciplines (Lowrie et al., 2019; Uttal, Miller, et al., 2013; Wai et al., 2009)

* 400,000 high school students, 11 years, spatial ability predicts career in STEM (Wai et al., 2009).

* Primary-school children (7-11 years old), the effect of 5 spatial abilities on the curriculum-based science performance.
Mental folding and spatial scaling abilities uniquely predicted overall science scores. Specifically for scientific areas, mental
folding predicted physics and biology scores, while spatial scaling predicted chemistry and biology (Hodgkiss et al., 2018).

What is special about spatial skills?.

* Chemistry professionals (or students) are required to reason about the three-dimensional structures of the molecules from
different angles (Hinze et al., 2013; Resnick & Shipley, 2013; Uttal, Miller, et al., 2013).

* Mathematicians need to move or manipulate operants (Cheng & Mix, 2013; Pirrone et al., 2015; Tosto et al., 2014).

* Geometry demands interpreting forms and angles of the shapes (Bruce & Hawes, 2014; Kinach, 2012; Mix & Cheng, 2012).
Why is spatial cognition important?.
Malleable (Casey et al., 2008; Uttal, Meadow, et al., 2013; Yang et al., 2020)

* Inexpensive and feasible spatial trainings create a huge difference for STEM (Taylor & Hutton, 2013; Uttal, Miller, et al., 2013).

* Construction play (Pirrone et al., 2015; Stannard et al., 2001).

* Paper folding, high school is too late for spatial training (Burte et al., 2017; Toub et al., 2019; Wu & Sun, 2020).

* School curriculums focus on the verbal and numerical components, while spatial thinking was overlooked. Two potential
solutions: extracurricular activities (e.g., block building) could be provided; the existing curriculums could be enriched by spatial
input such as graphs, maps, and diagrams to incorporate spatial intelligence into the school curriculum (Newcombe, 2017).

* One of the main reasons for sex differences in spatial cognition that grasped the considerable attention of scholars was the
salient predictive role of spatial performance on achievement and sex differences observed in the pursuit of STEM careers. This
information highlighted the importance of understanding the reasons for sex differences in spatial performance to intervene in
females’ lack of STEM attendance (Lauer et al., 2019).
Gender Bias in Spatial Cognition.
* Pioneer meta-analyses (Linn & Petersen, 1985; Voyer et al., 1995)

* During infancy (Lauer et al., 2015; Moore & Johnson, 2008)

* Preschool (Levine et al., 1999; Ralph et al., 2020)

* Adulthood (Tarampi et al., 2016; Cherney et al., 2014)

* Meta-analysis (Lauer et al., 2019; Nazareth et al., 2019)

* Different spatial skills (Harris et al., 2013)

Potential Explanations for Gender Bias in Spatial Cognition.
Three potential reasons why the performance gap exists between sexes (Halpern et al., 2007).

Biological and Evolutionary Explanations

Gendered Toys and Interactions Account

Stereotype Threat in Spatial Cognition

Biological and Evolutionary Explanations.
* Androgens, the hormones responsible for forming sex characteristics (Lauer et al., 2015;
Moore & Johnson, 2008).

* Female-to-male transsexual individuals’ performance increased in three-dimensional

spatial tasks after three months of androgen treatment (Slabbekoorn et al., 1999; Van
Goozen et al., 1995)

* Meta-analysis, sex bias favoring males reached the larger effect sizes beginning from
adolescence (Lauer et al., 2019; Linn & Petersen, 1985; Voyer et al., 1995)
Biological and Evolutionary Explanations.
* The structure and function of the brain, as the white matter volume was higher in males,
while there was higher gray matter in females’ brains. Additionally, the female brain was
bilaterally symmetric, whereas an asymmetry was observed in males. These structural
variations led to some functional differences. The female brain was thought to be organized
for language processing, while the male brain had higher performance in visuospatial
processing (Halpern et al., 2007).

* Evolutionary history (Newcombe, 2009)

* Mental rotation is a small-scale ability that western schooling facilitates. 6-18 years old
participants’ mobility in Tsimane, Bolivia. Males and females were mobile to a similar extent,
and no significant sex difference was found in their spatial skills (Davis & Cashdan, 2019).
 Gendered Toys and Interactions Account.
* Halpern et al. (2007) proposed that males were more sensitive to either enriched environments’ positive
effects or poor stimulations’ adverse effects.

* Opportunities for play and recreational activities led to the sex bias in spatial abilities favoring males
(Brosnan, 1998; Caldera et al., 1999; Reilly and Neumann 2013).

* More spatial toys, such as construction toys, were provided to boys than girls due to gender stereotypes
(Fulcher & Hayes, 2017; Jirout & Newcombe, 2015; Knudsen & Kuever, 2015).

* LEGO® City targets boys, the main themes: heroism, profession, employment, and expertise while LEGO®
Friends targets girls with the themes: being a novice, pursuing hobbies, caring, sharing, beauty, and
attractiveness in their brand statements. Therefore, LEGO® City promoted agency and proficiency, whereas
companionship and leisure concepts were attributed to LEGO® Friends (Black et al., 2016; Reich et al., 2017).

* The color of the girly bricks (pink & purple) would not matter to foster spatial thinking like blue and green
ones (Fulcher & Hayes, 2017; Rode & Cucuiat, 2018).
Gendered Toys and Interactions Account.
* How the children played or interacted with the toys is as important as the physical
properties of the toys (Black et al., 2016).

* Children and parents tend to use more spatial language during construction play
(Ferrara et al., 2011; Verdine et al., 2014).

* Parents tend to use more spatial language to their boys in comparison to their girls
(Pruden & Levine, 2017; Ralph et al., 2020).
*** Some scholars argued that feminine construction toys’ affordances were more in line with doll play than construction
play. Additionally, it was suggested that feminine construction toys might prime gender identity more and further endorse
stereotypes. Another view against feminine construction toy designs was their potential discouragement of males. Besides
all those counterarguments to feminine construction toys, researchers also addressed that the feminine features of these
toys would hinder gender stereotypes and contribute to spatial play.
 Stereotype Threat in Spatial Cognition.
* The diminished performance in a task due to one’s identity when this identity creates a pressure of the
possibility of performing worse than the individual would. The underlying mechanism was that the victims’
anxiety about presumably having poor performance occupied their limited working memory resources.
“threat in the air” (Spencer, 2016).

* A large-scale study more than 90,000 women, 111,000 men, 53 nations; the role of explicit and implicit
stereotypes on mental rotation and line angle judgment. Males performed better than females in all
countries (Lippa et al., 2009).

* The impact of explicit or implicit stereotyping on mental rotation performance. The stereotype threat
effect disappeared in the stereotype nullifying (claiming there was no performance difference among groups
at the beginning of the task) situations. a significant moderation for males, mental rotation performance
decreased when there was a high incongruence between the implicit gender stereotypes of males and the
explicit prompts given to them (Guizzo et al., 2019).

* Meta-analysis (Doyle & Voyer, 2016; Flore & Wicherts, 2015).

Stereotype Threat in STEM Participation.
* Females’ lack of attendance in STEM might be rooted in ability-related stereotype threat
(e.g., stereotype threat towards spatial cognition domain) or stereotype threat towards the
STEM culture (e.g., believing that there is no collaboration and helping in STEM disciplines,
since they are technology oriented and isolated from society (Cheryan et al., 2015; Diekman et
al., 2011; Mulvey & Irvin, 2018).

* Physical sciences vs. life sciences (Cheryan et al., 2017; Dicke et al., 2019; Halpern et al., 2007).

* Parents and teachers endorse gender stereotypes (Alan et al., 2018; Tomasetto et al., 2011).

* Effectiveness of the stereotype threat interventions, a meta-analysis. (Liu et al., 2020).

 Future Directions ……....

* Gender bias in spatial cognition was predominantly studied through mental rotation ability despite various spatial skills being
equally important. However, the performance gap between the sexes in these areas (i.e., mental folding, perspective taking)
either was not studied, or there were contradictory findings. Therefore, more studies should be conducted in those domains.

* Construction toys are male stereotypic. There are several attempts for feminine construction toys to break this stereotype.
Views about those attempts are contradictory to each other. More empirical studies and meta-analyses are needed for
conclusive evidence and illuminate whether feminine construction toys endorse gender stereotypes and discourage males or
whether they successfully combat stereotype threat.

* The intervention methods against stereotype threat seemed successful. However, their effect was measured immediately after
the intervention, and the question of “Are stereotype threat interventions’ positive effects durable?” remained unanswered.

* Stereotype threat studies were predominantly conducted in a laboratory environment and with participants who were
university students. There were also several studies with adolescents. However, this line of research lacked a developmental
point of view, and longitudinal studies beginning from early childhood were highly needed. Also, organizational settings must be
studied to illustrate the experiences of females while employing STEM occupations.

* There is a link between spatial abilities and STEM success. Also, several studies separately demonstrated the stereotype threat
effect on spatial performance and STEM attendance. However, the interaction between those three variables was not examined
such that “Would stereotype threat moderate the relationship between spatial abilities and STEM success?”.
References ……....

Alan, S., Ertac, S., & Mumcu, I. (2018). Gender Stereotypes in the Classroom and Effects on Achievement. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 100(5), 876–890.
https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00756
Black, R. W., Tomlinson, B., & Korobkova, K. (2016). Play and identity in gendered LEGO franchises. International Journal of Play, 5(1), 64–76.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21594937.2016.1147284
Brosnan, M. J. (1998). Spatial Ability in Children’s Play with Lego Blocks. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 87(1), 19–28. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1998.87.1.19
Bruce, C. D., & Hawes, Z. (2014). The role of 2D and 3D mental rotation in mathematics for young children: what is it? Why does it matter? And what can we do about
it? ZDM, 47(3), 331–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-014-0637-4
Burte, H., Gardony, A. L., Hutton, A., & Taylor, H. A. (2017). Think3d!: Improving mathematics learning through embodied spatial training. Cognitive Research:
Principles and Implications, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-017-0052-9
Caldera, Y. M., Culp, A. M., O’Brien, M., Truglio, R. T., Alvarez, M., & Huston, A. C. (1999). Children’s Play Preferences, Construction Play with Blocks, and
Visual-spatial Skills: Are they Related? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 23(4), 855–872. https://doi.org/10.1080/016502599383577
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analyticstudies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511571312
Casey, B. M., Andrews, N., Schindler, H., Kersh, J. E., Samper, A., & Copley, J. (2008). The Development of Spatial Skills Through Interventions Involving Block Building
Activities. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 269–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000802177177
Cheng, Y.-L., & Mix, K. S. (2013). Spatial Training Improves Children’s Mathematics Ability. Journal of Cognition and Development, 15(1), 2–11.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2012.725186
Cherney, I. D., Bersted, K., & Smetter, J. (2014). Training Spatial Skills in Men and Women. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 119(1), 82–99.
https://doi.org/10.2466/23.25.pms.119c12z0
Cheryan, S., Master, A., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2015). Cultural stereotypes as gatekeepers: increasing girls’ interest in computer science and engineering by diversifying
stereotypes. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00049
Cheryan, S., Ziegler, S. A., Montoya, A. K., & Jiang, L. (2017). Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others? Psychological Bulletin, 143(1), 1–35.
https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000052
Davis, H. E., & Cashdan, E. (2019). Spatial cognition, navigation, and mobility among children in a forager-horticulturalist population, the Tsimané of Bolivia. Cognitive
Development, 52, 100800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2019.100800
Dicke, A.-L., Safavian, N., & Eccles, J. S. (2019). Traditional Gender Role Beliefs and Career Attainment in STEM: A Gendered Story? Frontiers in Psychology, 10.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01053
Diekman, A. B., Clark, E. K., Johnston, A. M., Brown, E. R., & Steinberg, M. (2011). Malleability in communal goals and beliefs influences attraction to stem careers:
Evidence for a goal congruity perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(5), 902–918. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025199
Doyle, R. A., & Voyer, D. (2016). Stereotype manipulation effects on math and spatial test performance: A meta-analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 47,
103–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.12.018
Ferrara, K., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Newcombe, N. S., Golinkoff, R. M., & Lam, W. S. (2011). Block Talk: Spatial Language During Block Play. Mind, Brain, and Education, 5(3),
143–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228x.2011.01122.x
Flore, P. C., & Wicherts, J. M. (2015). Does stereotype threat influence performance of girls in stereotyped domains? A meta-analysis. Journal of School Psychology,
53(1), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.10.002
Fulcher, M., & Hayes, A. R. (2017). Building a Pink Dinosaur: the Effects of Gendered Construction Toys on Girls’ and Boys’ Play. Sex Roles, 79(5-6), 273–284.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0806-3
Guizzo, F., Moè, A., Cadinu, M., & Bertolli, C. (2019). The role of implicit gender spatial stereotyping in mental rotation performance. Acta Psychologica, 194, 63–68.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2019.01.013
Halpern, D. F., Benbow, C. P., Geary, D. C., Gur, R. C., Hyde, J. S., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (2007). The Science of Sex Differences in Science and Mathematics. Psychological
Science in the Public Interest, 8(1), 1–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2007.00032.x
Harris, J., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Newcombe, N. S. (2013). Understanding spatial transformations: similarities and differences between mental rotation and mental folding.
Cognitive Processing, 14(2), 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-013-0544-6
Hinze, S. R., Williamson, V. M., Shultz, M. J., Williamson, K. C., Deslongchamps, G., & Rapp, D. N. (2013). When do spatial abilities support student comprehension of STEM
visualizations? Cognitive Processing, 14(2), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-013-0539-3
Hodgkiss, A., Gilligan, K. A., Tolmie, A. K., Thomas, M. S. C., & Farran, E. K. (2018). Spatial cognition and science achievement: The contribution of intrinsic and extrinsic
spatial skills from 7 to 11 years. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 675–697. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12211
Jirout, J. J., & Newcombe, N. S. (2015). Building Blocks for Developing Spatial Skills: Evidence From a Large, Representative U.S. Sample. Psychological Science, 26(3),
302–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614563338
Kinach, B. M. (2012). Fostering Spatial vs. Metric Understanding in Geometry. The Mathematics Teacher, 105(7), 534. https://doi.org/10.5951/mathteacher.105.7.0534
Knudsen, G. H., & Kuever, E. (2015). The Peril of Pink Bricks: Gender Ideology and LEGO Friends. Research in Consumer Behavior, 171–188.
https://doi.org/10.1108/s0885-211120150000017009
Lauer, J. E., Udelson, H. B., Jeon, S. O., & Lourenco, S. F. (2015). An early sex difference in the relation between mental rotation and object preference. Frontiers in
Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00558
Lauer, J. E., Yhang, E., & Lourenco, S. F. (2019). The development of gender differences in spatial reasoning: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 145(6), 537–565.
https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000191
Levine, S. C., Huttenlocher, J., Taylor, A., & Langrock, A. (1999). Early sex differences in spatial skill. Developmental Psychology, 35(4), 940–949.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.35.4.940
Linn, M. C., & Petersen, A. C. (1985). Emergence and Characterization of Sex Differences in Spatial Ability: A Meta-Analysis. Child Development, 56(6), 1479.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1130467
Lippa, R. A., Collaer, M. L., & Peters, M. (2009). Sex Differences in Mental Rotation and Line Angle Judgments Are Positively Associated with Gender Equality and
Economic Development Across 53 Nations. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(4), 990–997. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-008-9460-8
Liu, S., Liu, P., Wang, M., & Zhang, B. (2020). Effectiveness of stereotype threat interventions: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology.
https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000770
Lowrie, T., Logan, T., & Hegarty, M. (2019). The Influence of Spatial Visualization Training on Students’ Spatial Reasoning and Mathematics Performance. Journal of
Cognition and Development, 20(5), 729–751. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2019.1653298
Mix, K. S., & Cheng, Y.-L. (2012). The Relation Between Space and Math. Advances in Child Development and Behavior Volume 42, 197–243.
https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-394388-0.00006-x
Mix, K. S., Hambrick, D. Z., Satyam, V. R., Burgoyne, A. P., & Levine, S. C. (2018). The latent structure of spatial skill: A test of the 2 × 2 typology. Cognition, 180, 268–278.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.07.012
Moore, D. S., & Johnson, S. P. (2008). Mental Rotation in Human Infants. Psychological Science, 19(11), 1063–1066. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02200.x
Mulvey, K. L., & Irvin, M. J. (2018). Judgments and reasoning about exclusion from counter-stereotypic STEM career choices in early childhood. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 44, 220–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.03.016
Nazareth, A., Huang, X., Voyer, D., & Newcombe, N. (2019). A meta-analysis of sex differences in human navigation skills. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(5), 1503–1528.
https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01633-6
Newcombe, N. (2017). Harnessing Spatial Thinking to Support Stem Learning. OECD Education Working Papers. https://doi.org/10.1787/7d5dcae6-en
Newcombe, N. S. (2009). On Tending to Our Scientific Knitting: Thinking About Gender in the Context of Evolution. Handbook of Gender Research in Psychology, 259–274.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1465-1_13
Newcombe, N. S. (2020). The Puzzle of Spatial Sex Differences: Current Status and Prerequisites to Solutions. Child Development Perspectives, 14(4), 251–257.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12389
Newcombe, N. S., Uttal, D. H., & Sauter, M. (2013). Spatial Development. The Oxford Handbook of Developmental Psychology, Vol. 1, 563–590.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199958450.013.0020
Pirrone, C., Nicolosi, A., Passanisi, A., & Di Nuovo, S. (2015). Learning Potential in Mathematics through Imagination and Manipulation of Building Blocks. Mediterranean
Journal of Social Sciences. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n4s3p152
Pruden, S. M., & Levine, S. C. (2017). Parents’ Spatial Language Mediates a Sex Difference in Preschoolers’ Spatial-Language Use. Psychological Science, 28(11), 1583–1596.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617711968
Ralph, Y. K., Berinhout, K., & Maguire, M. J. (2020). Gender differences in mothers’ spatial language use and children’s mental rotation abilities in Preschool and
Kindergarten. Developmental Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.13037
Ramful, A., Lowrie, T., & Logan, T. (2016). Measurement of Spatial Ability: Construction and Validation of the Spatial Reasoning Instrument for Middle School Students.
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 35(7), 709–727. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282916659207
Reich, S. M., Black, R. W., & Foliaki, T. (2017). Constructing Difference: Lego® Set Narratives Promote Stereotypic Gender Roles and Play. Sex Roles, 79(5-6), 285–298.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0868-2
Reilly, D., & Neumann, D. L. (2013). Gender-Role Differences in Spatial Ability: A Meta-Analytic Review. Sex Roles, 68(9-10), 521–535.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-013-0269-0
Resnick, I., & Shipley, T. F. (2013). Breaking new ground in the mind: an initial study of mental brittle transformation and mental rigid rotation in science experts.
Cognitive Processing, 14(2), 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-013-0548-2
Rode, J. A., & Cucuiat, V. (2018). Computational making, binary gender and LEGO. Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Gender & IT - GenderIT ’18.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3196839.3196854
Slabbekoorn, D., van Goozen, S. H. M., Megens, J., Gooren, L. J. G., & Cohen-Kettenis, P. T. (1999). Activating effects of cross-sex hormones on cognitive functioning: a
study of short-term and long-term hormone effects in transsexuals. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 24(4), 423–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0306-4530(98)00091-2
Spencer, S. J., Logel, C., & Davies, P. G. (2016). Stereotype Threat. Annual Review of Psychology, 67(1), 415–437. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-073115-103235
Stannard, L., Wolfgang, C. H., Jones, I., & Phelps, P. (2001). A Longitudinal Study of the Predictive Relations Among Construction Play and Mathematical Achievement.
Early Child Development and Care, 167(1), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/0300443011670110
Tarampi, M. R., Heydari, N., & Hegarty, M. (2016). A Tale of Two Types of Perspective Taking: Sex Differences in Spatial Ability. Psychological Science, 27(11), 1507–1516.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616667459
Taylor, H. A., & Hutton, A. (2013). Think3d!: Training Spatial Thinking Fundamental to STEM Education. Cognition and Instruction, 31(4), 434–455.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2013.828727
Thomson, D., Casey, B. M., Lombardi, C. M., & Nguyen, H. N. (2020). Quality of fathers’ spatial concept support during block building predicts their daughters’ early math
skills – But not their sons’. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.07.008
Tomasetto, C., Alparone, F. R., & Cadinu, M. (2011). Girls’ math performance under stereotype threat: The moderating role of mothers’ gender stereotypes. Developmental
Psychology, 47(4), 943–949. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024047
Tosto, M. G., Hanscombe, K. B., Haworth, C. M. A., Davis, O. S. P., Petrill, S. A., Dale, P. S., Malykh, S., Plomin, R., & Kovas, Y. (2014). Why do spatial abilities predict
mathematical performance? Developmental Science, 17(3), 462–470. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12138
Toub, T. S., Verdine, B., Golinkoff, R. M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2019). Shapes, blocks, puzzles and origami: From spatial play to STEM learning. In Developing Minds in the
Digital Age: Towards a Science of Learning for 21st Century Education. Educational Research and Innovation. (pp. 177–186). OECD Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1787/55E95618-EN
Uttal, D. H., Meadow, N. G., Tipton, E., Hand, L. L., Alden, A. R., Warren, C., & Newcombe, N. S. (2013). The malleability of spatial skills: A meta-analysis of training studies.
Psychological Bulletin, 139(2), 352–402. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028446
Uttal, D. H., Miller, D. I., & Newcombe, N. S. (2013). Exploring and Enhancing Spatial Thinking: Links to Achievement in Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(5), 367–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413484756
Van Goozen, S. H. M., Cohen-Kettenis, P. T., Gooren, L. J. G., Frijda, N. H., & Van De Poll, N. E. (1995). Gender differences in behaviour: Activating effects of cross-sex
hormones. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 20(4), 343–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-4530(94)00076-x
Verdine, B. N., Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Newcombe, N. S. (2014). Finding the missing piece: Blocks, puzzles, and shapes fuel school readiness. Trends in
Neuroscience and Education, 3(1), 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2014.02.005
Voyer, D., Voyer, S., & Bryden, M. P. (1995). Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychological Bulletin,
117(2), 250–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.250
Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 817–835. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016127
Wu, D., & Sun, J. (2020). Exploring the Relationship Between Parental Involvement, Paper Folding Skills, and Early Spatial Ability: A Mediation Model. Frontiers in
Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.568439
Yang, W., Liu, H., Chen, N., Xu, P., & Lin, X. (2020). Is Early Spatial Skills Training Effective? A Meta-Analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 11.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01938