Feminist Research Methods最新文献

Feminist Criticism of the Social Sciences 社会科学的女性主义批评

Feminist Research Methods Pub Date : 2019-04-02 DOI: 10.4324/9780429035302-3

M. Westkott

引用次数: 0

Laura Ellsworth Seiler 劳拉·埃尔斯沃思·塞勒

Feminist Research Methods Pub Date : 2019-04-02 DOI: 10.4324/9780429035302-6

S. B. Gluck

引用次数: 0

Beginning Where We Are 从现在开始

Feminist Research Methods Pub Date : 2019-04-02 DOI: 10.4324/9780429035302-5

K. Anderson, S. Armitage, D. Jack, Judith G. Wittner

引用次数: 1

Interaction 交互

Feminist Research Methods Pub Date : 2019-04-02 DOI: 10.4324/9780429035302-11

P. Fishman

引用次数: 0

Knowledge and Women's Interests 知识与妇女利益

Feminist Research Methods Pub Date : 2019-04-02 DOI: 10.4324/9780429035302-4

J. Cook, Mary Margaret Fonow

引用次数: 1

Between Two Worlds 两个世界之间

Feminist Research Methods Pub Date : 2019-04-02 DOI: 10.4324/9780429035302-8

M. M. Ferree

引用次数: 0

A New Approach to Understanding the Impact of Gender on the Legislative Process 理解性别对立法过程影响的新途径

Feminist Research Methods Pub Date : 2019-04-02 DOI: 10.4324/9780429035302-12

Lyn Kathlene

引用次数: 2

How Large Are Cognitive Gender Differences? 认知上的性别差异有多大?

Feminist Research Methods Pub Date : 1981-08-01 DOI: 10.4324/9780429035302-10

J. Hyde

{"title":"How Large Are Cognitive Gender Differences?","authors":"J. Hyde","doi":"10.4324/9780429035302-10","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429035302-10","url":null,"abstract":"Maccoby and Jacklin concluded that the following cognitive gender differences are well-established: verbal ability, quantitative ability, and visualspatial ability. The present study applied meta-analysis techniques to the studies cited by Maccoby and Jacklin, assessing the magnitude of gender differences using both o> and A statistics. The results indicated that gender differences in all of these abilities are very small: For verbal ability, the median u? was .01 and the median d was .24; for quantitative ability, the median values of (a and d were .01 and .43, respectively; for visualspatial ability, they were .043 and .45, respectively; and for field articulation, to was .025 and d was .51. Discussion focused on the practical implications of the finding that these \"well-established\" differences were in fact very small. Concerns about sampling were raised. The problem was also discussed in the context of a larger issue in psychological research: the limitations of the hypothesis-testing approach and the need to estimate the magnitude of effects. Maccoby and Jacklin (1974) reviewed the enormous literature on psychological gender differences. In particular, they concluded that three cognitive gender differences were \"well-established\": Girls have greater verbal ability than boys, and boys have better visual-spatial ability and better mathematical ability than girls. Sherman (1978) re-reviewed the evidence on cognitive gender differences and pointed out that even for these supposedly well-established differences, the magnitude of the gender difference was very small. For example, Maccoby and Jacklin (1974, Table 3.4) computed the magnitude of gender differences in verbal ability for a subset of studies providing sufficient data. Typically, the magnitude of the difference was only about .25 standard deviations. Sherman (1978, p. 43) noted that the proportion of variance (w) accounted for by gender differences in verbal ability for the 1955 892 • AUGUST 1981 • AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST standardization of the WAIS (Matarazzo, 1972) was less than .01: Meta-analysis is a technique for analyzing a body of research on a particular topic by statistical analysis of the analyses of the individual studies (Glass, 1976). It is becoming increasingly popular as a technique for evaluating a given area of research (for examples, see Hall, 1978; Kulik, Kulik, & Cohen, 1979; Smith, 1980; Smith & Glass, 1977). Typically, these studies use the measure d = MI M2 ' —as a measure of the magnitude of difoU ferences between two groups, that is, as a measure of effect size. The purpose of the present article is to reanalyze the studies on cognitive gender differences considered to be well-established by Maccoby and Jacklin (1974) and to determine the magnitude of these gender differences. Two measures of effect size were used: co (Hays, 1963) and d. Such an analysis is particularly important because the term \"well-established\" is often taken to mean \"large.\" Maccoby and Jackli","PeriodicalId":319045,"journal":{"name":"Feminist Research Methods","volume":"154 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1981-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122858796","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 79

The Vision of a Woman Shaman 女萨满的幻象

Feminist Research Methods Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.4324/9780429035302-7

A. Tsing

引用次数: 0