Journal of Educational Psychology Copyright 1983 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

1983, Vol. 75, No. I, 86-96 0022-0663/83/7 501-0086J00.75

Male-Female Differences in Predicting Displaced Volume:

Strategy Usage, Aptitude Relationships,
and Experience Influences
Marcia C. Linn and Steven Pulos
Adolescent Reasoning Project, University of California, Berkeley

To investigate the role of aptitudes and experiences in gender differences in

scientific reasoning, we used Predicting Displaced Volume, a scientific rea-
soning task known to be solved by males more frequently than females.
Subjects were 778 students in the 7th, 9th, and llth grades. Of the respon-
dents, 90% consistently used one of four expectation-based strategies to solve
the problems. Males used the correct strategy more frequently than females;
males and females both used the same incorrect strategies. We found that
gender differences in Predicting Displaced Volume did not reflect gender dif-
ferences in spatial ability, field dependence-independence (FDI), or Piagetian
formal reasoning. In addition, gender differences in Predicting Displaced
Volume were not accounted for by science and math course-taking experience.
Factors such as spatial ability and FDI may correlate highly with scientific
reasoning task performance but may not account for gender-related differ-
ences in that performance.

In this article we investigate patterns of scientific reasoning problems influence their

expectation-based strategy usage among
males and females on a scientific reasoning
task called Predicting Displaced Volume and
determine whether aptitudes and experi-
ences thought to differ in the sexes are as-
sociated with- accurate and inaccurate
strategy selection for this task. We inves-
tigate the role of spatial ability, field de-
pendence-independence (FDI), Piagetian
formal reasoning, and course-taking expe-
riences.
The way people think about the variables
in a science or math problem affects their
reasoning about the problem. That is,
peoples' expectations about the variables in
This article is based on research supported by the
National Science Foundation under Grant No. SED
77-18914. Opinions, findings, and conclusions or rec-
ommendations expressed in this publication are those
of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views
of the National Science Foundation.
Assistance of Lois Foley and Diane Alexander is
gratefully acknowledged.
An earlier version of this article received the Ameri-
can Educational Research Association—Women Edu-
cators, Fifth Annual Research on Women Award—
Honorable Mention, 1982.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Marcia C.
Linn, Adolescent Reasoning Project, Lawrence Hall of
Science, University of California, Berkeley, California
94720.
86
performance. By expectations we mean
beliefs concerning the variables in the
problem.
Consider an example of the role of expec-
tations from physics problem solving (Linn
& Swiney, 1981). In this experiment 12th
graders were asked to perform experiments
to find out which factors influence how much
springs expand. Some respondents de-
signed what seemed to the researchers to be
inconclusive tests. For example, they
compared fat brass springs with thin steel
springs and concluded that fat springs ex-
pand more than thin springs. When asked
why they used brass and steel springs, these
respondents replied that metal was metal,
the kind did not matter. Linn and Swiney
(1981) identified what they called the
subject's expected variables, a subset of the
variables which the experimenter mentioned
were important in the task. Subjects ap-
peared to design experiments as if only their
expected variables should be considered.
Aptitudes, Experiences, and
Gender Differences
Many aptitude and experience factors
have been associated with male-female dif-
ferences in scientific reasoning (e.g., spatial
 PREDICTING DISPLACED VOLUME
ability: Harris, 1978; Maccoby & Jacklin,
1974; FBI: Saarni, 1973; formal reasoning
ability; Karplus, Karplus, Pormisano, &
Paulsen, 1977; Lawson, 1978; Linn & Pulos,
in press; course taking experience: Fennema
& Sherman, 1977,1979). It seems likely that
no dingle explanation is sufficient to account
for all the observed differences. Those we
selected for study represent all prevalent
ideas about aptitude and experience influ-
ences on gender differences in scientific
reasoning.
Difficulties in establishing the relationship
between aptitudes and gender differences
reflect the multiple processes involved in
each. Aptitude or experience measures
(such as spatial ability) are often thought to
contribute to male-female differences in
scientific reasoning because (a) males and
females frequently differ in performance on
them and (b) they have high correlations
with measures of scientific reasoning.
However, these two conditions are not suf-
ficient to show that aptitude measures ex-
plain gender differences in scientific rea-
soning. For example, gender differences iii
spatial visualization mean scores could re-
flect females' reluctance to guess on visual-
ization items, whereas high correlations be-
tween spatial visualization and scientific
reasoning for both sexes could reflect ability
to maintains image in memory. Thus, the
mean gender differences for spatial visual-
ization and scientific reasoning could reflect
different processes and therefore not con-
tribute to the correlation between the two
measures. In this article we examine
whether differences in aptitude and experi-
ence can explain the gender differences in
scientific reasoning.
Of the aptitudes associated with gender
differences, spatial ability is the most prev-
alent and the most difficult to define. In
many formulations it includes tests labeled
FDI by others. Maccoby and Jacklin (1974)
identified gender differences in spatial
ability on a number of different tests in-
cluding FDI tests such as Embedded Figures
(Witkin, Moore, Goodenough, & Cox, 1977)
and the Rod-and-Frame Test (Oltman,
1968). They did not specify a spatial con-
struct. Most subsequent investigators have
catalogued gender differences on tests la-
beled "spatial" but have not studied the
87
construct validity of spatial ability (e.g.,
Harris, 1980; McGee, 1979). A variety of
"spatial abilities" appear to exist.
Recently, Snow and his collaborators have
analyzed the overlap among a wide range of
spatial ability tests. Snow, Lohman, Mar-
shalak, Yalow, and Webb (Note 1) at-
tempted to separate Cattell (1971) and Horn
and Cattell's (1966) construct of general fluid
ability (as measured, for example, by letter
series) from spatial visualization as mea-
sured, for example, by Embedded Figures
(Oltman, Raskin, & Witkin, 1971). Snow et
al. (Note 1) could not separate General fluid
ability from Spatial visualization, so they
identified a combined dimension, which they
labeled General fluid visualization (Gfv).
Gfv was defined by tests requiring mental
manipulation of figural or nonfigural mate-
rial and is represented by Paper Folding,
Embedded Figures, and Letter Series
(French, Ekstron, & Price, 1963) in this
study.1
Linn and Kyllonen (1981) clarified the
relationship between Gfv and Witkin and
Goodenough's (1981) concept of FDI.
Witkin and Goodenough (1981) had identi-
fied two FDI dimensions. One, Cognitive
Restructuring, was measured by Embedded
Figures. The other, Perception of the Up-
right, was measured by the Rod-and-Frame
Test. Linn and Kyllonen (1981) combined
measures of Gfv and both aspects of FDI.
They identified two dimensions. One, in-
cluded the Cognitive Restructuring tests but
did not differ from what Snow et al. (Note 1)
labeled Gfv< The other was characterized by
Perception of the Upright but also included
Perception of Horizontally and the Wes-
chler Picture Completion test; they labeled
this Familiar field (Ff). The Ff dimension
was hypothesized to measure strategy se-
lection in familiar situations when compet-
ing strategies were available. Cognitive re-
structuring was represented by a version of
embedded figures, and Ff was represented
by Water Level (DeAvila & Havassy, with
Pascual-Leone, 1976) in this study.
Besides spatial ability in all its guises,
some research suggests that gender differ-
ences in Piagetian formal reasoning might
1
We combined these measures, as described below,
in some analyses to avoid problems of colinearity.
88 MARCIA C. LINN AND STEVEN PULOS
explain gender differences in scientific rea-
soning (e.g.; Lawson, 1978). Formal rea-
soning also suffers from poor construct def-
inition (e.g. Martorano, 1977), possibly due
to the influence of experience with specific
item content on performance (e.g. Pulos &
Linn, 1981). Thus, as for spatial ability, we
employ several measures of Piagetian formal
reasoning and assess their independent and
combined relationship with our measure of
scientific reasoning.
Experience differences for the sexes are
well established (e.g. Newcombe, Bandura,
& Taylor, in press), but their impact on sci-
entific reasoning is difficult to assess. Ex-
perience differences for males and females
include course taking, role expectations,
media depictions, and so on. In this study,
we investigate the role of science and math
course taking.
Expectation-Based Strategy Usage
To clarify male-female differences in
scientific reasoning, we selected Predicting
Displaced Volume, which allowed specifi-
cation of expectation-based strategies used
for correct responses and for incorrect re-
sponses. The incorrect strategies in this
task reflected inaccurate expectations con-
cerning which variables influence perfor-
mance. Analysis of the relationship between
strategy usage and aptitude enables us to
clarify gender differences in performance.
Research on many scientific reasoning
problems suggests that students consistently
use the same accurate or inaccurate strategy
for similar problems (e.g., Proportions:
Karplus, Karplus, Formisano, & Paulsen,
1977; Siegler, 1976; Subtraction: Brown &
Burton, 1978). As the study mentioned
above by Linn & Swiney (1981) suggests,
these strategies may be based on expecta-
tions about the variables.
How do expectations influence perfor-
mance on Predicting Displaced Volume?
Piaget (1951a, 1951b) and Piaget and In-
helder (1941) report interviews of subjects
asked to predict displaced volume. Piaget
and others report that subjects commonly
expect the weight of the object to influence
the volume displaced even when they know
the object sinks (e.g., Hobbs, 1973, 1975;
Howe & Shayer, 1981). We investigated
how weight related expectations influence
performance on Predicting Displaced
Volume.
Method
Subjects
Participants were 778 students in the 7th (159 fe-
males and 145 males), 9th (77 females and 136 males),
and llth grades (139 females and 122 males) in three
districts. The school districts differed in location and
socioeconomic status (SES). Location and SES were
(a) lower-middle-class semirural; (b) middle-class
urban; and (c) upper-middle-class suburban.
Predicting Displaced Volume Test
Our Predicting Displaced Volume test was group
administered. A sample item is shown in Figure 1.
Each item pictured a cylinder half full of water and two
metal blocks. The relative size and weight of each block
was indicated both in the drawing and in the printed
question. Four types of items were used. Each item
had either equal or unequal volume and equal or un-
equal weight. Only the practice item combined equal
volume and equal weight. Others showed unequal
volume, unequal weight, or unequal weight and
volume.
Instructions were as follows: "All the blocks sink and
are completely covered by the water. I took one of the
blocks and put it in the water and then took it out.
Next, I took the second block, put it in the water, and
took it out Which block made the water go up higher?
Block A, Block B, or did both blocks make the water go
up the same amount?"
After a practice item, subjects had five minutes to
respond to eight items. All subjects completed the
eight items before the time was up. Subjects appeared
to solve without much deliberation.
Research on Predicting Displaced Volume (e.g., Pi-
aget, 1951a, 1951b) suggested that inaccurate strategies
would incorporate some role for weight. Our Predicting
Displaced Volume items were designed so that each of
the inaccurate strategies we identified and the correct
strategy would be reflected in a different pattern of
responses. Responses of subjects using strategies dif-
ferent from the four we identified would not be cate-
gorizable in our system. The four strategies we iden-
tified were as follows:
1. Weight-only strategy. The amount of water
displaced by an object immersed in water depends only
on the weight of the object.
2. Weight-except-when-equal strategy. The
amount of water displaced by an object immersed in
water depends on the weight of the object, except that
when two objects weigh the same, the one with the
greatest volume displaces the most water.
3. Volume-except-when-equal strategy. The
amount of water displaced by an object immersed in
water depends on the volume of the object, except when
 PREDICTING DISPLACED VOLUME
I. Blocks A_ and £ are the same size.
10 oz.
Which block w i l l make the water go up higher?
Block A
Block £ '
Both the same
Figure 1. Sample item from Predicting Displaced Volume test.
two objects have the same volume then the one with the
greatest weight displaces the most water.
4. Volume-only strategy. The amount of water
displaced by an object immersed in water depends only
on the volume of the object. This strategy is correct.
General and Spatial Ability Measures
We measured general ability and spatial ability in its
various guises. We measured general ability to disen-
tangle its effects from other abilities in the regression
analysis. Tests used were as follows:
1. Vocabulary. We measured general ability fol-
lowing Cattell's (1971) description of General crystal-
lized ability (Gc), using a locally developed adaptation
of several multiple choice vocabulary tests (to ensure
a wide range). Score is sum of performance on two 2-
minute sections,
2. Letter series. We measured Cattell's (1971)
General fluid ability (Gf), to assess Snow et al.'s (Note
1) findings for spatial visualization using a local modi-
fication of the French, Ekstron, & Price (1963) version.
Score is a sum of number correct on two 2-minute sec-
tions.
3. Find a Shape Puzzle (FASP). To measure Cog-
nitive Restructuring as defined by Witkin & Goode-
nough (1981) we used aversion of embedded figures in
which the simple and complex shapes are on the same
page (Pulos & Linn, Note 2). Score is number of simple
shapes located in>4 minutes.
4. Paper folding. A measure of spatial visualization
as studied by Snow et al. (Note 1); from the French et
al. (1963) battery was used. Score is performance on
two 2-minute sections.
5. Water level. A measure of what Linn & Kyllonen
(1981) called Familiar field and related to what Witkin
& Goodenough (1981) called Perception of the Upright
was used. The test measured perception of the hori-
zontal in tilted bottles of water and was adapted from
89
Block £ weighs more than Block A_.
20 oz.
Piaget by DeAvila et al. (1976). Score is number correct
on eight trials.
Formal Reasoning Measures
To assess formal reasoning we used four tests similar
to those used by Inhelder and Piaget (1958):
1. The balance puzzle. This is a measure of pro-
portional reasoning (Linn & Pulos, in press). Score is
total correct of 13 items.
2. Controlling variables. This is a measure of con-
trolling variables, a locally developed test comparable
to Springs (Linn & Rice, 1979). Score is number correct
of 6 items.
3. Permutations. This is a locally developed test
requiring the subject to generate the permutations of
four elements. The score is number of unique permu-
tations generated in 2 minutes.
4. Combinations. This is a locally developed test
requiring the subject to generate combinations of three
elements. The score is number of unique combinations
generated in 2 minutes.
Experience Measures
Experience with math and science was assessed by
asking students to indicate how many years of math and
science courses they had taken.
Test Administration
The measures were administered to class groups
(15-28 students) in two 40-minute sessions.
Results ,
The anticipated male-female differences
in Predicting Displaced Volume emerged as
90 MARCIA C. LINN AND STEVEN PULOS

Table 1 Reliability of Aptitude Measures

Predicting Displaced Volume: Means
(Percent Success) and Reliabilities (N = 8 The aptitude measures were generally
items) reliable, with alpha coefficients ranging from
.69 to .95 within each grade.
alpha
Grade M reliability Male-Female Differences in Aptitude
and Experience Measures

Males 63
Of the aptitude and experience measures,
.82 (Vocabulary, Letter Series, FASP, Paper
Females 49 folding, Water level, course taking) males
out-performed females only on Water Level
Males 74 .86
(Ff). Means and standard deviations are
Females 55 given in Table 2. It should be noted that
contrary to some earlier studies reported by
111
Maccoby and Jacklin (1974), we detected no
Males 82 male-female differences on FASP, our
.88
Females 62 measure of Embedded Figures. Other re-
cent studies (Petersen, Note 3; Fennema &
Sherman, 1979) have also found no male-
shown in Table 1. Sex accounted for 6% of female differences for measures similar to
the variance in 7th grade (r = .24, p < .01), Embedded Figures. In addition, we de-
8% in 9th grade (r = .29, p < .01), and 6% in tected no male-female differences in number
llth grade (r = .24). of years of math and science courses taken,
paralleling the findings of Armstrong (1979).
In contrast to our findings, differences in
Reliability of Predicting Displaced
Volume Table 2
Mean, Standard Deviation and r 2 for Each
The eight-item test of Predicting Dis- Aptitude and Experience Measure by Sex
placed Volume was reliable using Cronbach's
alpha (Cronbach, 1951), as shown in Table Males Females
1 (coefficient alpha was .82 in seventh grade,
Measure M SD M SD r2a
and .88 in eleventh grade). All but the eas-
iest items contributed their share to the re- Aptitude
liability. (On average, the reliability with
each item deleted was about .03 lower than Vocabulary (Gc) 26.56 6.80 26.06 7.27 00
Series (Gfv) 13.79 5.66 14.93 5.72 01
the reliability in Table 1.) FASP (Gfv) 9.11 5.11 8.86 5.08 00
To determine whether our strategy as- Paper Folding
signments were reliable, we conducted a (Gfv) 10.10 4.26 9.38 4.05 01
scalability analysis (Mclver & Carmines, Water Level (Ff) 17.04 6.87 14.42 7.08 05*
1981). The coefficient of scalability was .99. Proportions
(formal) 6.32 2.49 5.27 2.07 05*
The coefficient of reproductability was .98. Controlling
Thus, strategy usage was very consistent (formal) 5.50 3.25 4.72 3.47 01
across items. Permutations
(formal) 15.30 5.62 15.87 4.57 00
Combinations
Validity of Predicting Displaced Volume (formal) 11:15 3.80 11.41 4.70 00

The validity of the Predicting Displaced Course Experience

Volume paper-and-pencil test was estab- Math 2.13 1.30 2.02 .80 00
lished by administering an interview to a Science 1.04 1.06 .92 1.07 00
subsample of 100 seventh graders. Scores
Note. Gc = General crystallized ability; Gfv = General
on the interview (which used real blocks, fluid visualization; Ff = Familiar field; FASP = Find
water, and cylinders) correlated with a Shape Puzzle, "decimals omitted.
paper-and-pencil test scores, r = .68. * p < .05, corrected for number of tests performed.
 PREDICTING' DISPLACED VOLUME
Tables
Percentage of Males and Females Using Each
Strategy for Predicting Displaced Volume
Grade
11
Strategy M F M F M F
Inconsistent • 12 13 10 5 7 7
Weight only 31 46 24 47 12 32
Weight except when equal 9 18 3 13 5 12
Volume except when equal 29 16 28 21 21 22
Volume only 19 7 35 14 55 27
Note. M = males; F = females.
males' and females' enrollment in advanced
math classes are reported by teachers par-
ticipating in EQUALS (Kreinberg, 1981) from
schools in the areas where ours were located.
Our measure of course taking appears to be
insensitive to these differences possibly be-
cause differential enrollment occurs pre-
dominantly in 12th grade.
Male-Female Differences in Strategy
Usage
On Predicting Displaced Volume, females
used inaccurate strategies more often than
males but did 'not use different strategies
(Table 3). The four solution strategies we
anticipated turned out to be used by all but
10% of the subjects.
The correct, volume-only strategy was
used by 41% of llth-graders and by less than
10% of 7th-grade females. Males used the
volume-only strategy more than twice as
frequently as females did at each age. With
each 2-year increase in age, use of the vol-
ume-only strategy doubled for each sex.
Thus, males succeed more often than do fe-
males, and the proportion of successful
males increases with age.
The male-female pattern of use of the
weight-only strategy was almost exactly the
reverse of that for volume-only. Females
used weight-only more, than twice as fre-
quently as males did, and the decrease in
usage of weight-only with age was more rapid
for males than for females. By 11th grade,
only 13% of males, but 33% of females, solved Role of Aptitudes in Performance
on the basis of weight-only.
The pattern of use of the weight-except- To assess whether aptitudes account for
91
when-equal strategy was similar to use of the
weight-only strategy by males and females.
The pattern of use of the volume-except-
when-equal strategy was similar to use of the
volume-only strategy by males and fe-
males.
In a cross-sectional study we cannot dis-
cern the progression of strategy use for in-
dividuals. Weight-except-when-equal and
volume-except-when-equal were used by
over one-third of the subjects at each age,
suggesting that they are a common transi-
tion, although not necessarily required, for
achieving the volume-only strategy. Per-
haps only one of these strategies governs
transition from weight to volume for most
subjects.
The weight-only and weight-except-
, when-equal strategies focus primarily on
weight and are referred to as weight-strate-
gies. The volume-only and volume-ex-
cept-when-equal strategies focus primarily
on volume and are referred to as volume-
strategies. Considered separately, strategies
useu by each sex reflect a decline in use of
weight-strategies and an increase in use of
volume-strategies with age. Females in-
crease use of volume-except-when-equal
with age. If we examined post-high-school
females we might find a decrease in vol-
ume-except-when-equal and an increase in
volume-only comparable to the pattern for
older males in this sample.
Examination of strategies governing per-
formance on Predicting Displaced Volume
revealed no evidence that females used
unique strategies. Males of this age group
out-perform females because volume strat-
egies rather than weight strategies govern
their performance.
We have shown that male-female differ-,
ences in Predicting Displaced Volume are
attributable to differential use of expecta-
tion-based strategies. We need to deter-
mine whether aptitudes, the formal rea-
soning measures, or course taking experience
are associated with differential strategy
usage for the sexes. Since more sophisti-
cated strategy usage is reflected in higher
scores, we analyze the correlates of total
scores on Predicting Displaced Volume.
92 MARCIA C. LINN AND STEVEN PULOS

male-female differences in Predicting Dis- Predicting Displaced Volume after seventh

placed Volume, we considered each aptitude
test separately and also combined reason-
ably colinear tests to get three aptitude di-
mensions. These dimensions are Gc, as
measured by Vocabulary; Gfv, as defined by
Snow et al. (Note 2) and measured by Letter
Series plus FASP, plus Paper Folding; and
Ff, as defined by Linn & Kyllonen (1981)
and measured by Water Level.
Correlations between Predicting Dis-
placed Volume and each of the aptitude
measures are given in Table 4, by sex and
age. Only one significant male-female dif-
ference in the 33 correlations between the
aptitude tests and Predicting Displaced
Volume emerged (for seventh-grade vocab-
ulary score, 2 = 2.4, p < .01). This could be
a chance occurrence.
The results for the aptitude composites
paralleled the correlations for each test alone
(Table 5). We found that Gc, Gfv, and Ff
each correlated significantly with Predicting
Displaced Volume (between .25 and .35),
except for Gc in seventh grade. The uni-
form correlations suggest an equal contri-
bution of Gc, Gfv, and Ff to performance on
grade.
To assess the unique contribution of each
aptitude to Predicting Displaced Volume
performance, at each age we carried out a
fixed-order multiple regression. Following
Snow et al. (Note 2), we entered Gc and Gfv,
in that order (see Table 4). Ff was entered
after Gc and Gfv, because it was defined to
contribute variance unrelated to general
ability.
Results indicated that Gc, Gfv, and Ff
each account for unique variance in Pre-
dicting Displaced Volume at each age (Table
4). The significant contribution of Ff after
Gc and Gfv were entered was consistent with
Linn and Kyllonen's (1981) description of Ff
as a measure of strategy selection for prob-
lems with salient competing strategies. For
Predicting Displaced Volume, the solution
strategies could represent salient competing
strategies, and Ff has been hypothesized to
measure ability to select the correct strategy
from among the several available strate-
gies.
To determine whether these aptitudes are
associated with male-female differences in

Table 4
Predicting Displaced Volume: Correlations of Aptitude and Course Experience by Grade and
Sex (Decimals Omitted)
Grade 7 Grade 9 Grade 11

Measure M M M

Aptitude
Vocabulary (Gc) 21 -07 28 36 26 28
Series (Gfv) 20 13 27 28 20 24
FASP (Gfv) 13 23 36 21 34 20
Paper Folding
(Gfv) 30 21 13 36 28 31
Water Level (Pf) 21 26 32 35 23 33
Proportions
(formal) 19 -08 31 10 16 21
Controlling
(formal) 18 -04 20 19 11 -08
Permutations
(formal) 15 -13 06 12 01 11
Combinations
(formal) 09 -05 07 05 19 17
Course Experience
Math 05 15 26 20 20 20
Science 08 -06 10 -05 23 26
Note. M = male; F = female; Gc = General crystallized ability; Gfv = General fluid visualization; Ff = Familiar
field; FASP = Find a Shape Puzzle.
 PREDICTING DISPLACED VOLUME 93

Table 5 ined correlations and entered the formal

Multiple Regression (Fixed Order) for composite in the regression analysis after Gc,
Predicting Displaced Volume by Grade Gfv, and Ff.
As anticipated, males were more success-
Multiple regression
T) +"1 ful than females on proportional reasoning.
Partial
Measure r R R'2
F to enter r»
On the other three formal measures, males
and females performed equally. (See Linn
Grade 7 & Pulos, in press, for further discussion of
proportional reasoning.)
Gc .16 .16 '.03 6.74** .24
In general, the correlations between Pre-
Gfv .25 .26 .07 11.14"* .22
.Ff .27 .31 .10 71.92** .25 dicting Displaced Volume and the formal
Formal .17 .32 .10 .49 .22 reasoning measures were low (Table 4). The
School-SES .21 .34 .12 4.50* .22 formal composite, when entered in the re-
Courses .12 .36 .13 3.13 • .21 gression (Table 5), accounted for no addi-
Sex .24 .41 .17 11.10"*
tional variance. Formal reasoning did not
Grade 9 change the partial correlation with sex.
.27
Thus, formal reasoning does not contribute
Gc .32 .32 .10 17.59***
Gfv .29 .37 .14 6.45** .25 unique variance after Gc, Gfv, and Ff. Also,
Ff .36 .44 .19 10.36** .27 formal reasoning does not account for any of
Formal .22 .44 .19 .08 .27 the male-female differences in Predicting
School-SES .21 .45 .20 1.24 .27 Displaced Volume.
Courses .24 .46 .21 1.76 .27
Sex .29 .52 . .27 11.50*** .27
The Role of Math and Science Experience
Grade 11
.35
To determine whether math and science
Gc .22 ,22 .05 10.50**
Gfv .33 .34 .12 15.24*** .30,
experience is associated with male-female
Ff .35 .41 .17 12.23*** .34 differences on Predicting Displaced Volume,
Formal .23 .41 .17 .04 .30 we correlated math and science course taking
School-SES .15 .41 .17 .54 .30 with Predicting Displaced Volume.
Courses .26 .42 .18 .80 .30 Correlations for course taking (Tables 4
Sex .32 .50 .25 18.57*** .30
and 5) revealed no significant differences for
Note. Gc = General crystallized ability; Gfv = General males and females. Interestingly, at 9th and
fluid visualization; Ff = Familiar field; SES = socio- llth grades, course taking was as highly
economic status. correlated with Predicting Displaced Vol-
a
Correlation between sex and volume with all variables
entered in regression to this point partialled out.
ume as was Gc. Correlations for seventh
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. graders reflected the limited range in num-
ber of courses taken.
Predicting Displaced Volume, we computed Course taking appears to measure much
the partial correlation of volume with sex of what is measured by Gc, Gfv, and Ff for
after each entry in the regression. The 9th and llth graders as reflected in the re-
partial correlations, in the final column of gression analysis. Neither measure reduced
Table 5, are between volume and sex, with the variance associated with sex. Although
everything entered in the regression at that course taking correlated with performance,
point partialled out. The partial correla- it did not reduce the male-female differences
tions fluctuate slightly but not significantly. in Predicting Displaced Volume perfor-
The aptitude measures in Predicting Disr mance.
placed Volume do not reduce the variance
attributable to sex.
Discussion

The Role of Formal Reasoning Three- major findings emerged in this

study. First, male-female differences in
To determine whether formal reasoning Predicting Displaced Volume were attrib-
is associated with male-female differences utable to consistent usage of expectation-
in Predicting Displaced Volume, we exam- based strategies. Second, the aptitude
94 MARCIA C. LINN AND STEVEN PULOS

measures clarified what Predicting Dis- ferential experiences? Our measure of math
placed Volume measures for both sexes and and science experience correlates with Pre-
clarified the Ff dimension. Third, our ap- dicting Displaced Volume but does not ex-
titude and experience measures did not ac- plain male-female differences in perfor-
count for male-female differences in strategy mance.
usage, although they correlated substantially Course taking may no longer be an effec-
with performance for both sexes. tive measure of math and science experience,
Female enrollment in advanced courses has
Expectation-Based Strategy Usage increased (e.g., Fennema & Sherman, 1977;
Armstrong, 1979). Recent efforts to en-
Over 90% of the subjects used one of the courage, females to continue in math and
expectation-based strategies we anticipated. science may result in poorly prepared fe-
Females used weight-based inaccurate males taking advanced courses. This could
strategies more frequently than did males. occur either because females did not take
The strategies based on weight rather than appropriate prerequisite courses or because
volume may reflect inaccurate or overgen- they were treated differently in the courses
eralized expectations about weight. Thus, they took.
male-female differences in Predicting Dis- Are females treated differently? Females'
placed Volume may be due to differential experiences differ from those of males
expectations about weight. throughout the life span. Many females
Weight is irrelevant in Predicting Dis- describe themselves as math-anxious (e.g.,
placed Volume if the objects sink. Why Tobias, 1978), as unable to solve math
then do subjects consider weight? They. problems (e.g., Covington & Omelich, 1979),
may confuse floating and sinking with dis- and as "confused" or "unable to reason"
placement and consider weight because it about machines (e.g., Linn, 1980b). Class-
influences floating and sinking. (Some room experiences for males and females
subjects mentioned that heavy things sink differ, e.g. teachers praise females less than
faster than light things of the same volume.) they do males (e.g., Brophy & Good, 1970),
In addition, subjects may generalize their and females receive more negative feedback
knowledge of weight and expect weight to for the intellectual quality of their work
influence displacement just as it influences (Dweck & Reppucci, 1973; Dweck, Davidson,
other phenomena such as balance beams or Nelson, & Enna, 1978). Research on free-
bending rods. choice environments reveals that females
Expectations about weight influence choose different experiences than males in
performance on another complex reasoning math and science (e.g., Linn, 1980a; Rice &
task—the pendulum, (e.g., Linn, 1977, and Linn, 1978). Thus, other experience dif-
Pulos & Linn, 1978). Most subjects expect ferences not reflected in our measure of
weight to influence pendulum oscillation just course taking may influence male-female
as they expect weight to influence displaced differences in Predicting Displaced
volume. Linn (1977) attempted to alter Volume.
expectations about the influence of weight
on pendulum oscillation by providing some Aptitude Clarification of Predicting
experimental evidence that weight was not Displaced Volume
important in pendulum oscillation. She
found that subjects correctly interpreted the By establishing the relationship between
experimental evidence but continued to ex- aptitudes and Predicting Displaced Volume,
pect weight to influence pendulum oscilla- we clarified what Predicting Displaced
tion in subsequent trials. Thus, subjects Volume measured. The aptitudes we mea-
have strong expectations about the influence sured accounted for about 25% of the vari-
of weight that are not easily altered. It ap- ance in Predicting Displaced Volume.
pears that for Predicting Displaced Volume, The single strongest predictor of Pre-
males have more accurate expectations dicting Displaced Volume was Ff, an aspect
about weight than do females. of FDI that also accounted for a significant
Are expectation differences due to dif- portion of the variance after Gc and Gfv were
 PREDICTING DISPLACED VOLUME
entered in the regression. This finding
combined with the expectation-based
strategy analysis of Predicting Displaced
Volume is congruent with Linn and Kyllo-
nen's (1981) definition of Ff as a measure of
strategy selection from among salient com-
peting strategies, and supports Witkin &
Goodenough's (1981) assertion that aspects
of FDI measure a unique aspect of reasoning.
Similar findings by Linn (1978) and Linn
and Swiney (1981) lend further support to
this hypothesis. Ff may measure ability to
select from among expectation-based strat-
egies.
Is formal reasoning a unique aptitude? A
variety of studies suggest that Gc, Gfv, and
Ff overlap substantially with formal rea-
soning performance (e.g., Linn, Pulos, &
Gans, 1981; Cloutier and Goldschmid, 1976).
Some have suggested that the overlap is
complete (e.g., Humphreys & Parsons, 1979),
whereas others think there may be unique
variance in formal reasoning tasks (e.g., Linn
& Swiney, 1981). Our study suggests that
formal reasoning does not contribute unique
variance to Predicting Displaced Volume
performance after Gc, Gfv, and Ff and that
formal reasoning aptitude does not influence
male and female performance differently.
Aptitude Explanations of Gender
Differences
Male-female differences in Predicting
Displaced Volume remained unexplained
after measures of spatial ability, FDI, formal
reasoning, and course-taking experience
were entered in the regression. All com-
monly suggested aptitude explanations of
male-female differences were represented
in our measures. In particular, spatial vi-
sualization Was represented by several dif-
ferent tests. Several measures that also
yielded male-female differences (e.g., pro-
portions, Water Level) were used. These
measures correlated with Predicting Dis-
placed Volume performance but did not ac-
count for gender differences. The lack of
relationship between male-female differ-
ences on these tasks suggests the existence
of multiple explanations for gender differ-
ences. No evidence for a single factor ex-
plaining male-female differences on these
tasks emerged. These data suggest that a
95
single aptitude explanation is not sufficient
to account for gender differences in spatial
ability, formal reasoning, and scientific
reasoning.
Reference Notes
1. Snow, R. E., Lohman, D. P., Marshalek, B., Yalow,
E., & Webb, N. Correlational analyses of reference
aptitude constructs (Tech, Rep. No. 5). Stanford,
Calif.: Stanford University School of Education
Aptitude Research Project, September 1977.
2. Pulos, S., & Linn, M. C. The find a shape puzzle
(FASP). Berkeley, Calif.: Lawrence Hall of
Science, 1979,
3. Peterson, A. Sex related differences in proportional
reasoning: Spatial visualization, affective, social,
and other factors. In M. C, Linn (Chair), Sex dif-
ferences in scientific reasoning. Symposium pre-
sented at the Sixth Annual Conference on Research
on Women and Education of the American Educa-
tional Research Association, Pacific Grove, Califor-
nia, December 7-9, 198(5.
References
Armstrong, J. M. A National Assessment of achieve-
ment and participation of women in mathematics.
Education Commission of the States, Boulder, Col-
orado, 1979.
Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. Teachers' communication
of differential expectations for children's classroom
performance: Some behavioral data. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 1970,61, 365-374.
Brown, J. S., & Burton, R. R. Diagnostic models for
procedural bugs in basic mathematical skills. Cog-
nitive Science, 1978, 2,155-192.
Cattell, R. B. Abilities: Their structure, growth and
action. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1971.
Cloutier, R., & Goldschmid, M. Individual differences
in the development of formal reasoning. Child De-
velopment, 1976, 47,1097-1102.
'Covington, M., & Omelich, C. Effort: The double-
edged sword in school achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 1979, 70,169-182.
Cronbach, L. J. Coefficient alpha and the internal
structure of tests. Psychometrika, 1951, 16,
297-334.
DeAvila, E. A,, & Havassy, B., with Pascual-Leone, J.
Mexican-American Schoolchildren: A neo-Piage-
tian analysis. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown
University Press, 1976.
Dweek, C. S., Davidson, W., Nelson, S., & Enna, B. Sex
differences in learned helplessness II, The con-
tingencies of evaluative feedback in the classroom and
HI, An experimental analysis. Developmental
Psychology, 1978,14, 268-276,
Dweck, C. S., & Reppucei, N. D. Learned helplessness
and reinforcement responsibility in children.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973,
25, 109-116.
Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. Sex-related differences
in mathematics achievement, spatial visualization
and sociocultural factors. American Educational
96 MARCIA C. LINN AND STEVEN PULOS

Research Journal, 1977,14, 51-57. cence: Focus on male-female differences. Journal

Fennema, E. H., & Sherman, J. Sex-related differences for Research in Mathematics Education, in press.
in mathematics achievement and related factors: a Linn, M. C., Pulos, S., & Cans, A. Correlates of formal
further study. Journal for Research in Mathematics reasoning: Content and problem effects. Journal
Education, 1979,10,189-201. of Research in Science Teaching, 1981, 18,
French, J. W., Ekstron, R. B., & Price, L. A. Manual 435-448.
for Kit of Reference Tests for Cognitive Factors Linn, M. C., & Rice, M. A measure of scientific rea-
(revised 1963). Princeton, N.J.: Educational soning: The springs task. Journal of Educational
Testing Service, 1963. Measurement, 1979,16, 55-58.
Harris, L. J. Sex differences in spatial ability: Possible Linn, M. C., & Swiney, J. Individual differences in
environmental, genetic, and neurological factors. In formal thought: Role of expectations and aptitudes.
M. Kinsbourne (Ed.), Asymmetrical functions of the Journal of Educational Psychology, 1981, 73,
brain. London: Oxford University Press," 1978. 274-286.
Harris, L. J. Sex-related variations in spatial skill. In Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. The psychology of sex
L. S. Liben, A. H. Patterson and N. Newcombe (Eds.), differences. Palo Alto, Calif.: Stanford University
Spatial representations and behavior across the life Press, 1974.
span: Theory and application. New York: Aca- Martorano, S. C. A developmental analysis of perfor-
demic Press, 1980. mance on Piaget's formal operations task. Devel-
Hobbs, E. D. Adolescents' Concepts of Physical opmental Psychology, 1977,73, 666-672.
Quantity. Developmental Psychology, 1973, 9, McGee, M. G. Human spatial abilities: Psychometric
431. studies and environmental, genetic, hormonal, and
Hobbs, E. D. Methodological problems in conservation neurological influences. Psychological Bulletin,
testing with particular reference to volume conser- 1979,86, 889-917.
vation. The Alberta Journal of Educational Re- Mclver, J. P., & Carmines, E. G. Unidimensional
search, 1975,21, 262-277. scaling. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications,
Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. Refinement and test of the 1981.
theory of fluid and crystallized general intelligence. Newcombe, N., Bandura, M. M., & Taylor, D. G. Sex
Journal of Educational Psychology, 1966, 57, differences in spatial ability and spatial activities.
253-270. Sex Roles, in press.
Howe, A. C., & Shayer, M. Sex-related differences on Oilman, P. K. A portable rod-and-frame apparatus.
a task of volume and density. Journal of Research Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1968,26, 503-506.
in Science Teaching, 1981,78,169-175. Oilman, P. K., Raskin, E., & Witkin, H. A. Group
Humphreys, L. C., & Parsons, C. K. Piagetian tasks embedded figures test. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting
measure intelligence and intelligence tests assess Psychologists Press, 1971.
cognitive development: A reanalysis. Intelligence, Piaget, J. Judgment and reasoning in the child.
1979,3, 369-382. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1951. (a)
Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. The growth of logical Piaget, J. The child's conception of physical causality.
thinking from childhood to adolescence. New York: London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1951. (b)
Basic Books, 1958. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. Le developpement des
Karplus, R., Karplus, E., Formisano, M., & Paulsen, A. quantites physiques chez 1'enfant. Paris: Delachaux
A survey of proportional reasoning and control of etNiestle, 1941.
variables in seven countries. Journal of Research in Pulos, S., & Linn, M. C. Pitfalls and pendulums.
Science Teaching, 1977,14, 411-417. Formal Operator, 1978,7,2-11.
Kreinberg, N. 1000 teachers later: Women, mathe- Pulos, S., & Linn, M. C. Generality of the controlling
matics, and the components of change. Public Af- variables scheme in early adolescence. Journal of
fairs Report, 1981,22. Early Adolescence, 1981,1 (1), 26-37.
Lawson, A. E. The development and validation of a ,Rice, M., & Linn, M. C. Study of student behavior in
classroom test of formal reasoning. Journal of Re- a free choice environment. Science Education, 1978,
search in Science Teaching, 1978,15,11-24. 62, 365-376.
Linn, M. C. Scientific reasoning: Influences on task Saarni, C. I. Piagetian operations and field indepen-
performance and response categorization. Science dence as factors in children's problem solving per-
Education, 1977, 61, 357-363. formance. Child Development, 1973,44, 338-345.
Linn, .M. C. Cognitive style, training, and formal Siegler, R. S. Three aspects of cognitive development.
thought. Child Development, 1978, 49, 874-877. Cognitive Psychology, 1976,8, 481-520.
Linn, M. C. Free Choice Experiences: How do they Tobias, J. Overcoming math anxiety. New York:
help children learn? Science Education, 1980, 64, Norton, 1978.
237-248. (a) Witkin, H. A., & Goodenough, D. R. Cognitive styles:
Linn, M. C. When do adolescents reason? European Essence and origins. New York: International
Journal of Science Education, 1980, 2, 429- Universities Press, 1981.
440. (b) Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Cox,
Linn, M. C. & Kyllonen, P. The field dependence- P. W. Field dependent and field independent cog-
independence construct: some, one, or none. nitive styles and their educational implications.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 1981, 73, Review of Educational Research, 1977, 47,1-64.
261-273.
Linn, M. C., & Pulos, S. Aptitude and experience in-
fluences on proportional reasoning during adoles- Received February 26,1982