FREE ESSAY ON DIFFERENCES IN VISUAL SPATIAL ABILITY

DIFFERENCES IN VISUAL SPATIAL ABILITY

Differences in Visual Spatial 1
Running head: The differences in visual spatial ability among females and males
The differences in visual spatial ability among females and males:
Does practice have an effect on performance?
Scott D. Singleton
Keene State College, Keene, New Hampshire
Differences in Visual Spatial 2
Abstract
Many scientists have studied the sex differences in spatial abilities. Different designs
of testing have been used to test this subject. A simple Mental Rotation Test (MRT) was
designed to test the spatial abilities of males verse females in identifying rotated
objects. The test consisted of two trials to measure whether practice had an effect on
performance. Nine males and 30 females participated in the spatial rotation test.
Regardless of trials males perform significantly higher in spatial rotation tasks then
females. The effect of trials had a positive effect on females and no effect on males.
Female's scores increased after the first trial. Where as male's scores stayed consistent
from trial one and trial two. The results suggest that male's complete spatial
visualization task more accurately then females, although female's accuracy improves with
practice. 
Differences in Visual Spatial 3
The differences in visual spatial ability among females and males
Does Practice have an effect on performance
Throughout the past few decades Scientists have been studying spatial visualization among
males and females. In many cases, males score significantly higher in this area and in
others reports show no significant difference between males and females scores but do
report that scores were higher in a specific gender. One of these studies is Schaefer and
Thomas's (1998) study on spatial tasks and sex differences in gains from practice, tested
college students on recognition of a rotated figure embedded in pictures. Although
Schaefer and Thomas's (1998) results do not show a significant difference for females
verse males, figures showed males scored higher numbers during testing. 
Studies have been done using different difficulty levels of spatial rotation testing and
have come up with statistics supporting males' abilities being higher then females.
Goldstein, Haldane, and Mitchell (1990) studied the difference of visual spatial ability
between male and female math students using the Mental Rotation test. They ran two
studies, one with timed and untimed testing, and one with a group of individuals that
scored highly in quantitative problem solving. Within the group of individuals that had
high quantitative problem solving skills the males scored significantly higher in visual
spatial recognition. Within the second test group involving time an untimed testing,
males scored significantly higher then females in the timed testing section. There was no
difference found in visual spatial ability between males and females during the untimed
testing (Goldstein, Haldane, Mitchell 1990). 
Differences in Visual Spatial 4
Studies comparing the gender and visual spatial recognition along with different fields
of study; Peters, Laeng, Jackson, Zaiyouna, and Richardson (1995) conducted a spatial
visualization test using a duplicated version of Vandenberg and Kuse's (1978), MRT test
and several different groups. In one test they compared male's performance to female's
performance between students from the humanities field to those from the social sciences
field. This study showed that males perform spatial rotational task significantly better
then females in both areas of study. In the study both males from the humanities program
and those from the social sciences program had significantly higher scores than the
females from those departments. Their results were similar to those of Goldstein,
Haldane, and Mitchell's (1990) findings with the males verse females in the spatial
visualization tasks (Peters, Laeng, Jackson, Zaiyouna, and Richardson 1995). 
Delgado and Prieto (1996) ran a 2x2 (gender and time) spatial visualization test. Using
male and female high school seniors. To measure their spatial visualization abilities,
"Two Psychometric test were selected from Eliot and Smith's (1983) directory: The RFM
test (Yela 1968), which is the Spanish adaptation of the Rotation of Solid Figures
developed by Thurstone and Thurstone (1949) a 3-D mental rotation test, loading in the
factor of spatial relations", as cited in (Delgado and Prieto 1996 p.506). 
The experiment I ran is closely related to Vandenberg and Kuse's study done in 1978.
Vandenberg and Kuse (1978) studied spatial visualization ability among females and males
in three different age groups, University students, high school students and 
Differences in Visual Spatial 5
elementary school students. They measured this using a paper and pencil test of spatial
visualization that was constructed from two dimensional drawings of three dimensional
figures which were taken from the chronometric study of Shepard and Metzler (1971) as
cited in (Vandenberg and Kuse 1978). A consistent sex difference over the entire range of
ages was found and the visual spatial ability was found to be significantly higher in
males over females for all three age groups. (Vandenberg and Kuse 1978). 
With in my test I expect to find a difference in the visual spatial ability of males
verse females. Males should perform significantly higher then females. In this study I
also look for the effect of practice and whether or not it has a positive effect in
increasing the accuracy of the score and if there is a difference in practice effect on
males verse females. 
Method
Participants
Thirty female and 9 male undergraduate students from the three Research Methods Lab
courses at Keene State College participated in the experiment as part of their course
requirements. All were between the ages of 19 and 48 with a (mean age of 21.8 years),
also all have some interest in the field of Psychology and will receive participation
points towards their grade in research methods course.
Differences in Visual Spatial 6
Materials
Copies of Vandenberg and Kuse's Mental Rotation Test designed at the University of
Colorado, July15, 1971 and revised by H. Crawford of University of Wyoming September,
1979 were given out to each participant. Copies were made on white paper with a
photocopier. A sample section was included in the test along with instructions. The test
consisted of several two-dimensional drawings of 10 cubes attached to each other and
rotated in different directions. The only difference between the original cube series and
the new selections is that they are presented at different angles. Two out of the four
cube selections can be matched to the original and two can not be matched. The test had
two parts, with three minutes to complete each of the two parts. A stopwatch was used to
time each section and the break between each section. Each part had two pages with five
sets of the cube selections on each page. Making the total number of series selections
being 10 for each section. A score sheet was used to collect data. 
Procedure
Participants all received a test packet consisting of the materials. Participants
completed the test within the same room and were seated next to each other in a half
circle formation. Participants were asked to read the instructions printed on the packet
and begin the practice test. The students were instructed to stop when finished the
Differences in Visual Spatial 7
practice section of the test. Before starting the main section of the test, participants
were asked to work as quickly as they could with out making mistakes. Participants were
given 3 minutes to complete the first section with a one-minute brake before going on to
the second section. Students were asked to wait till instructed to start the second
section if they finished the first before the end of the 3 minutes. Participants were
instructed to start at the same time to avoid validity problems also the sections were
completed in the same order for each participant, the first section being first and the
second section being last. Once instructed to go on to the second section they were given
3 minutes to finish. After the time was up participants were asked to exchange packets
with each other and then were given a score sheet. Students used the score sheet to
evaluate their answers. Scoring was based on correct and incorrect answers, for every
wrong answer participants would subtract ? a point from the total number of correct
answers. The subtraction is to correct the 50% chance of being correct in guesswork.
Results
The dependent variable was the number of correct scores on the MRT test. There was two
independent variables, gender and Practice. A two-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to
measure the results between practice and genders. Gender was analyzed to see if there was
a difference in males ability to recognize visual spatial stimuli over females abilities
to recognize visual spatial stimuli. The trials were analyzed to see if practice had an
effect on increasing the ability to recognize visual spatial stimuli. 
Differences in Visual Spatial 8
Results showed that males scored significantly higher than females in both trials with a
mean of 12.77 for the first trial and a mean of 9.77 for the second trial. Females scored
significantly lower with a mean score of 9.18 for the first trial and a mean of 7.66 for
the second trial. The main effect for gender was F (1, 37) = 4.269, P * .05. 
There was a no significant difference between males and females for practice. The mean
for the first trial was 10.01 and the mean for the second trial was 8.15. Showing that
practice did not have an effect in increasing the scores of males or females. The results
were F (1, 37)=9.575, P* .01. 
The graph in figure 1. shows the results of gender differences between males and females.
The graph in figure 2. shows the results for practice effect on males and females.
Discussion
My data shows that there are sex differences in visual spatial abilities with, males
scoring higher on spatial visualization task then do females. This is seen in the mean
scores produced by participants scoring of the MRT test. However Practice had no effect
on increasing the ability to complete visual spatial tasks. Some internal validity issues
that could be looked at are number of participants in each gender. The fact that there
were a significantly higher number of female participants then males might effect the
score results. An equal number of both male and female participants might have an effect
on the results and would represent male scores more accurately. Even though the male
representation was not equal to that of the female representation the results can be.
Differences in Visual Spatial 9
compared to that of Vandenberg and Kuse (1978), Peters, Laeng, Latham, jackson, Zaiyouna,
and Richardson (1995), Delgado and Prieto (1996), Goldstein, Haldane, and Mitchell
(1990). All the results show that males perform spatial visualization task with a better
accuracy then females.
Figure Caption
Figure 1. Graph showing the results of gender differences between males and females. 
Figure 2. Graph showing the results for practice effect on males and females.
Bibliography
Differences in Visual Spatial 10
Reference
Delgado, R. Ana, & Prieto, Gerado. (1996). Sex differences in visuospatial ability: Do
performance factors play such an important role. Memory & cognition 4, 504-510.
Goldstein, David, Haldane, Diane, & Mitchel, Carolyn. (1990). Sex differences in
visual-spatial ability: the role of Performance factors. Memory and Cognition 5,
546-550.
Peters, Michael, Laeng, Bruno, Latham, Kerry, Jackson, Marla, Zaiyouna, Raghad, &
Richardson, Chris (1995). A Redrawn Vandenberg and Kuse Mental Rotations Test: Different
Versions and Factors that Affect Performance. Brain and Cognition 28, 39-58.
Schaefer, D. Paul, & Thomas, Jocelyln. (1998). Difficulty of a Spatial Task and Sex
Difference in Gains from Practice. Perceptual and Motor Skills 87, 56-58.
Vandenberg, G. Steven, & Kuse, R. Allan. (1978). Mantal Rotations, A Group Test of
Three-Dimensional Spatial Visualization. Perceptual and Motor Skills 47, 599-604.