3.1. Gender Differences in Math and Mental Rotation Performance, Math and Spatial Anxiety, and Subject Preference
A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to examine the effects of the fixed factor gender on the combined dependent variables of math performance (percentage scored and completion times), mental rotation performance (accuracy and response time), math anxiety, and spatial anxiety. The multivariate effect of gender was significant,
λ = 0.80,
F(1, 129) = 5.22,
p < 0.001, with a small effect size of
η2 = 0.20, indicating significant differences between boys and girls across the dependent variables (see
Table 2).
A series of between-subjects effects tests were conducted to examine gender differences in percentage scored and completion times on the math task, accuracy and response time on the mental rotation task, math anxiety, and spatial anxiety. The analyses yielded the following results.
For the math percentage scored, there was a statistically significant effect of gender, F(1, 129) = 4.63, p = 0.033, η2 = 0.03. This indicates that gender accounts for 3% of the variance in percentage scores. Similarly, for completion times on the math task, the effect of gender was also statistically significant, F(1, 129) = 7.20, p = 0.008, η2 = 0.05, indicating that gender accounts for 5% of the variance in completion times. In contrast, gender did not have a significant effect on accuracy in the mental rotation task, F(1, 129) = 0.03, p = 0.872, η2 = 0.00, nor on response time, F(1, 129) = 3.20, p = 0.076, η2 = 0.02. The effect of gender on math anxiety was significant, F(1, 129) = 10.50, p = 0.002, η2 = 0.08. This indicates that gender explains 8% of the variance in math anxiety scores. For spatial anxiety, the effect of gender was not statistically significant, F(1, 129) = 2.28, p = 0.134, η2 = 0.02.
Overall, these results indicate significant gender differences in percentage scores and completion times on the math task, as well as in math anxiety. The effect of gender on accuracy, response time, and spatial anxiety was not significant (see
Table 3).
Pairwise comparisons were conducted to examine the differences between boys and girls on various dependent variables, including math percentage scores, math completion times, accuracy, response time, math anxiety, and spatial anxiety.
For math percentage scores, girls scored significantly higher than boys, with a mean difference of 7.08, SE = 3.30, p = 0.033, 95% CI [0.57, 13.56]. Regarding math completion times, girls took significantly longer to complete the tasks compared to boys, mean difference = 2.44, SE = 0.91, p = 0.008, 95% CI [0.64, 4.25]. In terms of accuracy on the nMRT, there were no significant differences between boys and girls, mean difference = 0.005, SE = 0.03, p = 0.872, 95% CI [−0.05, 0.06], nor in response time, mean difference = −0.19, SE = 0.12, p = 0.076, 95% CI [−0.40, 0.02]. Regarding math anxiety, girls reported significantly higher levels of math anxiety than boys, mean difference = 0.43, SE = 0.13, p = 0.002, 95% CI [0.17, 0.69]. For spatial anxiety, there were no significant differences between boys and girls, mean difference = 0.005, SE = 0.03, p = 0.872, 95% CI [−0.05, 0.06].
Overall, the results suggest that girls outperform boys in terms of math percentage scores but take longer to complete the math task. The error bars in
Figure 2 represent the standard error of the mean (SEM). The difference in the width of the error bars for percentage scored and completion times indicates that there is more variability in the scores compared to the completion times. Scores might be more sensitive to individual differences in mathematical ability, understanding, and problem-solving strategies, leading to greater variability in scores. Completion times might be less variable because they are influenced by factors such as time constraints and task pacing, which could be more consistent across participants. There are no significant differences between boys and girls in accuracy nor response time on the mental rotation task or in spatial anxiety.
A Chi-Square test for association was performed to examine the relationship between gender and preference for math vs. German. The results indicated a strong significant association between gender and subject preference,
χ2 (2,
N = 131) = 13.50,
p < 0.001. Specifically, girls were significantly less likely than boys to indicate a preference for math and were more likely to choose German or indicate no preference for either subject (see
Figure 3). A crosstabulation analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between gender (sex) and subject preference (math vs. German). The results are as follows. Out of the 66 boys, 44 (65.7%) preferred math, 8 (28.6%) preferred German, and 14 (38.9%) had no preference. Out of the 65 girls, 23 (34.3%) preferred math, 20 (71.4%) preferred German, and 22 (61.1%) had no preference. The overall distribution across both sexes showed that 67 participants (51.1%) preferred math, 28 participants (21.4%) preferred German, and 36 participants (27.5%) had no preference.
3.2. Association between Gender, Subject Preference, Emotional Reactivity (Measured by GSR), Subjective Anxiety (Math and Spatial Anxiety), and Performance on the Math and Mental Rotation Tasks
3.2.1. Effects on Math Performance
A multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was conducted to examine the effects of various predictors on two dependent variables: percentage scored and completion times on the math task. The predictors included two fixed factors, gender and subject preference, and three covariates, emotional reactivity measured by GSR, math anxiety, and spatial anxiety.
The results of the multivariate tests, as indicated the main effect of gender was significant, Wilks’ Λ = 0.91, F(2, 121) = 5.60, p = 0.004, η2 = 0.09, indicating a significant difference in the combined dependent variables based on gender. Additionally, Wilks’ Lambda showed a significant effect of math anxiety on the combined dependent variables, Wilks’ Λ = 0.910, F(2, 121) = 5.96, p = 0.003, η2 = 0.09, suggesting that math anxiety significantly impacts the combined dependent variables. The main effect of subject preference was also significant, Wilks’ Λ = 0.89, F(4, 242) = 3.43, p = 0.009, η2 = 0.05, suggesting that subject preference significantly impacts the combined dependent variables. The interaction effect between gender and subject preference was not significant, Wilks’ Λ = 0.98, F(4, 242) = 0.52, p = 0.718, η2 = 0.01, indicating that this interaction does not significantly affect the combined dependent variables. The individual effects of emotional reactivity measured by GSR and spatial anxiety on the combined dependent variables were not significant, with Wilks’ Λ = 0.97, F(2, 121) = 1.78, p = 0.172, η2 = 0.03 for emotional reactivity measured by GSR and Wilks’ Λ = 0.97, F(2, 121) = 1.93, p = 0.15, η2 = 0.03 for spatial anxiety.
Overall, these multivariate tests demonstrate that gender has a significant impact on the dependent variables, with notable contributions from subject preference and math anxiety. The effect of emotional reactivity measured by GSR and spatial anxiety were not significant. The results are summarized in
Table 4.
A series of tests of between-subjects effects were conducted to examine the influence of gender, subject preference on percentage scored, and completion times on the math task while controlling for emotional reactivity measured by GSR and math anxiety and spatial anxiety. The analyses yielded the following results.
For the dependent variable percentage scored, the between-subjects effects indicated several significant results. There was a significant effect of math anxiety on percentage scored, F(1, 122) = 11.86, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.09. The effect of gender on percentage scored was also significant, F(1, 122) = 6.53, p = 0.012, η2 = 0.051.
For the dependent variable completion times, the between-subjects effects showed the following significant results. The effect of gender on completion times was significant, F(1, 122) = 4.44, p = 0.037, η2 = 0.03. There was also a significant effect of subject preference on completion times, F(2, 122) = 5.94, p = 0.003, η2 = 0.09. The effect of emotional reactivity measured by GSR on completion times was not significant, F(1, 122) = 3.06, p = 0.083, η2 = 0.02, nor was the effect of spatial anxiety, F(1, 122) = 3.79, p = 0.054, η2 = 0.03. The interaction effect between gender and subject preference was not significant for either percentage scored, F(2, 122) = 1.01, p = 0.367, η2 = 0.02, or completion times, F(2, 122) = 0.08, p = 0.921, η2 = 0.00.
These results indicate that, while gender and math anxiety have significant effects on math percentage scored, gender and subject preference are significant for completion times. The interaction between gender and subject preference does not significantly impact either dependent variable. Additionally, emotional reactivity measured by GSR and spatial anxiety do not show significant effects on math completion times (see
Table 5).
3.2.2. Gender-Specific Effects on Math Performance
A multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was conducted to examine the effects of subject preference, emotional reactivity measured by GSR, math anxiety, and spatial anxiety on math percentage scored and completion times separately for boys and girls.
For boys:
Multivariate tests showed that the effects of emotional reactivity measured by GSR on boys’ performance on the math task were not significant (Wilks’ Λ = 0.10, F(2, 59) = 0.09, p = 0.915, η2 = 0.00), neither was math anxiety (Wilks’ Λ = 0.95, F(2, 59) = 1.55, p = 0.220, η2 = 0.05), nor spatial anxiety (Wilks’ Λ = 0.98, F(2, 59) = 0.72, p = 0.489, η2 = 0.02), nor subject preference (Wilks’ Λ = 0.90, F(4, 118) = 1.62, p = 0.173, η2 = 0.05). Tests of between-subjects effects showed no significant effect of emotional reactivity on boys’ percentage scored (F(1, 60) = 0.01, p = 0.929, η2 = 0.00). Neither math anxiety (F(1, 60) = 3.14, p = 0.081 η2 = 0.05), nor spatial anxiety (F(1, 60) = 0.02, p = 0.876, η2 = 0.00), nor subject preference (F(2, 60) = 1.04, p = 0.359, η2 = 0.03) showed significant effects on percentage scored on the math task.
For boys’ completion times on the math task, neither emotional reactivity measured by GSR (F(1, 60) = 0.172, p = 0.680, η2 = 0.00), nor math anxiety (F(1, 60) = 0.02, p = 0.878, η2 = 0.00), nor spatial anxiety (F(1, 60) = 1.44, p = 0.234, η2 = 0.02), nor subject preference (F(2, 60) = 2.31, p = 0.108, η2 = 0.07) showed significant effects.
For girls:
Multivariate tests showed significant effects of emotional reactivity measured by GSR (
Wilks’ Λ = 0.84,
F(2, 58) = 5.53,
p = 0.006,
η2 = 0.16) on girls’ performance on the math task. Math anxiety (
Wilks’ Λ = 0.83,
F(2, 58) = 5.93,
p = 0.005,
η2 = 0.17) and subject preference (
Wilks’ Λ = 80,
F(4, 116) = 3.45,
p = 0.011,
η2 = 0.11) also had significant effects, but spatial anxiety did not (
Wilks’ Λ = 0.95,
F(2, 58) = 1.67,
p = 0.197,
η2 = 0.05) (see
Table 6).
Tests of between-subjects effects showed that emotional reactivity measured by GSR had no significant effects on girls’ percentage scored,
F(1, 59) = 1.34,
p = 0.251,
η2 = 0.02. Math anxiety showed significant effects (
F(1, 59) = 10.22,
p = 0.002,
η2 = 0.145), but spatial anxiety (
F(1, 59) = 1.13,
p = 0.292,
η2 = 0.02) and subject preference (
F(2, 59) = 1.45,
p = 0.242,
η2 = 0.05) did not (see
Table 7).
For girls’ completion times, emotional reactivity measured by GSR showed significant effects (
F(1, 59) = 8.48,
p = 0.005,
η2 = 0.13), as did subject preference (
F(2, 59) = 5.43,
p = 0.007,
η2 = 0.16), but math anxiety (
F(1, 59) = 0.65,
p = 0.423,
η2 = 0.01) and spatial anxiety (
F(1, 59) = 2.76,
p = 0.102,
η2 = 0.04) did not (see
Figure 4).
For boys, none of the predictors were significant for performance on the math task. For girls, math anxiety had a significant effect on percentage scored, and both emotional reactivity and subject preference had significant effects on completion times. For girls, lower math anxiety is significantly associated with higher math scores, and reduced emotional reactivity is significantly associated with shorter completion times on the math task. Subject preference does not significantly affect their math scores but girls who preferred math also had significantly shorter completion times.
3.2.3. Effects on Mental Rotation Performance
A multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was conducted to examine the associations between the fixed factors gender, subject preference, and performance on the combined dependent variables accuracy and response time on the mental rotation task when controlling for covariates of emotional reactivity measured by GSR and math and spatial anxiety. The results of the multivariate tests, as indicated by Wilks’ Lambda, showed no significant effect of emotional reactivity measured by GSR on mental rotation performance,
Wilks’ Λ = 0.96,
F(2, 121) = 2.70,
p = 0.071,
η2 = 0.04. Neither math anxiety,
Wilks’ Λ = 0.96,
F(2, 121) = 2.64,
p = 0.075,
η2 = 0.04, nor spatial anxiety,
Wilks’ Λ = 0.10,
F(2, 121) = 0.23,
p = 0.798,
η2 = 0.004, had a significant effect. A significant effect of gender,
Wilks’ Λ = 0.94,
F(2, 121) = 3.73,
p = 0.027,
η2 = 0.06, but no significant effect of subject preference,
Wilks’ Λ = 0.96,
F(4, 242) = 1.11,
p = 0.350,
η2 = 0.02, was found. There was no significant interaction effect for gender and subject preference,
Wilks’ Λ = 0.98,
F(4, 242) = 0.71,
p = 0.582,
η2 = 0.01 (see
Table 8).
The results of multivariate tests further indicate that gender had a significant effect on accuracy and response time in the mental rotation task, while emotional reactivity measured by GSR and math anxiety both showed no significant effects.
A series of between-subjects effect tests were conducted to examine the influence of gender, emotional reactivity measured by GSR, math anxiety, and spatial anxiety on accuracy and response time on the mental rotation task. The analyses yielded the following results.
For accuracy, the between-subjects effects indicated the following results. The effect of emotional reactivity measured by GSR was not significant, F(1, 122) = 0.27, p = 0.603, η2 = 0.00, but the effect of math anxiety was significant, F(1, 122) = 5.26, p = 0.023, η2 = 0.04. The effects of spatial anxiety, F(1, 122) = 0.310, p = 0.579, η2 = 0.003, gender, F(1, 122) = 0.02, p = 0.885, η2 = 0.00, and subject preference, F(2, 122) = 0.138, p = 0.871, η2 = 0.00, on accuracy were not significant.
For response time, the between-subjects effects showed the following results. The effect of emotional reactivity measured by GSR was significant,
F(1, 122) = 5.43,
p = 0.021,
η2 = 0.04. The effects of math anxiety,
F(1, 122) = 0.80,
p = 0.373,
η2 = 0.01, and spatial anxiety,
F(1, 122) = 0.274,
p = 0.602,
η2 = 0.00, were not significant. The effect of gender was significant,
F(1, 122) = 7.12,
p = 0.009,
η2 = 0.06, but subject preference was not,
F(2, 122) = 2.06,
p = 0.131,
η2 = 0.03 (see
Table 9).
These results indicate that math anxiety has a significant effect on accuracy, while emotional reactivity measured by GSR and gender have significant effects on response time. However, neither spatial anxiety, nor subject preference, nor their interaction have significant effects on mental rotation performance.
3.2.4. Gender-Specific Effects on Mental Rotation Performance
The results of a MANCOVA examining the gender-specific effects of emotional reactivity, math anxiety, and spatial anxiety, as well as subject preference on accuracy and response time on the mental rotation task, are presented below.
For boys:
Multivariate tests showed no significant effect of emotional reactivity measured by GSR on boys’ mental rotation performance (Wilks’ Λ = 0.95, F(2, 59) = 1.57, p = 0.217, η2 = 0.050). Neither math anxiety (Wilks’ Λ = 0.94, F(2, 59) = 1.74, p = 0.185, η2 = 0.06), spatial anxiety (Wilks’ Λ = 0.99, F(2, 59) = 0.36, p = 0.699, η2 = 0.01), nor subject preference (Wilks’ Λ = 0.912, F(4, 118) = 1.40, p = 0.239, η2 = 0.04) show significant effects.
Tests of between-subjects effects showed no significant effects of emotional reactivity on boys’ accuracy (F(1, 60) = 0.61, p = 0.437, η2 = 0.01). Neither math anxiety (F(1, 60) = 3.35, p = 0.072, η2 = 0.05), nor spatial anxiety (F(1, 60) = 0.003, p = 0.954, η2 = 0.00), nor subject preference (F(2, 60) = 0.31, p = 0.734, η2 = 0.01) showed significant effects.
For boys’ response time, neither emotional reactivity measured by GSR (F(1, 60) = 3.17, p = 0.080, η2 = 0.05), nor math anxiety (F(1, 60) = 0.08, p = 0.783, η2 = 0.00), nor spatial anxiety, (F(1, 60) = 0.60, p = 0.442, η2 = 0.01) nor subject preference (F(2, 60) = 1.91, p = 0.156, η2 = 0.06) showed significant effects.
For girls:
Multivariate tests showed no significant effect of emotional reactivity measured by GSR on girls’ mental rotation performance (Wilks’ Λ = 0.94, F(2, 58) = 1.70, p = 0.191, η2 = 0.05). Neither math anxiety (Wilks’ Λ = 0.97, F(2, 58) = 0.974, p = 0.384, η2 = 0.03), nor spatial anxiety (Wilks’ Λ = 0.98, F(2, 58) = 0.72, p = 0.490, η2 = 0.02), nor subject preference (Wilks’ Λ = 0.98, F(4, 116) = 0.28, p = 0.893, η2 = 0.01) showed significant effects.
Tests of between-subjects effects showed no significant effects of emotional reactivity on girls’ accuracy, F(1, 59) = 0.34, p = 0.562, η2 = 0.01), and neither did math anxiety (F(1, 59) = 1.37, p = 0.246, η2 = 0.02), nor spatial anxiety (F(1, 59) = 1.28, p = 0.262, η2 = 0.02), nor subject preference (F(2, 59) = 0.12, p = 0.891, η2 = 0.00).
For girls’ response times, neither emotional reactivity measured by GSR (F(1, 59) = 2.57, p = 0.114, η2 = 0.04), nor math anxiety (F(1, 59) = 1.02, p = 0.316, η2 = 0.02), nor spatial anxiety (F(1, 59) = 0.03, p = 0.854, η2 = 0.00), nor subject preference (F(2, 59) = 0.478, p = 0.623, η2 = 0.00) showed significant effects.
In summary, none of the factors showed significant effects on spatial performance for either gender.