A Review of Spatial Ability Research

View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE

provided by Engineering Design Graphic Journal (ASEE - American Society for Engineering Education)

spring 2008

James L. Mohler Purdue University

Abstract Spatial ability research has been approached from several psychological vantages since its beginnings in the late 1800s. Th is contribution attempts a summation of spatial ability research, beginning with a historical vignette and a major section on each psychological approach including the psychometric, developmental, diff erential and information processing approach. Of importance is what each approach has contributed to our knowledge of spatial ability. ______WHY IS SUCH A Th e chronology of spatial ability research can REVIEW NEEDED? be broken into four major periods of activity. Table 1 shows this author’s chronology and the In the fall of 1996, Miller provided an ex- associated themes or approach. While an assort- cellent historical review of spatial visualization ment of sources provide in-depth historical ac- research. His article chronicled the various ap- counts (Carroll, 1993; Eliot & Smith, 1983), proaches to spatial visualization literature docu- a brief historical vignette seems appropriate to mented in past issues of the Engineering Design begin this contribution; setting the stage for a Graphics Journal. Miller’s article is a well-known review of the major research traditions and their (and well-referenced) starting point for thesis or contributions. dissertation research projects on the topic. How- ever, there is much literature outside the bounds Table 1 of the Engineering Design Graphics Journal. To complement Miller’s work, this contribution de- Chronology of Research with Themes and Approach tails spatial ability research from various branch- Date Range Themes and Approach es of psychology and other fi elds. Essentially, this article documents seminal pieces of literature Acknowledgement of a spatial 1880 - 1940 factor separate from general that, when combined with Miller’s historical re- intelligence through psychomet- view, provide a more holistic view of the fi eld of ric studies spatial ability research. Acknowledgement of multiple 1940 - 1960 space factors through psychometric studies; emergence of THE BEGINNINGS OF myriad spatial assessments

THE RESEARCH Psychometric studies into 1960 - 1980 cognitive issues; emergence of With implications for nearly every techni- developmental and differential cal ﬁ eld, spatial ability continues to be an active research thread of research found throughout many dis- Effect of technology on ciplines. As early as 1880, Sir Francis Galton re- measurement, examination, 1980 - and improvement; emergence ported on his experimental inquiries into mental of information processing imagery. Since that time, researchers have deﬁ ned research spatial ability in numerous ways, contending over its constituents and creating various methods for measuring it.

Mohler - 19 v o l u me 72 n u mb e r 3

A Historical Vignette during this period, knowledge of spatial ability– Although credit belongs to Galton (1880, its development and diff erentiation–blossomed. 1911) as being the initiator of the research, pub- lications with a spatial focus did not emerge un- While prior research themes have continued, til the early 1920s. Contributions from 1880 to from 1980 to today researchers have focused on 1940 acknowledged and defi ned spatial ability the impact of technology on measurement, ex- as separate from general intelligence. Th rough amination, and improvement of spatial ability. In the work of Th orndike (1921), Kelley (1928), El addition, much attention has been turned toward Koussy (1935), and Th urstone (1938), research- understanding spatial ability from the informa- ers regarded spatial ability as a capacity separate tion processing perspective. from the general intelligence factor (g) defi ned by Spearman (1927). From this 100-year history of research one thing remains clear: spatial ability is a set of com- From 1940 to 1960, researchers focused their plex, cognitive abilities about which there are still energies on defi ning what comprised spatial abil- many questions. Each of the research approaches ity, but not without diffi culty. While a few re- provides a unique contribution. Th e following searchers attended to this area, many deemed the sections will delve into these research approaches, ability unimportant. Many viewed spatial func- providing an outline of signifi cant endeavors and tioning as a “lower ability” due to its practical contributions. manifestations. Adding to this undervaluation, confusion within the burgeoning community PSYCHOMETRIC RESEARCH created additional diffi cultly (D’Oliveira, 2004; Lohman, 1979a). Because of diff ering factor One of the initial challenges posed to spatial analysis techniques and the use of diff erent spatial research was distinguishing it from the general in- ability tests, researchers adopted contradictory telligence factor. Two major groups with diff ering names and defi nitions for spatial factors (Cooper views pursued intelligence research. Research in & Mumaw, 1985). Th ey also included confl ict- Britain followed Spearman in focusing on intel- ing numbers of factors (see Hegarty & Waller, ligence as a single factor, whereas research in the 2005). Nevertheless, spatial testing obtained an U.S. viewed intelligence as composed of multiple important foothold due to large-scale assessment factors. Th e former work was pursued by Spear- conducted in the Army Air Forces (Guilford & man (1927), Burt (1949), and Vernon (1950) Lacy, 1947). By the end of this period, research- and the latter work was conducted by Th urstone ers agreed that spatial ability was not unitary and (1950), Cattell (1971), and Guilford (1967). many spatial tests were available (see Eliot & Smith, 1983). Initially researchers had diffi culty distinguishing spatial ability factors from intelligence because From 1960 to1980, several divergent ap- several of the spatial factors load quite heavily on proaches to spatial ability research emerged. Wit- general intelligence (spatial visualization tests, for kin (1950) and Gardner’s (1957) psychometric example). Typically intelligence has been viewed studies examined cognitive issues such as learn- hierarchically and taxonometrically, with the for- ing styles. Developmental studies by Piaget and mer emerging fi rst (Gustafsson, 1988). Figure 1 Inhelder (1971) examined how spatial ability shows a basic hierarchical view of the structure of develops through childhood to adulthood. Dif- human abilities and the juxtaposition of spatial ferential researchers focused on areas of diff erence abilities (Smith, 1964). in spatial ability, particularly as it relates to diff erences across gender. Work by Maccoby and Jack- As shown in Figure 1, when mental tests are lin (1974) serves as the much-referenced contri- analyzed using factor analysis, the fi rst factor to bution in this area. Due to the varied approaches be extracted typically corresponds to g. Once g is

20 - Engineering Design Graphics Journal spring 2008

Figure 1. Hierarchical structure of human abilities (Smith, 1964). removed, the tests typically fall into two groups: verbal-numerical (v:ed factor) and the spatial- mechanical-practical (k:m factor). If there are enough tests in the battery being used, the two subgroups can be divided further into minor factors, such as verbal, numerical, or spatial and manual.

Scientifi c and empirical work that is more recent has attempted to defi ne hierarchical models of intelligence and specifi c aspects of those models (Snow & Lohman, 1989; Snow, Kyllonen, & Marshalek, 1984). Due to its extensive inclusion Figure 2. Example of the radex model of datasets, the best-known contemporary factor of intelligence (Guttman, 1954). analytic survey is Carroll (1993).

Of importance to this review was Carroll’s dis- intelligence, which demonstrates the positioning cussion of a hierarchical “three-stratum theory” of spatial ability in juxtaposition with verbal and of ability that “could be accommodated within, mathematical ability. or show correspondences with, radex theories Th e three abilities shown in Figure 2 have that assume hierarchical structures” (Carroll, psychological importance and can predict occu- 1993, p. 654). Carroll identiﬁ ed three hierarchi- pational and educational success. While Carroll cal strata (narrow, broad, and general) into which (1993) discussed arguments against this “three- cognitive abilities fell. Radex theories, the earliest stratum theory,” the sheer magnitude of the data of which Carroll credits to Guttman (1954), are and subsequent studies present a compelling ar- typically taxonomic (rather than hierarchical). gument for support of the radex model. Howev- Figure 2 shows an example of the radex model of er, some research acknowledges that hierarchical

Mohler - 21 v o l u me 72 n u mb e r 3

and radex models can mesh quite well and even fl uency. Th is theory was the basis for intelligence complement each other (Snow, et. al, 1984). tests that yield a profi le of individual performance from several ability scores, rather than the single The Acknowledgement mark. of a Spatial Factor Th e published identifi cation of spatial abil- Multiple Space Factors ity was a 1921 paper by Th orndike. He drew an Th rough subsequent research and using ab- important distinction among three broad classes stract nomenclature, Th urstone (1950) identifi ed of intellectual functioning, as opposed to Spear- three primary spatial factors within spatial ability. man’s “singular view” of intelligence. He argued Literature that followed replaced Th urstone’s sci- that standard intelligence tests measured only entifi c designations with more descriptive terms "abstract intelligence." While Th orndike includ- (Smith, 1964). Mental rotation (S1) was defi ned ed abstract intelligence in his own threefold mod- as the ability to recognize an object if moved to el, he highlighted that "mechanical” and “social” diff erent orientations or angles. Spatial visualiza- intelligence were equally important. Th orndike’s tion (S2) was the ability to recognize the parts of publication serves as the starting point for pub- an object if they were moving or displaced from lished spatial ability research. Th rough his work, their original position. Spatial perception (S3) he defi ned “mechanical intelligence” as the abil- emerged as the ability to use one’s body orienta- ity to visualize relationships among objects and tion to relate to questions regarding spatial ori- understand how the physical world worked. entation. Th orndike called for measures for these other types of intellect and set the stage for all the spa- Modern Psychometric Research tial ability research that would follow. Modern research has proposed additional factors of importance in spatial ability. Th e fi rst of Afterward, Kelley (1928) and British con- these is a result of Carroll’s defi nition of spatial temporary El Koussy (1935) also challenged the factors (1993). Carroll defi ned a hypothetical im- verbal-based defi nition of intelligence. El Koussy agery factor that is “the ability in forming inter- examined spatial intelligence and, consequently, nal mental representations of visual patterns, and was instrumental in developing methods for in using such representations in solving spatial measuring it. El Koussy found evidence for the problems” (p. 363). Burton and Fogarty (2002) existence of a factor “K,” which he defi ned as the set out to determine if this factor existed. In their ability to obtain and utilize visual spatial imag- research, they did fi nd that imagery could be a re- ery. Kelley went further with his notions that the liable component when the testing of this ability manipulation of spatial relations was another dis- is related to something other than normal, every- tinct factor within spatial ability. day imagery. Yet they also recommended further study and confi rmation from other studies. Similarly, Th urstone (1938) studied primary mental abilities and defi ned a “space” factor that An additional factor being examined is what represented the ability to operate mentally on Pellegrino and Hunt (1991) term “dynamic spa- spatial or visual images. His theory was that in- tial ability.” D’Oliveira (2004) stated that dy- telligence was made up of several primary mental namic spatial ability is “the ability to deal with abilities rather than a single, holistic factor. He moving elements and relative motion” (p. 20). was among the fi rst to propose and demonstrate Th is factor was fi rst examined by Hunt, Pellegri- these factors through his Multiple Factors theory. no, Frick, Farr and Alderton (1988). D’Oliveira’s Th e theory identifi ed seven primary mental abili- conclusion was that another way of looking at ties, which included associative memory, num- spatial ability is from a static versus dynamic qual- ber facility, perceptual speed, reasoning, spatial ity. D’Oliveira acknowledged the general lack of visualization, verbal comprehension, and word valid tests and made a call for new dynamic abil-

22 - Engineering Design Graphics Journal spring 2008

ity measures. and experience (Salthouse, 1987) and age aff ect- ing accuracy in problem solving (Nunez, Corti, DEVELOPMENTAL RESEARCH & Retschitzki, 1998). Spatial perception, that is, the ability to determine horizontal or vertical di- Th e goal of developmental research is to answer mensions, does not emerge until around age nine questions related to when and how spatial ability (Olson, 1975) but spatial ability sex diff erences develops. Seminal to this area is work by Piaget favoring males do exist at prepubertal ages (Ve- and Inhelder (1971). Th ey conducted extensive derhus & Krekling, 1996), specifi cally at seven studies with children and developed several spa- or eight years of age (Glasmer & Turner, 1995). tial tests that are still used today. Developmental Th ese diff erences remain constant to age 18 research predominately focuses on issues of age, (Johnson & Meade, 1987). However, sex diff er- but also delves into neurological issues such as ence emergence is highly dependent on the type hemispheric specialization. of test (Voyer, Voyer, & Bryden, 1995); there is not a male advantage on all spatial factors. In ad- Spatial Ability and Age dition, education can improve spatial ability with Piaget and Inhelder (1971) stated that spa- ages as young as nine (Rovet, 1983). tial ability developed in three phases as the child matures. In the topological space stage, children While not an exhaustive review of the literature acquire 2D skills and learn the relationship of ob- in this area, these conclusions provide a sampling jects to one another. During the projective space of representative studies. It should be noted that stage, children learn to work with 3D objects, Piagetian tests (i.e., tests of conservation and wa- particularly what objects look like from diff er- ter-level tests) are not considered direct measure- ent vantages (orientation skills) and how objects ments of spatial ability (visualization, orientation, look when they are rotated (rotation skills). In rotations), even though the abilities they detect the third stage, individuals learn to go back and are related to spatial ability (Harris, 1978). forth between 2D and 3D (the transition from projective space to Euclidean space). Here con- Spatial Ability cepts such as parallelism, proportion, area, vol- and Hemispheric Specialization ume, and distance are acquired. Although less- Hemispheric specialization is another area er-known, parallel work has been conducted by examined by developmental researchers. Here Bruner (1964) and Werner (1964). researchers strive to understand brain physiol- ogy and its relationship to spatial ability (Rilea, Several studies have focused on developmental Roskos-Ewolden, & Boles, 2004). Th ere is gen- issues. Some studies focus on spatial ability dif- eral agreement that those with right-brain domi- ferences at various age levels (Battista, 1990; Salt- nance perform better at spatial tasks and have house, Babcock, Mitchell, Palmon, & Skovronek, more highly developed spatial abilities (McGlone, 1990). Others focus on the ages at which diff er- 1980). In addition, males are more often right- ent aspects of spatial ability seem most apparent brain dominant and they mature more rapidly in (Salthouse & Mitchell, 1990; Tartre, 1990). Oth- this area (Harris, 1978). ers focus on how spatial ability changes over time (Coleman & Gotch, 1998). DIFFERENTIAL RESEARCH

Research in this area has found that age af- Literature consistently notes the diff erences in fects spatial ability (Halpern, 2000). Spatial abil- the spatial performance of males versus females, ity improves with age in childhood years (Orde, frequently acknowledging male superiority. Mac- 1996), but declines with age in adulthood (Pak, coby and Jacklin (1974) spawned an incredible 2001). Age-related diff erences are often a result interest within this area when they discussed four of diff erences in processing speed, knowledge, areas in which sex diff erences emerge, most no-

Mohler - 23 v o l u me 72 n u mb e r 3

tably in spatial ability. In addition to this, several fect of hormones on spatial ability. Estrogen neg- researchers have provided reviews of the sex dif- atively aff ects spatial ability, whereas testosterone ference literature (Harris, 1978; Linn & Petersen, has a non-linear aff ect on spatial ability (Kimura, 1986; Nyborg, 1983; Voyer, Voyer, & Bryden, 1996; Moff at & Hampson, 1996). Some of these 1995). studies go so far as to state that hormones are the overarching reason for the emergence of sex dif- Th e diff erential literature is quite expansive—it ferences, while others focus on the “real-time” ef- appears to be one of the most contested issues in fect of hormones. spatial ability research. Generally, in spatial tasks (particularly rotations), spatial perception, math- Reasons for Sex Differences ematical reasoning, and targeting ability, males Researchers hypothesize several reasons for outperform females. In verbal fl uency, perceptual sex diff erences. For example, Eliot and Fralley speed, memory, and certain motor skills, females (1976) mentioned sex-linked recessive genes, outperform males (Kimura, 1996). child-rearing, educational environments, or cul- ture that could underlie the diff erences. Th ey also Th ere are also a limited number of studies that acknowledge that it could be a complex interac- indicate that the performance diff erence between tion between these as well. As such, most of the the genders is decreasing, or in some cases, that literature can be reduced to an argument for bio- it does not exist at all (Brownlow, 2001; Lord & logical factors or environmental factors. Th e next Garrison, 1998). two sections will briefl y review some of the studies in the “nature” versus “nurture” debate. One of the most controversial articles (Caplan, MacPherson, & Tobin, 1985) criticized studies Biological Explanations. Several researchers fi nding sex diff erences due to construct incon- conclude that the sex diff erences in spatial ability sistency (the defi nition of spatial ability) and are a result of biological factors (Bock & Vanden- small eff ect sizes of those studies. However, the berg, 1968; McGee, 1979a). A variety of studies response from the community was tremendous in have shown that spatial ability does indeed have refuting these claims (Burnett, 1986). Respons- a heritable component (Wilson & Vandenberg, es acknowledged that while eff ect sizes in most 1978) and many demonstrate that spatial ability studies are small, it does not trivialize the fact that is as much (or more) inheritable than verbal abil- there is a reliable gender diff erence. ity (McGee, 1979b).

Sex Differences in Spatial Ability Nevertheless, various biological explanations Sex diff erences in spatial ability favor males and for sex diff erences favoring males include over- are nearly “universal across regions, classes, ethnic arching hormonal impacts (Nyborg, 1983), a groups, ages, and virtually every other conceivable theory on an X-linked recessive gene (Walker, demographic variable” (Eals & Silverman, 1994, Krasnoff , & Peaco, 1981), as well as an evolu- p. 95). Male superiority is most demonstrative in tionary theory related to male and female roles tasks of mental rotation, with lesser diff erences (Eals & Silverman, 1994). evident in orientation and no diff erences evident in visualization (Harris, 1978; Linn & Peterson, Of the posited biological theories, the X-linked 1986). Most researchers also acknowledge that recessive gene theory has been a primary focal the sex diff erence does not reliably appear until point. However, one critical article (Boles, 1980) after puberty and that, maturation has an eff ect refutes this theory through reanalysis. Boles states on spatial development—late maturation is re- that most of the studies showing evidence for this lated to high spatial ability (Nyborg, 1983). theory used sample sizes that were too small for confi dence or yielded statistically insignifi cant Th ese studies usually also acknowledge the af- results. Among the articles discussing X-linked

24 - Engineering Design Graphics Journal spring 2008

recessive genes, this appears to be the only article acknowledging that both biological and environ- calling the theory into question. mental factors contribute to the development of sex diff erences (Brosnan, 1998; Casey, Nuttall, & Regardless of the theoretical vantage, much ef- Pezaris, 1999). As stated by Vandenberg, Staff ord, fort has been put into examination of the biologi- and Brown (1968), “It is time for psychologists to cal basis for sex diff erences. Th e opposing view is cease ignoring either source of variation [biologi- that environment plays the primary role in indi- cal or environmental] and proceed with full rec- vidual development. ognition that the two are highly interdependent (p. 153).” Environmental Explanations. Like biologi- cally based views, researchers have devoted much study to role of environment in the development INFORMATION PROCESSING of spatial ability. Th is viewpoint purports that RESEARCH cultural (Mann, Sasanuma, Sakuma, & Masaki, 1990), social (Belz & Geary, 1984), sex-role and One fi nal area of research focus is in the area of stereotype (Tracy, 1990), developmental (Tracy, information processing research. As noted by Kyl- 1990), and educational factors (Harris, 1978) are lonen, Lohman and Woltz (1984), “Information sources for diff erences in spatial ability. processing research attempts to trace the fl ow of information through the human cognitive system Sherman (1967) specifi cally argued that gen- from the time some stimulus is initially perceived der diff erences in spatial ability exist due to var- to the time an over response is taken” (p 17-18). ied experiences–his belief was that environmental Its goal is to understand the processes involved diff erences play a primary role in the develop- in cognition, their order, and the speed at which ment of spatial ability. Several others agreed with they occur. this viewpoint (Harris, 1978). Th us, many of these researchers have examined While many of these environmental factors the speed and effi ciency in spatial processing and are straightforward, the educational factors that its impact on the development of spatial ability. are purported to impact spatial ability develop- Several studies found that speed and effi ciency of ment are many. Researchers believe that problem performing mental transformations does explain solving strategies and skills (Clements & Battis- a certain degree of variation of spatial skills (Pol- ta, 1992; Mislevy, Wingersky, Irvine, & Dann, trock & Agnoli, 1986; Salthouse et. al, 1990). 1990); mathematical background, achievement, Studies in this area have also examined strategies and problem solving ability (Michaelides, 2002; in solving spatial problems (Gages, 1994). Th ey Wheatley, Brown, & Solano, 1994); as well found that high spatial ability individuals have a as musical background (Heitland, 2000a; Ro- wider range of strategies and are better at deter- bichaux & Guarino, 2000) are potential roots for mining when to use a particular strategy. How- the development of spatial ability, and therefore, ever, both high and low ability individuals switch the reason for sex diff erences. strategies (Kyllonen et. al, 1981). Such studies have also examined real-world scenarios, rather Current Perspectives on Sex Diff erence Ori- than test-based examinations (Juan-Espinosa, gins. While evidence for gender or environment Abad, Colom, & Fernandez-Truchaud, 2000). (or an interaction of the two) is not conclusive, it Th e information processing perspective has also is clear that they both play some role in the de- been used as a lens through which to view dif- velopment of spatial ability and therefore, the differential studies (Lohman, 1984). ferences that are exhibited (Harris, 1978). Several researchers advocate overcoming arguments that one or the other is the only agent, and instead,

Mohler - 25 v o l u me 72 n u mb e r 3

SUMMARY dren's play with Lego blocks. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 87, 19-28. Each of the research perspectives described in Brownlow, S. (2001). How gender and college this contribution has added signifi cantly to the chemistry experience infl uence mental rota- body of knowledge on spatial ability. Psycho- tion ability. Paper presented at the Annual metric studies have been instrumental in defi n- Meeting of the Southeastern Psychological ing spatial ability and its factors. Developmental Association, Atlanta, GA. studies have provided knowledge about how and when spatial ability develops. Diff erential litera- Bruner, J. S. (1964). Th e course of cognitive ture expounds the diff erences between genders growth. American Psychologist, 19, 1-15. and the information-processing literature has fo- Burnett, S. A. (1986). Sex-related diff erences in cused on strategies and processes. spatial ability: Are they trivial? American Psy- chologist, 41, 1012-1014. In attempting to understand the spatial phe- nomenon, most of these studies aim at learning Burt, C. L. (1949). Th e structure of the mind: more about spatial ability so that we can better A review of the results of factor analysis. Brit- tap into and development it. Spatial ability aff ects ish Journal of Educational Psychology, 19, 100-111, 176-199. many fi elds and disciplines and is a predictor for success in many areas of life. It is hoped that this Burton, L. J., & Fogarty, G. J. (2002). Th e factor contribution will aid those beginning a career in structure of visual imagery and spatial abili- spatial ability research by providing an overview ties. Intelligence, 31, 289-318. to the broad research that already exists on the Caplan, P. J., MacPherson, G. M., & Tobin, P. topic. While spatial ability research is as broad as (1985). Do sex-related diff erences in spatial it is deep, there is still much work to be done in abilities exist? A multilevel critique with new this area. data. American Psychologist, 40, 786-799. Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: REFERENCES A survey of factor-analytic studies. New York: Cambridge University Press. Battista, M. T. (1990). Spatial visualization and gender diff erences in high school geometry. Casey, M. B., Nuttall, R. L., & Pezaris, E. (1999). Journal for Research in Mathematics Educa- Evidence in support of a model that predicts tion, 21(1), 47-60. how biological and environmental factors in- teract to infl uence spatial skills. Developmen- Belz, H. F., & Geary, D. C. (1984). Father’s oc- tal Psychology, 35(5), 1237-1247. cupation and social background: Relation to SAT scores. American Educational Research Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities: Th eir structure, Journal, 21(2), 473-478. growth and action. Boston: Houghton-Mif- fi n. Bock, R. D., & Vandenberg, S. G. (1968). Com- ponents of heritable variation in mental test Clements, D. H., & Battista, M. T. (1992). Ge- scores. In S. G. Vandenberg (Ed.), Progress in ometry and spatial reasoning. In D. Grouws human behavior genetics: Recent reports on (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathemat- genetic syndromes, twin studies, and statisti- ics teaching and learning (pp. 420-464). New cal advances (pp. 233-260). Baltimore: John York: Simon and Schuster Macmillan. Hopkins Press. Coleman, S. L., & Gotch, A. J. (1998). Spatial Boles, D. B. (1980). X-linkage of spatial abil- Perception Skills of Chemistry Students. Jour- ity: A critical review. Child Development, 51, nal of Chemical Education, 75(2), 206-209. 625-635. Cooper, L. A., & Mumaw, R. J. (1985). Spatial Brosnan, M. J. (1998). Spatial ability in chil- aptitude. In R. F. Dillon (Ed.), Individual dif-

26 - Engineering Design Graphics Journal spring 2008

ferences in cognition (Vol. 2, pp. 67-94). New dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. York: Academic Press. Guttman, L. (1954). A new approach to factor D’Oliveira, T. C. (2004). Dynamic spatial abili- analysis: Th e radex. In P. F. Lazarsfeld (Ed.), ty: An exploratory analysis and a confi rmatory Mathematical thinking in the social sciences study. Th e International Journal of Aviation (pp. 258-348). Glencoe, IL: Th e Free Press. Psychology, 14(1), 19-38. Halpern, D. F. (1986). A diff erent answer to the Eals, M., & Silverman, I. (1994). Th e hunter- question, "Do sex-related diff erences in spa- gatherer theory of sex diff erences: Proximate tial abilities exist?" American Psychologist, 41, factors mediating the female advantage in re- 1014-1015. call of object arrays. Ethology and Sociobiol- Harris, L. J. (1978). Sex diff erences in spatial ogy, 15, 95-105. ability: Possible environmental, genetic, and El Koussy, A. A. H. (1935). Th e visual percep- neurological factors. In M. Kinsbourne (Ed.), tion of space. British Journal of Psychology, Asymmetrical function of the brain (pp. 20, 1-80. 405-521). London: Cambridge University. Eliot, J., & Fralley, J. S. (1976). Sex diff erences in Hegarty, M., & Waller, D. (2004). A dissociation spatial ability. Young Children, 31, 487-498. between mental rotation and perspective-tak- Eliot, J., & Smith, I. M. (1983). An internation- ing spatial abilities. Intelligence, 32, 175-191. al directory of spatial tests. Highlands, NJ: Heitland, L. (2000). Learning to make music en- NFER-NELSON. hances spatial reasoning. Journal of Aesthetic Gages, T. T. (1994). Th e interrelationship among Education, 34(3-4), 179-237. spatial ability, strategy used, and learning style Hunt, E., Pellegrino, J. W., Frick, R. W., Farr, for visualization problems. (Doctoral Dis- S. A., & Alderton, D. (1988). Th e ability to sertation, Th e Ohio State University, 1994). reason about movement in the visual fi eld. In- Dissertation Abstracts International, 55(11), telligence, 12, 77-100. 3399. Johnson, E. S., & Meade, A. C. (1987). Develop- Galton, F. (1911). Inquiries into human faculty mental patterns of spatial ability: An early sex and its development. London: J. M. Dent & diff erence. Child Development, 58, 725-740. Sons. Juan-Espinosa, M., Abad, F. J., Colom, R., Fer- Gardner, R. W. (1957). Field-independence as a nandez-Truchaud, M. (2000). Individual dif- determinant of susceptibility to certain illu- ferences in large-spaces orientation: g and be- sions. American Psychologist, 12, 397. yond? Personality and Individual Diff erences, Glasmer, F. D., & Turner, R. W. (1995). Youth 29, 85-98. sport participation and associated sex diff er- Kelley, T. L. (1928). Crossroads in the mind ences on a measure of spatial ability. Percep- of man. Stanford, CA: Stanford University tual and Motor Skills, 81, 1099-1105. Press. Guilford, J. P. (1967). Th e nature of human intel- Kimura, D. (1996). Sex, sexual orientation and ligence. New York: McGraw-Hill. sex hormones infl uence human cognitive Guilford, J. P., & Zimmerman, W. S. (1947). function. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, Some A.A.F. fi ndings concerning aptitude fac- 6(2), 259-263. tors. Occupations, 26, 154-159. Kyllonen, P. C., Woltz, D. J., & Lohman, D. Gustafsson, J. (1988). Hierarchical models of in- F (1981). Models of strategy and strategy- dividual diff erences in cognitive abilities. In R. shifting in spatial visualization performance J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in psychology of (Technical Report No. 17). Arlington, VA: human intelligence (Vol. 4, pp. 35-71). Hills- Advanced Research Projects Agency.

Mohler - 27 v o l u me 72 n u mb e r 3

Linn, M. C., & Petersen, A. C. (1986). A meta- spatial cognition in humans: Possible infl u- analysis of gender diff erences in spatial abil- ence of hand preference. Psychoneuroendocri- ity: Implications for mathematics and science nology, 21(3), 323-337. achievement. In J. S. Hyde & M. C. Linn Nunez, R., Corti, D., & Retschitzki, J. (1998). (Eds.), Th e psychology of gender: Advances Mental rotation in children from Ivory Coast through meta-analysis (pp. 67-101). Balti- and Switzerland. Journal of Cross-Cultural more, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Psychology, 29(4), 577-589. Lohman, D. F. (1979). Spatial ability: A review Nyborg, H. (1983). Spatial ability in men and and re-analysis of the correlational literature women: Review and new theory. Advances (Technical Report No. 8). Stanford, CA: Ap- in Behaviour Research and Th erapy, 5(2), titudes Research Project, School of Education, 89-140. Stanford University. Olson, D. R. (1975). On the relations between Lord, T. R., & Garrison, J. (1998). Comparing spatial and linguistic processes. In J. Eliot & spatial abilities of collegiate athletes in diff er- N. J. Salkind (Eds.), Children's spatial devel- ent sports. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86, opment (pp. 67-110). Springfi eld, IL: Charles 1016-1018. C. Th omas. Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). Th e Orde, B. J. (1996). A correlational analysis of psychology of sex diff erences. Stanford, CA: drawing ability and spatial ability. Disserta- Stanford University Press. tion Abstracts International, 57(5), 1943. Mann, V. A., Sasanuma, S., Sakuma, S., & Ma- Pak, R. (2001, October). A further examination saki, S. (1990). Sex diff erences in cognitive of the infl uence of spatial abilities on com- abilities: A cross-cultural perspective. Neurop- puter task performance in younger and older sychologia, 28(10), 1063-1077. adults (pp. 1551-1555). Proceedings of the McGee, M. G. (1979). Human spatial abilities: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 45th Sources of sex diff erences. New York: Praeger Annual Meeting, Minneapolis, MN. Publishers. Pellegrino, J. W., & Hunt, E. B. (1991). Cogni- McGlone, J. (1980). Sex diff erences in human tive models for understanding and assessing brain asymmetry: A critical survey. Th e Be- spatial abilities. In H. A. H. Rowe (Ed.), In- havioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 215-227. telligence: Reconceptualization and measure- Michaelides, M. P. (2002, April). Students’ solu- ment (pp. 203-225). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence tion strategies in spatial rotation tasks. Paper Erlbaum Associates, Inc. presented at the Annual Meeting of the Amer- Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1971). Mental imagery ican Educational Research Association, New in the child (F. W. Langdon & J. L Lunzer, Orleans, LA. Trans.). New York: Basic Books. Miller, C. L. (1996). A historical review of ap- Poltrock, S. E., & Agnoli, F. (1986). Are spatial plied and theoretical spatial visualization pub- visualization ability and visual imagery ability lications in engineering graphics. Engineering equivalent? In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances Design Graphics Journal, 60(3), 12-33. in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. Mislevy, R. J., Winersky, M. S., Irvine, S. H., & 3, pp. 255-296). New Jersey: Lawrence Erl- Dann, P. L. (1990, July). Resolving mixtures baum Associates. of strategies in spatial visualization tests (ETS- Rilea, S. L., Roskos-Ewoldsen, B., & Boles, D. RR-90-9-ONR). Princeton, NJ: Educational (2004). Sex diff erences in spatial ability: A Testing Service. lateralization of function approach. Brain and Moff at, S. D., & Hampson, E. (1996). A cur- Cognition, 56, 332-343. vilinear relationship between testosterone and Robichaux, R. R., & Guarino, A. J. (2000, No-

28 - Engineering Design Graphics Journal spring 2008

vember). Predictors of visualization: A struc- versity. tural equation model. Paper presented at the Th orndike, E. L. (1921). On the organization Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Education- of the intellect. Psychological Review, 28, al Research Association, Bowling Green, KY. 141-151. Rovet, J. (1983). Th e Education of Spatial Trans- Th urstone, L. L. (1938). Primary mental abili- formations. In D. R. Olson & E. Bialystok ties. Psychometric Monographs, No. 1. (Eds.), Spatial cognition: Th e structure and development of mental representations of Th urstone, L. L. (1950). Some primary abilities spatial relations (pp. 164-181). London: Law- in visual thinking. Chicago, IL: University of rence Erlbaum Associates. Chicago Psychometric Lab Report No. 59. Salthouse, T. A. (1987). Sources of age-related Tracy, D. M. (1990). Toy-playing behavior, sex- individual diff erences in block design texts. role orientation, spatial ability, and science Intelligence, 11, 245-262. achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(7), 637-649. Salthouse, T. A., & Mitchell, D. R. D. (1990). Eff ects of age and naturally occurring experi- Vandenberg, S. G., Staff ord, R. E., & Brown, ence on spatial visualization performance. De- A. M. (1968). Th e Louisville twin study. In velopmental Psychology, 26(5), 845-854. S. G. Vandenberg (Ed.), Progress in human behavior genetics: Recent reports on genetic Salthouse, T. A., Babcock, R. L., Mitchell, D. syndromes, twin studies, and statistical ad- R. D., Palmon, R., & Skovronek, E. (1990). vances (pp. 153-204). Baltimore: John Hop- Sources of individual diff erences in spatial vi- kins Press. sualization ability. Intelligence, 14, 187-230. Vederhus, L., & Krekling, S. (1996). Sex dif- Sherman, J. A. (1967). Problem of sex diff erences ferences in visual spatial ability in 9-year-old in space perception and aspects of intellec- children. Intelligence, 23, 33-43. tual functioning. Psychological Review, 74(4), 290-299. Vernon, P. E. (1950). Th e structure of human abilities. London: Methuen. Smith, I. M. (1964). Spatial ability, its educational and social signifi cance. San Diego, CA: Voyer, D., Voyer, S., & Bryden, M. P. (1995). Robert R. Knapp. Magnitudes of sex diff erences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis and consideration of crit- Snow, R. E., & Lohman, D. F. (1989). Implica- ical variables. Psychological Bulletin, 117(2), tions of cognitive psychology for educational 250-270. measurement. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Education- al measurement (pp. 263-332). New York: Walker, J. T., Krasnoff , A. G., & Peaco, D. (1981). Macmillan. Visual spatial perception in adolescents and their parents: Th e X-linked recessive hypoth- Snow, R. E., Kyllonen, P. C., & Marshalak, B. esis. Behavior Genetics, 11(4), 403-413. (1984). Th e topology of ability and learning correlations. In R. J. Sternberg (ed.), Advances Werner, H. (1964). Comparative psychology of in the psychology of human intelligence (pp. mental development. New York: International 47-103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Universities Press. Spearman, C. (1927). Th e abilities of man. Lon- Wheatley, G. H., Brown, D. L., & Solano, A. don: Macmillan. (1994). Long term relationship between spatial ability and mathematical knowledge. Pa- Tartre, L. A. (1990). Spatial skills, gender, and per presented at the 16th Annual Meeting of mathematics. In E. Fennema & G. C. Leder, the Psychology of Mathematics Education. (Eds.), Mathematics and gender: Infl uences on teachers and students (pp. 27-59). New Wilson, J. R., & Vandenberg, S. G. (1978). Sex York: Teachers College Press, Columbia Uni- diff erences in cognition: Evidence from the

Mohler - 29 v o l u me 72 n u mb e r 3

Hawaii family study. In T. E. McGill, D. A. Dewsbury, & B. D. Sachs (Eds.), Sex and behavior: stages and prospectus (pp. 317-335). New York: Plenum. Witkin, H. A. (1950). Individual diﬀ erences in ease of perception of embedded ﬁ gures. Jour- nal of Personality, 19, 1-15.

30 - Engineering Design Graphics Journal