55. Дополнительно см.: Halpern D. F. et al. The science of sex differences in science and mathematics // Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2007. Vol. 8. Pp. 1–51.

56. Resnick S. M., Berenbaum S. A., Gottesman I. I., Bouchard T. J. Early hormonal influences on cognitive functioning in congenital adrenal hyperplasia // Developmental Psychology, 1986. Vol. 22. Pp. 191–198. См. также: Maloufa M. A. et al. Cognitive outcome in adult women affected by congenital adrenal hyperplasia due to 21-hydroxylase deficiency // Hormone Research in Pediatrics, 2006. Vol. 65. Pp. 142–150.

57. Monastersky R. Studies show biological differences in how boys and girls learn about math, but social factors play a big role too // Chronicle of Higher Education, 2005. March 4. Vol. 51.

58. Дополнительно см.: Spelke E. S. Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics and science? A critical review // American Psychologist, 2005. Vol. 60. Pp. 950–958.

59. Gallagher A., DeLisi R. Gender differences in Scholastic Aptitude Test — Mathematics problem solving among high-ability students // Journal of Educational Psychology, 1994. Vol. 86. Pp. 204–211.

60. Fennema E., Carpenter T., Jacobs V. et al. A longitudinal study of gender differences in young children’s mathematical thinking // Educational Researcher, 1996. Vol. 27. Pp. 33–43.

61. Butler L. Gender differences in children’s arithmetical problem solving procedures. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of California at Los Angeles, 1999 // Association for Women in Mathematics president Cathy Kessel’s talk at the MER-AWM Session at the 2005 Joint Mathematics Meetings.

62. Atkinson R. C. Let’s step back from the SAT I // San Jose Mercury News, 2001. February 23 // http://www.ucop.edu/pres/comments/satmerc.html.

63. Spencer S. J., Steele C. M., Quinn D. M. Stereotype threat and women’s math performance // Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1999. Vol. 35. Pp. 4–28.

64. Дополнительно см.: Steele C. M. A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance // American Psychologist, 1997. Vol. 52. Pp. 613–629; Schmader T., Johns M., Forbes C. An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance // Psychological Review, 2008. Vol. 115. Pp. 336–356.

65. Krendl A. C., Richeson J. A., Kelley W. M., Heatherton T. F. The negative consequences of threat: A functional magnetic resonance imaging investigation of the neural mechanisms underlying women’s underperformance in math // Psychological Science, 2008. Vol. 19. Pp. 168–175. См. также: Beilock S. L. Math performance in stressful situations // Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2008. Vol. 17. Pp. 339–343.

66. Levine S. C. et al. Socioeconomic status modifies the sex difference in spatial skill // Psychological Science, 2005. Vol. 16. Pp. 841–845.

67. Thurstone T. G. PMA readiness level. Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1974. Приведено с разрешения.

68. В 2001 г. 90% всех комплектов Lego, проданных в США, предназначались для мальчиков. См.: Mattel sees untapped market for blocks: Little girls // Wall Street Journal, 2002. June 6. Более того, как сообщала Wall Street Journal 24 декабря 2009 г., Lego практически отсутствуют на рынке игрушек для девочек: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704254604574613791179449708.html.