Hiring in life sciences? Share your open positions with our professional community. Read more Close

Advertisement

Exploring the relationship between cognitive thinking style, working memory, and arithmetic fluency: a gender-based study.

Created on 15 Jun 2026

Authors

Naima Nigar, Marufa Neelima, Nuzhat Ahmad

Published in

Cognitive processing. Jun 15, 2026. Epub Jun 15, 2026.

Abstract

The current study investigated the gender-specific relationship between cognitive thinking styles (CTS) and arithmetic fluency, controlling for working memory. It focuses on two specific CTS-Inchworm and Grasshopper (Bath et al. 1986). Grasshoppers are intuitive and holistic, often skipping steps for efficiency, while Inchworms take a methodical, step-by-step approach and document their processes (Chinn 2020). The sample included 290 students (143 males, 147 females) from grades IX and X in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Preliminary t-test analyses revealed significant gender differences. Specifically, male students (M = 19.69, SD = 5.68) displayed more Grasshopper-oriented thinking than females (M = 15.98, SD = 4.03), and also outperformed them in arithmetic fluency (M = 89.83, SD = 20.35 vs. M = 85.01, SD = 19.10). However, for the working memory test, females (M = 17.40, SD = 3.78) outperformed males (M = 16.27, SD = 3.38). Hierarchical regression analyses indicated that, for males, CTS significantly predicted arithmetic fluency, β = 0.36, 95% CI [0.74, 1.86], p < 0.001, even after controlling for working memory. For females, however, only working memory predicted arithmetic fluency, β = 0.41, 95% CI [1.38, 2.82], p< 0.001, with CTS showing no significant relationship. These findings highlight gender-specific pathways through which CTS and working memory influence arithmetic fluency, suggesting the need for differentiated learning strategies in learning mathematics.

PMID:
42295657
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 15 Jun 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Advertisement

Stats

  • Community rating n/a 0 votes
  • Reviewers' rating n/a 0 votes
  • Your rating

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

  • Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
  • Views 9
  • Comments 0

Recommended by

  • No recommendations yet.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Advertisement