Reply to the commentaries on the math-fact retrieval hypothesis

Geary and Wigfield and Brynes (this issue) point out a number of limitation s of the math-fact retrieval hypothesis that we agree with. For instance, w e acknowledge that whereas the correlational evidence we offer in our artic le (this issue) provides suggestive evidence for a link between math-fact r etrieval and gender differences in math test performance, that evidence is not compelling. We also acknowledge that even if it is the case that math-f act retrieval is one of the cognitive mechanisms responsible for the gender differences in math performance, there are still many aspects of gender di fferences in math performance that need to be understood. We also point out a number of areas where we disagree. Most prominently, we do not believe t hat the spatial cognition hypothesis or affective/motivational hypotheses a ccount for two significant literatures-gender differences in test performan ce and gender differences in grade performance. We discuss the basis for ou r beliefs and close with a discussion of the need for intervention research that will resolve some of the issues discussed in the series of articles i n this issue. At the end of the article we also present a very speculative hypothesis that would knit together all of the positions presented in the a rticles in this issue of CEP. (C) 1999 Academic Press.