1 British Journal of Psychology (2011) C  2011 The British Psychological Society The British Psychological Society www.wileyonlinelibrary.com Are systemizing and autistic traits related to talent and interest in mathematics and engineering? Testing some of the central claims of the empathizing–systemizing theory Kinga Morsanyi 1∗ , Caterina Primi 2 , Simon J. Handley 1 , Francesca Chiesi 2 and Silvia Galli 2 1 School of Psychology, University of Plymouth, UK 2 Department of Psychology, University of Florence, Italy In two experiments, we tested some of the central claims of the empathizing–systemizing (E-S) theory. Experiment 1 showed that the systemizing quotient (SQ) was unrelated to performance on a mathematics test, although it was correlated with statistics-related attitudes, self-efficacy, and anxiety. In Experiment 2, systemizing skills, and gender differences in these skills, were more strongly related to spatial thinking styles than to SQ. In fact, when we partialled the effect of spatial thinking styles, SQ was no longer related to systemizing skills. Additionally, there was no relationship between the Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ) and the SQ, or skills and interest in mathematics and mechanical reasoning. We discuss the implications of our findings for the E-S theory, and for understanding the autistic cognitive profile. Although women are well represented in several formerly male-dominated professions, they remain under-represented in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM – see Snyder, Dillow, & Hoffman, 2009). For example, looking at US statistics, although in the 1960s as much as 95% of medical students were males, by 2005 the proportion of female medical students rose to around 50% (Hamel, Ingelfinger, Phimister, & Solomon, 2006). Similar changes have been observed in other areas, such as law. Nevertheless, at the same time, the Science and Engineering Indicators of the National Science Foundation (2006) showed that at the top 50 US universities, the proportion of female academic staff in STEM fields ranged between only 3% and 15%. There are three main types of potential explanation for why females remain under- represented in STEM fields (see e.g., Ceci & Williams, 2010; Ceci, Williams, & Barnett, 2009; Halpern et al ., 2007). A biological explanation would be that males and females differ in their mathematical and spatial abilities (see e.g., Hyde, 2005). Another potential ∗ Correspondence should be addressed to Kinga Morsanyi, School of Psychology, University of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth, Devon, PL4 8AA, UK (e-mail: kinga.morsanyi@plymouth.ac.uk). DOI:10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02089.x