When Grades Are High but Self-Efficacy Is Low : Unpacking the Confidence Gap Between Girls and Boys in Mathematics

Downloadstatistik des Dokuments (Auswertung nach COUNTER):

Zander, L.; Höhne, E.; Harms, S.; Pfost, M.; Hornsey, M.J.: When Grades Are High but Self-Efficacy Is Low : Unpacking the Confidence Gap Between Girls and Boys in Mathematics. In: Frontiers in Psychology 11 (2020), 552355. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.552355

Version im Repositorium

Zum Zitieren der Version im Repositorium verwenden Sie bitte diesen DOI: https://doi.org/10.15488/10691

Zeitraum, für den die Download-Zahlen angezeigt werden:

Jahr: 
Monat: 

Summe der Downloads: 120




Kleine Vorschau
Zusammenfassung: 
Girls have much lower mathematics self-efficacy than boys, a likely contributor to the under-representation of women in STEM. To help explain this gender confidence gap, we examined predictors of mathematics self-efficacy in a sample of 1,007 9th graders aged 13–18 years (54.2% girls). Participants completed a standardized math test, after which they rated three indices of mastery: an affective component (state self-esteem), a meta-cognitive component (self-enhancement), and their prior math grade. Despite having similar grades, girls reported lower mathematics self-efficacy and state self-esteem, and were less likely than boys to self-enhance in terms of performance. Multilevel multiple-group regression analyses showed that the affective mastery component explained girls’ self-efficacy while cognitive self-enhancement explained boys’. Yet, a chi-square test showed that both constructs were equally relevant in the prediction of girls’ and boys’ self-efficacy. Measures of interpersonal sources of self-efficacy were not predictive of self-efficacy after taking the other dimensions into account. Results suggest that boys are advantaged in their development of mathematics self-efficacy beliefs, partly due to more positive feelings and more cognitive self-enhancement following test situations. © Copyright © 2020 Zander, Höhne, Harms, Pfost and Hornsey.
Lizenzbestimmungen: CC BY 4.0 Unported
Publikationstyp: Article
Publikationsstatus: publishedVersion
Erstveröffentlichung: 2020
Die Publikation erscheint in Sammlung(en):Philosophische Fakultät

Verteilung der Downloads über den gewählten Zeitraum:

Herkunft der Downloads nach Ländern:

Pos. Land Downloads
Anzahl Proz.
1 image of flag of Germany Germany 59 49,17%
2 image of flag of United States United States 30 25,00%
3 image of flag of Netherlands Netherlands 5 4,17%
4 image of flag of China China 5 4,17%
5 image of flag of Czech Republic Czech Republic 3 2,50%
6 image of flag of Taiwan Taiwan 2 1,67%
7 image of flag of Sweden Sweden 2 1,67%
8 image of flag of Russian Federation Russian Federation 2 1,67%
9 image of flag of Morocco Morocco 2 1,67%
10 image of flag of Iran, Islamic Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of 2 1,67%
    andere 8 6,67%

Weitere Download-Zahlen und Ranglisten:


Hinweis

Zur Erhebung der Downloadstatistiken kommen entsprechend dem „COUNTER Code of Practice for e-Resources“ international anerkannte Regeln und Normen zur Anwendung. COUNTER ist eine internationale Non-Profit-Organisation, in der Bibliotheksverbände, Datenbankanbieter und Verlage gemeinsam an Standards zur Erhebung, Speicherung und Verarbeitung von Nutzungsdaten elektronischer Ressourcen arbeiten, welche so Objektivität und Vergleichbarkeit gewährleisten sollen. Es werden hierbei ausschließlich Zugriffe auf die entsprechenden Volltexte ausgewertet, keine Aufrufe der Website an sich.