Peers, parents, and self-perceptions: the gender gap in mathematics self-assessment.

IF 6.1 2区 经济学
Journal of Population Economics Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-22 DOI:10.1007/s00148-025-01087-2
Anna Adamecz, John Jerrim, Jean-Baptiste Pingault, Nikki Shure
{"title":"Peers, parents, and self-perceptions: the gender gap in mathematics self-assessment.","authors":"Anna Adamecz, John Jerrim, Jean-Baptiste Pingault, Nikki Shure","doi":"10.1007/s00148-025-01087-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>It is well established that boys perceive themselves to be better in mathematics than girls, even when their ability is the same. We examine the drivers of the gender gap in self-assessed mathematics ability using a longitudinal study of twins. Using measures of individual self-assessment in mathematics from childhood, along with mathematics levels and test scores, cognitive skills, parent and teacher mathematics assessments, and characteristics of their families and siblings, we examine potential channels of the gender gap. Our results confirm that objective mathematics abilities only explain a small share of the gender gap in self-assessed mathematics abilities, and the gap is even larger within boy-girl twin pairs. We find that the self-assessment of boys is positively correlated with the self-assessment of their male co-twins, not just in mathematics, but also in other abilities. However, this positive correlation is not observed between girls and their male co-twins; if anything, it is negative. This indicates that boys and girls have different reactions to highly confident male peers. We also find that parents are more likely to overestimate boys' and underestimate girls' mathematics abilities. Gender-biased parental assessments explain a large part of the gender gap in mathematics self-assessment, highlighting the potential of the intergenerational transmission of gender stereotypes.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00148-025-01087-2.</p>","PeriodicalId":48013,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Population Economics","volume":"38 1","pages":"33"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11846763/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Population Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-025-01087-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

It is well established that boys perceive themselves to be better in mathematics than girls, even when their ability is the same. We examine the drivers of the gender gap in self-assessed mathematics ability using a longitudinal study of twins. Using measures of individual self-assessment in mathematics from childhood, along with mathematics levels and test scores, cognitive skills, parent and teacher mathematics assessments, and characteristics of their families and siblings, we examine potential channels of the gender gap. Our results confirm that objective mathematics abilities only explain a small share of the gender gap in self-assessed mathematics abilities, and the gap is even larger within boy-girl twin pairs. We find that the self-assessment of boys is positively correlated with the self-assessment of their male co-twins, not just in mathematics, but also in other abilities. However, this positive correlation is not observed between girls and their male co-twins; if anything, it is negative. This indicates that boys and girls have different reactions to highly confident male peers. We also find that parents are more likely to overestimate boys' and underestimate girls' mathematics abilities. Gender-biased parental assessments explain a large part of the gender gap in mathematics self-assessment, highlighting the potential of the intergenerational transmission of gender stereotypes.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00148-025-01087-2.

同伴、父母与自我认知:数学自我评价中的性别差异。
男孩认为自己的数学比女孩好,这是公认的事实,即使他们的能力是一样的。我们通过对双胞胎的纵向研究来检验自我评估数学能力中性别差异的驱动因素。通过对儿童数学自我评估、数学水平和考试成绩、认知技能、父母和老师的数学评估以及家庭和兄弟姐妹的特征进行测量,我们研究了性别差距的潜在渠道。我们的研究结果证实,客观数学能力只能解释自我评估数学能力中的一小部分性别差异,而在男女双胞胎中,这种差异甚至更大。我们发现,男孩的自我评价与其男性双胞胎的自我评价呈正相关,不仅在数学方面,而且在其他能力方面。然而,这种正相关在女孩和她们的男性双胞胎之间没有观察到;如果有的话,它是负的。这表明男孩和女孩对高度自信的男性同伴有不同的反应。我们还发现,父母更有可能高估男孩的数学能力,低估女孩的数学能力。性别偏见的父母评估在很大程度上解释了数学自我评估中的性别差距,突出了性别刻板印象代际传播的可能性。补充信息:在线版本包含补充资料,可在10.1007/s00148-025-01087-2获得。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.60
自引率
6.60%
发文量
50
期刊介绍: The Journal of Population Economics is an international quarterly that publishes original theoretical and applied research in all areas of population economics. Micro-level topics examine individual, household or family behavior, including household formation, marriage, divorce, fertility choices, education, labor supply, migration, health, risky behavior and aging. Macro-level investigations may address such issues as economic growth with exogenous or endogenous population evolution, population policy, savings and pensions, social security, housing, and health care. The journal also features research into economic approaches to human biology, the relationship between population dynamics and public choice, and the impact of population on the distribution of income and wealth. Lastly, readers will find papers dealing with policy issues and development problems that are relevant to population issues.The journal is published in collaboration with POP at UNU-MERIT, the Global Labor Organization (GLO) and the European Society for Population Economics (ESPE).Officially cited as: J Popul Econ Factor (RePEc): 13.576 (July 2018) Rank 69 of 2102 journals listed in RePEc
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信