Gender and Overconfidence: Effects of Context, Gendered Stereotypes, and Peer Group

doi:10.4236/aasoci.2013.32018

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Advances in Applied Sociology

2013. Vol.3, No.2, 137-141

Published Online June 2013 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/aasoci) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/aasoci.2013.32018

Gender and Overconfidence: Effects of Context, Gendered

Stereotypes, and Peer Group

Niklas Jakobsson1, Minna Levin2, Andreas Kotsadam3

1Norwegian Social Research (N OVA), Oslo, Norway

2Schools for the Future , San Salvador, El Salvador

3Norwegian Social Research (N OVA), Oslo, Norway

Email: [email protected]o, minna@schoolsforthefuture.org, [email protected]

Received February 6th, 2013; revised March 10th, 2013; accepted March 18th, 2013

Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the

original work is properly cited.

Research on Swedish school children has found that boys tend to be overconfident about their grades in

mathematics, while girls tend to be underconfident. We find similar results for El Salvadorian children.

Mathematics is considered a masculine task and we show that these findings do not carry over to a gender

neutral task (social science), where both sexes tend to be overconfident. We find that girls in a single-sex

school are more underconfident in their mathematics abilities than girls in a co-ed school, which may

suggest that gender stereotypes become reinforced in single-sex environments.

Keywords: Gender, Overconfidence, Peer Group, Stereotype

Introduction

Previous research indicates that people are generally over-

confident in diverse areas as car-driving, investment decisions,

entrepreneurial behavior, running, stock market forecasts, an-

swering quiz questions, and solving fictitious mathematical

problems (e.g., Beckmann & Menkhoff, 2008; Croson &

Gneezy, 2009; Deaves, 2010; Koellinger et al., 2007; Svensson,

1981). And while both men and women are overconfident, men

are generally more so than women (Estes & Jinos, 1988; Fellner

& Maciejovsky, 2007; Soll & Klayman, 2004; Niederle &

Vesterlund, 2007). Dahlbom et al. (2010) find that Swedish

sch oolboys tend to be overconfident with respect to their mat he-

matics performance, while girls tend to be underconfident.

Differences in confidence are likely to translate into differ-

ences in outcomes, educational choices, and labor market seg-

regation. Dahlbom et al. (2010) argue that gender differences in

confidence may perpetuate segregated labor markets, by means

of self-selection. An indirect effect of confidence differences

may also be at work via competition decisions and performance.

Niederle and Vesterlund (2007) show that male overconfidence

is a key factor in explaining gender differences in willingness to

compete and in selection of compensation schemes, and they

argue that this may help explain the underrepresentation of

women in top-level company positions. Palomino et al. (2010)

model how male overconfidence leads to gender wage differ-

ences even with equal productivity and equal compensation

policies since more men apply for high paid jobs and exert

more effort.

In this paper, we study the gender gap in confidence among

school children. For comparability with Dahlbom et al. (2010),

we conduct a study with a similar design, i.e., we ask students

about their expected test results before a test and compare with

the actual results, yet our study extends the results in Dahlbom

et al. (2010) along a number of important dimensions.

First of all, our design allows us to test for peer group effects

by including not only a mixed school but also an all-girls

school. Several studies have shown that men often outperform

women in competitions, even when they perform equally well

in a non-competitive setting (e.g., Gneezy et al., 2003; Gneezy

& Rustichini, 2004). Niederle & Vesterlund (2007) show that

there is a gender difference in selection into competition, but

the response to competition and the selection into it may, how-

ever, vary with the task used or with the gender composition of

the groups (Croson & Gneezy, 2009). Ortmann and Tichy

(1999) look at prisoner’s dilemma games and find men to act

the same in mixed groups as in men-only groups. Women, on

the other hand, were more cooperative in the mixed-sex groups.

Gneezy and Rustichini (2004) find that competition enhances

the performance of males but not of females in a short distance

running race in an Israeli elementary school. The gender com-

position also had an effect: When girls competed against girls,

their performance was worse compared to when running alone.

In the mixed races did the girls performed less well than when

running alone but better than when competing against only girls.

For boys, there was no statistically significant difference be-

tween the performance in mixed races and boys-only races and

their performance was better compared to when running alone.

Booth and Nolen (2012a, 2012b) find that girls in single-sex

schools compete more and are less risk averse than girls from

co-ed schools in Great Britain, suggesting that these traits are

not only in inherent but may also depend on the social setting.

Our study is the first to test if the gender differences in confi-

dence varies between single-sex and mixed sex environments.

Secondly, in addition to performance in mathematics, we

also consider overconfidence regarding performance in the

N. JAKOBSSON ET AL.

social sciences. This addition is important since, as Niederle

and Vesterlund (2007) point out, differences in overconfidence

are task dependent and gender differences have generally been

found in masculine tasks. Meier-Pesti and Penz (2008) argue

that risk taking is perceived as a masculine characteristic and

that previous results on the gender differences in risk taking

stems from this fact. They move on to show that gender differ-

ences in risk taking decreased once they controlled for mascu-

linity and that activating the cognitive schema of male sex role

stereotype by gender priming increased risk taking. Lundeberg

et al. (1994) find men to be more confident than women re-

garding exam questions related to math, but not regarding exam

questions related to learning, memory, or experimental design.

Beyer (1990) and Beyer and Bowden (1997) show that gender

differences in the accuracy of self-perceptions are significant

for masculine tasks (where men are generally overconfident and

women underconfident), while no differences were found for

feminine or neutral tasks. Finally, Günther et al. (2010) show

that women are less competitive than men in male tasks, but

more competitive in the studied female task; no difference is

found for gender neutral tasks. Hence, it is crucial to distinguish

between masculine and non-masculine tasks. If both sexes

agree that members of one sex are better at a task, it is said to

be gender typed. It is important to note that the categorization

need not be supported by facts, only by stereotypes, so that

when Gneezy and Rustichini (2004) contend that there is no

gender difference in performance with respect to running short

races, there might still be stereotypical perceptions of the task

nonetheless. Mathematics is a typical example of a mascu-

line-typed task (e.g., Beyer, 1990; Beyer & Bowden, 1997;

Janman, 1987; Mura, 1987; Tiedemann, 2000), that is not sup-

ported by actual differences in results at lower levels or at

young ages (Dahlbom et al., 2010; Niederle & Vesterlund, 2007;

our data also shows that girls outperform boys on the mathe-

matics test). Social science, on the other hand, is generally con-

sidered gender neutral and by including it in addition to

mathematics in our study, we are able to investigate whether

the results in Dahlbom et al. (2010) generalize to non-mascu-

line tasks.

Finally, by following the design of Dahlbom et al. (2010) but

applying it to another country, we are able to test for gender

differences in overconfidence across countries. Previous confi-

dence research has been more occupied with individual rather

than social psychology, and we aim to fill this gap by introduc-

ing context as a crucial component of the analysis. Since we are

looking specifically at gender differences, the societal level of

gender equality is likely to be important, especially if gender

roles are partly a product of childhood socialization. For in-

stance, the gender differences between Israeli boys and girls in

running race performance found by Gneezy and Rustichini

(2004) were not found in a similar study on Swedish school-

children conducted by Dreber et al. (2011), and Johansson-

Stenman and Nordblom (2010) find no gender differences in

overconfidence in an economics exam in Sweden. Guiso et al.

(2008) studied gender differences in mathematics and reading

test scores across countries. On average, girls performed worse

on the math test and better on the reading test than boys, yet the

results vary by country. In particular, in countries with greater

gender equality (as measured by the World Economic Forum’s

Gender Gap Index), the differences in mathematics disappear or

even get reversed while the gap in reading increases. Our study

is conducted in El Salvador, a less gender equal country than

Sweden (which was used by Dahlbom et al., 2010). The Global

Gender Gap Report 2012 ranks Sweden as the fourth most

gender equal country in the world; El Salvador ranks 94th

(Hausmann, Tyson, & Zahidi, 2012).

Croson and Gneezy (2009) review economic and psycho-

logical research on gender differences in experiments and find

that women’s social preferences are more context specific than

those of men, and a potential reason for this is said to be

women’s higher sensitivity to social cues. Recent experimental

research has highlighted the importance of social structure.

Gneezy et al. (2009) contrast the results from the same experi-

ment across cultures. They look at the patriarchal Maasai soci-

ety in Tanzania and a matrilineal Khasi society (offspring be-

long to the mother’s group after birth) in India and find that

men in the patriarchal society choose to compete twice as often

as women, whereas women choose to compete more often than

men in the matrilineal society. In a similar vein, Andersen et al.

(2008) conducted a public goods experiment in three different

Indian societies, one matrilineal and two patriarchal, and found

that fewer individuals free-ride and more is spent on the public

good in the matrilineal society. By following the design used in

Dahlbom et al. (2010), we can examine the gender differences

in math confidence between countries and hence shed light on

the role of different contexts.

One aim of this study is therefore to find out whether Dahl-

bom et al.’s (2010) results are generalizable to youth in less

gender equal societies. Another aim is to investigate differences

between the highly gendered topic of mathematics and the less

gendered topic of social science. Most importantly, though, we

aim to find out whether girls in single-sex schools differ from

girls in co-ed schools in terms of confidence, as found regard-

ing risk and competition behavior in Great Britain (Booth &

Nolan, 2012a, 2012b).

Data Description and Method

Our sample consists of 129 students aged 15 - 16 from two

schools in Santa Tecla in El Salvador. In total, 66 students

come from a co-ed school (34 boys and 32 girls) and 63 stu-

dents come from an all-girls school. Both schools are public

schools and free of charge. All children come from a similar

social background (poor) and all parents can register their kids

at either schoo l.

The students were asked what grades (from 1 to 10, where 10

is the highest) they expected to get on two subsequent tests—

one in mathematics and one in social science. What we here

call social science is a subject called “sociales” which is a com-

bination of social science and language. The questions were

“What grade do you expect to get on the upcoming exam in

mathematics?” and “What grade do you expect to get on the

upcoming exam in social science?” We also have the actual test

results for each student.

For statistical testing we will use the Wilcoxon signed rank

sum test, which is a non-parametric version of a paired samples

t-test. We use this test statistic since we use ordinal and not

necessarily normally distributed data.

Overconfidence in Math and Social Science

We consider the differences between boys and girls for the

total sample and compare them to those found by Dahlbom et al.

(2010). Table 1 presents the mean beliefs and results for the

138

N. JAKOBSSON ET AL.

Table 1.

Mean beliefs and actual results in the total sample.

Belief math Result math

Belief social

science Result social

science Obs.

Total 7.000

(1.811) 7.132

(1.665) 7.938

(1.230) 7.109

(1.830) 129

Girls 7.000

(1.919) 7.526

(1.597) 7.989

(1.276) 7.484

(1.694) 95

Boys 7.000

(1.497) 6.029

(1.337) 7.794

(1.095) 6.059

(1.808) 34

Note: Mean values and s tandard deviations in parentheses.

total sample, for boys and for girls, respectively. Expected

grades differ from actual grades. Both girls and boys overesti-

mate their social science performance (statistically significant

at the 5 percent level for girls and the 1 percent level for boys,

using a Wilcoxon signed rank test). Throughout the paper, the

reported statistical significance refers to Wilcoxon signed rank

tests unless stated otherwise. Regarding math, girls underesti-

mate their performance (statistically significant at the 10 per-

cent level), while boys overestimate theirs (statistically signifi-

cant at the 1 percent level). The difference between girls and

boys in confidence is also statistically significant (at the 1 per-

cent level in a Wilcoxon rank sum test) for both mathematics

and social science.

Regarding mathematics performance, we thereby find the

same results as the Swedish study (Dahlbom et al., 2010),

where girls tended to be underconfident and boys overconfident.

With respect to social science, on the other hand, both girls and

boys are generally overconfident, but boys more so than girls.

This is in line with research on confidence in other areas of life

(e.g., Estes & Jinos, 1988; Soll & Klayman, 2004; Niederle &

Vesterlund, 2007). Thus, the results found in Dahlbom et al.

(2010) for mathematics seem to generalize even to less gender

equal countries like El Salvador. It is also interesting to note

that not only do the results differ by task, the direction of con-

fidence bias is even reversed for girls; i.e., girls are overconfi-

dent in the gender neutral typed task, although less so than men,

while they are underconfident in the masculine typed task.

Mixed Schools and Single-Sex Schools

Earlier research suggests that differences in confidence be-

tween girls and boys may depend on peer groups. Booth and

Nolen (2012a, 2012b) find that girls in single-sex schools

compete more and are less risk averse than girls from mixed

schools. An important question is whether the gendered peer

group effect is salient also for confidence, and whether their

result generalizes to outside Great Britain. Thus, we will inves-

tigate whether there are any differences between girls from

single-sex schools and girls from mixed schools. More specifi-

cally, if the results regarding risk aversion and competition

translate directly to confidence, we would expect to find that

girls in the all-girls school are more overconfident with respect

to social science and less underconfident with respect to math,

than are girls in the co-ed school. On the other hand, if the

gender typedness of a task gets reinforced in single-sex envi-

ronments, we may find that girls in the all-girls school are more

underconfident regarding their mathematics abilities than are

girls in the mixed school.

Table 2 presents the mean expectations and results for all

Table 2.

Mean beliefs and actual results for girls in the mixed and single-sex

school.

Belief mathResult math

Belief social

science Result social

science Obs.

Girls, total7.000

(1.919) 7.526

(1.597) 7.989

(1.276) 7.484

(1.694) 95

Mixed

school 7.188

(1.857) 5.969

(1.257) 7.938

(1.294) 6.906

(1.532) 32

Single-sex

school 6.905

(1.957) 8.317

(1.090) 8.016

(1.276) 7.778

(1.708) 63

Note: Mean values and s tandard deviation in parentheses.

girls, girls in the mixed school, and girls in the single-sex

school, respectively. The results shown in the first row are the

ones presented also in Table 1. In the second row, the results

for girls in mixed school are presented. These girls are over-

confident, not only regarding social science, but also regarding

mathematics (statistically significant at the 1 percent level for

both social science and math). Girls in the single-sex school are

underconfident regarding their math performance (statistically

significant at the 1 percent level), while regarding their social

science abilities, they believe they will get a slightly higher

score than they actually do, although this difference is not sta-

tistically significant. The difference between girls from the two

types of schools is statistically significant at 1 percent for math

performance and at 5 percent for social science performance

(using the Wilcoxon rank sum test).

Thus, our results indicate that girls from the single-sex

school are less like boys in terms of confidence, as compared to

girls from mixed schools. This is contrary to the results we

would have obtained had the results regarding competition and

risk taking (Booth & Nolen, 2012a, 2012b), where girls in sin-

gle-sex schools are more similar to boys than are girls in mixed

schools, been directly transferable. Since we find that girls in

the single-sex school tend to be underconfident while those in

mixed schools tend to be overconfident in the masculine typed

task, the results may suggest that single sex environments rein-

force stereotypes of gender typedness.

Discussion

Confidence has been widely studied in psychology and eco-

nomics. Confidence is important for aspirations, motivation,

and preferences for challenging tasks, and may affect career

choices and education (Beyer & Bowden, 1997; Dahlbom et al.,

2010). Previous research has found that people generally are

overconfident in diverse areas as car-driving, investment deci-

sions, running, stock market forecasts, answering quiz ques-

tions, and solving fictitious mathematical problems. And while

both men and women are overconfident, men are generally

more so than women. Previous confidence research has been

more occupied with individual rather than social psychology,

and we aim to fill this gap by introducing context as a crucial

component of the analysis. We conducted a survey where high

school students from a co-ed school and an all-girls school were

asked what grades they thought they would get on two subse-

quent tests—one in mathematics and one in social science.

Their expectations were then compared to their actual grades.

In line with the Swedish results from Dahlbom et al. (2010),

this article shows that boys tend to be overconfident in their

N. JAKOBSSON ET AL.

mathematics skills, while girls are underconfident. The results

regarding mathematics therefore seem to be generalizable

across cultures. Mathematics is regarded as a masculine typed

task while social science is regarded as gender neutral. The

present study shows that both girls and boys are overconfident

in their social science abilities, but girls less so than boys. We

thereby conclude that gender typedness of task does matter.

This is especially true for girls, for whom the confidence bias is

reversed across tasks. That is, girls are overconfident in the

gender neutral typed task, although less so than boys, while

they are underconfident in the masculine typed task. Further-

more, we show that girls from the all-girls school are more

underconfident in their mathematics abilities than girls in the

co-ed school. This contrasts results found for competition and

risk taking (Booth & Nolen, 2012a, 2012b), where girls in sin-

gle-sex schools are more competitive and risk taking than are

girls in mixed schools. Our finding that girls from the sin-

gle-sex school are underconfident while mixed school girls are

overconfident in the masculine typed task may suggest that

single-sex environments reinforce stereotypes of gender typed-

ness. On the other hand, since girls from the single-sex school

are less confident than girls in the mixed school in both tasks, it

may be a matter of an effect on self-confidence in general.

Thus, single sex schooling seems to affect self-confidence

differently than it affects risk taking and competitive behavior.

It may, however, also be the case that the effects differ among

countries. The results may also be driven by selection into

schools based on unobserved characteristics. Both schools are

public schools (free of charge) in Santa Tecla in El Salvador.

All children come from very poor conditions and parents are

free to register their kids at either school. We may have a prob-

lem if attendance in one of the schools is correlated with confi-

dence. If so, we cannot identify the effect of being in an

all-girls school or a co-ed school. Another potential problem is

that the children in the co-ed school answered the confidence

questions the day before their tests, while the children in the

all-girls school answered the questions two weeks before the

test. If for example time inconsistency is of importance, this

may be what drives the results. Furthermore, it is interesting to

note that the differences, especially between the different

schools, are driven by differences in results rather than differ-

ences in expectations. Taken together with the result in Hoxby

(2000) that both males and females perform better in mathe-

matics in classes with more females, this may imply that sin-

-gle-sex environments affect results without affecting confi-

dence. More research, from different contexts, is definitely

warranted to shed light on these issues.

REFERENCES

Andersen, S., Bulte, E., Gneezy, U., & List, J. (2008). Do women sup-

ply more public goods than men? Preliminary experimental evidence

from matrilineal and patriarchal societies. American Economic Re-

view, 98, 376-381. doi:10.1257/aer.98.2.376

Beckmann, D., & Menkhoff, L. (2008). Will women be women? Ana-

lyzing the gender difference among financial experts. Kyklos, 61,

364-384. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6435.2008.00406.x

Beyer, S. (1990). Gender differences in the accuracy of self-evaluations

of performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59,

960-970. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.960

Beyer, S., & Bowden, E. (1997). Gender differences in self-perceptions:

Convergent evidence from three measures of accuracy and bias.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 157-172.

doi:10.1177/0146167297232005

Booth, A. L., & Nolen, P. (2012a). Gender differences in risk behaviour:

Does nurture matter? Economic Journal, 122, F56-F78.

doi:10.1111/j.1468-0297.2011.02480.x

Booth, A. L., & Nolen, P. (2012b). Choosing to compete: How differ-

ent are girls and boys? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organiza-

tion, 81, 542-555. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2011.07.018

Campbell, A. (2002). A mind of her own: The evolutionary psychology

of women. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198504986.001.0001

Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in preferences.

Journal of Economi c L i t e r a tu r e , 47, 448-474.

doi:10.1257/jel.47.2.448

Dahlbom, L., Jakobsson, A., Jakobsson, N., & Kotsadam, A. (2010).

Gender and overconfidence: Are girls really overconfident? Applied

Economics Letters, 18, 325-327. doi:10.1080/13504851003670668

Deaves, R., Lüders, E., & Schröder, M. (2010). The dynamics of over-

confidence: Evidence from stock market forecasters. Journal of Eco-

nomic Behavior and Organization, 17, 402-412.

doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2010.05.001

Dreber, A., von Essen, E., & Ranehill, E. (2011). Outrunning the gen-

der gap: Boys and girls compete equally. Experimental Economics,

14, 567-582. doi:10.1007/s10683-011-9282-8

Eckel, C., & Grossman, P. (2008). Differences in the economic deci-

sions of men and women: Experimental evidence. In C. Plott, & V.

Smith (Eds.), Han dbook of experimental results (Vol. 1, Chapter 57,

pp. 509-519). New York: Elsevier.

doi:10.1016/S1574-0722(07)00057-1

Estes, R., & Jinos, H. (1988). The gender gap on Wall Street: An em-

pirical analysis of confidence in investment decision making. Journal

of Psychology, 122, 577-590. doi:10.1080/00223980.1988.9915532

Fellner, G., & Maciejovsky, B. (2007). Risk attitude and market be-

havior: Evidence from experimental asset markets. Journal of Eco-

nomic Psychology, 28, 338-350. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2007.01.006

Gneezy, U., Niederle, M., & Rustichini, A. (2003). Performance in

competitive environments: Gender differences. The Quarterly Jour-

nal of Economics, 118, 1049-1074. doi:10.1162/00335530360698496

Gneezy, U., & Rustichini, A. (2004). Gender and competition at a

young age. American Economic Review, 94, 377-381.

doi:10.1257/0002828041301821

Gneezy, U., Leonard, K., & List, J. (2006). Gender differences in com-

petition: Evidence from a matrilineal and a patriarchal society.

Econometrica, 77, 1637-1664. doi:10.1126/science.1154094

Guiso, L., Monte, F., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2008). Culture,

gender, and math. Science, 320, 1164-1165.

doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2010.05.003

Günther, C., Ekinci, A., Schwieren, C., & Strobel, M. (2010). Women

can’t jump?—An experiment on competitive attitudes and stereotype

threat. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 75, 395-

401.

Hausmann, R., Tyson, L. D., & Zahidi, S. (2012). The global gender

gap report 2012.

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GenderGap_Report_2012.pdf

Hoxby, C. (2000). Peer effects in the classroom: Learning from gender

and race variation. NBER Working Paper 7867.

Jakobsson, N., & Kotsadam, A. (2010). Do attitudes toward gender

equality really differ between Norway and Sweden? Journal of

European Social Policy, 20, 142-159.

doi:10.1177/0958928709358790

Johansson-Stenman, O., & Nordblom, K. (2010). Are men really more

overconfident than women? A natural field Experiment on exam be-

havior. Working Papers in Economics No. 461, University of Goth-

enburg.

Koellinger, P., Minniti, M., & Schad e, C. (2007). “I think I can, I think

I can”: Overconfidence and entrepreneurial behaviour. Journal of

Economic Psychology, 28, 502-527. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2006.11.002

Lundberg, M., Fox, P. & Punchchar, J. (1994). Highly confident but

wrong: Gender differences and similarities in confidence judgements.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 114-121.

doi:10.1037/0022-0663.86.1.114

140

N. JAKOBSSON ET AL.

Meier-Pesti, K., & Penz, E. (2008). Sex or gender? Expanding the

sex-based view by introducing masculinity and femininity as predic-

tors of financial risk taking. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29,

180-196. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2007.05.002

Nekby, L., Skogman Thoursie, P., & Vahtrik, L. (2008). Gender and

self-selection into a competitive environment: Are women more

overconfident than men? Economics Letters, 100, 405-407.

doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2008.03.005

Niederle, M., & Vesterlund, L. (2007). Do women shy away from

competition? Do men compete too much? The Quarterly Journal of

Economics, 122, 1067-1101. doi:10.1162/qjec.122.3.1067

Ortmann, A., & Tichy, L. (1999). Gender differences in the laboratory:

Evidence from prisoner’s dilemma games. Journal of Economic Be-

havior and Organization, 39, 327-339.

doi:10.1016/S0167-2681(99)00038-4

Palomino, F., & Peyrache, E. A. (2010), Psychological bias and gender

agwe gap. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 76,

563-573. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2010.07.004

Soll, J,. & Klayman, J. (2004). Overconfidence in interval estimates.

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni-

tion, 20, 299-314. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.30.2.299

Svensson, O. (1981). Are we all less risky and more skillful than our

fellow drivers? Acta Psychologic a , 47, 143-148.

doi:10.1016/0001-6918(81)90005-6

Tidemann, J. (2000). Parents’ gender stereotypes and teachers’ beliefs

as predictors of children’s concept of their mathematical ability in

elementary school. Journal of Educational Ps yc ho lo g y, 92, 144-151.

doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.1.144