Accuracy of Self-Ratings of Intelligence as a Function of Sex and Level of Ability in College Students

Bailey, Kent G.; Lazar, Joel

doi:10.1080/00221325.1976.10534039

Cited by 14 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The overall MANOVA was significant [F(14,94) = 3.14, p<.Ol]. At the univariate level, men rated themselves higher than did women on 3 of the 14 general abilities: numerical [F(1,107) F(1,107) = 10.06, p<.O1], and mechanical [F(1,107) = 18.65, These gender differences are consistent with previous studies (Bailey & Lazar, 1976;Lunneborg, 1982), and may be due to actual gender differences in ability, differences in gender-based expectations about ability, or a combination of these factors. The three abilities on which selfratings were higher for men than for women (numerical, manual dexterity, and mechanical) all are areas that could be influenced by either genderbased expectations or actual differences in ability.…”

Section: Self-ratings Of Abilitiessupporting

confidence: 87%

“…Considering the evidence regarding women's lower self-esteem and occupational underachievement (Fitzgerald & Betz, 1983), it is possible that women underrate their skills and abilities more often than do men. The results of two studies (Bailey & Lazar, 1976;Lunneborg, 1982) suggest that further attention to the issue of gender differences in self-ratings is warranted. For example, Bailey and Lazar (1979) reported moderate positive correlations between ability selfestimates and actual ability test scores; however, the magnitude of the correlations varied by sex.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Gender Differences in Self‐Ratings of Abilities and Skills

Swanson

Lease

1990

The Career Development Quart

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Students' ratings of their abilities and skills were examined in relationship to self‐esteem and to their ratings of same‐gender peers. Participants were 112 students (59 women and 53 men) who were administered the Rosenberg (1965) self‐esteem scale and a questionnaire assessing self‐ratings of 14 general abilities and 30 specific skills, as well as peer ratings of the skills. Results indicated that (a) gender differences were observed on 3 of the 14 general abilities, (b) there were significant interactions between gender, peer versus self‐ratings and skill areas, and (c) self‐esteem scores were related to some of the self‐ratings.

show abstract

Section: Self-ratings Of Abilitiessupporting

confidence: 87%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender Differences in Self‐Ratings of Abilities and Skills

Swanson

Lease

1990

The Career Development Quart

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, non-motivational factors may also contribute to enhancement biases when people make social comparisons (e.g., Chambers & Windschitl, 2004;Kruger, 1999). The above-average-effect tends to be greater for people of low ability, who may be either unable (i.e., lack of insight) or unwilling (i.e., embarrassment) to acknowledge their mental deficits (e.g., Bailey & Lazar, 1976;Chambers & Windschitl, 2004;Dunning et al, 2003;Kruger & Dunning, 1999). For example, college students with exam scores in the 10th percentile estimated their scores to be in the 60th percentile (Dunning et al, 2003).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Intelligence, gender, and assessment method affect the accuracy of self‐estimated intelligence

Stumm

2013

British J of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Self-estimates of intelligence (SEI), which influence to what extent people engage in and how well they perform at a task, are subject to distortion. Here, the distortion effects of individual differences in intelligence (IQ), gender, and proximal (with reference to test performance) and distal (with reference to IQ score distributions) assessments of SEI were tested in a sample of 200 British adults. The results showed that (1) people with lower IQ misestimated their SEI to a greater extent than people with high IQ; (2) this effect was more pronounced in distal than proximal measures of SEI; (3) SEI means did not differ significantly across gender but the IQ-related level of SEI distortion did; (4) this effect was greater for distal than proximal measurement; and (5) proximal SEI were on average less distorted than distal SEI scores and also correlated more closely with IQ. Overall, the findings suggest that the distal SEI assessment method resulted in greater gender- and IQ-related distortions of SEI.

show abstract

“…While some individual studies have reported positive correlations between self-assessments and objective ability measures (e.g. Bailey & Lazar, 1976;Karnes & D'Ilio, 1988; Levine, Flory, & Ash, 1977; Lowman & Williams, 1987), others strongly challenged the validity of the method, finding it to be more lenient than peer or supervisor ratings, while showing more bias and less discriminant validity (Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988;Mabe & West, 1982;Powel, 1948;Smith & Strein, 1987;Stutzman & Jawetz, 1982;Thornton, 1978). In a meta-analysis of 55 studies in which self-evaluations of abilities were compared with measures of performance, Mabe and West (1982) found a low mean validity coefficient (.29), with high variability (SD = .25); they noted that some personal characteristics, namely high intelligence, high achievement, and internal locus of control, were associated with more accurate evaluations.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Should Self-Nominations Be Allowed in Peer Nomination Forms?

Massé

Gagné

1996

Gifted Child Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study addressed the problem of selfchildren to designate classroom peers who have superior abilities or talents. Its goal was to assess the incidence and worth of that information. The sample consisted of 391 students from 17 classes, almost evenly divided by gender and grade (4 to 8). The instrument was a 12-item frequent (41%). A repeated measures ANOVA showed t h a t t h e i n c i d e n c e r a t e was mainly influenced by the type of ability assessed and the rank of the choices, and that both interacted with the following variables: group, grade level, and gender. Self-nominations had no perceptible impact on the reliability of the talent scores.Self and peer nominations were significantly correlated, r = 44. A much lower correlation was observed between self-and teacher nominations, r = 23, attributed mainly to the lower reliability of these two types of scores.Should Self-Nomination 13e Allowed in Peer Nomination Forms?In the field of gittecl education, peer nomination forms (PNFs) ar-c tisl:ct tcr ;lssess abilities and Orlents; students are asked to choose within their group ()tic or t1lore peers who arc best in each otBaiiousabihty dOll1dins, Because thcy are simple to use. PNFs are quite popular as screening instruments (liaiibiii-11., u Wclliil&dquo;toll, 1989; Richert, Alvino, 8<

show abstract

Accuracy of Self-Ratings of Intelligence as a Function of Sex and Level of Ability in College Students

Cited by 14 publications

References 16 publications

Gender Differences in Self‐Ratings of Abilities and Skills

Gender Differences in Self‐Ratings of Abilities and Skills

Intelligence, gender, and assessment method affect the accuracy of self‐estimated intelligence

Should Self-Nominations Be Allowed in Peer Nomination Forms?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About