The Gendered Nature of Competence: Specific and General Aspects of Self‐Knowledge in Social Contexts¹

Abstract

A sense of academic competence combines at least 2 forms of gender stereotyping: an illusory glow about performance on specific tasks. and traditional gender stereotyping about general perceptions of natural talent. Flexible categorization in terms of generality and content suggests a multifaceted model of aspects of self‐knowledge about Mathematics and English (ASK‐ME). This paper demonstrates the flexibility of the ASK‐ME model for adolescents (N= 1,360) in 2 social contexts (coed and single‐gender schools). The forms of gender stereotyping combine so that where traditional gender stereotyping was reduced at single‐gender schools, an illusory glow had more influence. One outcome was that boys in single‐gender settings expressed enhanced perceptions of performance in mathematics and language. Results highlight the importance of generality and content in understanding the gendered nature of academic self‐concepts in social contexts. Implications are for differential influences on the plans and choices adolescents make about work and study.

A General Mediated Model of Aspects of Self Knowledge (M‐ASK): Children's Participation in Learning Activities across Social Contexts

“…Overall, mediating indirect effects were dominant for the influence of self concepts through task values on participation. Direct effects of self concepts on participation confirm traditional gendered self-stereotyping about literacy and numeracy in co-ed schooling (see also Bornholt, 2000bBornholt, , 2001Marsh et al, 1988;Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). However, there were also weak direct effects of self concepts on participation in Study 2 for girls about numeracy in same-sex settings.…”

Individuality, Belonging, and Children's Self Concepts: A Motivational Spiral Model of Self‐Evaluation, Performance, and Participation in Physical Activities

“…Children's self concepts about physical movement rely on self‐categorisations as a sense of belonging socially rather than a personal sense of individuality (see also Bornholt & Ingram, 2001; Cole et al, 2001). These processes of self‐stereotyping within and between social groups characterise children's interpretation of social interactions such as individual, group work, team sport, and competing for rewards (see Bigler, Jones, & Lobliner, 1997; Bornholt, 2000b; Hattie, 1992; Kwiatkowska, 1990; Rose et al, 1998). This leads to the conclusion that children's motivation to participate in physical activities is best explained by the personal, social, and emotional bases of the self concepts within the Motivational Spiral Model that considers experiences over and above the actual skills of younger and older children in learning contexts.…”

Psychological Similarities and Differences between Women and Men across Cultures

“…However, when students gave their views about the abilities of women and men before giving their own self-views, there was a significant gender difference on the self-ratings: girls rated their own abilities in science as significantly lower than that of boys. These results suggest that gender differences in the self are contextually variable, and that social comparison processes can account for this variation (Bornholt, 2000).…”

“…A basic issue then, one that may have consequences for future theoretical developments, is to explain why psychological differences between women and men are more important in Western individualistic countries than in more traditional non-Western countries. Fortunately, recent studies related to social comparison and self-categorization theories suggest some promising avenues to resolve this paradox (see Bornholt, 2000;Guimond, 2006).…”

“…In this case, the theory states that people define themselves in terms of attributes that distinguish the in-group in contrast to an out-group through a process of self-stereotyping. Applied to an understanding of gender differences, SCT suggests that women and men are most likely to differ when they define themselves as group members and social identity is salient (see Bornholt, 2000;Guimond & Roussel, 2001;Ryan et al, 2003). In contrast, when personal identity is salient, and women and men do not define themselves in terms of their gender, there is little reason to expect strong gender differences.…”