9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Boys Don’t Work? On the Psychological Benefits of Showing Low Effort in High School

      ,
      Sex Roles
      Springer Nature

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references64

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Psychological correlates of university students' academic performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

          A review of 13 years of research into antecedents of university students' grade point average (GPA) scores generated the following: a comprehensive, conceptual map of known correlates of tertiary GPA; assessment of the magnitude of average, weighted correlations with GPA; and tests of multivariate models of GPA correlates within and across research domains. A systematic search of PsycINFO and Web of Knowledge databases between 1997 and 2010 identified 7,167 English-language articles yielding 241 data sets, which reported on 50 conceptually distinct correlates of GPA, including 3 demographic factors and 5 traditional measures of cognitive capacity or prior academic performance. In addition, 42 non-intellective constructs were identified from 5 conceptually overlapping but distinct research domains: (a) personality traits, (b) motivational factors, (c) self-regulatory learning strategies, (d) students' approaches to learning, and (e) psychosocial contextual influences. We retrieved 1,105 independent correlations and analyzed data using hypothesis-driven, random-effects meta-analyses. Significant average, weighted correlations were found for 41 of 50 measures. Univariate analyses revealed that demographic and psychosocial contextual factors generated, at best, small correlations with GPA. Medium-sized correlations were observed for high school GPA, SAT, ACT, and A level scores. Three non-intellective constructs also showed medium-sized correlations with GPA: academic self-efficacy, grade goal, and effort regulation. A large correlation was observed for performance self-efficacy, which was the strongest correlate (of 50 measures) followed by high school GPA, ACT, and grade goal. Implications for future research, student assessment, and intervention design are discussed.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Gender differences in scholastic achievement: a meta-analysis.

            A female advantage in school marks is a common finding in education research, and it extends to most course subjects (e.g., language, math, science), unlike what is found on achievement tests. However, questions remain concerning the quantification of these gender differences and the identification of relevant moderator variables. The present meta-analysis answered these questions by examining studies that included an evaluation of gender differences in teacher-assigned school marks in elementary, junior/middle, or high school or at the university level (both undergraduate and graduate). The final analysis was based on 502 effect sizes drawn from 369 samples. A multilevel approach to meta-analysis was used to handle the presence of nonindependent effect sizes in the overall sample. This method was complemented with an examination of results in separate subject matters with a mixed-effects meta-analytic model. A small but significant female advantage (mean d = 0.225, 95% CI [0.201, 0.249]) was demonstrated for the overall sample of effect sizes. Noteworthy findings were that the female advantage was largest for language courses (mean d = 0.374, 95% CI [0.316, 0.432]) and smallest for math courses (mean d = 0.069, 95% CI [0.014, 0.124]). Source of marks, nationality, racial composition of samples, and gender composition of samples were significant moderators of effect sizes. Finally, results showed that the magnitude of the female advantage was not affected by year of publication, thereby contradicting claims of a recent "boy crisis" in school achievement. The present meta-analysis demonstrated the presence of a stable female advantage in school marks while also identifying critical moderators. Implications for future educational and psychological research are discussed.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Sex differences in value priorities: cross-cultural and multimethod studies.

              The authors assess sex differences in the importance of 10 basic values as guiding principles. Findings from 127 samples in 70 countries (N = 77,528) reveal that men attribute consistently more importance than women do to power, stimulation, hedonism, achievement, and self-direction values; the reverse is true for benevolence and universalism values and less consistently for security values. The sexes do not differ on tradition and conformity values. Sex differences are small (median d = .15; maximum d = .32 [power]) and typically explain less variance than age and much less than culture. Culture moderates all sex differences and sample type and measurement instrument have minor influences. The authors discuss compatibility of findings with evolutionary psychology and sex role theory and propose an agenda for future research. Copyright 2006 APA, all rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Sex Roles
                Sex Roles
                Springer Nature
                0360-0025
                1573-2762
                July 2017
                September 30 2016
                : 77
                : 1-2
                : 72-85
                Article
                10.1007/s11199-016-0683-1
                099b6a3b-39a3-4de2-9d37-760dfc11ed34
                © 2016

                http://www.springer.com/tdm

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article