Gender stereotype endorsement differentially predicts girls' and boys' trait-state discrepancy in math anxiety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mathematics is associated with anxiety for many students; an emotion linked to lower well-being and poorer learning outcomes. While findings typically show females to report higher trait math anxiety than males, no gender differences have to date been found in state (i.e., momentary) math anxiety. The present diary study aimed to replicate previous findings in investigating whether levels of academic self-concept was related to this discrepancy in trait vs. state anxiety measures. Additionally, mathematics-related gender stereotype endorsement (mathematics is a male domain) was investigated as an additional predictor of the trait-state discrepancy. The sample included 755 German 9th and 10th graders who completed self-report measures of trait math anxiety, math self-concept, and gender stereotype endorsement, in addition to state measures of anxiety after math classes by use of a standardized diary for 2-3 weeks (N within = 6207). As expected, females reported higher trait math anxiety but no gender differences were found for state math anxiety. Also in line with our assumptions, multilevel analyses showed the discrepancy between trait and state anxiety to be negatively related to students' self-concept (i.e., a lower discrepancy for students with higher self-concepts). Furthermore, gender stereotype endorsement differentially predicted the trait-state discrepancy: When controlling for self-concept in mathematics, females who endorsed the gender stereotype of math being a male domain more strongly overestimated their trait math anxiety as compared to their state anxiety whereas this effect was not significant for males. The present findings suggest that gender stereotype endorsement plays an important role in explaining gender differences in math anxiety above and beyond academic self-concept. Implications for future research and educational practice are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".