2016
DOI: 10.1257/aer.p20161121
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Math Gender Gap: The Role of Culture

Abstract: Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

6
133
1
7

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 204 publications
(163 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
(6 reference statements)
6
133
1
7
Order By: Relevance
“…Several studies have proposed important channels through which substantial gaps in male and female math attainments are produced: socialized gender roles (Guiso et al 2008;Fryer and Levitt 2010;Nollenberger et al 2016;Pope and Sydnor 2010); male-oriented school and societal environments (Autor et al 2016;Joensen and Nielsen 2014;Bedard and Cho 2010); gender differences in preference and competitiveness Vesterlund 2007 andBuser et al 2014;Gneezy et al 2003); and behavioral and environmental differences during childhood (Chetty et al 2016). These studies underscore an interactive relationship between gender gaps in math and societal environments (nurture) instead of an innate imbalance (nature) in quantitative abilities between men and women.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several studies have proposed important channels through which substantial gaps in male and female math attainments are produced: socialized gender roles (Guiso et al 2008;Fryer and Levitt 2010;Nollenberger et al 2016;Pope and Sydnor 2010); male-oriented school and societal environments (Autor et al 2016;Joensen and Nielsen 2014;Bedard and Cho 2010); gender differences in preference and competitiveness Vesterlund 2007 andBuser et al 2014;Gneezy et al 2003); and behavioral and environmental differences during childhood (Chetty et al 2016). These studies underscore an interactive relationship between gender gaps in math and societal environments (nurture) instead of an innate imbalance (nature) in quantitative abilities between men and women.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, most of these studies have focused on testing a particular competition type against others, the winner-takes-all (WTA) competition. Decisions in WTA competition relate to key variables such as culture [9,15,16], gender identity (cooperative or non-cooperative [17]), self-confidence [18][19][20][21], risk/ambiguity attitudes [15,21], or combinations of these variables [20].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There is a striking lack of uniformity in the achievement gap. The relationship between gender and relative educational achievement varies with the social, cultural, and educational context, for example, (Pope & Sydnor 2010;Nollenberger et al 2014;Lavy & Sand 2015), opening the possibility that each might play a role in generating the gap. Achievement gaps also vary with students' race and ethnicity (Penner & Paret 2008;Husain & Millimet 2009), with their families' and peers' socio-economic status (Entwisle et al 2007;Legewie & DiPrete 2012) as well as across the achievement distribution itself (e.g.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Baker & Milligan 2013;Bertrand & Pan 2013); iii) social and cultural influences (e.g. Guiso et al 2008;Nollenberger et al 2014); iv) gender differences in the acquisition of social and behavioral skills (e.g. DiPrete & Jennings 2012); and v) gender-specific educational practices, 5 See OECD (2015) and Lavy and Sand (2015) for recent and particularly helpful reviews.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation