Gender and Self-Evaluation: Costs and Benefits of Proving and Improving

• In Event: Gender and Motivated Self-Regulation: Patterns, Benefits, and Costs

Abstract

Purpose and Framework
I shall present evidence from three studies of self-evaluative information-seeking, strategies, and judgments guided by the proposal (Author, 2014) that males tend more than females to proving and defending and females to doubting and trying to improve their abilities. Accordingly, I predicted gender differences in (a) perceptions of and preferences for information relevant to assessing relative ability versus information relevant to assessing progress and promoting learning, (b) self-serving versus self-improving self-evaluative cognitions and strategies, and thus also in (c) self-evaluative judgments and continuing motivation.
Methods
Study 1. Students at ages 13-14 (N = 125, 61 boys) worked on math problems. Measures: math self-concept, perceived diagnosticity of normative (percentile score) and temporal evaluation (scores per problem in order of presentation) for assessing problem-solving ability, choice of normative, temporal, or no evaluation.
Study 2. Middle school students (N = 234, 124 boys) received evaluation on math problems in four conditions: Normative Success or Failure (85th vs. 32nd percentile) or Temporal Progress (ascending scores) vs. No Progress (stable scores). Measures: ability-appraisal, interest in receiving more problems.
Study 3: 300 college students (129 males) worked on challenging math or verbal tasks presented as tasks of “integrative-creative ability” (ICA); they read that they had scored at the 29th percentile and received information about effective strategies. I assessed cognitions (Self-Denigration: “I am thinking about my poor ICA”, Self-Improvement: “better strategies I could use”; and Self-Protection: “task is not a valid measure of ICA”), time reading about strategies, and pre-post assessments of ICA.
Results
In Study 1, boys rated normative information as more diagnostic than temporal information and girls rated temporal information as more diagnostic. Girls requested temporal evaluation more than did boys, regardless of math self-concept; high self-concept boys requested normative evaluation, while most low self-concept boys preferred to receive no evaluation. In Study 2, boys did not attend to progress feedback; normative failure relative to success undermined continuing motivation but not ability-appraisal. Normative failure and failure to improve relative to progress undermined both measures among girls. Study 3 confirmed that men were more inclined to self-protective and females to self-denigrating and self-improving cognitions after negative evaluation. Women spent longer reading information relevant to improving performance; here too women, but not men significantly lowered their evaluation of ACI on receipt of negative evaluation. These differences were predicted by gender differences in self-improving and self-denigrating versus self-serving cognitions.
Significance
Results across ages, tasks, and measures supported the notion of gendered self-evaluative orientations, each with benefits and costs. Male “proving” was reflected in self-serving strategies and positive self-evaluative biases. Boys and men thus maintained confidence but at the cost of failing to benefit from learning opportunities, including relevant information. Female “doubting and improving” was reflected in attention to critical evaluations, preference for information relevant to learning, and self-denigrating thoughts and evaluations. These patterns can promote accurate self-appraisal and learning, but at the cost of undermining confidence and interest. I shall discus implications for gender differences in academic self-confidence, achievement, and persistence.

Author

• Ruth Butler, Hebrew University of Jerusalem