Gender differences in global performance judgments follow domain stereotypes: men higher in mathematics, women higher in reading, with no gender differences in bias¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r3 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 Men reported higher performance judgment in mathematical competence than women (d = 0.61). → Maximilian Seitz 2025 q3 i1 Women reported higher performance judgment in reading competence than men (d = 0.11). → Maximilian Seitz 2025 q3 i? Men and women did not differ in judgment bias in either domain after adjusting for test performance. → Maximilian Seitz 2025 (2)

Evidence¶

Maximilian Seitz 2025¶

Maximilian Seitz, Anna Hawrot, Kathrin Lockl. (2025). Performance judgment in mathematical and reading competence in adults. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-025-09416-2

q3 · i2 · associational · r3

Bivariate t-tests in the NEPS SC6 adult sample compared men's and women's global postdictions: mathematics judgment favored men (d = 0.61) and reading judgment favored women (d = 0.11), both p < 0.01.

"Men reported higher performance judgment in mathematical competence compared to women (t(5013) = 21.66, p < 0.01, d = 0.61), while women reported higher performance judgment in reading competence compared to men (t(5055) = 3.88, p < 0.01, d = 0.11)."

Maximilian Seitz 2025 (2)¶

Maximilian Seitz, Anna Hawrot, Kathrin Lockl. (2025). Performance judgment in mathematical and reading competence in adults. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-025-09416-2

q3 · i? · associational · r3

Descriptive comparison of weighted bias indicators showed men's and women's bias was similar and positive in both domains; regression models also found no significant gender effect on bias in mathematics (β = −0.01, p = 0.72) or reading (β = −0.01, p = 0.77).

"When adjusting for their test performance, both men and women had a similar bias in both content domains."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Gender — predictor: outcomes differ by group: a gap reflecting circumstances and treatment, not a cause

Related Claims¶

• Across all adult age groups and both genders, global performance judgments of mathematics and reading competence are on average overestimated — related
• Older age groups overestimate their mathematical and reading competence more than younger age groups, but this may reflect performance differences — related
• Older age groups report lower global performance judgments of their mathematical competence, controlling for education — related
• Older age groups report lower global performance judgments of their reading competence, controlling for education — related
• SAT scores underpredict the academic performance of high school girls, who average lower scores than boys despite higher grades — related
• Women scored about 33 SAT-M points lower than men who took the same math course and received the same grade — related
• Domain-specific self-concept relates more strongly to global than to local postdicted judgments, while most other motivational and personality variables do not differ — related
• Men reported higher monitoring judgments on health math problems than women, even accounting for performance accuracy — related