编辑论文 - Lucher

中文标题/译名英文标题/原题状态

研究方向关键词

作者通讯作者摘要

Girls' comparative advantage in reading has been proposed as a main reason why fewer women enter math-intensive fields, yet published estimates of its contribution range from 78% to 0.4%. Here we provide evidence that the outcome measure, not the assessment year, separates these estimates. In four PISA cycles (2015–2025; 65–84 countries each), comparative advantage accounts for 2–6% of the gender gap in expecting a math-intensive occupation, with every upper 95% confidence bound below 7%. In exploratory comparisons, it accounts for 42–71% of gaps in preferring mathematics among the same 2022 students, and in 2012 for 65–95% of gaps in forced-choice intentions, motivation and interest. A preregistered test in previously unanalysed PISA 2003 data (23 countries; 135,075 students) confirmed the dissociation: 60.8% for interest in mathematics versus 5.9% for expected occupations, with the predicted difference in every country. Exploratory analyses suggested that base rates and binary coding do not explain this, although open-ended format and occupational content could not be separated. A secondary prediction was not supported: comparative advantage accounted for most of a small gender gap in parent-reported interest in science careers. In these data, comparative advantage tracks how adolescents regard mathematics but accounts for little of the gender gap in the occupations they expect.

基金信息备注

期刊与投稿/发表信息

这里的信息会保存为这篇论文的关联投稿记录。

选择期刊/会议

原地址/投稿系统地址检索情况

投稿日期发表日期

附件

还没有附件。