IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/intell/v70y2018icp42-51.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are there sex differences in confidence and metacognitive monitoring accuracy for everyday, academic, and psychometrically measured spatial ability?

Author

Listed:
  • Ariel, Robert
  • Lembeck, Natalie A.
  • Moffat, Scott
  • Hertzog, Christopher

Abstract

The current study evaluated sex differences in (1) self-perceptions of everyday and academic spatial ability, and (2) metacognitive monitoring accuracy for measures of spatial visualization and spatial orientation. Undergraduate students completed the Paper Folding Test, Spatial Relations Test, and the Revised Purdue Spatial Visualization Test while making confidence judgments (CJs) for each trial. They also made global estimates of performance and rated their ability to perform several everyday and academic spatial scenarios. Across multiple spatial measures, female students displayed lower confidence in their item-level monitoring and global assessments of performance than did male students, even when no actual differences in spatial performance occurred. Women were also less confident in their self-assessments of their visual-spatial ability for scientific domains than were men. However, the absolute and relative accuracy of CJs did not differ as a function of sex suggesting that women can monitor their spatial performance as well as men.

Suggested Citation

  • Ariel, Robert & Lembeck, Natalie A. & Moffat, Scott & Hertzog, Christopher, 2018. "Are there sex differences in confidence and metacognitive monitoring accuracy for everyday, academic, and psychometrically measured spatial ability?," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 42-51.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:intell:v:70:y:2018:i:c:p:42-51
    DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2018.08.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289618301016
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.intell.2018.08.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:intell:v:70:y:2018:i:c:p:42-51. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/intelligence .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.