CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 263Career Development and DiversityScience Education and PerceptionsEducation, Achievement, and Giftedness

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Effects of Gender Stereotypic and Counter-Stereotypic Textbook Images on Science Performance

Good, Jessica J., Woodzicka, Julie A., Wingfield, Lylan C.·2010·The Journal of Social Psychology
DOI 10.1080/00224540903366552
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We investigated the effect of gender stereotypic and counter-stereotypic images on male and female high school students' science comprehension and anxiety. We predicted stereotypic images to induce stereotype threat in females and impair science performance. Counter-stereotypic images were predicted to alleviate threat and enhance female performance. Students read one of three chemistry lessons, each containing the same text, with photograph content varied according to stereotype condition. Participants then completed a comprehension test and anxiety measure. Results indicate that female students had higher comprehension after viewing counter-stereotypic images (female scientists) than after viewing stereotypic images (male scientists). Male students had higher comprehension after viewing stereotypic images than after viewing counter-stereotypic images. Implications for alleviating the gender gap in science achievement are discussed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00224540903366552

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 43 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Campbell J. R., 2001, Education Statistics Quarterly, 2, 31
  2. National Center for Education Statistics, 2001, Education Statistics Quarterly, 3, 25
  3. Spielberger C. D., 1985, Southern Psychologist, 2, 6

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–262 of 262

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Good, J. J., Woodzicka, J. A., & Wingfield, L. C.
Affiliations
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
  • Washington and Lee University (US)
Corresponding author
Good, Jessica J.
ORCID
Venue
The Journal of Social Psychology
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2010-02-26
Volume
150
Issue
2
Pages
132-147
ISSN
  • 0022-4545 (ISSN-L)
  • 1940-1183
DOI
10.1080/00224540903366552
OpenAlex
W2134720047
Cited by
263
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 59 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 7
FWCI
15.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Career Development and Diversity
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Science Education and Perceptions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
Keywords
gender stereotypes, stereotype threat, science achievement, scientific understanding, science anxiety, female students, chemistry textbook, gender gap in science, high school students, women in science
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Anxiety, Chemistry, Female, Gender Identity, Humans, Male, Pilot Projects, Regression Analysis, Sex Factors, Stereotyping, Students, Comprehension

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review