The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Explaining Sex Differences in Educational Choice An Empirical Assessment of a Rational Choice Model
Abstract
Sex segregation with regard to choice of type of education, or educational programme, is persistently high in Sweden, while men and women nowadays reach similar levels of education. In order to explain this phenomenon, a rational choice model is proposed in which sex-specific comparative advantages in different fields of study are in focus. Such relative advantages in sex-typical areas of study are hypothesized to influence educational choices through their effects on the expected probabilities of success in different study programmes. The theoretical model explains sex differences very well when judged against aggregate data, but empirical analyses on micro-level data are less supportive of the underlying hypothesis. While indicators of both absolute and relative school achievements are powerful predictors of educational choice, boys and girls with similar ‘ability profiles’ largely follow sex-typical choice patterns. Comparative advantages may ‘account for’ 10 to 30 per cent of the sex effect on educational choice at the upper secondary level of education in Sweden. The paper concludes with a short discussion of alternative explanations
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Becker, G. S. (1991) · doi:10.4159/9780674020665 · Cited by 10,565
Cited by
Wang, M.-T., & Degol, J. (2013) · Developmental Review · doi:10.1016/j.dr.2013.08.001 · Cited by 837
“Consistent with the concept ‘‘relative or comparative advantage’’ proposed by economists and sociologists (e.g., Jonsson, 1999), occupational choice depends on relative advantage more than absolute ability.”
BackgroundEqual but Separate? A Cross-National Study of Sex Segregation in Higher Education
Charles, M., & Bradley, K. (2002) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/3088946 · Cited by 491
Barone, C. (2011) · Sociology of Education · doi:10.1177/0038040711402099 · Cited by 279
What did you do yesterday? A meta-analysis of sex differences in episodic memory.
Asperholm, M., Högman, N., Rafi, J., & Herlitz, A. (2019) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000197 · Cited by 182
Dekhtyar, S., Weber, D., Helgertz, J., & Herlitz, A. (2018) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2017.11.007 · Cited by 98
Metadata
- Authors
- Jonsson, J. O.
- Venue
- European Sociological Review
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1999-12-01
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 391-404
- ISSN
- 0266-7215 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-2672
- OpenAlex
- W2128449989
- Cited by
- 202
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 7.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Explaining Sex Differences in Educational Choice An Empirical Assessment of a Rational Choice Model. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/oxfordjournals.esr.a018272
- The paper
- Jonsson, J. O. (1999). Explaining Sex Differences in Educational Choice An Empirical Assessment of a Rational Choice Model. European Sociological Review. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.esr.a018272
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
