IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jeduce/v49y2018i4p299-306.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gender difference in willingness to guess after a failure

Author

Listed:
  • Giam Pietro Cipriani

Abstract

A considerable literature in economics and psychology observes substantial gender differences in risk aversion, confidence, and responses to high pressure. In the educational measurement literature, it has been argued that these differences could disadvantage female students when taking multiple-choice tests, especially if there is a penalty for wrong answers. Using a dataset of multiple-choice exams, the author investigates this issue by analyzing the number of unanswered questions. Since most individuals take this exam repeatedly, differences after a failure also can be observed. The results in this article show that there are significant differences between men and women: in the second and third attempts women omit more questions than men. However, this is also the case in the first attempt after excluding the best students.

Suggested Citation

  • Giam Pietro Cipriani, 2018. "Gender difference in willingness to guess after a failure," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(4), pages 299-306, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jeduce:v:49:y:2018:i:4:p:299-306
    DOI: 10.1080/00220485.2018.1500958
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00220485.2018.1500958
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00220485.2018.1500958?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.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:jeduce:v:49:y:2018:i:4:p:299-306. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/VECE20 .

    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.