JOURNAL OF SPORT & EXERCISE PSYCHOLOGY, 1991.8.294-310

Gender Differences in Self-Confidence in Physical Activity: A Meta-Analysis of Recent Studies

Cathy D. Lirgg Michigan State University

The apparent lack of self-confidence in physical activity by females com- pared to males has been a recent concern of some researchers in sport psy- chology. Lenney (1977) suggested that females would be less confident than males when the task was male oriented or when the situation was competi- tive. This meta-analysis was conducted to examine the magnitude of gender differences in self-confidence in physical activity according to Lenney's as- sertions. An overall nonhomogeneous effect size of 0.40 favoring males was found. Although masculine tasks produced a larger effect-size difference than neutral tasks, it was also not homogeneous. Only one study employed a feminine task, resulting in a large effect size favoring females. However, the results of a regression analysis, which found that sex-type of task contrib- uted to gender differences in self-confidence, did support Lenney's con- tention. Whether or not the task took place in a competitive situation did not differentially affect the magnitude of the gender differences. Age of subject and type of confidence measure employed are also discussed as possible variables contributing to gender differences in self-confidence.

Self-confidence has been the subject of much research in recent years in the sport psychology literature. The perception of one's own abilities has been frequently cited as a mediating construct in achievement strivings and as a psy- chological factor affecting athletic performance. However, confidence has been operationalized in numerous ways (see Feltz, 1988b). For example, the con- structs of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977), perceived competence (Harter, 1982; Nichols, 1984), sport-confidence (Fox & Corbin, 1989; Vealey, 1986), expec- tancies (Rotter, 1954), and movement confidence (Griffin & Keough, 1982) have all been proposed as measuring an individual's perception of his or her abilities. Regardless of the method by which it is measured, self-confidence has been shown to be an important variable that influences motor performance (e.g., Feltz, 1982, 1988a; McAuley, 1985).

One recent concern of those studying self-confidence has been the charge that females tend to demonstrate less confidence than males (Lirgg & Feltz, 1989; Stewart & Corbin, 1988). Maccoby and Jacklin (1974) asserted that fe- males display less confidence than males in all achievement situations. Research in math education, for example, has offered some support for this belief (Fen- nema & Sherman, 1977; Sherman & Fennema, 1977). Females were found to be less confident than males in their ability to do mathematics. Because of this

Cathy D. Lirgg is now with the Dept. of Health Science, Kinesiology, Recreation, and Dance, HPER Bldg., University fo Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701.

Gender Differences 1 295

lower confidence, females took fewer higher level math courses than males, which eventually led to lower performances on math achievement tests. A lack of confidence decreases the likelihood that one will choose to do activities in a particular area and also leads to a decrease in one's persistence and effort in the face of difficulties, thus limiting opportunities for improved performance (Bandura, 1986; Fennema & Peterson, 1985).

Lenney (1977) offered an alternative explanation for this apparent lack of female self-confidence in achievement. She suggested that females may display less confidence than males in only three situations: (a) when the task is male oriented, (b) when the situation is competitive or comparative, and (c) when feedback is ambiguous. Several studies in motor performance have been con- ducted to test these hypotheses (Corbin, 1981; Corbin & Nix, 1979; Corbin, Stewart, & Blair, 198 1; Gill, Gross, Huddleston, & Shifflett, 1984; Petruzzello & Corbin, 1988; Stewart & Corbin, 1988). However, there has not been a com- prehensive research synthesis in this area to warrant either acceptance or rejec- tion of Lenney's claims. Therefore, the purpose of this meta-analysis was to provide answers to the following questions, based on Lenney's hypotheses, as they pertain to sport and physical activity:

1. Do males generally display more confidence than females? 2. If so, how large is the difference? 3. Do tasks that have a male orientation contribute to larger confidence

differences? 4. Does performing in a competitive situation negatively affect female self-

confidence?

Meta-analysis is used to quantitatively combine evidence across studies. Glass (1976) referred to meta-analysis as an "analysis of analyses7' in which statistics from a large collection of individual studies are analyzed for the purpose of integrating the findings. Researchers in physical education have recently em- ployed this technique to examine equivocal findings in such areas as mental practice (Feltz & Landers, 1983), the distribution of practices (Lee & Genovese, 1988), gender differences in motor performance (Thomas & French, 1985), and maximal oxygen uptake (Sparling, 1980).

For each study in a meta-analysis, an estimate of the index of effect magni- tude is obtained and then averaged to produce an overall estimate of effect magni- tude (Hedges & Olkin, 1985). The estimate of effect magnitude for this meta- analysis was the effect size. An effect size (g) is simply a z score of the mean of one group referenced in the frequency distribution of another group, which is expressed in units of standard deviation (Glass & Hopkins, 1984). Typically, an effect size compares a particular group to a control group (Glass, 1976). In that case, the mean of the control is subtracted from the mean of the other group, and this difference is then divided by the control-group standard deviation. The pres- ent meta-analysis used a difference-score effect size in which the mean of the females was subtracted from the mean of the males. This difference was then divided by the pooled standard deviation to obtain g.' However, because g has a small-sample bias, Hedges and Olkin (1985) described a procedure that produced

296 / Lirgg

an unbiased estimator of the effect size. This estimator (6) has good properties for small sample sizes and was used in this meta-analysis.*

Positive effect sizes indicated that males were more confident than females; negative values indicated greater confidence for females. In order to interpret the magnitude of effect sizes, an effect size of 0.50 means that the average confidence score of males would exceed 69 % of the females. Cohen (1977) noted that an effect size (6) of 0.20 is considered small, 0.50 is medium, and 0.80 is large.

The Hedges and Olkin (1985) method can determine if the effect sizes in a particular category are simply average effect sizes or common effect sizes, which means that they are homogeneous. Homogeneity is necessary in order to assume that the underlying population effect size for that group of effect sizes is tenable (Becker & Hedges, 1984). If the effect size for a class of a category (for example, all masculine tasks) was homogeneous, there would be no significant difference within all the effect sizes that made up that class (i.e., a common effect size). Otherwise, the effect size is simply an average of all the effect sizes of that class and doesn't provide as much information. Likewise, a homogeneity test can be conducted between average effects for classes of a category (e.g., between the average effect sizes for masculine, feminine, and neutral tasks) to determine if those averages are different from one another. This structure is similar to analysis of variance, as there can be both within (Q,) class and between (Q,) class differences.

Procedure

Characteristics of the Studies

Studies must have met four criteria in order to be included in this meta- analysis. These criteria were as follows: Studies must have (a) been published after 1977, (b) employed males and females as subjects, (c) measured confidence before any manipulation, and (d) included proper statistics so that effect sizes could be calculated.

Because female participation in physical activity was severely limited prior to Title IX due to opportunity and budget inequalities (Boutilier & SanGiovanni, 1983), the first criterion was that studies must have been published after 1977. This date was chosen because 1978 was the year that Title IX was mandated to be in full effect. Title IX was adopted in 1972, and throughout the 1970s females were given increasing opportunities to participate in physical activity, which may have positively influenced confidence.

The second criterion for inclusion was that studies must have employed males and females as subjects and included some type of confidence measure. Many studies have measured confidence but typically have used only males or only females as subjects. Third, confidence must have been measured before any manipulation. Three studies were discarded because they measured confidence only after the treatment. Another three studies were excluded because the sub- jects, before recording their confidence beliefs, were given the average abilities of males or females on the task used in the study and therefore may have given responses biased in the direction of those average abilities.

A fourth and final criterion was that studies must have included means, ns,

Gender Differences 1 297

and standard deviations, or ns and the mean-square error, so that effect sizes could be calculated. Authors of studies that fit the other criteria but did not include this information were contacted individually.

Thirty-five studies, yielding 46 separate effect sizes, fit all four criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. These studies were obtained primarily through a manual search of the literature with a follow-up on all trailing refer- ences. Dissertation Abstract ONLINE, SPORT Database, and ERIC computer searches were also conducted. Additionally, a manual search of Completed Re- search in Health, Physical Education, Recreation, & Dance was conducted; the Social Science Citation Index was utilized to identify the studies that referenced the specific confidence measures used in this meta-analysis.

Coding procedures

Studies were coded into five categories: sex-type of task, confidence mea- sure, age of subject, year of study, and competitive situation. First, to investigate the influence of sex-type of task on confidence, tasks were coded either as mascu- line, feminine, or neutral. Sex-type of task was determined in several ways. In three studies, authors used pilot data. In five studies, the authors referenced other studies that had previously sex-typed the same task. Because some authors did not include this information, four tasks were categorized for the purpose of this meta-analysis based on the sex-typing of similar tasks in the existing literature. In only one study were subjects requested to sex-type the task themselves before performing. Additionally, tasks were classified on a continuum from 1 (dejnitely masculine) to 5 (definitely feminine). Data for this classification were gathered from a sample of 90 college, high school, and elementary students who rated each individual task. Each task, therefore, was additionally assigned a mean sex- type rating.

Five confidence measures were separately coded. One coding, labeled task- specific, was for studies that measured confidence in the performance of a spe- cific task. This measure was similar to the concept of self-efficacy in that subjects were asked to indicate how well they thought they would perform a specific task before attempting that task. Fifteen studies utilized Harter's (1982) Perceived Competence Scale (PCS). For this meta-analysis, only the Perceived Physical Competence subscale was used. Six studies employed the Perceived Physical Ability subscale (PPA) of the Physical Self-Efficacy Scale (PSES; Ryckman, Robbins, Thornton, & Cantrell, 1982). One study that used this measure did not provide data for this subscale; in this case, the entire scale (PSES) was used. Studies that measured sport-confidence were classified into one group. This group included studies that used Vealey's (1986) Sport-Confidence Scale and the Perceived Sport Competence subscale of Fox and Corbin's (1989) Physical Self- Perception Profile (PSPP). One study included in this group measured subjects' sport-confidence using a Likert scale. Finally, three studies employed Sons- troem's (1974) Physical Estimation and Attraction Scale. Scores for only the Estimation (EST) subscale were used in this meta-analysis.

Three additional categories were used to code the age of the subjects, the year of the study, and whether the task was to take place in a competitive or a noncompetitive situation. Levels of age were classified as either elementary, juniorlsenior high school, college, adults, or mixed-age groupings. Junior and

298 1 Lirgg

senior high school subjects were grouped together because there were relatively few studies that used those age groups. Table 1 lists all studies used in this meta- analysis, along with effect sizes and individual coding categories.

Results and Discussion

The results are reported and discussed in relation to the research questions posed earlier. All analyses were conducted in accordance with procedures out- lined by Hedges and Olkin (1985). Alpha level was set at .05 for all chi-square tests.

Overall Effect-Size Differences in Confidence

Questions 1 and 2 considered whether males, in general, were more confi- dent in physical activity than females and, if so, what was the magnitude of the difference. The overall average effect size (ES) for the group of 46 effect sizes (m=46) was 0.40, which favored males. This effect size did not prove to be homogeneous (Q,= 151.48), however, which means that the effect sizes varied to a great degree. The data were also analyzed for outliers by running this same analysis with each of the 46 effect sizes removed individually. If there was an outlier, the Q, would change dramatically for the analysis with that particular effect size removed (Hedges & Olkin, 1985). The exclusion of the effect size produced by the only feminine task (ballet: ES = - 1.02) dropped the Q statistic to 110.91, which was by far the largest change. When this study was omitted from the overall analysis, the nonhomogeneous effect size was 0.41. Therefore, given these two analyses, although males on the average were more confident, the results are extremely variable, and no conclusion concerning the magnitude of gender differences can be reached on the basis of this analysis alone.

Sex-Type of Task

Question 3 considered whether tasks that are categorized as masculine in orientation produce larger effect-size differences than those tasks that are categorized as either feminine or neutral. To examine this question, an analysis on sex-type of task was conducted. Table 2 shows the results of this analysis.

The five effect sizes of the masculine tasks produced an effect size of 0.65. This effect size was not homogeneous (Qw= 11.46). This result is not surprising in that one masculine task, the leg lift, contributed an effect size of 0.19 and another task, football, contributed an effect size of 1.18. Neutral tasks, on the other hand, produced a homogeneous effect size of 0.50 (Qw= 10.08). Although there was only one feminine sex-typed task, ballet, it produced an effect size of - 1.02. These three effect sizes (masculine, feminine, and neutral) were also not homogeneous (Q,, = 5.99). Because the masculine tasks exhibited such variability and given that there was only one feminine task, the question of whether sex- type of task contributes to gender differences in confidence could not be answered based on this data.

To examine whether effect-size differences would be larger for masculine tasks when tasks were rated on a continuum instead of categorically, the tasks used in this meta-analysis were rated by 90 elementary, high school, and college students on a 5-point Likert scale in which the tasks were judged from 1 (appro- priate only for mules) to 5 (appropriate only for females). A bivariate regression

Gender Differences / 299

analysis, with the weighted effect size as the dependent variable and the sex-type rating as the independent variable, was c~nducted.~ Although the F statistic was significant @<.0001), the data did not fit the model (SSr=39.77, df=l: SS, = 29.53, df= 13). An examination of the standardized residuals showed an outlier. When the feminine task was removed from this analysis as the outlier, the regression equation fit the model (SSr=6.78, df= 1 : SS,= 16.35, df= 12).5 The regression equation for this analysis was ES = 1.61 - .383 (sex-type of task).

This finding provides support for Lenney's (1977) hypothesis that females will show less confidence than males in tasks that are masculine. Specifically, a task that is judged to be more masculine than another task will produce greater gender differences in self-confidence. However, what is not known is how this model would change if there were more feminine tasks included in the analysis; that is, perhaps if findings from studies using feminine tasks produced similar results, the feminine tasks would not necessarily be considered outliers.

Competition

Another of Lenney's (1977) hypotheses dealt with the influence of competi- tive tasks on female self-confidence. Two analyses were conducted to test the hypothesis that females will be less confident than males in situations that are competitive. The first analysis examined tasks labeled simply competitive or noncompetitive. Those tasks that were performed in a competitive situation pro- duced a homogeneous effect size of 0.52 (Q, =5.35). Those tasks taking place in a noncompetitive situation resulted in a nonhomogeneous effect size of 0.44 (Q, = 63.47). However, these two effect sizes were not significantly different from one another (Q, = .473).

An examination of competitive situation with sex-type of task is shown in Table 3. Both masculine and neutral tasks performed in competitive situations produced homogeneous effect sizes of 0.52. Neutral tasks performed in noncom- petitive situations produced a similarly homogeneous effect size of 0.50. There was only one noncompetitive male task (football) and one noncompetitive female task (ballet). These two classes heavily influenced the between-group homogene- ity test. When these two subcategories were removed from the analysis, there was no significant difference between the remaining three effect sizes (0.50, 0.52,0.52).

The results of these analyses do not support Lenney's (1977) contention that females will be less confident than males in competitive situations. Although homogeneous effect sizes of approximately 0.50 favoring males emerged, the differences do not increase significantly when females are placed in competitive situations. Again, however, more studies using feminine tasks in competitive and noncompetitive situations are necessary, as well as studies using masculine tasks in noncompetitive situations.

General Discussion

The results of this meta-analysis shed some light on several questions and at the same time raised others. Specifically, the sex-type of the task appears to contribute differentially to gender differences in confidence. The more masculine the task is considered, the greater the confidence difference between males an- dfemales. Unfortunately, only one study examined a feminine task. The effect

Table 1-List of Studies and Classifications W 0 0

Author

. Subjects 6

Year Age n-m n-f Measure Task Sex-type Comp. Unbiased ES 2

Armstrong, Rosenbaum, & King Cate & Sugawara Corbin Cusumano, Robinson, & Morooka Devall, Stoneman, & Brody Dishman (Study 1) Dishman (Study 2) Duncan & McAuley Duncan & McAuley Feltz Feltz & Petlichkoff (participants) Feltz & Petlichkoff (nonparticipants) Feltz & Riessinger Fox & Corbin (Phase 3) Fox & Corbin (Phase 4) Fox, Corbin, & Couldry Garrison, Earls, & Kindlon Gill, Gross, Huddleston, & Shifflett Granleese, Trew, & Turner Kistner, Haskett, White, & Robbins Lee, Hall, & Carter Lewko & Ewing

1987 Elem. 35 1986 HS 113

1981 Coll. 40 1989 Coil. 49 1986 Elem. 30 1978 Coll. 30

1978 Coll. 30 1987 Coll. 45

1987 Coll. 45 19- COIL 40 1983 Jr.lSr. HS 1 1 1 1983 Jr.lSr. HS 23 1990 Coll. 58 1989 Coll. 128 1989 Coll. 180 1985 Coll. 94

1983 Elem. 46 1984 Coll. 20 1988 Elem. 102 1987 Elem. 64 1983 Elem. 30 1980 Elem. 132

39 PCS 116 PCS 40 Task-spec. 77 PPA 30 PCS 30 EST 30 EST 39 Task-spec. 39 PPA 40 Task-spec. 128 PCS 20 PCS 57 Task-spec. 106 PSPP 175 PSPP 77 EST 37 PCS 20 Task-spec. 88 PCS 32 PCS 30 Task-spec. 136 Sport-Conf. Scale

,484

.269 Pong game Neut. Yes .446

.407

,819

-.I38 .473

Bicycle ergometer Masc. Yes .473 .934

Backdive Neut. No ,284 ,489 ,340

Wall sit Masc. Yes .483 .598

.608

.426

-.248 Pegboard Neut. Yes ,434

.528

.623 Dart toss Neut. No .335

.150

Petruzzello & Corbin Petruzzello & Corbin Roberts, Kleiber, & Duda (participants) Roberts, Kleiber, & Duda (nonparticipants) Rudisill Rudisill Sanguinetti, Lee, & Nelson Sanguinetti, Lee, & Nelson Sanguinetti, Lee, & Nelson Sternbenz Stewart & Corbin Stigler, Smith, & Mao Thornton, Ryckman, Robbins, Donolli, &

Biser Ulrich (participants) Ulrich (nonparticipants) Valois, Shephard, & Godin Valois, Shephard, & Godin Vealey Vealey Vealey (elite) Wittig, Duncan, & Schurr Weinberg, Gould, & Jackson Windle, Hooker, Lenerz, East, Lerner, &

Lerner Windle, Hooker, Lenerz, East, Lerner, &

Lerner

1988 Coll. 1988 Coll. 1981 Elem. 1981 Elem. 1988 Coll. 1989 Jr. HS 1985 Mixed 1985 Mixed 1985 Mixed 1988 Not given 1988 Elem. 1985 Elem.

1987 Adult 1987 Elem. 1987 Elem. 1986 Coll. 1986 Adult 1988 Jr./Sr. HS 1988 Coll. 1988 Mixed 1987 Coll. 1979 Coll.

1986 Elem.

1986 Coll.

235 Task-spec. 235 Task-spec. 23 PCS 46 PCS 60 Task-spec.

42 Task-spec. 45 Task-spec. 45 Task-spec.

45 Task-spec. 22 Sport-Conf. Scale 61 Task-spec.

334 PCS

68 PPA 46 PCS 78 PCS 20 PPA 62 PPA 32 Sport-Conf. Scale 29 Sport-Conf. Scale 20 Sport-Conf. Scale

151 PSES 30 Task-spec.

71 PCS

171 PCS

Pursuit rotor Stabilometer

Dart toss Stabilometer Football Swimming

Ballet

Stabilorneter

Leg lift

Neut. Neut.

Masc. Neut. Masc. Neut. Fern.

Neut.

Masc.

No No

Yes Yes No No No

No

Yes

Table 2 Source Table for Sex-Type of Task

Source m df Q value Average ES Confidence interval

Total 15 14 69.305 0.47 .372 to .568 Between 2 47.765 Within 12 21.54 Masculine 5 4 11.46 0.65 ,457 to ,846 Feminine 1 0 00.00 -1.02 -1.451 to -.589 Neutral 9 8 10.08* 0.50 .402 to ,598

*Denotes homogeneity. m=number of effect sizes.

Table 3

Competitive SituationISex-Type of Task

Source m df Q value Average ES Confidence interval

Total Between Within Masc.-comp. Max.-no cornp. Fern.-no comp. Neut.-comp. Neut.-no cornp.

*Denotes homogeneity. m=nurnber of effect sizes.

size of that one study suggests that males may indeed be less confident than females when the task is considered feminine in orientation. Future research needs to examine all types of tasks, especially feminine tasks, when measuring confidence beliefs to determine how these tasks may differentially interact with the magnitude of gender differences in self-confidence.

The manner in which authors sex-typed tasks has raised an issue that should be addressed before further investigating tasks on the basis of sex-type. Only one study (Petruzzello & Corbin, 1988) required its own subjects to sex-type the task before performing. Researchers should determine sex-type by how subjects in their experiments feel about the task in order to confirm the assumption that the sex-typing is valid. This point is especially important when examining different age groups. One researcher, using elementary subjects, sex-typed a dart-toss task as neutral; another researcher, who employed college students, sex-typed the same task as masculine. The possibility that all age groups may not perceive tasks

Gender Differences 1 303

as similarly sex-typed is probable. However, researchers need to specifically ask their own subjects to confirm their perceptions about the task.

Competition does not appear to play a major role in confidence differences between males and females. In fact, there was very little difference between tasks performed in competition and those performed alone, even when masculine tasks were employed. The homogeneous effect sizes produced by studies using both com- petitive and noncompetitive tasks were approximately 0.50, or a one-half standard- deviation difference. This difference is arguably not large; in fact, throughout all the analyses, the largest average effect was only 0.65. However, it still suggests that females are not yet equal to males in their stated confidence beliefs.

Although this meta-analysis can only illuminate situations in which gender differences in self-confidence appear, it cannot answer the frequently asked question of why they appear. One reason suggested for gender differences in self-confidence may be that males are boastful; that is, they overestimate their performances. Cor- bin, Landers, Feltz, and Senior (1983) specifically tested this hypothesis; however, they found no evidence of male boastfulness on a leg-extension task. In fact, they suggested that female modesty, underestimating performance, might have led to lower self-confidence scores than those reported by males. It should be noted that the experimenters anchored the subjects' judgments by giving them a score that most people could perform and also one that most people could not perform. Perhaps the female subjects based their estimates on these scores, equating the lower score with female performance and the higher score with male performance, which encouraged underestimation. In another study, Feltz (1988a) found that some males were over- confident in relation to their performance of a modified back dive. Those who were most avoiding of the diving task overrated their efficacy beliefs.

Studies that have reported the confidence-performance relationship be- tween males and females have shown varying results. Dishman (1978, Study 1) found that the correlation between aerobic power and estimation of physical ability was approximately the same for males (r=.37) as it was for females (r= .33). However, in Study 2, a higher correlation was reported for females (r= .36) than for males (r= .27). Fox, Corbin, and Couldry (1985) found correla- tions between a battery of fitness tests and estimation of physical ability to be .52 for females and .50 for males.

Although many studies in which a specific task was performed do report the overall correlation between confidence and performance (see Feltz, 1988b), most do not report those correlations for both males and females. One study that did, however, was Feltz (1988a). She found that the correlation between pretask self-efficacy and performance on a back dive was higher for females (r= .46) than for males (r= .28). Although high or low correlations themselves cannot determine whether males or females are either overestimating or underestimating their performances, researchers should routinely relate confidence ratings with actual performance for males and females in an attempt to highlight the accuracy of these ratings. In addition, although some researchers have suggested that people's confidence judgments become more accurate with age (Harter, 1982; Sanguinetti, Lee, & Nelson, 1985), it may be worthwhile to investigate if males and females also differ in this respect.

An assertion could be made that if males perform better than females, especially on male-oriented tasks, they should report higher initial confidence than females. Among the studies in this meta-analysis that employed a specific

304 / Lirgg

task and reported performance data, only one study supported this assumption. Rudisill (1988) found that college males were more confident than females in a dart-throwing task and also outperformed them. Weinberg, Gould, and Jackson (1979), using another masculine-oriented task (leg lift), found a significant per- formance difference favoring males but only a small confidence difference (ES =O. 19). Using gender-neutral tasks, Gill et al. (1984, Rudisill (1989), and Stewart and Corbin (1988) found effect sizes favoring males of 0.43, 0.66, and 0.75, respectively, but found that males did not outperform females. Therefore, the assertion that the higher confidence of males is related to their higher perfor- mances compared to females is not always viable and also does not explain why females frequently show less confidence than males in tasks that are gender neutral, novel, and in which they do not demonstrate lower performances.

Although this meta-analysis was undertaken to test specific hypotheses based on past research, other relevant questions can be raised and examined through this type of integrative review. For example, most researchers have not used two confidence measures in the same study to examine self-confidence, and those who have did not compare them to one another. Using meta-analytic techniques, the effect of various confidence measures on the magnitude of gender differences in these studies was evaluated.

None of the confidence measures, with the exception of the Estimation subscale (ES =0.32), which contained only three effect sizes, produced homoge- neous effect sizes. The lowest average effect sue was found in those studies that used Harter's (1982) Perceived Physical Competence subscale (ES =0.30, m= 15); the largest average effect size was produced by those studies measuring sport-confidence (ES =0.49, m = 7). Studies using the Perceived Physical Ability subscale (m=6) produced an average effect size of 0.40. However, the great variability of the effect sizes in each class makes any conclusion about confidence measures difficult. For example, studies using the Perceived Competence Scale ranged from an effect size of -0.248 to 0.819. It is possible that a subject's age may have contributed to differences on these measures.

Age difference in self-confidence has also received some attention in past research. In general, researchers have found that as children grow older, self- confidence decreases (Lee, Hall, & Carter, 1983; Sanguinetti, Lee, & Nelson, 1985; Ulrich, 1987). Lee et al. found that there was a gradual decrease from Grades 1 to 5 in female expectancies for success on a motor task. Boys and girls in Grades 1 and 2 had very similar expectation levels, but, by Grade 5, males displayed much higher scores than females. Through this meta-analysis, it was also possible to examine gender differences across age groups, spanning elemen- tary school to adult age levels.

This examination of age found only the juniorlsenior high school subjects producing a homogeneous effect size (0.43). The smallest average effect size was found in elementary children (0.32), and the largest in college subjects (0.48). Homogeneity tests indicated wide variability, however, in both of those samples. To examine this variability, a second analysis, which combined age with confidence measure, was conducted. Although hampered by the small number of studies in the different classes, results indicated that the effect sizes produced by elementary subjects who took the Perceived Competence Scale produced an average effect size of 0.30; the effect sizes produced by elementary subjects who were engaged in a gender-neutral task produced an average effect size of 0.5 1.

Gender Differences 1 305

Although homogeneity was not obtained, it is possible that the low confidence difference exhibited by elementary subjects was heavily influenced by the type of measure, specifically by studies that used the Perceived Competence Scale.

Another tentative finding was that studies that used general confidence measures (e.g., Perceived Physical Ability subscale, Physical Self-Perception Profile) produced smaller effect-size differences than those studies that measured confidence on a specific task. For example, college students who were asked to indicate confidence beliefs before engaging in a specific task produced a homoge- neous effect size of 0.52; that same age group dropped to an average effect size of 0.44 when asked to state confidence beliefs on paper-and-pencil tests. Only one study used juniorlsenior high school students involved in a task, but this produced an effect-size difference of 0.66. In contrast, when this age group responded to the general confidence measures, a homogeneous effect size of 0.39 was found. More studies need to be conducted across age groups and within age groups using different measures to investigate the effect of age and different measures of confidence.

Finally, integrative reviews of this type allow an investigation of gender differences across time-in this case, an examination of whether these differences are increasing or decreasing. With the increasing opportunities for girls and women in sport, one would suspect that gender differences in self-confidence would be slowly disappearing.

To investigate this trend, a polynomial regression was conducted with year as the dependent variable. A polynomial-regression analysis is carried out hierar- chically; that is, the first-degree polynomial is entered on the first step and fol- lowed by successively higher-degree polynomials (Pedhazur, 1982). Results of this analysis produced a positive linear trend (F=6.34, p<.02), with an R' of .13. Although only a small portion of the variance can be explained by year, this result suggests that self-confidence differences between males and females are increasing.

Most studies used in this meta-analysis were conducted in the late 1980s. Twenty-three effect sizes were produced by studies from 1978-1986; studies after 1986 also produced 23 effect sizes. Over half of the effect sizes from the later years were from studies that used college students as subjects; only about one third of the effect sizes from earlier years were produced by studies using college students. In addition, all studies measuring sport-confidence appeared after 1986. Because studies that used college students as subjects and studies that used sport-confidence measures produced the largest average effect sizes, the linear trend suggested by this analysis is not surprising. However, this trend should be interpreted cautiously as the I? is quite low and the sources of the variation are not totally clear. This finding may simply be an artifact of the type of confidence measure, the age of subjects, or the sex-type of task used in recent studies compared to those in past studies.

A positive note illuminated by examining studies over time is that research- ers in the past few years have increasingly recognized the need to employ both males and females in their studies involving physical skill. Earlier researchers tended to use only males as subjects and may have overgeneralized their results to females. However, this meta-analysis still suffers from a relatively small num- ber of studies using both males and females that employ specific tasks. Research that investigates variables such as feminine tasks, age, confidence measure, and

competition and that employs both males and females as subjects in the same study is needed to determine the scope of the gender differences reported here and to determine if the results found here will be supported with more data.

In summary, although a gender difference in self-confidence favoring males still appears, possible biases in research (e.g., ignoring feminine tasks, employing differing confidence measures, using sex-typing practices that may be questionable) may be contributing to the appearance of these gender differences. Moreover, the differences that consistently appear are not large ones, amounting to about one half of one standard deviation. As Hoffman and Hurst (1990) pointed out, an effect size of less than 0.50 is small compared to the sex difference in height that produces an effect size of 2.60. Therefore, although a difference in confidence is certainly present, this difference probably is not as large as might have been expected. Even so, a difference exists and should be further examined. The results of this meta-analysis suggest several fertile areas in which to begin.

References

Armstrong, R.W., Rosenbaum, P.L., & King, S.M. (1987). A randomized controlled trial of a "buddy" programme to improve children's attitudes toward the disabled. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 29, 327-336.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 19 1-2 15.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Becker, B.J., & Hedges, L.V. (1984). Meta-analysis of cognitive gender differences: A comment on an analysis by Rosenthal and Rubin. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76,583-587.

Boutilier, M.A., & SanGiovanni, L. (1983). The sporting woman. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers.

Cate, R., & Sugawara, A.I. (1986). Sex role orientation and dimensions of self-esteem among middle adolescents. Sex Roles, 15, 145-158.

Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. New York: Academic Press.

Corbin, C.B. (1981). Sex of subject, sex of opponent, and opponent ability as factors affecting self-confidence in a competitive situation. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4,265-270.

Corbin, C.B., Landers, D.M., Feltz, D.L., & Senior, K. (1983). Sex differences in performance estimates: Female lack of confidence vs. male boastfulness. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 54,407-410.

Corbin, C.B., & Nix, C. (1979). Sex-typing of physical activities and success predictions of children before and after cross-sex competition. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1,43-52.

Corbin, C.B., Stewart, M.J., & Blair, W.O. (1981). Self-confidence and motor performance of preadolescent boys and girls studied in different feed'oack situations. Journal of Sport Psychology, 3,30-34.

Cusumano, J.A., Robinson, S.E., & Morooka, F. (1989). Physical self-efficacy levels in Japanese and American university students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 69, 912-914.

Gender Differences / 307

Devall, E., Stonernan, Z., & Brody, G. (1986). The impact of divorce and maternal employment on preadolescent children. Family Relations, 35, 153-159.

Dishman, R.K. (1978). Aerobic power, estimation of physical ability, and attraction to physical activity. m e Research Quarterly, 49,285-2%.

Duncan, T., & McAuley, E. (1987). Efficacy expectations and perceptions of causality in motor performance. Journal of Sport Psychology, 9,385-393.

Feltz, D.L. (1982). Path analysis of the causal elements in Bandura's theory of self- efficacy and an anxiety-based model of avoidance behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 764-781.

Feltz, D.L. (1988a). Gender differences in the causal elements of self-efficacy on a high avoidance motor task. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 10, 15 1-166.

Feltz, D.L. (1988b). Self-confidence and sport performance. In K.B. Pandolf (Ed.), Exercise and sport science reviews (pp. 423-457). New York: MacMillan.

Feltz, D.L., & Landers, D.M. (1983). The effects of mental practice in motor skill learning and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5,25- 57.

Feltz, D.L., & Petlichkoff, L. (1983). Perceived competence among interscholastic sports participants and dropouts. Canadian Journal ofApplied Sport Science, 8,231-235.

Feltz, D.L., & Riessinger, C.A. (1990). Effects of in vivo emotive imagery and performance feedback on self-efficacy and muscular endurance. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 12, 132-143.

Fennema, E., & Peterson, P. (1985). Autonomous learning behavior: A possible explanation of gender-related differences in mathematics. In L. Wilkinson & C. Marrett (Eds .), Gender influences in classroom interaction (pp. 17-35). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. (1977). Sex-related differences in mathematics achievement, spacial visualization and affective factors. American Educational Research Journal, 14,51-71.

Fox, K.R., & Corbin, C.B. (1989). The physical self-perception profile: Development and preliminary validation. Journal of Sport Psychology, 11,408-430.

Fox, K.R., Corbin, C.B., & Couldry, W.H. (1985). Female physical estimation and attraction to physical activity. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 7 , 125-136.

Garrison, W., Earls, F., & Kindlon, D. (1983). An application of the Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and acceptance within an epidemiological survey. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 11, 367-377.

Gill, D.L., Gross, J.B., Huddleston, S., & Shifflett, B. (1984). Sex differences in achievement cognitions and performance in competition. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 55,340-346.

Glass, G.V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5, 3-8.

Glass, G.V., & Hopkins, K.D. (1984). Statistical methods in education and psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Granleese, J., Trew, K., & Turner, I. (1988). Sex differences in perceived competence. British Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 181-184.

Griffin, N.S., & Keough, J.F. (1982). A model for movement confidence. In J.A.S. Kelso & J. Clark (Eds.), The development of movement control and coordination (pp. 213-236). New York: Wiley.

Harter, S . (1982). The Perceived Competence Scale for children. Child Development, 53, 87-97.

308 1 Lirgg

Hedges, L.V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Hoffman, C., & Hurst, N. (1990). Gender stereotypes: Perception or rationalization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 197-208.

Kistner, J., Haskett, M., White, K., & Robbins, F. (1987, Winter). Perceived competence and self-worth of LD and normally achieving students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 37-44.

Lee, A.M., Hall, E.G., & Carter, J.A. (1983). Age and sex differences in expect- ancy for success among American children. The Journal of Psychology, 113, 35- 39.

Lee, T.D., & Genovese, E.D. (1988). Distribution of practice in motor skill acquisition: Learning and performance effects reconsidered. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 59,277-287.

Lenney, E. (1977). Women's self-confidence in achievement settings. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 1-13.

Lewko, J.H., & Ewing, M.E. (1980). Sex differences and parental influence in sport involvement of children. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, 61-68.

Lirgg, C.D., & Feltz, D.L. (1989). Female self-confidence in sport: Myths, realities, and enhancement strategies. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 60(3), 49-54.

Maccoby, E.E., & Jacklin, C.N. (1974). The psychology of sex diperences. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

McAuley, E. (1985). Modeling and self-efficacy: A test of Bandura's model. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7,283-295.

Nichols, J.G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328-346.

Pedhazur, E.J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Petruzzello, S.J., & Corbin, C.B. (1988). The effects of performance feedback on female self-confidence. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 10, 174-183.

Roberts, G.C., Kleiber, D.A., & Duda, J.L. (1981). An analysis of motivation in children's sport: The role of perceived competence in participation. Journal of Sport Psychology, 3,206-216.

Rotter, J.B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Rudisill, M.E. (1988). Sex differences in various cognitive and behavioral parameters in a competitive situation. International Jouml of Sport Psychology, 19, 296-3 10.

Rudisill, M.E. (1989). Influence of perceived competence and causal dimension orientation on expectations, persistence, and performance during perceived failure. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60, 166- 175.

Ryckman, R.M., Robbins, M.A., Thornton, B., & Cantrell, P. (1982). Development and validation of a physical self-efficacy scale. Jouml of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 891-900.

Sanguinetti, C., Lee, A.M., & Nelson, J. (1985). Reliability estimates and age and gender comparisons of expectations of success in sex-typed activities. Jounurl of Sport Psychology, 7,379-388.

Sherman, J., & Fennema, E. (1977). The study of mathematics by high school girls and boys: Related variables. American Educational Research Journal, 14, 159-168.

Gender Differences / 309

Sonstroem, R. (1974). Attitude testing examining certain psychological correlates of physical activity. Research Quarterly, 45,93-103.

Sparling, P.B. (1980). A meta-analysis of studies comparing maximal oxygen uptake in men and women. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 51,542-552.

Sterbenz, H.D. (1988). The effect of a singleperfomnce on the selj-con.ence level of distance runners. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Kansas, Lawrence.

Stewart, M.J., & Corbin, C.B. (1988). Feedback dependence among low confidence preadolescent boys and girls. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 59,160-164.

Stigler, J.W., Smith, S., & Mao, L. (1985). The self-perception of competence by Chinese children. Child Development, 56, 1259-1270.

Thomas, J.R., & French, K.E. (1985). Gender differences across age in motor performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 98,260-282.

Thornton, B., Ryckman, R.M., Robbins, M.A., Donolli, J., & Biser, G. (1987). Relationship between perceived physical ability and indices of actual physical fitness. Journal of Sport Psychology, 9,295-300.

Ulrich, B.D. (1987). Perceptions of physical competence, motor competence, and participation in organized sport: Their interrelationships in young children. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 58,57-67.

Valois, P., Shephard, R.J., & Godin, G. (1986). Relationship of habit and perceived physical ability to exercise-behavior. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 62, 81 1-817.

Vealey, R.S. (1986). Conceptualization of sport-confidence and competitive orientation: Preliminary investigation and instrument development. Joumal of Sport Psychology, 8,221-246.

Vealey, R.S. (1988). Sport-confidence and competitive orientation: An addendum on scoring procedures and gender differences. Joumal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 10,471-478.

Weinberg, R., Gould, D., & Jackson, A. (1979). Expectations and performance: An empirical test of Bandura's selfefficacy theory. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1, 320- 331.

Windle, M., Hooker, K., Lenerz, K., East, P.L., Lerner, J.V., & Lerner, R.M. (1986). Temperament, perceived competence, and depression in early and late adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 22, 384-392.

Wittig, A.F., Duncan, S.L., & Schurr, K.T. (1987). The relationship of gender, gender- role endorsement and perceived physical self-efficacy to sport competition anxiety. Joumal of Sport Behavior, 11, 192-199.

Notes

m = male; f = female. 'Formula for Hedges and Olkin's unbiased effect size (d):

d = J(g) where

J = 1 - 3 4 (n, + n, - 2) - 9

y3afo.1d s!yl 1noq%no1q suo~lsa88ns alqm@a lay ~oj qad qeloqaa 01 pue s!sd@ue aep 8upnp dpq qayl 103 ure.1q3~ s~q3 pue 1ay3ag Lslag 01 papualxa ST uoyle!3a~dde a~a3u!s

-panoma1 mpno aq yl!~ s!sd@m ayl u! punoj sem se 'q ppou palouap Jsal a~enbs -!q3 ~m~g!u%!suou e 'am s~yl UI .pasn ale uropaa~j jo saaBap 8u~puodsarro3 pm lolra sa~enbs-jo-urns ayl 'wep ayl s~g Iapour aq laqaqm lsal OJ, .sasLpm qoq u! 1m3g!u%!s sem 1sa~ a~enbs-!q3 S~J, .urops~j jo saa~zap %u~puodsalro~ ayl pue sarenbs jo urns uo!ssa~%a~ ayl 8ursn pagdde s! lsal h!aua8ouroq e '~ue.~gy%!s sy lapour ayj! 1sa3 OJ,~

'(~861 'UPnO 78 sagpa~) sans ~ajja paJeat!lsa L~qega~a.rour aq 01 )@!am alour say% q3ym '(P) jo a3mpa ayl 1aAo 1 Lq pa?q%!am SEM s!sL@m? uo!ssa.x%ai q rq (P) aqs vajja aq&

'%rqle~ luapws a8ano3 aq 03

@quap! sem '6.2 'yw styl JOJ pasn 8~1e1 ad&xas ueam au +(~'E=H) quapws iooq3s q%g mq (8*2=~) auyn3seur axour se qm sw pa1e.1 uaJpllq3 pq3s apws '~alauro%~a a13Lxq ayl uo ~dzoxa slsfqns a%al~o~ JO 'looq3s q81q 'hr~uamala %uoure s%qex ad& -xas u! a3ua~agp we3gp%~s ou sem axayl leyl papaaal dnoB a%e Lq sv~ow Lem-auo -sdno~% a%e I@ %uyu!qmo3 Lq paqn3@3 sem ys~ q3ea ~oj %ye1 adh-xas ~UI aqL,

gg~?7 1 OTE