Students' Divergent Thinking and Teachers' Ratings of Creativity: Does Gender Play a Role?

The differences between genders regarding the properties of divergent thinking and teachers' ratings of students' creativity are the issue of the present research. Data gathered from three previous experimental studies in Greek primary school students (N total = 228) was used for this purpose. In these studies, divergent thinking tasks were assigned to students and teachers' ratings were collected. The results showed that there were indeed differences in performance — except in the subscale of originality — in favor of girls who were more likely to perform better when they had a male teacher. Teachers' ratings of creativity were not related to students' gender but to teachers' gender.     

Is the Male Advantage in Mental-Rotation Performance Task Independent? On the Usability of Chronometric Tests and Paper-and-Pencil Tests in Children

This article presents a reanalysis of the data of 862 second and fourth graders collected in two previous studies, focusing on the influence of method (psychometric vs. chronometric) and stimulus type on the gender difference in mental-rotation accuracy. The children had to solve mental-rotation tasks with animal pictures, letters, or cube figures, either in a chronometric condition (computerized) or in a psychometric condition (paper-and-pencil). Results show a slight male advantage in mental-rotation accuracy, which is neither influenced by method nor by stimulus type. However, mental-rotation accuracy differed between the stimulus types, with the highest accuracy in animal pictures and the lowest accuracy in cube figures, and between age groups, with better performance in fourth graders than in second graders in both conditions. Results show that psychometric and chronometric mental-rotation tests with all the stimulus types are more or less similarly usable with children of that age.     

Why is support for Jamesian actual–ideal discrepancy model so elusive? A latent-variable approach

We investigate the Actual–Ideal Discrepancy (AID) model of self-esteem determination dating back to James (1890/1963). Although intuitively appealing, this model received weak support from rigorous empirical research. We propose a multiple-item latent difference approach to AID as applied to a range of self-concept domains and sub-domains in young adolescents from two different countries (UK: N = 402; Italy: N = 250). The effects of the AID remained elusive for most domains and sub-domains; indeed, the effects of the specific AIDs were generally trivial and only appearance-AID became significant in the combined sample. Also AIDs did not substantially explain the more general self-concepts beyond what was explained by the actual domains. Even if they had been significant, AID effects would have been, at best, trivially small and detectable only using appropriate latent-variable methodologies coupled with large sample sizes; thus undermining the psychological meaning of the AID model.