↓ Skip to main content

Males Under-Estimate Academic Performance of Their Female Peers in Undergraduate Biology Classrooms

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
38 news outlets
blogs
19 blogs
twitter
371 X users
facebook
12 Facebook pages
googleplus
7 Google+ users
reddit
4 Redditors
video
2 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
171 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
469 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Males Under-Estimate Academic Performance of Their Female Peers in Undergraduate Biology Classrooms
Published in
PLOS ONE, February 2016
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0148405
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel Z. Grunspan, Sarah L. Eddy, Sara E. Brownell, Benjamin L. Wiggins, Alison J. Crowe, Steven M. Goodreau

Abstract

Women who start college in one of the natural or physical sciences leave in greater proportions than their male peers. The reasons for this difference are complex, and one possible contributing factor is the social environment women experience in the classroom. Using social network analysis, we explore how gender influences the confidence that college-level biology students have in each other's mastery of biology. Results reveal that males are more likely than females to be named by peers as being knowledgeable about the course content. This effect increases as the term progresses, and persists even after controlling for class performance and outspokenness. The bias in nominations is specifically due to males over-nominating their male peers relative to their performance. The over-nomination of male peers is commensurate with an overestimation of male grades by 0.57 points on a 4 point grade scale, indicating a strong male bias among males when assessing their classmates. Females, in contrast, nominated equitably based on student performance rather than gender, suggesting they lacked gender biases in filling out these surveys. These trends persist across eleven surveys taken in three different iterations of the same Biology course. In every class, the most renowned students are always male. This favoring of males by peers could influence student self-confidence, and thus persistence in this STEM discipline.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 371 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 469 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 8 2%
Australia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Luxembourg 1 <1%
Unknown 456 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 97 21%
Researcher 60 13%
Student > Master 50 11%
Student > Bachelor 41 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 27 6%
Other 98 21%
Unknown 96 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 82 17%
Social Sciences 75 16%
Psychology 40 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 24 5%
Physics and Astronomy 17 4%
Other 118 25%
Unknown 113 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 684. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 September 2023.
All research outputs
#30,960
of 25,576,801 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#529
of 223,073 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#461
of 411,031 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#11
of 5,369 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,801 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 223,073 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 411,031 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,369 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.