Is reading a feminine domain? The role of gender identity and stereotypes in reading motivation in Chile

Abstract

In Chile, as in other countries, there are large gender gaps in reading achievement. One factor that may explain some of these results is male and female students’ motivation towards reading and books. The present study examined gender-related factors that contribute to explain students’ reading motivation. One hundred and fifteen Chilean secondary students completed measures of reading motivation, gender identity and reading gender stereotypes. A multivariate analysis of variance showed that after controlling for language arts achievement, female students exhibited higher levels of reading motivation, in both dimensions: self-concept and value. Paired samples t-tests showed that all participants, male and female, viewed reading as a more feminine endeavor, revealing reading gender stereotypes. A multiple regression analysis showed that reading gender stereotypes explained significant variance in students’ reading self-concept. Expressive identity traits (stereotypically feminine) as well as self-reported sexism both explained significant variance in the value that students associated with reading. The study offers empirical evidence about a relevant but understudied topic, especially in this region. These findings may contribute to the promotion of equal literacy development opportunities for students of both sexes in Latin America.

Introduction and literature overview

One central aim of educational policies worldwide is to achieve learning in all students, regardless of their social group (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] 2016). In Chile, this concern is particularly relevant given the wide gaps in academic achievement of different groups of students both in national and international tests (Educational Quality Agency 2018, 2019a, b; Mullis et al. 2016). Assessments in Chile and elsewhere in the world reveal that socioeconomic status (SES) and sexFootnote 1 are the variables that best explain the lack of equity in learning (OECD 2016). Results show that students from higher socioeconomic levels obtain better results than those with poorer socioeconomic conditions; males outperform females in mathematics and sciences; and females, on the other hand, achieve higher scores in reading than males (OECD 2016).

Notwithstanding the above, in recent years the gender gap in mathematics has been narrowing in several countries (including the United States and Chile) (Educational Quality Agency 2019b; Hyde et al. 2008). However, in reading comprehension the gaps have remained stable and, in the case of Chile, they have widened, especially towards the end of the school trajectory (Educational Quality Agency 2019b). This situation is especially relevant considering that reading comprehension is a fundamental requirement for academic success (Connor et al. 2011; Snow 2002), as well as for participation in an increasingly literate society (Snow et al. 1998).

During the last decades, several international investigations have been carried out around this topic, identifying individual and contextual variables that may explain the gap. These variables include skills, attitudes towards different areas of knowledge, identity, gender stereotypes, beliefs and expectations of parents and teachers, and pedagogical practices. Regarding biological factors, it is noteworthy that although the neurosciences have identified some average differences in brain structure and functioning between men and women, there is no reliable way of dividing brains into “male” or “female” based on their morphology or function (Joel et al. 2015), and furthermore, there is no evidence that average brain sex differences are linked to learning (OECD 2007). In addition, there are few differences in verbal cognitive abilities between men and women (Hedges and Nowell 1995; Hyde and Linn 1988). All this would suggest that gender gaps in learning are more likely to be the result of socialization than of biological factors.

Despite the relevance of this issue, few studies have explored the social factors associated with the gender gap in favor of women in secondary education reading. Most of the research in Chile has focused on math gaps, and/or primary school. This study aims to contribute to the understanding of this phenomenon, focusing on the role of identity and gender stereotypes in the reading motivation of Chilean high school students.

Differences between males and females in reading achievement

The gender gaps in favor of females in reading achievement are well documented. The results of the 2016 PIRLS test (Progress in International Reading Literacy Study) revealed that in 48 of the 50 participating countries, fourth grade female students had a better reading performance than boys. This gap has persisted since the origins of the test and has not been reduced in recent years (Mullis et al. 2017).

Additionally, the 2013 results of the Third Regional Comparative and Explanatory Study in Latin America and the Caribbean (TERCE), show that third grade females perform significantly better than males in reading and writing in all 15 participating Latin-American countries. In sixth grade, only in Ecuador and Guatemala, males present a slight advantage. In the case of Chile, a significant difference was found in favor of girls in both grade levels. This advantage was larger in sixth grade than in third grade, and it was larger than the regional gap (Gelber et al. 2016). Consistently, the latest results of Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) revealed that in the 79 countries evaluated there is a gap in favor of female 15-year-olds in reading (OECD 2019). In Chile that gap has remained steady during the last four evaluations (Educational Quality Agency 2019a, b).

In the same line, results of the 2018 Chilean “System for Measuring the Quality of Education” (SIMCE) showed a gap in favor of female students in reading comprehension in all the grade levels tested (4th, 6th, and 10th), which widens as students’ progress in school. In addition, in recent years Chilean male students—especially those from high SES groups—have significantly decreased their reading scores, widening the gender gap even more (Educational Quality Agency 2019b).

Furthermore, although there are no significant differences in the results of Chilean male and female students in the language portion of the university selection test (Department of Evaluation, Measurement and Educational Registry 2016), Chilean students do exhibit sex differences in their choice of field of study. More men than women choose careers and jobs related to science, information, technology, and industry, and more women choose occupations related to social sciences, care of others, education, food and clothing (Ñopo 2012; UNESCO 2012; United Nations Development Programme 2010; World Bank 2012).

Factors associated with reading achievement

How can these persistent achievement gaps be explained? Some of the factors that affect reading achievement, and which may affect males and females differently, are cognitive abilities (e.g. Hyde and Linn 1988); attitudes towards reading (e.g. Kelley and Decker 2009); gender identity (e.g. Kessels et al. 2014); teaching practices of parents (e.g. Sénéchal and Lefevre 2002) and teachers (e.g. Younger et al. 1999); parents’ and teachers’ beliefs about literacy (e.g. Sonnenschein et al. 1996; Wolter et al. 2015); the home environment (e.g. Strasser and Lissi 2009); gender stereotypes (e.g. Steffens and Jelenec 2011); and SES (e.g. Neuman 2006). Regarding these factors, the most explored so far have been contextual variables such as home literacy environment and teaching practices (e.g. Nag et al. 2019; Sénéchal and LeFevre 2014), or individual cognitive variables, whereas individual differences in the social dimension, such as beliefs or identity, have received less attention with regards to sex differences. However, sex differences in verbal cognitive skills are few (Hedges and Nowell 1995; Hyde and Linn 1988), while numerous studies show that there are sex differences in attitudes and beliefs toward reading (e.g. Heyder et al. 2017; McGeown 2015). In the next section we discuss what is known about sex differences in these non-cognitive variables related to reading achievement.

Attitudes towards reading

While differences in verbal cognitive abilities between men and women are few (Hedges and Nowell 1995; Hyde and Linn 1988), numerous studies show that there are sex differences in attitudes toward reading. One of the attitudinal variables that has been most studied, due to its important relationship with academic success, is motivation (Gutman and Schoon 2013). Research reveals that males feel less motivated and committed as readers than females (Baker and Wigfield 1999; McGeown 2015; Smith and Wilhelm 2002; Wigfield and Guthrie 1997), and that this intensifies with age (Kelley and Decker 2009; McKenna et al. 2012). The questionnaires of the PISA 2009 test confirmed the lower commitment to reading by male adolescents in the 65 participating countries (OECD 2010).

While there are many theories on motivation (Gutman and Schoon 2013), a model that has been widely used in the school context in relation to the gender gap, is the Expectancy-Value Theory (Eccles 1983; Wigfield and Eccles 2000). According to this theory, the performance, persistence and choices of individuals can be explained based on their expectations of how well they will do in a given activity, and on the value that they attribute to that activity. Task value encompasses the importance of the task for the self, the task interest, the task’s utility, and the task’s cost (in terms of time, effort, stress or loss of other valued elements). Expectations of achievement have to do with specific beliefs individuals have about their future success in a task, and are usually measured asking students how well they believe they could do a given task. Expectations of achievement frequently overlap with self-concept and self-efficacy regarding that task.

Expectancy-value theory has been tested mainly for math achievement (e.g. Meece et al. 1990). However, some studies show that beliefs about one’s competence in language arts, together with task value, predict academic achievement and choice in that subject area as well (Eccles 1987; Eccles et al. 1994; Spinath et al. 2004; Watt 2004). Because girls tend to have a better self-concept in language than boys, and also value reading tasks more, expectancy-value theory is successful in explaining their higher performance in that area (Eccles et al. 1993; Jacobs et al. 2002; Kelley and Decker 2009; Marinak and Gambrell 2010; Wigfield et al. 1997). Accordingly, a recent study conducted in Germany that applied the expectancy-value model showed that boys’ underachievement in language in high school was explained by their academic self-concept and task value, in addition to their parents’ perceptions. These findings indicate that students’ motivational beliefs are relevant in explaining males’ lower achievement in language arts (Heyder et al. 2017).

Reading-related gender stereotypes (RGS)

Because it predicts that beliefs about the importance of a task and about one’s ability to accomplish it will influence motivation, expectancy-value theory is consistent with the possibility that academic gender stereotypes explain some differences in motivation and achievement between males and females (Halpern 2006; Martinot et al. 2011; Plante et al. 2009).

Gender stereotypes are defined as beliefs about the characteristics that men and women are likely to have, including skills, preferences and personality traits. Often, they are prescriptive beliefs as well, which reflect what men and women should be (Deaux and LaFrance 1998).

Studies of gender stereotypes about academic achievement have revealed that more mathematics skill is usually attributed to males (Cvencek et al. 2011), and more reading skill to women (Eccles et al. 1994; Freedman-Doan et al. 2000; Martinot et al. 2011; Steffens and Jelenec 2011). Consistently, academic gender stereotypes have been shown to predict academic self-concept, academic achievement, course choice, and career aspirations (Guimond and Roussel 2001; Halpern 2006; Martinot et al. 2011; Plante et al. 2009). Specifically regarding reading, studies with self-report questionnaires, implicit measures, and in-depth interviews, have revealed that high school students perceive tasks related to reading as feminine (Millard 1997; Plante et al. 2009; Steffens and Jelenec 2011).

The perception of reading tasks as more appropriate or easier for females could affect both the achievement expectations and perceived value of a task for males and females. Social Identity Theory (Tajfel 1974; Tajfel and Turner 1979) posits that membership in a group provides the basis for self-evaluation, and that intergroup comparisons can also play an important role in that process. In this way, the stereotype that women are better for reading than men (RGS), would have a positive effect on females’ self-concept as readers, and a negative effect in that of males.

However, this process may very well be dependent on how much a person identifies with gender stereotypes. That is to say, if reading is considered a feminine endeavor because it is seen as a “reflexive” or “calm” activity, for example, and these traits are stereotypically associated with women, then a woman who for whatever reason does not identify as reflexive or calm, may be less affected by these reading-related gender stereotypes. Therefore, it is possible that gender identity plays a relevant role on the way in which reading and gender stereotypes relate to each other.

Gender identity

Gender identity has been defined as the feeling a person has about being male or female (Barberá 1998; Egan and Perry 2001; Wood and Eagly 2009). It is linked to the degree to which a person considers as part of their identity the characteristics and roles socially assigned to men and women (Rocha-Sánchez 2009).

There are multiple theoretical perspectives about the development of gender identity. One that has gained importance in recent decades is the multifactorial theory of gender identity. This theory was elaborated by Spence (1993), and posits that gender identity has four components. The first component consists of masculinity and femininity traits, which are aligned with the categories of the instrumental (masculine) versus the expressive (feminine). The second component relates to gender stereotypes, the beliefs shared by a social group about activities, traits or attributes that distinguish men and women. The third components are gender roles, activities that are considered dominant or characteristic of one sex and are associated with a social role. The last component corresponds to attitudes towards gender roles, which refer to the evaluation of different roles that men and women are assigned (Rocha-Sánchez 2009). Regarding identification with so-called male and female traits, one of the most used instruments is the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI; Bem 1974), which evaluates individuals’ identification with traits that are high in instrumentality and/or agency (such as assertiveness, competitiveness and independence) and with traits linked to expressiveness and care of others (such as dependency, deference, cooperation and care) (Bem 1974).

Students’ identification with traits that are stereotypically masculine or feminine may play a relevant role on their tendency to engage in different activities. The Identity-Based Motivation Theory (Elmore and Oyserman 2012), claims that individuals prefer to act in ways that feel in line with their social identities, such as gender identity. More specifically to gender, the Interests as Identity Regulation Model (Kessels et al. 2014) claims that individuals are more likely to be interested in domains that they perceive as fitting their gender identity, while they exclude themselves from those they consider to be discrepant. According to this theory, the stereotypes that associate reading with femininity would generate a mismatch between masculine gender identities and reading involvement, motivation, and perhaps even success.

Consistent with these views, McGeown et al. (2012) found that among 182 primary school students, intrinsic reading motivation was better explained by gender identity than by sex itself. However, Vantieghem et al. (2014a) obtained inconsistent results regarding gender identity and reading motivation. In a study with more than six thousand Flemish seventh graders, both boys and girls scored higher in reading self-efficacy when their gender identity matched their sex. According to the interests as identity regulation model, and if reading is considered a feminine activity, this result should be expected for girls, whereas for boys it is against what the model predicts. The authors explained this surprising result alluding to the lower wellbeing of both boys and girls who have lower gender typicality, because of the socially challenging position this creates for the youngsters. An alternative explanation, however, could be related to the degree to which students actually believe reading to be feminine or masculine (i.e. RGS), a factor that was not measured in that study. Conceivably, the strength of gender identity’s association with reading motivation could vary depending on how much the student endorses stereotypes that view reading as a predominantly feminine activity. In the present study we seek to evaluate the joint contribution of gender identity and gender stereotypes in the reading motivation of male and female high school students. Additionally, this is the first study of this type conducted in a sample of Latin American secondary students, contributing to the generalization of previous results regarding the role of gender factors on reading motivation.

Goals and hypotheses

The present study seeks to identify the contribution of gender identity and reading-gender stereotypes (RGS), to the reading motivation of Chilean high school students (reading self-concept and value), controlling for reading achievement and student’ sex.

Specific goals

  1. 1.

    Identify sex differences in students’ reading self-concept and the value they give to reading.

  2. 2.

    Examine the presence and degree of adherence to reading-gender stereotypes in Chilean high school students.

  3. 3.

    Determine the contribution of students’ gender identity and their adherence to reading-gender stereotypes to their self-concept and the value they place on reading, controlling for their general gender stereotypes (sexism).

Hypotheses

Consistent with previous research, we expect female students to exhibit a higher academic self-concept and to attribute greater value to reading than male students. We also expect high school students to endorse RGS, in the sense that they associate reading with females and attribute greater academic ability and a higher level of reading motivation to female students compared to males. Finally, we expect gender identity and RGS to contribute unique variance to reading motivation. Specifically, it is hypothesized that identification with expressive identity traits, will have a positive linear effect on the level of reading motivation of the total sample of students, while identification with the instrumental traits will have a negative effect. As for RGS, it is expected that female students who more strongly endorse RGS (that reading = female) will exhibit higher reading motivation (reading self-concept and value), while male students who adhere more strongly to those stereotypes will experience the opposite effects. That is, the students’ reading motivation will correlate with their belief that their own gender is associated with reading.

Methodology

Design

The study had a correlational-comparative design (Balluerka and Vergara 2002), with student sex as a grouping variable. Student SES was controlled by design, since all participants belong to medium–low SES schools. The Chilean educational system is one of the most socioeconomically segregated school systems in the world, and therefore there is very little SES variability within each type of school (Valenzuela et al. 2013).

Participants

Participants were 115 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th grade students (53% female) from two urban schools in the Metropolitan Region of Chile. The schools were selected through personal contacts with teachers. Average age of students was 15.91 years (SD = 1.077), with a range of 14 to 19 years.

Instruments

Reading motivation

An adaptation of the Motivation to Read Profile (Gambrell et al. 1996) was used. A version for primary students that had been validated in Chile (Navarro et al. 2018) was used as a base, and modifications were added from the revised version of the original instrument (Malloy et al. 2013), as well as from the version for adolescents (Pitcher et al. 2007). The resulting self-report questionnaire contains 20 four-point items. It consists of two scales that measure two dimensions of the expectancy-value theory (Eccles 1983; Wigfield and Eccles 2000): reading self-concept and value associated with reading. The first scale contains 10 items about how the student perceives him or herself, and how they think they are perceived by his or her peers with respect to reading skills. The second scale contains 10 items on the importance students attribute to reading, as well as their commitment to it (see “Appendix 2”). Cronbach’s alpha in our sample was 0.808 for self-concept and 0.824 for value (Table 1).

Table 1 Internal consistency indices of the scales used

Reading-gender stereotypes (RGS)

A questionnaire created for the purposes of this research was used, which measures explicit gender stereotypes regarding reading. This instrument asks participants to indicate which group—men or women—is better at and more inclined to certain activities (“Comparing men and women, who do you think…?”). The instrument has two scales. The first scale, Gender Stereotypes about Reading Skills (9 items), concerns the skills necessary to engage in different reading activities. The Gender Stereotypes about Reading Motivation Scale, which has 9 items, addresses reading preferences and values. Each item is scored in a seven-point scale as follows 1: men much more than women; 2: men more than women; 3: men a little more than women; 4: men and women alike, 5: women a little more than men; 6: women more than men; 7: women much more than men (see “Appendix 3”). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.840 for the reading skills stereotypes scale, 0.814 for the motivation stereotypes scale, and 0.882 for the total scale (Table 1). In order for the scores to have the same meaning for males and females in our sample, we calculated the degree to which each student believes that their own gender has more reading skills and reading motivation. To do this, men’s score was reversed. The scores thus generated we called “Total RGS recoded”.

Gender identity

To assess gender identity, we used the scales of expressive and instrumental traits of the Gender Identity Inventory, developed by Rocha-Sánchez and Díaz-Loving (2011) with an adult Mexican population. These two scales include a total of 20 items, each of which consists of a trait. For each trait, participants are asked to evaluate the degree to which that trait is an attribute of themselves, in a five-point Likert scale. The traits were divided in instrumental (masculine) or expressive (feminine) according to the theoretical proposal of Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI; Bem 1974), which has shown good psychometric properties in different countries and age ranges, proving to be a suitable way to measure masculinity and femininity in different settings (for a review see Vafaei et al. 2014). Instrumental traits were Aggressive, Competitive, Objective, Reflective, Strong, Bossy, Risk-taking, Dominant, Self-sufficient, Independent and Assertive. The expressive traits, on the other hand, were Tender, Affectionate, Attentive, Sweet, Warm, Sentimental, Sympathetic, Complacent and Emotional (see “Appendix 4”). Each participant received an instrumental and an expressive score, depending on their identification with each set of traits. Internal consistency of the scales was alpha = 0.887 for expressive traits scale and alpha = 0.782 for the receptive traits scale (see Table 1).

Sexism (general gender stereotypes)

In order to isolate variance due to individuals’ beliefs about gender and reading, from their beliefs in general gender stereotypes, a measure of general gender stereotypes, or sexism, was included in all analyses. To measure sexism we used two scales from the Gender Identity Inventory (Rocha-Sánchez and Díaz-Loving 2011): the general gender stereotypes scale, and the attitudes towards gender roles scale. The general gender stereotypes scale contains 36 statements about stereotypical characteristics of men and women. The attitudes towards gender roles scale consists of 21 items that require participants to evaluate their agreement with traditional roles assigned to men and women. Both are scored in a five-point Likert response format (1: totally disagree, 5: totally agree) (see “Appendix 4”). The two scales exhibited a very high correlation (r = .758), so they were collapsed into a single sexism scale. The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.968 (see Table 1).

Reading achievement

In order to control for the impact that previous achievement may have on the students’ motivation, self-concept, values and attitudes, we used as a control the participants’ previous year GPA in language arts, as informed directly by the school. In Chile, high school language arts focuses mostly on three main learning goals: literature (including narrative, lyrical and drama), reading comprehension (including comprehending different types of texts), and literacy for citizenship. In addition to the language arts grades, a teacher report was also used in order to control for impact of previous achievement on reading motivation. For this report, we asked each language art teacher to rank the students in their class in their reading skills.

Procedure

Principals were invited to participate in the study through email and were asked to sign a letter of authorization. Subsequently, the students were invited to participate, emphasizing the voluntary nature of participation and confidentiality of information. Students who agreed to participate signed an assent for minors and received a letter of informed consent for parents. Data collection was conducted during the school day in the students’ classrooms. The surveys took about 1 h to complete. All procedures were in accordance with ethical standards and approved by the Social Sciences and Humanities Ethics review board at the main author’s institution.

Data analysis

To achieve our first goal, we conducted a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and covariance (MANCOVA) with student’ sex as a grouping variable and language arts GPA as a covariate. Because there was a large negative correlation between GPA and teacher ranking (r = − .65), only the grade was used as an indicator of academic achievement.

For the second goal, a one-sample t test was conducted to compare the total RGS and the two RGS subscales to the answer corresponding to the option “men and women alike” (same = 4). In addition, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed with the scales of the RGS questionnaire as a dependent variable and students` sex as a grouping variable, to evaluate gender differences in the level of RGS presented.

For the last goal, two hierarchical linear regression analyses were carried out, one for each reading motivation score (one for reading self-concept and one for reading value). In both cases, control variables were introduced first (student’ sex, previous achievement (grades), and general sexism). In a second block the Gender identity variables (expressive traits and instrumental traits), and RGS were entered. In order to preserve degrees of freedom, we only used the total RGS score (recoded) in the regression analyses (See correlation matrix of variables in Appendix 1).

Results

Assumptions check

There was no autocorrelation in the residuals, given that the Durbin–Watson test value of the predictive model of reading self-concept was 2.26 (p = .180), and for the value associated was 2.18 (p = .342). The Index of Inflation of the Variance between predictors (VIF), indicate that there is no multicollinearity among the predictors used in models of both outcome variables, since all present values within acceptable ranges (< 2.19, Cohen et al. 2014) (see Appendix 1). Finally, the distribution of the residuals of estimated models was normal.

Descriptive and group comparison statistics

Regarding the academic achievement of the participants, average language arts grade was 5.30 (SD = .90) on a scale of 1.0 to 7.0 (the Chilean grade scale). Female students had significantly higher grades (ME = 5.49; SD = .95) than males (ME = 5.09; SD = .79) (t(113) = − 2.507, p = .014).

On the other hand, mean reading self-concept was 2.67 (SD = .46) and mean reading value was 2.76 (SD = .49). Regarding group differences, reading motivation was higher for females both in self-concept (F(1, 113) = 10.616, p = .001, ηp2 = 0.086), and value (F(1, 113) = 25.851, p < .000, ηp2= .186). Controlling for grades, these sex differences remain for self- concept (F(1, 112) = 6.543, p = .012, ηp2= .055), and also for value (F(1, 112) = 19.801, p < .000, ηp2= .150),

Regarding the second goal, participants exhibited gender stereotypes associated with reading (RGS), both with regards to skills t(114) = 9.128, p < .000 and motivation t(114) = 13.318, p < .000, as well as in total score t(114) = 11.372, p < .000. There were no differences between males and females in level of RGS about skills (F(1, 113) = .065, p = .800) nor in RGS about motivation (F(1, 113) = .585, p = .446).

Descriptive statistics are shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Descriptive statistics of variables of the study

Results of multiple regression models

Regression models explained significant variance in both reading self- concept (F(6, 108) = 6.527; p = .000), and reading value (F(6, 108) = 11.398, p = .000).

As shown in Table 3, the control variables (sex, grades, and general sexism) explain 18.1% of the variance in reading self-concept, which is significant (F(3,111) = 4,412, p = .000). Only student’s sex and grade were significant predictors in this model, but not general sexism (βsex= 0.165, t = 1.888, p = .010; βgrades= 0.128, t = 2.635, p = .010; βsexism= − 0.111, t = − 1.366, p = .175). When gender identity variables and RGS were added in model 2, they explained an additional and significant 8.7% of variance in reading self-concept (Fchange (3, 108) = 4.270, p = .007). In model 2, student’s sex and grades ceased to be significant predictors (βsex= 0.013, t = 0.109, p = .913; βgrades= 0.093, t = 1.966, p = .052). After accounting for the other variables in the model, RGS was a significant predictor of reading self-concept (β = 0.168, t = 2.079, p = .040), but not gender identity variables (βexpressive= 0.078, t = 1.440, p = .153; βinstrumental= 0.123, t = 1.789, p = .076). The final model explains 26.8% of the variance of reading self-concept (F(6,108) = 6.527, p = .000).

Table 3 Multiple linear regression models results

As for value associated with reading, the control variables (sex, grade, and general sexism) explain 33.0% of the variance, which is significant (F(3,111) = 18.281, p = .000). Only students’ sex and their general sexism were significant predictors, but not grades (βsex= 0.253, t = 2.993, p = .003; βgrades= 0.074, t = 1.577, p = .118; βsexism= − 0.297, t = − 3.773, p = .000). When gender identity variables and RGS were added in model 2, they explained an additional and significant 7.9% of variance in reading value (Fchange (3, 108) = 4.830, p = .003). In model 2, students’ sex ceased to be significant, but not sexism (βsex= 0.100, t = 0.881, p = .380; βsexism= − 0.293, t = − 3.781, p = .000). After accounting for the other variables in the model, only identification with expressive traits (feminine gender identity) was a significant predictor of reading value (β = 0.164, t = 3.144, p = .000), while RGS only reached marginal significance (β = 0.138, t = 1.780, p = .078). Identification with instrumental traits (masculine gender identity) was not a significant predictor of value associated with reading, after controlling for all other variables in the model (βinstrumental= − 0.024, t = − 0.360, p = .719). The final model explains 40.9% of the variance of reading value (F(6,108) = 12.467, p = .000).

Discussion

According to our hypotheses and previous findings, in this study high-school female students presented a better reading self-concept and assigned more value to reading than male students (Eccles et al. 1993; Heyder et al. 2017; Jacobs et al. 2002; Kelley and Decker 2009; Marinak and Gambrell 2010; Wigfield et al. 1997). The motivation gap in favor of women remained for both self-concept and value even after controlling for academic achievement in language arts, indicating that the higher self-concept and value that high-school female students assign to reading is not entirely due to their actual performance or the feedback they get from their teachers. According to the expectancy-value theory, individuals who exhibit higher value and expectancy with regards to a given subject are more likely to get involved in those activities (Wigfield and Eccles 2000). Therefore, males’ lower value and self-concept in reading could be one of the factors that maintains sex gaps in reading achievement.

Regarding the second hypothesis of this study, results reveal that both male and female high-school students hold the belief that women have more skills and motivation for reading than men, that is, both sexes exhibit reading-gender stereotypes (RGS). This is consistent with the findings of previous international studies (Millard 1997; Plante et al. 2009; Steffens and Jelenec 2011), and shows gender stereotyping of an area of knowledge that is central to learning (Connor et al. 2011; Snow 2002).

Regarding the role of RGS and gender identity on the different aspects of reading motivation, the results only partially support this study’s hypothesis. After controlling for previous achievement, sex, and general sexism, RGS were relevant only for predicting reading self-concept, while gender identity-specifically feminine gender identity- was relevant only with regards to value associated with reading.

In relation to RGS, it was observed that students who believe that their own gender is better and more prone to reading, tend to have a better reading self-concept, even after controlling for their actual reading school performance and their gender identity. These results are consistent with the expectancy-value theory, which posits that motivation is influenced by societal beliefs (Wigfield and Eccles 2000). These findings are also consistent with previous research conducted by Evans et al. (2011) with African-American adolescents in the United States. They found that in the literacy domain, girls’ and boys’ self-concepts were influenced by their general perceptions of the abilities of males and females. These findings imply that stereotypes about social groups held by adolescents influence their views of themselves, which would be consistent with social identity theory (Tajfel 1974; Tajfel and Turner 1979). The theory predicts that students that exhibit high levels of social identification and sense of belonging to a binary gender group, membership in that group, as well as intergroup comparisons, would provide a basis for self-evaluation. In this way, the stereotype that women are better for reading than men, would have a positive effect on women’s self-concept as readers, and a negative effect in that of men. Social identity theory additionally predicts that the impact of stereotypes will be especially strong when gender stereotypes are salient. This raises the question of whether the effect of RGS on student self-concept that we observed here would be stronger in social contexts where the division between males and females is made more relevant, such as in segregated educational settings.

RGS did not have a significant effect on the value that students assigned to reading activities. This may be explained because our measure of RGS referred to skills and intrinsic motivation, not to the social importance of reading for boys and girls. Thus, students’ beliefs that women are better readers as well as more inclined to read, did not influence their evaluation of the value of reading for themselves.

Regarding gender identity, this variable only exhibited a significant contribution to reading value, but not to reading self-concept. Specifically, students who identified more with expressive traits such as tender, sentimental, emotional, which have traditionally been associated with women, tended to find reading tasks more valuable. It is important to remember that this association persists even after controlling for sex, and that indeed, the contribution of sex to reading value is no longer significant in the final model. This is consistent with findings of previous studies that indicate that students’ gender identity is a better predictor of reading motivation (McGeown 2015; McGeown et al. 2012) and writing (Pajares and Valiante 2001) than biological sex. Present results are concordant with both the interests-as-identity-regulation model (Kessels et al. 2014), as well as with identity-based motivation theory (Elmore and Oyserman 2012), in as much as both theories claim that people prefer to get involved and engaged in activities that are perceived as in-line with their social identities, such as gender identity. Considering that, on average, participants in this study did adhere to stereotypes that associate reading with being female, it was to be expected that their identification with stereotypically feminine traits would predict their evaluation of reading activities as valuable for them. According to the two aforementioned theoretical models, interest valuing reading can be a way for students who identify with feminine traits to demonstrate their feminine identity.

One unexpected finding was that one of our control variables, sexism, had a significant negative contribution to the value assigned to reading activities. The sexism scale was added to control for general views about males and females, and it measured individuals’ endorsement of general stereotypes about male and female traits, as well as their adherence to beliefs that males and females should have different roles. Our results indicate that, after controlling for their sex, previous reading achievement, beliefs about gender-reading associations, and their gender identity, students in our sample who endorsed gender stereotypes more strongly tended to value reading less. This was surprising because, whereas an association between reading stereotypes and reading motivation was expected, an association between general stereotypes and reading motivation was not. It is possible that this association represents a spurious relationship, since sexism tends to be associated with some cultural and personality variables that are also associated with reading habits. For example, sexism has been negatively associated with empathy, social dominance, authoritarianism, openness, and agreeableness (Hellmer et al. 2018), of which at least two (openness and agreeableness) have been positively associated with reading motivation (Medford and McGeown 2012). Therefore, it is possible that the negative association between general sexism and reading value in the present study is indexing the effects of other confounding factors.

Limitations and future research

The results of this study should be interpreted in light of its limitations. One of them is the small sample size. This not only limits the statistical power and robustness of the conclusions, but also prevents the analysis of men and women separately, which would allow evaluating whether sex moderates the relationship between gender variables and reading motivation. Previous research suggests that such moderation relationships may exist; for example, that the strength of the association between gender identity and self-efficacy may be different for boys and girls (Vantieghem et al. 2014b). Unfortunately, due to our small sample we were limited to testing main effects and could not assess such interactions. Another limitation of this study is the sociocultural homogeneity of the participants, given by the very segregated nature of the Chilean school system. It is possible that results may vary depending on school characteristics.

Future research should focus on expanding and generalizing these results, as well as developing educational applications. For example, in order to prevent negative effects of gender stereotypes on boys’ reading self-concept, researchers may need to know at what point in the life cycle students begin to develop the belief that reading is a feminine activity, using longitudinal designs. It would also be interesting to explore the role played by the school institution, and particularly teachers, in reproducing or challenging RGS, through classroom observations (Espinoza and Taut 2016a). Finally, investigating the effect of RGS and gender identity directly on reading achievement would lend more validity to the model.

Conclusions

Taken together, the findings of this study show that social constructions of gender can play a significant role in the reading motivation of adolescents, and they highlight the importance of incorporating gender identity theory in research on gender gaps in education. Specifically, focusing on gender identity variables could advance our understanding not only of differences between the sexes in students’ motivation and achievement, but of differences within sex groups as well (Vantieghem et al. 2014b).

In terms of implications, and in line with what was proposed by Francis and Skelton (2005), men may present a better reading performance in contexts where gender stereotypes are less salient. In this sense, creating a school setting where there are fewer stereotypes and expectations about what women and men are supposed to like or be good at, could be a better way to support the reading achievement of male students, than trying to adapt the literacy curriculum and teaching practices to stereotypes of masculine subjects and gendered interests (Moss 2011). Interventions should focus on questioning beliefs that associate different areas of knowledge with gender (Espinoza and Taut 2016b), in order to promote equal literacy learning opportunities for men and women, thus mitigating negative effects on their educational trajectories (UNESCO 2012).

Availability of data and material

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Notes

  1. 1.

    The term sex will be used to refer to the biological difference between men and women, and the term gender, to refer to socially constructed characteristics and roles, ascribed to the masculine and feminine (Barberá 1998).

References

  1. Baker, L., & Wigfield, A. (1999). Dimensions of children’s motivation for reading and their relations to reading activity and reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly,34(4), 452–477. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.34.4.4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Balluerka, N., & Vergara, A. (2002). Designs of experimental research in psychology. Madrid: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Barberá, E. (1998). Psicología del Género [Psychology of Gender]. I. M. Benlloch (Ed.). Barcelona: Ariel.

  4. Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,42(2), 155–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2014). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for behavioral sciences. New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., Fishman, B., Giuliani, S., Luc, M., Underwood, P. S., et al. (2011). Testing the impact of child characteristics × instruction interactions on third graders’ reading comprehension by differentiating literacy instruction. Reading Research Quarterly,46(3), 189–221. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.46.3.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cvencek, D., Meltzoff, A. N., & Greenwald, A. G. (2011). Math-gender stereotypes in elementary school children. Child Development,82, 766–779. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14678624.2010.01529.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Deaux, K., & LaFrance, M. (1998). Gender. In D. T. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 788–827). New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Department of Evaluation, Measurement and Educational Registry (DEMRE) [Departamento de Evaluación, Medición y Registro Educacional]. (2016). Estadísticas sobre la rendición de pruebas 2016 [Test results report 2016]. Santiago: Author. Universidad de Chile: Vicerrectoría de Asuntos Académicos [University of Chile: Vice-rectory of Academic Affairs]. Retrieved from http://www.psu.demre.cl/estadisticas/documentos-2016-compendio-p2016.

  10. Eccles, J. S. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives: Psychological and sociological approaches (pp. 75–146). San Francisco, CA: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Eccles, J. S. (1987). Gender roles and women’s achievement-related decisions. Psychology of Women Quarterly,11(2), 135–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Harold, R. D., & Blumenfeld, P. (1993). Age and gender differences in children’s self- and task perceptions during elementary school. Child Development,64(3), 830–847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Eccles, J. S., et al. (1994). Understanding women’s educational and occupational choices: Applying the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. Psychology of Women Quarterly,4, 585–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Educational Quality Agency [Agencia de Calidad de la Educación] (2019a). PISA 2018. Entrega de resultados [PISA 2018 Results] Retrieved from http://archivos.agenciaeducacion.cl/PISA_2018-Entrega_de_Resultados_Chile.pdf.

  15. Educational Quality Agency [Agencia de Calidad de la Educación] (2018). Resultados educativos 2017 [Educational results 2017]. Santiago: MINEDUC. Retrieved from http://archivos.agenciaeducacion.cl/PPT_Conferencia_ER_2017_web_2.pdf.

  16. Educational Quality Agency [Agencia de Calidad de la Educación] (2019b). Resultados educativos 2018 [Educational results 2018]. Santiago: MINEDUC. Retrieved from http://archivos.agenciaeducacion.cl/Conferencia_EERR_2018.pdf.

  17. Egan, S. K., & Perry, D. G. (2001). Gender identity: A multidimensional analysis with implications for psychosocial adjustment. Developmental Psychology,37, 451–463. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.37.4.451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Elmore, K. C., & Oyserman, D. (2012). If ‘we’ can succeed, ‘I’ can too: Identity-based motivation and gender in the classroom. Contemporary Educational Psychology,37(3), 176–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Espinoza, A. M., & Taut, S. (2016a). El rol del género en las interacciones pedagógicas de aulas de matemática chilenas [The role of gender in pedagogical interactions in the Chilean mathematics classroom]. Psykhe,25(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.7764/psykhe.25.2.858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Espinoza, A. M., & Taut, S. (2016b). El rol de género en las aulas chilenas [The role of gender in Chilean classrooms]. En J. Manzi, J., & M. R., García (Eds.), Abriendo las puertas del aula: Transformación de las prácticas docentes [Opening the classroom door: transforming teaching practices] (pp. 449–480). Santiago: Ediciones UC.

  21. Evans, A. B., Copping, K., Rowley, S. J., & Kurtz-Costes, B. (2011). Academic self-concept in Black adolescents: Do race and gender stereotypes matter? Self and Identity,10, 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2010.485358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Francis, B., & Skelton, C. (2005). Reassessing gender and achievement: Questioning contemporary key debates. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Freedman-Doan, C., Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Blumenfeld, P., Arbreton, A., & Harold, R. D. (2000). What am I best at? Grade and gender differences in children’s beliefs about ability improvement. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,21(4), 379–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Gambrell, L., Palmer, B., Codling, R., & Mazzoni, S. (1996). Assessing motivation to read. The Reading Teacher,49(7), 518–533. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.49.7.2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Gelber, D., Treviño, E., & Inostroza, P. (2016). Inequidad de género en los logros de aprendizaje en educación primaria. ¿Qué nos puede decir TERCE? [Inequality of gender in learning achievements in primary education. What can TERCE tell us?]. Santiago: Oficina Regional de Educación para América Latina y el Caribe [Regional Office of Education for Latin America and the Caribbean] (OREALC/UNESCO).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Guimond, S., & Roussel, L. (2001). Bragging about one’s grades: Gender stereotyping and students’ perception of their abilities in science, mathematics and language. Social Psychology of Education,4, 275–293. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011332704215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Gutman, L. M., & Schoon, I. (2013). The impact of non-cognitive skills on outcomes for young people. London: Education Empowerment Foundations.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Halpern, D. F. (2006). Assessing gender gaps in learning and academic achievement. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hedges, L. V., & Nowell, A. (1995). Sex differences in mental test scores, variability, and numbers of high-scoring individuals. Science,269(5229), 41–45. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7604277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hellmer, K., Stenson, J. T., & Jylhä, K. M. (2018). What’s (not) underpinning ambivalent sexism? Revisiting the roles of ideology, religiosity, personality, demographics, and men’s facial hair in explaining hostile and benevolent sexism. Personality and Individual Differences,122, 29–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.10.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Heyder, A., Kessels, U., & Steinmayr, R. (2017). Explaining academic—Track boys’ underachievement in language grades: Not a lack of aptitude but students’ motivational beliefs and parents’ perceptions? British Journal of Educational Psychology,87(2), 205–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hyde, J., Lindberg, S., Linn, M., Ellis, A., & Williams, C. (2008). Gender similarities characterize math performance. Science,321(5888), 494–495. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1160364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (1988). Gender differences in verbal ability: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,104, 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.104.1.53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Jacobs, J. E., Lanza, S., Osgood, D., Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Changes in children’s self competence and values: Gender and domain differences across grades one through twelve. Child Development,73(2), 509–527. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Joel, D., Berman, Z., Tavor, I., Wexler, N., Gaber, O., Stein, Y., et al. (2015). Sex beyond the genitalia: The human brain mosaic. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,112(50), 15468–15473. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1509654112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kelley, M. J., & Decker, E. O. (2009). The current state of motivation to read between middle school students. Reading Psychology,30(5), 466–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710902733535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kessels, U., Heyder, A., Latsch, M., & Hannover, B. (2014). How gender differences in academic engagement relate to students’ gender identity. Educational Research,56(2), 220–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2014.898916.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Malloy, J. A., Marinak, B. A., Gambrell, L. B., & Mazzoni, S. A. (2013). Assessing motivation to read. The Reading Teacher,67(4), 273–282. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Marinak, B. A., & Gambrell, L. B. (2010). Reading motivation: Exploring the elementary gender gap. Literacy Research and Instruction,49(2), 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070902803795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Martinot, D., Bages, C., & Desert, M. (2011). French children’s awareness of gender stereotypes about mathematics and reading: When girls improve their reputation in math. Sex Roles,66, 210–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0032-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. McGeown, S. P. (2015). Sex or gender identity? Understanding children’s reading choices and motivation. Journal of Research in Reading,38(1), 35–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2012.01546.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. McGeown, S., Goodwin, H., Henderson, N., & Wright, P. (2012). Gender differences in reading motivation: Does gender or gender identity provide a better account? Journal of Research in Reading,35(3), 328–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01481.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. McKenna, M. C., Conradi, K., Lawrence, C., Jang, B. G., & Meyer, J. P. (2012). Reading attitudes of middle school students: Results of a US survey. Reading Research Quarterly,47(3), 283–306. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Medford, E., & McGeown, S. P. (2012). The influence of personality characteristics on children’s intrinsic reading motivation. Learning and Individual Differences,22(6), 786–791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.06.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Meece, J. L., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1990). Predictors of math anxiety and its influence on young adolescents’ course enrollment intentions and performance in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology,82(1), 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Millard, E. (1997). Differently literate: Gender identity and the construction of the developing reader. Gender and Education,9(1), 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540259721439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Moss, G. (2011). Policy and the search for explanations for the gender gap in literacy attainment. Literacy,45(3), 111–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2016). TIMSS 2015 international results in mathematics. Retrieved from http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/international-results/.

  49. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2017). PIRLS 2016 international results in reading. Retrieved from http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2016/international-results/.

  50. Nag, S., Vagh, S. B., Dulay, K. M., & Snowling, M. J. (2019). Home language, school language and children’s literacy attainments: A systematic review of evidence from low-and middle-income countries. Review of Education,7(1), 91–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Navarro, M., Orellana, P., & Baldwin, P. (2018). Validation of the reading motivation scale in Chilean elementary school students. Psykhe,27(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.7764/psykhe.27.1.1078.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Neuman, S. B. (2006). The knowledge gap: Implications for early education. In D. Dickinson & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 2, pp. 29–40). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Ñopo, H. (2012). New century, old disparities: Gender and ethnic earnings gaps in Latin America and the Caribbean. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank/World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). (2007). Understanding the brain: The birth of a learning science. Paris: OECD Publishing, PISA.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2010). PISA 2009 results: Learning to learn: Student engagement, strategies and practices (Vol. 3). Paris: PISA, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264083943-en.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2016). PISA 2015 results: Excellence and equity in education (Vol. 1). Paris: PISA, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-en.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2019). PISA 2018 results (Volume II): Where all students can succeed. Paris: PISA, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b5fd1b8f-en.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (2001). Gender differences in writing motivation and achievement of middle school students: A function of gender orientation? Contemporary Educational Psychology,26(3), 366–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Pitcher, S. M., Albright, L. K., DeLaney, C. J., Walker, N. T., Seunarinesingh, K., Mogge, S., et al. (2007). Assessing adolescents’ motivation to read. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,50(5), 378–396. https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.50.5.5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Plante, I., Théorêt, M., & Favreau, O. E. (2009). Student gender stereotypes: Contrasting the perceived maleness and femaleness of mathematics and language. Educational Psychology,29(4), 385–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410902971500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Rocha-Sánchez, T. E. (2009). Desarrollo de la identidad de género desde una perspectiva psico-socio-cultural: un recorrido conceptual [Development of gender identity from a psycho-socio-cultural perspective: A conceptual journey]. Interamerican Journal of Psychology,43(2), 250–259.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Rocha-Sánchez, T. E., & Díaz-Loving, R. (2011). Desarrollo de una escala para la evaluación multifactorial de la identidad de género en población mexicana [Development of a scale for the multifactorial evaluation of gender identity in the Mexican population]. Revista de Psicología Social,26(2), 191–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Sénéchal, M., & Lefevre, J. M. (2002). Parental involvement in the development of children’s reading skills: A five-year longitudinal study. Child Development,73, 445–460. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Sénéchal, M., & LeFevre, J. (2014). Continuity and change in the home literacy environment as predictors of growth in vocabulary and reading. Child Development,85(4), 1552–1568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward a R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Sonnenschein, S., Brody, G., & Munsterman, K. (1996). The influence of family beliefs and practices on children’s early reading development. In L. Baker, P. Afflerbach, & D. Reinking (Eds.), Developing engaged readers in school and home communities (pp. 3–20). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Spence, J. (1993). Gender-related traits and gender ideology: Evidence for a multifactorial theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,64, 624–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Spinath, B., Spinath, F. M., Harlaar, N., & Plomin, R. (2004). Predicting school achievement from general cognitive ability, self-perceived ability, and intrinsic value. Intelligence,34(4), 363–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2005.11.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Steffens, M. C., & Jelenec, P. (2011). Separating implicit gender stereotypes regarding math and language: Implicit ability stereotypes are self-serving for boys and men, but not for girls and women. Sex Roles,64, 324–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9924-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Strasser, K., & Lissi, M. R. (2009). Home and instruction effects on emergent literacy in a sample of Chilean kindergarten children. Scientific Studies of Reading,13(2), 175–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behavior. Social Science Information,13, 65–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–48). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

    Google Scholar 

  74. UNESCO. (2012). World Atlas of gender equality in education. Paris: UNESCO Editions.

    Google Scholar 

  75. United Nations Development Programme. (2010). Desarrollo humano en Chile: género los desafíos de la igualdad [Human development in Chile: Gender the challenges of equality]. Santiago: United Nations Development Programme.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Vafaei, A., Alvarado, B., Tomás, C., Muro, C., Martinez, B., & Zunzunegui, M. V. (2014). The validity of the 12-item Bem Sex Role Inventory in older English population: An examination of the androgyny model. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics,59(2), 257–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Valenzuela, J. P., Bellei, C., & de los Ríos, D. (2013). Socioeconomic school segregation in a market-oriented educational system: The case of Chile. Journal of Education Policy,19, 217–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2013.806995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Vantieghem, W., Vermeersch, H., & Van Houtte, M. (2014a). Transcending the gender dichotomy in educational gender gap research: The association between gender identity and academic self-efficacy. Contemporary Educational Psychology,39(4), 369–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.10.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Vantieghem, W., Vermeersch, H., & Van Houtte, M. (2014b). Why “gender” disappeared from the gender gap: (Re-)introducing gender identity theory to educational gender gap research. Social Psychology of Education,17(3), 357–381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-014-9248-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Watt, H. M. (2004). Development of adolescents’ self-perceptions, values, and task perceptions according to gender and domain in 7th-through 11th-grade Australian students. Child Development,75(5), 1556–1574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology,25, 68–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Yoon, K. S., Harold, R. D., Arbreton, A. J. A., Freedman-Doan, C., et al. (1997). Change in children’s competence beliefs and subjective task values across the elementary school years: A 3-year study. Journal of Educational Psychology,89, 451–469. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.3.451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading to the amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology,89(3), 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.3.420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Wolter, I., Braun, E., & Hannover, B. (2015). Reading is for girls!? The negative impact of preschool teachers ‘traditional gender role attitudes on boys’ reading related motivation and skills. Frontiers in Psychology,6, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2009). Gender identity. In R. H. M. Leary (Ed.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 109–125). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  86. World Bank. (2012). Informe sobre el desarrollo mundial. Panorama general: Igualdad de género y desarrollo [Global development report. Overview: Gender equality and development]. Washington, DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Younger, M., Warrington, M., & Williams, J. (1999). The gender gap and classroom interactions: Reality and rhetoric? British Journal of Sociology of Education,20, 325–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425699995290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We appreciate the support of Professor Hector Carvacho for his valuable comments and suggestions during the course of this study. We thank our research assistants, Josefina Melero and Valentina Palma for their valuable work.

Funding

This study was partially funded by National Commission of Scientific and Technological Research (CONICYT) Doctoral Grant No. 21161779.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Both authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by first author. The first draft of the manuscript was written by first author. Second author translated, edited and approved the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ana María Espinoza.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethics approval

All procedures and instruments were approved by the institutional ethics review board at the main author’s institution (Report Number 18013100) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Consent to participate

Legal guardians of all participants, as well as participants themselves, gave explicit consent for participation.

Consent for publication

Legal guardians of all participants, as well as participants themselves, gave explicit consent for the study to be published.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Correlations matrix

  Reading self-concept Value associated with reading Student’s sex Language arts grade Total RGS recoded Expressive traits Instrumental traits Sexism
Reading self-concept .689** .293** .345** .345** .272** .285** − .313**
Value associated with reading .689** .431** .332** .411** .346** .185* − .507**
Student’s sex .293** .431** .227* .728** .099 .002 − .419**
Language arts grade .345** .332** .227* .244** .161 .226* − .405**
Total RGS recoded .345** .411** .728** .244** .108 − .016 − .270**
Expressive traits .272** .346** .099 .161 .108 .402** − .167
Instrumental traits .285** .185* .002 .226* − .016 .402** − .280**
Sexism − .313** − .507** − .419** − .405** − .270** − .167 − .280**
  1. *p < .001
  2. **p < .005

Appendix 2: Reading Motivation Scale

  1. 1.

    My friends believe that I am:

  2. A very good reader

  3. A good reader

  4. An average reader

  5. A bad reader

  6. 2.

    Reading a book is something that I like to do:

  7. Never

  8. Almost never

  9. Sometimes

  10. Frequently

  11. 3.

    I read:

  12. Not as well as my friends

  13. Almost like my friends

  14. A little better than my friends

  15. A lot better than my friends

  16. 4.

    My best friends think that reading is:

  17. Very entertaining

  18. Entertaining

  19. Ok

  20. Boring

  21. 5.

    When I read and I find a word that I do not know:

  22. I almost always manage to work out its meaning

  23. Sometimes I can work out its meaning

  24. I almost never work out its meaning

  25. I never work out its meaning

  26. 6.

    I tell my friends about good books that I read:

  27. Never

  28. Almost never

  29. Sometimes

  30. Many times

  31. 7.

    When I read alone I understand:

  32. Almost everything I read

  33. Some of what I read

  34. Almost nothing of what I read

  35. Nothing I read

  36. 8.

    People who read a lot are:

  37. Very interesting

  38. Interesting

  39. Boring

  40. Very boring

  41. 9.

    I am:

  42. A bad reader

  43. An ok reader

  44. A good reader

  45. A very good reader

  46. 10.

    I believe that libraries are:

  47. A very good place to spend time

  48. A good place to spend time

  49. A boring place to spend time

  50. A very boring place to spend time

  51. 12.

    I worry about what people my age think about my reading:

  52. Frequently

  53. Sometimes

  54. Almost never

  55. Never

  56. 12.

    Knowing how to read well is:

  57. Not important

  58. A little important

  59. Important

  60. Very important

  61. 13.

    When my teacher asks me about what I have read:

  62. I can never think of something to say

  63. I almost never can think of something to say

  64. Sometimes I can think of something to say

  65. I always know what to say

  66. 14.

    I think reading is:

  67. A boring way to spend time

  68. An ok way to spend time

  69. An interesting way to spend time

  70. An excellent way to spend time

  71. 15.

    Reading is:

  72. Very easy for me

  73. Somewhat easy for me

  74. Somewhat difficult for me

  75. Very difficult for me

  76. 16.

    When I am an adult:

  77. I will not spend time reading

  78. I will spend very little time reading

  79. I will spend some time reading

  80. I will spend a lot of time reading

  81. 17.

    When I’m in a group talking about books I’ve read:

  82. I hate to talk about my ideas

  83. I do not like to talk about my ideas

  84. I like to talk about my ideas

  85. I love talking about my ideas

  86. 18.

    When my teacher reads books out loud I think it is:

  87. Very entertaining

  88. Entertaining

  89. Boring

  90. Very boring

  91. 19.

    When I read aloud I am a:

  92. Bad reader

  93. Ok reader

  94. Good reader

  95. Very good reader

  96. 20.

    If someone gave me a book for my birthday. I would feel:

  97. Very happy

  98. Happy

  99. Unhappy

  100. Very unhappy

Appendix 3: Reading Gender Stereotypes Questionnaire (RGS)

Comparing men and women. Who in your opinion Men much more Men more Men a little more Men and women alike Women a little more Women more Women much more
1. They read fast Men much more Men more Men a little more Same Women a little more Women more Women much more
2. They have a hard time understanding what they read Men much more Men more Men a little more Same Women a little more Women More Women much more
3. They easily identify the central idea of a text Men much more Men more Men a little more Same Women a little more Women more Women much more
4. They get better grades in reading Men much more Men more Men a little more Same Women a little more Women More Women much more
5. They are often wrong in reading comprehension tasks Men much more Men more Men a little more Same Women a little more Women more Women much more
6. They need help to understand complex texts Men much more Men more Men a little more Same Women a little more Women More Women much more
7. They struggle to read well Men much more Men more Men a little more Same Women a little more Women more Women much more
8. They find reading difficult Men much more Men more Men a little more Same Women a little more Women More Women much more
9. They have the facility to read complex texts Men much more Men more Men a little more Same Women a little more Women more Women much more
10. They like to read Men much more Men more Men a little more Same Women a little more Women More Women much more
11. Reading is important for their academic and personal life Men much more Men more Men a little more Same Women a little more Women more Women much more
12. They participate in activities that involve reading Men much more Men more Men a little more Same Women a little more Women More Women much more
13. They think that reading is interesting Men much more Men more Men a little more Same Women a little more Women more Women much more
14. They worry if they do not do well in reading Men much more Men more Men a little more Same Women a little more Women More Women much more
15. They will need reading to have a good job in the future Men much more Men more Men a little more Same Women a little more Women more Women much more
16. They read many books Men much more Men more Men a little more Same Women a little more Women More Women much more
17. They find reading boring Men much more Men more Men a little more Same Women a little more Women more Women much more
18. They are likely to choose a job that requires a lot of reading Men much more Men more Men a little more Same Women a little more Women More Women much more

Appendix 4: Gender Identity Inventory

I. Thinking of yourself, indicate how well each of the following characteristics describe you*:

 NothingA littlePartiallyQuiteMuch
1. Aggressive [Agresivo/a]12345
2. Competitive [Competitivo/a]12345
3. Tender [Tierno/a]12345
4. Objective [Objetivo/a]12345
5. Affectionate [Cariñoso/a]12345
6. Reflexive [Reflexivo/a]12345
7. Attentive [Atento/a]12345
8. Sweet [Dulce]12345
9. Strong [Fuerte]12345
10. Warm [Cálido/a]12345
11. Bossy [Mandón/a]12345
12. Sentimental [Sentimental]12345
13. Risk-taking [Arriesgado/a]12345
14. Sympathetic [Comprensivo/a]12345
15. Dominant [Dominante]12345
16. Self sufficient [Autosuficiente]12345
17. Complacent [Complaciente]12345
18. Independent [Independiente]12345
19. Emotional [Emocional]12345
20. Assertive [Asertivo/a]12345
  1. *The words in square brackets indicate the original version of the instrument in Spanish

II. Indicate your agreement with each of the following situations:

 Strongly disagreeDisagreeNeither agree nor disagreeAgreeStrongly
1. That the man should set the rules of the home12345
2. That the man should participate in the care of the children12345
3. That women should have the same freedom as men12345
4. That the man should always have the last word12345
5. That women should have job opportunities similar to men12345
6. That men and women should develop the same tasks12345
7. That the woman should do the cooking12345
8. That the man should expresses his emotions just like a woman12345
9. That the woman should be self-sufficient12345
10. That the man should be the dominant one12345
11. That the woman should develop personally and professionally12345
12. That women should participate in decision making12345
13. That the woman should take care of the children12345
14. That the man should spend time and play with the children12345
15. That the woman should dedicate herself to the domestic tasks and stay at home12345
16. That the woman should develop outside the home12345
17. That the man should be the strong part of the relationship12345
18. That the man should take care of the children12345
19. That the woman should be submissive and sacrificed12345
20. That the man should spend more time outside the home12345
21. That the success of man should lie in having a paid job12345

III. Point out how much you agree with the following statements about men and women:

 Strongly disagreeDisagreeNeither agree nor disagreeAgreeTotally agree
1. A woman does is not completely fulfilled until she becomes a mother12345
2. The man has better skills than the woman for courtship12345
3. Emotionally the woman possesses greater strength than a man12345
4. The central axis of a family is the father12345
5. Being a man is better than being a woman12345
6. It is easier for a man than for a woman to court12345
7. Men are more aggressive than women12345
8. The family works better if it is the man who sets the rules of the home12345
9. Men are more rational than women12345
10. Life is easier and happier for a man than for a woman12345
11. A mother is more affectionate than a father12345
12. Women have innate abilities for housework12345
13. The ideal relationship between husband and wife is one in which the man provides economic support and the woman stays at home12345
14. Men are unfaithful by nature12345
15. Women have a greater capacity to care for the sick12345
16. A woman must be a virgin until marriage12345
17. Women cannot perform the same activities as men12345
18. All men must be risk takers and courageous12345
19. Even if a woman works outside the home, it is the man who has to take responsibility for supporting the family12345
20. A good wife should dedicate herself exclusively to her home and husband12345
21. A real man does not show his feelings and weaknesses12345
22. Men are superior to women.12345
23. Children are better educated by a mother than by a father12345
24. Being a man implies greater responsibility than being a woman12345
25. A man is smarter than a woman12345
26. Life is harder for a man than for a woman12345
27. Women are more intuitive than men12345
28. Infidelity is unforgivable in a woman12345
29. Men are less sensitive than women12345
30. Men like docile women12345
31. It is the man who must take charge of protecting the family12345
32. A real man is the one who has professional success12345
33. A man, unlike a woman, needs several sexual partners12345
34. A good husband is the one who provides for the family financially12345
35. There are jobs in which men should have preference over women for promotions12345
36. Women should recognize that there are jobs for which they do not have the necessary psychological characteristics12345

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Espinoza, A.M., Strasser, K. Is reading a feminine domain? The role of gender identity and stereotypes in reading motivation in Chile. Soc Psychol Educ (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-020-09571-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Gender identity
  • Stereotypes
  • Reading motivation
  • Self-concept