@misc{MatheisKellerKronborgetal.2019,
  author    = {Matheis, Svenja and Keller, Lena and Kronborg, Leonie and Schmitt, Manfred and Preckel, Franzis},
  title     = {Do stereotypes strike twice?},
  series = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {2},
  issn      = {1866-8364},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-51370},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-513701},
  pages     = {22},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Stereotypes influence teachers' perception of and behaviour towards students, thus shaping students' learning opportunities. The present study investigated how 315 Australian pre-service teachers' stereotypes about giftedness and gender are related to their perception of students' intellectual ability, adjustment, and social-emotional ability, using an experimental vignette approach and controlling for social desirability in pre-service teachers' responses. Repeated-measures ANOVA showed that pre-service teachers associated giftedness with higher intellectual ability, but with less adjustment compared to average-ability students. Furthermore, pre-service teachers perceived male students as less socially and emotionally competent and less adjusted than female students. Additionally, pre-service teachers seemed to perceive female average-ability students' adjustment as most favourable compared to male average-ability students and gifted students. Findings point to discrepancies between actual characteristics of gifted female and male students and stereotypes in teachers' beliefs. Consequences of stereotyping and implications for teacher education are discussed.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{MatheisKellerKronborgetal.2019,
  author    = {Matheis, Svenja and Keller, Lena and Kronborg, Leonie and Schmitt, Manfred and Preckel, Franzis},
  title     = {Do stereotypes strike twice?},
  series = {Asia-Pacific journal of teacher education},
  volume    = {48},
  journal   = {Asia-Pacific journal of teacher education},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Routledge Journals, Taylor \& Francis},
  address   = {Abingdon},
  issn      = {1469-2945},
  doi       = {10.1080/1359866X.2019.1576029},
  pages     = {213 -- 232},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Stereotypes influence teachers' perception of and behaviour towards students, thus shaping students' learning opportunities. The present study investigated how 315 Australian pre-service teachers' stereotypes about giftedness and gender are related to their perception of students' intellectual ability, adjustment, and social-emotional ability, using an experimental vignette approach and controlling for social desirability in pre-service teachers' responses. Repeated-measures ANOVA showed that pre-service teachers associated giftedness with higher intellectual ability, but with less adjustment compared to average-ability students. Furthermore, pre-service teachers perceived male students as less socially and emotionally competent and less adjusted than female students. Additionally, pre-service teachers seemed to perceive female average-ability students' adjustment as most favourable compared to male average-ability students and gifted students. Findings point to discrepancies between actual characteristics of gifted female and male students and stereotypes in teachers' beliefs. Consequences of stereotyping and implications for teacher education are discussed.},
  language  = {en}
}
@unpublished{HippLeumannSchober2024,
  author    = {Hipp, Lena and Leumann, Sandra and Schober, Pia S.},
  title     = {Partnership penalties for working in gender-atypical occupations?},
  doi       = {10.31235/osf.io/ydurp},
  pages     = {35},
  year      = {2024},
  abstract  = {Does working in a gender-atypical occupation reduce individuals' likelihood of finding a different-sex romantic partner, and do such occupational partnership penalties contribute to occupational gender segregation? To answer this question, we theorized partnership penalties for working in gender-atypical occupations by drawing on insights from evolutionary psychology, social constructivism, and rational choice theory and exploited the stability of occupational pathways in Germany. In Study 1, we analyzed observational data from a national probability sample (N= 1,634,944) to assess whether individuals in gender-atypical occupations were less likely to be partnered than individuals who worked in gender typical occupations. To assess whether the observed partnership gaps found in Study 1 were causally related to the gender typicality of men's and women's occupations, we conducted a field experiment on a dating app (N = 6,778). Because the findings from Study 2 suggested that young women and men indeed experienced penalties for working in a gender-atypical occupation (at least when they were not highly attractive), we employed a choice-experimental design in Study 3 (N = 1,250) to assess whether women and men were aware of occupational partnership penalties and showed that anticipating occupational partnership penalties may keep young and highly educated women from working in gender-atypical occupations. Our main conclusion therefore is that that observed penalties and their anticipation seem to be driven by unconscious rather than conscious processes.},
  language  = {en}
}