The Gender-Equality Paradox in Chess Participation Is Partially Explained by the Generational-Shift Account but Fully Inconsistent With Existing Alternative Accounts: A Partial Concession and Reply to Napp and Breda (2023).

IF 4.8 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Psychological Science Pub Date : 2023-12-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-08 DOI:10.1177/09567976231202461
Allon Vishkin
{"title":"The Gender-Equality Paradox in Chess Participation Is Partially Explained by the Generational-Shift Account but Fully Inconsistent With Existing Alternative Accounts: A Partial Concession and Reply to Napp and Breda (2023).","authors":"Allon Vishkin","doi":"10.1177/09567976231202461","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Napp and Breda (2023) raised three arguments against the generational-shift account of the gender-equality paradox (GEP) in chess participation. First, using finer operationalizations of the age structure of players, they showed that it partially but not fully accounts for the GEP in chess participation. I find merit in these analyses and conclusion. Second, they argued that the country-level age structure is unrelated to the GEP in chess participation, which undermines the generational-shift account of the GEP. In contrast, I provide new analyses to show that the two are related after adjusting for the U-shaped relation between gender equality and female chess participation. Finally, they argued that previous explanations of the GEP are viable for explaining the GEP in chess participation. In contrast, I argue that the global increase in the proportion of female players is incompatible with previous explanations of the GEP, and I provide new analyses to support this.</p>","PeriodicalId":20745,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976231202461","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Napp and Breda (2023) raised three arguments against the generational-shift account of the gender-equality paradox (GEP) in chess participation. First, using finer operationalizations of the age structure of players, they showed that it partially but not fully accounts for the GEP in chess participation. I find merit in these analyses and conclusion. Second, they argued that the country-level age structure is unrelated to the GEP in chess participation, which undermines the generational-shift account of the GEP. In contrast, I provide new analyses to show that the two are related after adjusting for the U-shaped relation between gender equality and female chess participation. Finally, they argued that previous explanations of the GEP are viable for explaining the GEP in chess participation. In contrast, I argue that the global increase in the proportion of female players is incompatible with previous explanations of the GEP, and I provide new analyses to support this.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
国际象棋参与中的性别平等悖论部分由代际转移账户解释,但与现有的替代账户完全不一致:对Napp和Breda的部分让步和回应(2023)。
Napp和Breda(2023)提出了三个论点,反对国际象棋参与中性别平等悖论(GEP)的代际转变。首先,通过对棋手年龄结构的精细操作,他们发现这部分但不是完全解释了国际象棋参与中的GEP。我发现这些分析和结论是有价值的。其次,他们认为国家层面的年龄结构与国际象棋参与中的GEP无关,这破坏了GEP的代际转换。相比之下,我提供了新的分析,表明在调整了性别平等和女性国际象棋参与之间的U型关系后,两者是相关的。最后,他们认为先前对GEP的解释对于解释国际象棋参与中的GEP是可行的。相比之下,我认为全球女性玩家比例的增加与之前对GEP的解释不一致,我提供了新的分析来支持这一点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological Science
Psychological Science PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
13.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
156
期刊介绍: Psychological Science, the flagship journal of The Association for Psychological Science (previously the American Psychological Society), is a leading publication in the field with a citation ranking/impact factor among the top ten worldwide. It publishes authoritative articles covering various domains of psychological science, including brain and behavior, clinical science, cognition, learning and memory, social psychology, and developmental psychology. In addition to full-length articles, the journal features summaries of new research developments and discussions on psychological issues in government and public affairs. "Psychological Science" is published twelve times annually.
期刊最新文献
Cognitive Maps for a Non-Euclidean Environment: Path Integration and Spatial Memory on a Sphere. Susceptibility to Attentional Capture by Target-Matching Distractors Predicts High Visual Working Memory Capacity. Gender Differences in Climbing up the Ladder: Why Experience Closes the Ambition Gender Gap. Racial Minorities Face Discrimination From Across the Political Spectrum When Seeking to Form Ties on Social Media: Evidence From a Field Experiment. Corrigendum to "A Practical Significance Bias in Laypeople's Evaluation of Scientific Findings".
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1