\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter \IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}% {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}% {\RequirePackage{color}} \usepackage{colortbl} \usepackage{wrapfig} \usepackage{ifxetex} \ifxetex \usepackage{fontspec} \usepackage{xunicode} \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash} \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{} \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}} \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}} \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}} \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}} \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono} \else \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}% {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc} \PrerenderUnicode{–} }% {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}} \usepackage[english]{babel} \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} \usepackage{float} \usepackage[]{ucs} \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash } \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{} \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}} \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}} \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,} \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ } \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>} \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}} \def\textJapanese{} \def\textChinese{} \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{} \fi \def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small} \DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25} \usepackage{relsize} \RequirePackage{array} \def\@testpach{\@chclass \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@ \else \z@ \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}% \@chnum \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else \z@ \@chclass \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else \if \@nextchar !6 \else \if \@nextchar @7 \else \if \@nextchar (8 \else \if \@nextchar )9 \else 10 \@chnum \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else \if \@nextchar p4 \else \if \@nextchar b5 \else \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi} \gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr} \def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}} \def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}} \def\abbr{} \def\corr{} \def\expan{} \def\gap{} \def\orig{} \def\reg{} \def\ref{} \def\sic{} \def\persName{}\def\name{} \def\placeName{} \def\orgName{} \def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}} \def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}} \def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}} \def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}} \def\textquoted#1{‘#1’} \def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}} \def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}} \def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}} \def\titlem{\itshape} \newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{bibl}{}{} \newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par } \newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par } \newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par} \newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par} \newenvironment{rubric}{}{} \newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par } \newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}} \newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}} \newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}} \newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}} \newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}} \newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}} \definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75} \def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}} \DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@} \def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}} \begingroup \catcode`\_=\active \gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}} \endgroup \mathcode`\_=\string"8000 \catcode`\_=12\relax \usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry} \usepackage{framed} \definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95} \usepackage{longtable} \usepackage[normalem]{ulem} \usepackage{fancyvrb} \usepackage{fancyhdr} \usepackage{graphicx} \usepackage{marginnote} \renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1} \renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize} \def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif} \pagestyle{fancy} \usepackage[pdftitle={The Influence of Sex-Role Self-Concept on Academic Performance among Secondary School Students in Kenya}, pdfauthor={}]{hyperref} \hyperbaseurl{} \paperwidth210mm \paperheight297mm \def\@pnumwidth{1.55em} \def\@tocrmarg {2.55em} \def\@dotsep{4.5} \setcounter{tocdepth}{3} \clubpenalty=8000 \emergencystretch 3em \hbadness=4000 \hyphenpenalty=400 \pretolerance=750 \tolerance=2000 \vbadness=4000 \widowpenalty=10000 \renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}% {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}% {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}% {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}} \renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}% {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}% {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}% {\reset@font\Large}} \renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}% {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}% {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}% {\reset@font\large}} \renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}% {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}% {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}% {\reset@font\normalsize}} \renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}% {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}% {-1em}% {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}} \def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt} \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par \endgroup} \def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}} \def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}} \def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}} \def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}} \@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{} \@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{} \newif\if@mainmatter \@mainmattertrue \def\chaptername{Chapter} \def\frontmatter{% \pagenumbering{roman} \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter} \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}} \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section} \def\theHsection{\roman{section}} \def\@chapapp{}% } \def\mainmatter{% \cleardoublepage \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter} \setcounter{chapter}{0} \setcounter{section}{0} \pagenumbering{arabic} \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6} \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}% \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}} \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section} \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}} } \def\backmatter{% \cleardoublepage \setcounter{chapter}{0} \setcounter{section}{0} \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2} \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}% \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter} \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}} \appendix } \newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{% \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}% {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}% \leftmargin\labelwidth \advance\leftmargin\labelsep \@openbib@code \usecounter{enumiv}% \let\p@enumiv\@empty \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}% }% \sloppy \clubpenalty4000 \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty \widowpenalty4000% \sfcode`\.\@m}% {\def\@noitemerr {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}% \endlist} \def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}} \parskip0pt \parindent1em \def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}} \newenvironment{reflist}{% \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{} {% \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}% \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}% \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}% \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}% \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}% \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}% \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}% } {\end{list}\end{raggedright}} \newenvironment{sansreflist}{% \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{} {% \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}% \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}% \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}% \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}% \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}% \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}% \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}% } {\end{list}\end{raggedright}} \newenvironment{specHead}[2]% {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}% \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}% \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}% \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}% }{} \def\TheFullDate{2015-05-15 (revised: 15 May 2015)} \def\TheID{\makeatother } \def\TheDate{2015-05-15} \title{The Influence of Sex-Role Self-Concept on Academic Performance among Secondary School Students in Kenya} \author{}\makeatletter \makeatletter \newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{% \clearpage \if@twoside \ifodd\c@page \hbox{}\newpage \if@twocolumn \hbox{}\newpage \fi \fi \fi } \makeatother \makeatletter \thispagestyle{empty} \markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author} \renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@ \belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip \abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@ \belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@ \def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@ \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@ \itemsep 1pt} } \makeatother \fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm} \fancyhf{} \setlength{\headheight}{14pt} \fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} \fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} \fancyfoot[RO]{} \fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage} \fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID} \fancyfoot[LE]{} \fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage} \fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID} \hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true} \fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}} \date{} \usepackage{authblk} \providecommand{\keywords}[1] { \footnotesize \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1 } \usepackage{graphicx,xcolor} \definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81} \definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9} \definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70} \definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} \renewenvironment{abstract}{% \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}} \vskip16pt \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space} }{% \vskip8pt \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}} \vskip16pt } \usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos} \makeatother \usepackage{lineno} \linenumbers \begin{document} \author[1]{Rael Achieng Ogwari} \author[2]{Catherine Simiyu} \author[3]{Jonah Nyaga Kindiki} \affil[1]{ Moi University} \renewcommand\Authands{ and } \date{\small \em Received: 5 April 2015 Accepted: 3 May 2015 Published: 15 May 2015} \maketitle \begin{abstract} The study examined the influence of sex-role selfconcept on academic performance among students in coeducational secondary schools in Siaya District. The sample comprised 154 boys and 89 girls in Form 3. Bem?s Sex-role Inventory (BSRI) was used to collect data on masculinity and femininity while students? academic scores were obtained from school records. Linear Regression analysis revealed that sex-role self-concept predicts academic performance. Sex-role self-concept also explained significant variance in academic scores. The results further showed significant difference between the academic mean scores of androgynous, masculine, feminine, and undifferentiated students. However, the androgynous students had better academic mean score than the other students. The results support the view that sex-role self-concept is a predictor of achievement than gender. \end{abstract} \keywords{collect data on masculinity and femininity while students? academic scores were obtained from school records.} \begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) \textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark} \end{textblock*} \begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) \textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}} \end{textblock*} \let\tabcellsep& \hyperref[b49]{Schaps, 2005)}\par . To discern the significance of sex-role self-concept in academic performance, Orlofsky and Stake (1981) investigated the relative influence of gender and individual differences in psychological achievement, interpersonal strivings abilities and selfconcepts of 176 male and female college students. The results indicated that psychological masculinity and femininity were better predictors of strivings and selfconcept in the achievement and interpersonal domains than gender. Despite its significance in academic performance of students, sex-role self-concept has not been widely investigated. This paper focuses on the influence of sex-role self-concept and academic performance of students in Siaya District. \section[{II.}]{II.} \section[{Literature Review}]{Literature Review}\par Sex-role self-concepts can be categorized as masculinity, femininity, androgynous and undifferentiated with each category having varying influence on academic performance. Androgynous persons are better adjusted psychologically, more popular, and have higher self-esteem than masculine, feminine or undifferentiated persons \hyperref[b7]{(Bem, 1985)}. The masculine component of androgyny such as independence, self-reliance and confidence is most strongly associated with psychological well being and academic performance. \hyperref[b21]{Flaherty and Dusek (1980)} used a Multidimensional Semantic Differential Scale to assess the relationship of self-concept to sex-role and achievement. The researchers concluded that the critical dimension in Achievement-Leadership is masculinity which is linked to Instrumental-Agentic concerns while the critical dimension for Congeniality-Sociability is femininity which is linked to Expressive-Communal concerns. \hyperref[b53]{Spence and Helmerich (1978)} observed that individual differences in four components of achievement motivation (mastery, work, competitiveness and personal concern) are attributable to masculinity and femininity rather than to gender. Masculinity emerged as a beneficial constellation of traits for both males and females correlating positively with mastery and work. Femininity appeared to be detrimental cluster of traits for both sexes, at least in terms of academic performance. A study of 1,688 sixth, seventh, and eighth graders showed that the degree of masculinity or femininity accounts for significant portion of their school grades \hyperref[b11]{(Burke, 1989)}. In an effort to understand the relevance of sex-role orientation on non-traditional career choices, \hyperref[b9]{Betz and Fitzgerald (1987)} posit that psychological masculinity is a critical factor in women's self-efficacy percepts and choices for nontraditional career goals and women with psychological masculinity performs better in nontraditional career choices.\par Individuals with undifferentiated orientation have been found to exhibit lower self-esteem, less leadership behaviour and lower self-concept than individuals displaying feminine, masculine or androgynous orientation \hyperref[b11]{(Burke, 1989)}. The personality traits of people with undifferentiated sex-role self-concepts may results in poor academic performance. Persons endorsing an undifferentiated sex-role orientation express few instrumental and expressive attributes and have been described as having limited repertoire of behavioural responses to situational demands and poor socialization as compared with other sex-role groups \hyperref[b7]{(Bem, 1985)}. The individuals are scared of taking risks which Rolfe (2010) identifies as a key factor in decisions concerning academics and essential ingredient for innovative mind. \hyperref[b34]{Kuther (1998)} noted that research findings related to sex-role differences and locus of control have been contradictory and thus suggested that observed sex differences in locus of control may instead be attributed to differences in sex-role orientation. External locus of control has been associated with a feminine sex-role orientation and internal locus of control as part of the masculine sex-role orientation \hyperref[b29]{(Jenkins, 2008)}. Inconsistent with the belief, \hyperref[b32]{Kapalka and Lachenmeyer (1988)} study findings revealed that masculinity positively correlates with internal locus of control but femininity is not an important predictor of locus of control. \hyperref[b10]{Brehony and Geller (1981)} observed that androgynous females were reliably higher in internal locus of control than stereotypic females. There is relationship among sexrole orientation, cognitive complexity and tolerance for ambiguity. \hyperref[b47]{Rotter and O'Connell (1982)} study observed that male and female androgynous and cross-sexed subjects are more tolerant of ambiguity than sex-typed subjects. Cross-sexed subjects are more cognitively complex than sex-typed subjects. Cognitive complexity and intolerance to ambiguity were negatively correlated. The results indicated androgynous and cross-sexed participants were more tolerant of ambiguity than sextyped subjects. \hyperref[b50]{Schroder, Driver, and Streufert (1967)} characterize the person low in cognitive complexity as one who interprets ambiguity as a weakness or flaw in functioning. In contrast, a person high in cognitive complexity is characterized as one who views ambiguity positively as stimulus for generating multiple solutions. \hyperref[b11]{Burke (1989)} observed links between selfidentified gender roles and academic performance; data consistent with the idea that students who are identified as feminine avoid school behaviour which might be considered precursor of poor performance. \hyperref[b54]{Smith (1992)} found that increased awareness of traditional feminine norms in adolescence depress achievement in science subjects. \hyperref[b48]{Santos, Ursini, Ramirez, and Sanchez (2006)} found that girls aged between 12 and 13 who had less feminine traits performed better in math and \hyperref[b45]{Rajni (2009)} observed that undergraduate women whose gender identity were more male and less female performed better in math. The suppositions are supported by \hyperref[b20]{Faulkner (2007)} observation that women in engineering experience identity conflict termed as 'gender in authenticity' and are forced to choose between proving they are real engineers and real women.\par Sex-role self-concept may correlate to career decision making self-efficacy. {\ref Arnold and Bye (1989)} investigated the relationship between sex and sex-role self-concept on one hand and Career Decision Making Self-efficacy (CDMSE) on the other using data from 85 undergraduate business studies students. The results indicated that self-concept masculinity had a strong relationship with CDMSE, and self-concept femininity showed a weak positive relationship. There was a weak correlation between sex and CDMSE. \hyperref[b23]{Giannakos and Subich (1988)} considered the sex and sex-role orientation of 765 undergraduates as related to career choice of college major. Findings of their investigation indicated that a sex-typed orientation was associated with the selection of career fields in which the respective gender is dominant. The results add further weight to evidence that sex-role self-concept outweighs biological sex in some aspects of career development.\par Academic achievement involves self-efficacy beliefs which are the individual's capacities for the academic domain that contribute independently to academic achievement \hyperref[b44]{(Pajares \& Schunk, 2001)}. \hyperref[b5]{Bandura (1993)} posits that self-efficacy beliefs affect college outcomes by increasing students' motivation and persistence to master challenging academic tasks and by fostering the efficient use of acquired knowledge and skills. \hyperref[b60]{Torres and Solberg (2001)} found positive association between academic self-efficacy and the number of hours students spent studying while Hejazi, Shahraray, Farsinejad, and Asgary (2009) demonstrated that academic self-efficacy beliefs have a mediating effect on the association between academic achievement and self-identity styles. Filipello, Sorrenti, Larcan, and Rizzo (2013) found low academic performance associated with lower self-esteem, lower decision making self-efficacy and more dysfunctional decision-making styles.\par There is association between children's aggressive behaviour and their academic performance and aggression can be distinguished as overt or relational \hyperref[b17]{(Duncan et. al 2007)}. {\ref Tacher and Readick (2006)} found positive correlation between aggression and creative thought patterns. The observation is inconsistent with the negative connotation of aggression that is commonly accepted in society. Helibron and Prinstein (2008) suggested that aggressive behaviour emanates out of necessity in childhood, and that individuals receive emotional and social rewards and intellectual superiority over their peers from this behaviour. Loveland, Lounsburg, Welsh, and Buboltz (2007) refute the concept that using aggression has positive outcome. Their data concluded that higher levels of aggression may negatively impact on academic performance. \hyperref[b58]{Tauer and Harackiewicz (2004)} concluded that aggression in competition may drive an individual to work harder and output a stronger performance than if there were no competition.\par Children who are aggressive may spend relatively more time misbehaving, or being disciplined, reducing the amount of time they have to spend engaged in academic work \hyperref[b17]{(Duncan, et al., 2007)}. \hyperref[b56]{Stipek and Miles (2008)} study confirmed the hypothesis that the effect of aggression on achievement is partially mediated by the conflictual relationships between the students and teachers. Consistent with this proposal, \hyperref[b14]{Coie and Dodge (1988)} found that 1 st and 3 rd III.\par Method grade students who are aggressive were likely to be reprimanded by the teacher and spend less time on task than other children. Aggression, hostility, and noncompliance predicted low achievement on task behaviour in their study of 4 to 6 year old boys \hyperref[b1]{(Arnold, 1997)}. Aggressive behaviour may undermine learning indirectly because aggressive children form Conflictual relationships with teachers, which presumably diminishes the academic engagement and achievement (Silver, Measelle, Amstrong \& Essex, 2005). \section[{a) Research Design}]{a) Research Design}\par The study employed survey research design to find the relationships between sex-role self-concepts of students and their academic performance. The study was based on pragmatic research philosophy which helped the research to handle the traditional dualism of positivist and social constructivist. \section[{b) Sample}]{b) Sample}\par The study recruited 154 boys and 89 girls in secondary schools in Siaya district. The sample size for Form 3 students included in the study was determined using Raosoft sample size calculator p< .05 and a representative sample of 243 students was attained. The study sampled 27 coeducational day secondary schools in the district. Students were stratified as boys and girls and purposive sampling was used identify students living with both biological parents and sat for exams for three consecutive terms in the same school while they were in Form 2. \section[{c) Measures}]{c) Measures}\par The researcher adopted the Bem's Sex-role Inventory Femininity and Masculinity Scale \hyperref[b8]{(Bem, 1981)}. The items were scored using a five point Likert scale in which Strongly Agreed (SA), Agreed (A), Undecided (U), Disagree (D), and strongly Disagree (SD) were scored as 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. The sample mean for the students' score on masculinity was 33.58 while the sample mean for students' score on femininity was 33.56. Students' whose scores on femininity or masculinity were below one standard deviation below the sample mean were considered to be less feminine or masculine while those whose scores were above one standard deviation above the sample mean were considered feminine or masculine. Students who were less feminine and less masculine were considered as having undifferentiated sex-role self-concept while those who were neutral on femininity or masculinity were considered androgynous.\par The total score that a student could obtain in academic performance was 100\% and the average academic performance of students was 50.02\%. Students who scored one standard deviation below the sample mean were considered to have poor academic performance while those who scored above one standard deviation above the sample mean were considered good in academic performance. Students who scored between one standard deviation below the sample mean and one standard deviation above the sample mean were considered average in academic performance. The academic scores were standardized by converting them into T-scores to enable direct comparisons of the test scores. \section[{d) Procedures}]{d) Procedures}\par A letter of introduction stating the study topic and the proposed date of visit was given to the head teachers two weeks before research began as part of consent seeking processes. The researcher also explained the purpose of the research to the students. The participants were identified with the help of class teachers and guidance and counseling teachers. Scores on students' academic performance were obtained from the school records. \section[{e) Analysis}]{e) Analysis}\par In this study both descriptive and inferential statistics were used in data analysis. The statistical level of significance was set at .05. The data was analyzed using linear regression analysis, One Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), means, frequencies and standard deviation. Linear regression was used to determine the relationship between sex-role self-concept and academic performance while One Way ANOVA was used to test for significant difference between the means of academic performance of masculine, feminine, androgynous and undifferentiated students.\par IV. \section[{Results}]{Results}\par The null hypothesis stated that there is no significant relationship between sex-role self-concepts of students and their academic performance. To test this hypothesis, the students' score on sex-role self-concept and the mean academic performance of students for three consecutive terms while they were in Form 2 was calculated. The scores of the respondents on sex-role self-concept and their mean scores on academic performance were correlated using bivariate linear regression analysis. The results of the data analysis indicated that sex-role self-concepts of students significantly predicted academic scores, ? = .81, t (241) = 21.55 p < .05. Sex-role self-concept also explained significant variance in academic scores of students, R²= .66, F (1, 241) = 464.52 p < .05. The hypothesis was tested further by comparing the mean of academic performance obtained by respondents of androgynous, masculine, feminine and undifferentiated sex-role selfconcepts. The descriptive statistics (frequencies and means) of their responses are presented in Table \hyperref[tab_0]{1}.\par The mean scores of academic performance obtained by students of the four types of sex-role self-concepts were compared using one way ANOVA. The results of the analysis showed that there was a statistically significant difference in academic performance of androgynous, masculine, feminine, and undifferentiated students, F (3, 239) = 135.3, p < .05. It was concluded that sex-role self-concepts affect academic performance of students in Siaya district. Androgynous students had better academic mean scores than masculine, feminine, and undifferentiated students. V. \section[{Discussion}]{Discussion}\par Sex-role self-concept was categorized as masculinity, femininity, androgynous, and undifferentiated. The results indicated that sex-role selfconcepts significantly predicted academic performance and androgynous and masculine students had better academic performance than feminine and undifferentiated students. The results explicate \hyperref[b7]{Bem (1985)} observation that it is the masculine component of androgyny such as independence, self-reliance, and self-confidence that is strongly associated with psychological well being and academic performance. The androgynous students indicate the relativistic orientation characteristic of high cognitive complexity than sex-typed persons reflecting their tolerance to ambiguity. Students who are intolerant to ambiguity lack divergent thinking and therefore resort to known methods of problem solving which compromises their academic performance. Undifferentiated orientation is associated with lower self-esteem, less leadership behaviour and lower self-concept than individuals displaying feminine, masculine or androgynous orientation \hyperref[b11]{(Burke, 1989)}. The supposition supports the low academic mean score of students identified as undifferentiated.\par Jenkins (2008) asserts that masculine individuals exhibit external locus of control while feminine sex-role orientation is associated with internal locus of control. An individual with external locus of control attributes outcomes to factors outside his personal control, such as fate and luck \hyperref[b63]{(Weiner, 1986)}. \hyperref[b65]{Yan and Gaier (1994)} found that internal attributes of effort and ability are significantly related to academic success while \hyperref[b64]{Wilhite (1990)} found positive correlation between locus of control and academic achievement. To the extent that persons attribute their successes externally to luck and task characteristics, they are not likely to take responsibility for their accomplishments \hyperref[b19]{(Erkut 1983}). Furthermore, an excessive reliance on luck as a causal agent is likely to lead to reduced expectancies for success in future achievement situations. The implication of the low expectation cycle is that the students may be condemning themselves to failure through a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is possible explanation for poor academic performance of feminine students in Siaya District.\par There is a relationship between self identified gender role and academic performance with students who are identified as feminine avoiding school behaviour which might be considered masculine \hyperref[b11]{(Burke, 1989)}. Some of the feminine behaviours that are likely to be inconsistent to academic work include dependence, fear to take risk, and unassertiveness which places the students in a disadvantage position as they shy off from academic environment. The observation reflects the results of the current study in which feminine students scored low academic mean score (43.73\%) than masculine students (53.4\%). \hyperref[b54]{Smith (1992)} found that increased awareness of traditional feminine norms in adolescence depress achievement in science subject. \hyperref[b56]{Stipek and Miles (2008)} study confirmed the hypothesis that the effect of aggression on achievement is partially mediated by the conflictual relationships between the students and teachers. Children who are aggressive may spend relatively more time misbehaving, or being disciplined, reducing the amount of time they have to spend engaged in academic work \hyperref[b17]{(Duncan, et al., 2007)}. Consistent with this proposal, \hyperref[b14]{Coie and Dodge (1988)} found that 1 st and 3 rd Students who indicated that they are assertive, self-reliant, willing to take a stand, willing to defend own beliefs, independent, and have strong personality can be described as self-efficacious. Self efficacy is related to high levels of persistence in tough tasks such as academic work {\ref (Zimmermann \& Cleary, 2006)}. These are students who are able to remain focused on their academic work in spite of obstacles they experience during learning. They do not give up in circumstances of lack of school fees, disruptive thoughts, emotional reactions and inadequate learning materials such as books. Assertiveness encompasses multidimensional aspects of human expression including behaviour, affect, and cognition. Behaviourally assertive individuals are able to express their emotions, defend their goals and establish favourable interpersonal relationships \hyperref[b26]{(Herzberger, Chan, \& Katz, 1984)} while cognitively and affectively assertive individuals can appropriately deal with positive and negative emotions {\ref (Gladding, 1988)}. Students who indicated that they are assertive also agreed that they defend own beliefs, they are independent and are willing to take a stand. However, there were mixed results among students who strongly agreed and agreed that they are willing to take a stand and those who disagreed and strongly disagreed. It is possible that some students may have found it difficult to discern taking a stand from indiscipline which negatively correlates with academic performance. grade students who are aggressive were likely to be reprimanded by the teacher and spend less time on task than other children. Aggressive behaviour may undermine learning indirectly because aggressive children form Conflictual relationships with teachers, which presumably diminishes the academic engagement and achievement (Silver, Measelle, Amstrong \& Essex, 2005). The reviewed literature supports the study results in which students who strongly agreed and agreed that they are aggressive had lower mean scores in academic performance than those who disagreed and strongly disagreed with the statement. Nevid and Rathus (2007) conclude that lack of assertiveness leads to aggression and submissiveness which are likely linked to poor academic performance. Mixed results were observed relating to submissiveness with some students who indicated that they are submissive having good academic performance than those who agreed and disagreed. Academic work requires some level submissiveness, cooperation, and attention and students who lack such qualities are unlikely to perform well. Emotional expressivity is significant to adaptive human functioning and academic performance. \hyperref[b0]{Akin, et al. (2011)} define submissive behaviour as the inability to express one's emotions especially when someone else has conflicting needs and agrees that submissive behaviour is negatively associated with self-esteem and academic performance. Students who scored low in masculinity and femininity (undifferentiated) had the lowest mean score in academic performance (42.01\%). The students are likely to over rely on emotional expressivity which is a characteristic of femininity or adopts shrinking trait, and avoids confrontation because of fear or compassion.\par Risk taking plays important role in academic decisions. However, there were mixed results on students who indicated that they are willing to take risks and those who did not with high and low academic mean score being found in the two categories. This is possibly due to different perception of risk taking behaviour with those who perceive it to be linked to danger preferring avoidance behaviour which negatively influences their academic performance. Rolfe (2010) explains that risk taking can help people to make choices about their subjects and routes through education and careers. The students who are willing to take risks in academic decisions are able to evaluate alternative courses of action and build self-confidence. The experience of failure as a result of risk taking can help build resilience to set backs in challenging domains like academic achievement. \section[{VI.}]{VI.} \section[{Limitation}]{Limitation}\par The study had some limitations that could lend alternative explanations to academic performance of students. Firstly, intelligence partly depends on structural differences in the brain that are under very strong genetic control {\ref (Gray \& Thompson, 2004)}. The neurobiological differences in humans include, brain weight, inter-neural connections, intra-lobal connections, blood supply in the brain, and white-gray matter ratio. Students' academic performance can therefore be explained better as an inter-play of biological and social factors. Secondly, Bem's Sex-Role Inventory seemed to conceptualize an individual as a passive recipient of societal forces \hyperref[b4]{(Ashmore, 1990)} in the construction of sex-role self-concept. The perspective limits the possibility that an individual might interpret information in masculine but not in feminine terms, or in feminine but not masculine terms {\ref (Markus, Crane, Berstein, \& Siladi, 1982)}. There were ambiguities in definitions of masculinities and femininity since Bem's definition of masculinity and femininity was adopted and although people may be aware of stereotypic sex differences, they do not necessarily evaluate themselves in terms of known stereotype when they fill questionnaire \hyperref[b40]{(Myers \& Gonda, 1982)}. The research should have been flexible enough and allow the respondents to provide own personal definitions of masculinity and femininity to avoid ambiguities. \section[{VII.}]{VII.} \section[{Conclusion}]{Conclusion}\par Sex-role self-concept influences academic performance with androgynous students performing better than masculine, feminine and undifferentiated students. The uniqueness of androgynous students to score highly in masculinity and femininity traits gives them leverage in academic work which requires traits for both dimensions. The results of the study can be used to sensitize stakeholders in education on socialization process to enhance sex-atypical attitudes in children which will go a long way in breaking the barriers to realizing academic potentials of students attributed to sex-stereotypes.\begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-2.png} \caption{\label{fig_0}Introduction}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{1} \par \begin{longtable}{P{0.34096045197740116\textwidth}P{0.096045197740113\textwidth}P{0.2305084745762712\textwidth}P{0.1824858757062147\textwidth}} Sex-role self-concepts\tabcellsep Frequency\tabcellsep Mean Academic\tabcellsep Standard Deviation\\ \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Performance\tabcellsep \\ Androgynous\tabcellsep 77\tabcellsep 60.18\tabcellsep 7.35\\ Masculine\tabcellsep 41\tabcellsep 53.4\tabcellsep 4.98\\ Feminine\tabcellsep 48\tabcellsep 43.73\tabcellsep 5.03\\ Undifferentiated\tabcellsep 77\tabcellsep 42.01\tabcellsep 5.94\\ Total\tabcellsep 243\tabcellsep 50.02\tabcellsep 9.98\end{longtable} \par \caption{\label{tab_0}Table 1 :}\end{figure} \footnote{© 2015 Global Journals Inc. (US)} \backmatter \begin{bibitemlist}{1} \bibitem[Feminity and Masculinity]{b12}\label{b12} \textit{}, / Feminity , Masculinity . New York: McMillan. 56 p. . \bibitem[Burke ()]{b11}\label{b11} \textit{}, P J Burke . 1989. \bibitem[Santos et al. ()]{b48}\label{b48} \textit{}, D Santos , S Ursini , M Y Ramirez , G Sanchez . 2006. \bibitem[Zimmerman and Cleary ()]{b66}\label{b66} \textit{}, B J Zimmerman , T J Cleary . 2006. \bibitem[Filipello et al. ()]{b22}\label{b22} ‘Academic Underachievement, Self-esteem and Self-efficacy in Decision’. P Filipello , L Sorrenti , R Larcan , A Rizzo . \textit{Mediterrenean Journal of Clinical Psychology} 2013. 1 p. . \bibitem[Pajares Urdan]{b67}\label{b67} ‘Adolescents' Development of Personal Agency. The Role of Self-Efficacy Beliefs and Self-Regulatory Skills’. \textit{Beliefs of Adolescents}, F Pajares, T Urdan (ed.) (Greenwich, CT) Information Age. p. . \bibitem[Akin et al. ()]{b0}\label{b0} A Akin , S A Satici , F Rifat . \textit{Emotional Expressivity and Submissive Behaviour. 2 nd}, 2011. \bibitem[Flaherty and Dusek ()]{b21}\label{b21} ‘An Investigation of the Relationship Between Psychological Androgyny and Components of Self-Concept’. J F Flaherty , J B Dusek . \textit{Journal of Personality and Social Psychology} 1980. 18 p. . \bibitem[Bem ()]{b7}\label{b7} ‘Androgyny and Gender Schema Theory: A Conceptual and Emperical Integration’. S L Bem . \textit{Nebraska Symposium Motivation: Psychology and Gender}, T B Sonderegger (ed.) (Lincoln) 1985. University of Nebraska Press. p. . \bibitem[Weiner ()]{b63}\label{b63} \textit{Attributional Theory of Motivation and Emotion}, B Weiner . 1986. Nerw York: Springer. \bibitem[Steinberg ()]{b55}\label{b55} ‘Autonomy, Conflict, and Harmony in the Relationship’. L Steinberg . \textit{At the Threshold: The Developing Adolescent}, S Feldman, G R Elliot (ed.) (Cambridge MA) 1990. Havard University Press. p. . \bibitem[Jorm et al. ()]{b31}\label{b31} ‘Behaviour Problems in Specific Reading Retarded and General Reading Backward Children: A Longitudinal Study’. A F Jorm , D Share , R Matthews , R Maclean . \textit{Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry} 1986. 27 p. . \bibitem[Wallace ()]{b62}\label{b62} ‘Black Male Gender Role: Socialization and the Performance of Masculinity in Love Relationships’. D M Wallace . \textit{Journal of Pan African Studies} 2007. 7 p. . \bibitem[Yan and Gaier ()]{b65}\label{b65} ‘Cauasal Attributions for College Success and Failure: An Asian-American Comparison’. W Yan , E Gaier . \textit{Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology} 1994. 25 p. . \bibitem[Arnold ()]{b1}\label{b1} ‘Co-occurrence of Externalizing Behaviour Problems and Emergent Academic Difficulties in Young High-Risk Boys: A Preliminary Evaluation of Patterns and Mechanisms’. D H Arnold . \textit{Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology} 1997. 18 p. . \bibitem[Miles and Stipek ()]{b39}\label{b39} ‘Contempoaneous and Longitudinal Associa-tions between Social Behaviour and Literacy Achievement in Low Income Elementary School Children’. S B Miles , D Stipek . \textit{Child Development} 2006. 77 p. . \bibitem[Gladding ()]{b24}\label{b24} \textit{Counseling: A Comprehensive Profession}, S Gladding . 1984. Princeton, NC: Merill Publishing Company. \bibitem[Nevid et al. ()]{b42}\label{b42} ‘Effect of Gender on Academic Performance of Maritime Trainees in Nigeria Taught with Web-based Resources’. J S Nevid , S A Rathus , K Okonno , B C Ushie , G Okworo . \textit{Internal Journal of Asian Social Science} 2007. 2014. 4 p. . (Adjustment and Growth: The Challenges of Life (10 th 40) \bibitem[Stipek and Miles ()]{b56}\label{b56} \textit{Effects of Aggression on Achievement. Does Conflict with the Teacher make it worse? Child Development}, D Stipek , S Miles . 2008. 79 p. . \bibitem[Myers and Gonda ()]{b40}\label{b40} ‘Emperical Validation of the Bem Sex-Role Inventory’. A M Myers , G Gonda . \textit{Journal of Personality and Social Psychology} 1982. 43 p. . \bibitem[Erkut ()]{b19}\label{b19} ‘Exploring Sex Differences in Expectancy, Attribution, and Academic Achievement’. S Erkut . \textit{Sex Roles: A Journal of Research} 1983. 9 p. . \bibitem[Hinshaw ()]{b28}\label{b28} ‘Externalizing Behaviour Problems and Academic Underachievement in Childhood and Adolescence: Causal Relationships and Underlying Mechanisms’. S P Hinshaw . \textit{Psychological Bulletin} 1992. 111 p. . \bibitem[Dayioglu and Turut-Asik ()]{b16}\label{b16} \textit{Gender Differences in Academic Performance in Large}, M Dayioglu , S Turut-Asik . 2007. 53 p. . Public University in Turkey. Higher Education \bibitem[Smith ()]{b54}\label{b54} ‘Gender Differences in Scientific Achievement of Adolescents: Effects of Age and Parental Separation’. T E Smith . \textit{Social Forces} 1992. 7 (2) p. . \bibitem[Bem ()]{b8}\label{b8} ‘Gender Schema Theory: A Cognitive Account of Sex Typing Source’. S L Bem . \textit{Psychological Review} 1981. 88 p. 354. \bibitem[Unger ()]{b61}\label{b61} \textit{Handbook of Psychology and Gender}, R K Unger . 2001. Boston: Allyn \& Bacon. \bibitem[Schroder et al. ()]{b50}\label{b50} \textit{Human Information Processing: Individuals and Groups in Complex Social Situations}, H M Schroder , M J Driver , S Streufert . 1967. New York; Rinehart. \bibitem[Hejazi et al. ()]{b25}\label{b25} ‘Identity Styles and Academic Self-Efficacy’. E Hejazi , M Sahraray , M Farsinejad , A Asgary . \textit{Social Psychology of Education} 2009. 12 p. . \bibitem[Considine and Zappala ()]{b15}\label{b15} ‘Influence of Social and Economic Disadvantage in the Academic Performance School Students in Australia’. G Considine , G Zappala . \textit{Journal of Sociology} 2002. 38 p. . \bibitem[Mulliro and Martinez-Garrido (2012)]{b41}\label{b41} \textit{Influence of the Environmental Conditions and Academic Performance in the Primary Education Classroom of Iberoamerica}, F J Mulliro , C Martinez-Garrido . \url{http://epa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1002} 2012. September, 1. 2015. \bibitem[International Conference on New Trends in Education and their Implications (2012)]{b2}\label{b2} \url{fromwww.conte.org/Fileupload} \textit{International Conference on New Trends in Education and their Implications}, June 20. 2012. \bibitem[Kothari ()]{b33}\label{b33} C R Kothari . \textit{Research Methodology and Techniques}, 2003. (nd) \bibitem[Jenkins ()]{b29}\label{b29} ‘Management Decision-Making: The Influence of Stereotyically Gendered Personality Types and Situation Manipulation. A Dessertation Presented to the Faculty of Pacific Graduate School of Psychology in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy’. A M Jenkins . \textit{Clinical Psychology} 2008. \bibitem[Spence and Helmerich ()]{b53}\label{b53} \textit{Masculinity and Femininity: Their Psychological Dimensions, Correlates and Antecedents}, J T Spence , R L Helmerich . 1978. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. \bibitem[Rajni (2009)]{b45}\label{b45} \textit{Mathematics Anxiety and Cross Gender Identity in Young Adult Males and Females. Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Award of the Degree of Master of Philosophy in Psychology}, S G Rajni . \url{http://www.truechild.org/pageDisplay.asp} 2009. August 20. 2012. Patiala, India. Thapar University \bibitem[Coie and Dodge ()]{b14}\label{b14} ‘Multiple Sources of Data on School Behaviour and Social Status on the School. A Cross-Age Comparison’. J D Coie , K A Dodge . \textit{Child Development} 1988. 59 p. . \bibitem[Jeremy and Thompson ()]{b30}\label{b30} ‘Neurobiology of Intelligence: Health Implication’. R G Jeremy , P M Thompson . \textit{Discovery Mdicine} 2004. 4 p. . \bibitem[New Delhi: Surjeet]{b35}\label{b35} \textit{New Delhi: Surjeet}, \bibitem[Faulkner ()]{b20}\label{b20} ‘Nuts and Bolts and People. Gender-Troubled Engineering Identities’. S L Faulkner . \textit{Social Studies of Science} 2007. 37 p. . \bibitem[Topor et al. (2010)]{b59}\label{b59} \textit{Parent Involvement and Student Academic Performance: A Multiple Mediational Analysis}, D R Topor , S P Kean , T Shelton , S D Calkins . \url{fromwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles} 2010. August 15. 2012. \bibitem[Caro ()]{b13}\label{b13} ‘Parent-Child Interaction and Academic Performance’. D H Caro . \textit{Journal for Education Research} 2011. 3 p. . \bibitem[Redding ()]{b46}\label{b46} \textit{Parents and Learning. Brussels: International Academy of Education Rolfe}, S ; H Redding . \url{http://www.nesta.org.uk} 1999. 2010. October 16. 2012. (Learning to Take Risk) \bibitem[Bandura ()]{b5}\label{b5} \textit{Percieved Self-efficacy in Cognitive Development and Functioning. Educational Psychologists}, A Bandura . 1993. 28 p. . \bibitem[Olorfsky and Jayne ()]{b43}\label{b43} ‘Psychological Masculinity and Femininity Relationship to Striving and Self-Concept in the Achievement and Interpersonal Domains’. J L Olorfsky , E S Jayne . \textit{Psychology of Women Quarterly} 1981. 6 p. . \bibitem[References Références Referencias]{b27}\label{b27} \textit{References Références Referencias}, \bibitem[Brehony and Geller ()]{b10}\label{b10} ‘Relationship between Psychological Androgyny, Social Conformity, and Percieved Locus of Control’. K A Brehony , G Geller . \textit{Psychology of Women Quarterly} 1981. 6 p. . \bibitem[Torres and Solberg ()]{b60}\label{b60} ‘Role of Selfefficacy, Stress, Social Integration, and Family Support in Latino College Student Persistence and Health’. J B Torres , V Solberg . \textit{Journal of Vocational Behaviour} 2001. 59 p. . \bibitem[Lawrence and Vimala ()]{b36}\label{b36} ‘School Environment and Academic Achievement of Standard IX Students’. A S A Lawrence , A Vimala . \textit{Journal of Education and Instructional Studies in the World} 2015. 2 p. . \bibitem[Duncan et al. ()]{b17}\label{b17} ‘School Readiness and Later Achievement’. G J Duncan , C J Dowsett , A Claessens , K Magnuson , P Klebanos , C Japel . \textit{Developmental Psychology} 2007. 43 p. . \bibitem[Pajares and Schunk ()]{b44}\label{b44} ‘Self-Beliefs and School Success: Self -Efficacy’. F Pajares , D Schunk , H . \textit{Development of Achievement Motivation}, A Wigfield, J Eccles (ed.) (San Diego) 2001. Academic Press. p. . \bibitem[Wilhite ()]{b64}\label{b64} ‘Self-efficacy, Locus of Control, Self-assessment of Memory Ability, and Student activities as Predictors of College Course Achievement’. S Wilhite . \textit{Journal of Educational Psychology} 1990. 82 p. . \bibitem[Markus et al. ()]{b38}\label{b38} ‘Self-Schemas and Gender’. H Markus , M Crane , S Bernstein , M Siladi . \textit{Journal of Personality Social Pychology} 1982. 42 p. . \bibitem[Kuther ()]{b34}\label{b34} ‘Sex and Sex role Differences in Locus of Control’. T L Kuther . \textit{Psychological Reports} 1998. 82 p. . \bibitem[Arnold and Byre ()]{b3}\label{b3} ‘Sex and Sex Role Self-Concept as Correlates of Career Decision -Making Self-Efficacy’. J Arnold , H Byre . \textit{British Journal of Guidance and Counselling} 1989. 17 p. . \bibitem[Ashmore ()]{b4}\label{b4} ‘Sex, Gender, and the Individual’. R D Ashmore . \textit{Handbook of Personality Theory and Research}, L A Pervin (ed.) (New York) 1990. Guilford Press. p. . \bibitem[Kapalka and Lachenmeyer ()]{b32}\label{b32} ‘Sex-role Flexibility’. G Kapalka , J R Lachenmeyer . \textit{Locus of Control, and Occupational Status. Sex Roles} 1988. 19 p. . \bibitem[Eamon ()]{b18}\label{b18} ‘Social Demographic, School Neighbourhood, and Parenting Influences on Academic Achievement of Latino Young Adolescents’. M K Eamon . \textit{Journal of Youth and Adolescence} 2005. 34 p. . \bibitem[Selcuk ()]{b51}\label{b51} ‘Socio-Economic Status and Academic Achievement: A Meta-analytic Research Review’. R S Selcuk . \textit{Educational Research} 2005. 75 p. . \bibitem[Giannakos and Subich ()]{b23}\label{b23} \textit{Students Sex and Sex-roles in relation to College Major Choice. The Career Development Quarterly}, I Giannakos , L M Subich . 1988. 36 p. . \bibitem[Betz and Fitzgerald ()]{b9}\label{b9} \textit{The Career Psychology of Women}, N E Betz , L F Fitzgerald . 1987. Orlando: Academic Press. \bibitem[Herzberger et al. ()]{b26}\label{b26} ‘The Development of an Assertiveness Self-report Inventory’. S D Herzberger , E Chan , J Katz . \textit{Journal of Personality Assessment} 1984. 48 p. . \bibitem[Tauer and Harackiewicz ()]{b58}\label{b58} ‘The Effects of Cooperation and Competition on Intrinsic Motivation and Performance’. J M Tauer , J M Harackiewicz . \textit{Journal of Personality and Social Psychology} 2004. 86 p. . \bibitem[Bem ()]{b6}\label{b6} \textit{The Lenses of Gender: Transforming the Debate on Sexual Equality}, S L Bem . 1993. New Haven, CT. Yale University \bibitem[Tacher and Readdick ()]{b57}\label{b57} ‘The Realation between Aggression and Creativity among Second Graders’. E Tacher , C Readdick . \textit{Creativity Research Journal} 2006. 18 p. . \bibitem[Rotter and Connell ()]{b47}\label{b47} ‘The Relationship among Sex-role Orientation, Cognitive Complexity, and Tolerance to Ambiguity’. N Rotter , A Connell . \textit{Journal of Sex Roles} 1982. 8 p. . \bibitem[Schaps ()]{b49}\label{b49} \textit{The Role of Supportive School Environments in Promoting Academic Success}, E Schaps . 2005. PME) Prague. (Retrieved September 2, 2015 from http://hdl.handle.net Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education) \bibitem[Loveland et al. ()]{b37}\label{b37} ‘The Validity of Physical Aggression in Predicting Adolescent Academic Performance’. J M Loveland , J W Lounsbury , D Welsh , W C Bulboltz . \textit{British Journal of Educational Psychology} 2007. 77 p. . \bibitem[Silver et al. ()]{b52}\label{b52} ‘Trajectories of Classroom Externalizing Behaviour: Contributions of Child Characteristics, Family Characteristics, and the Teacher-Child Relationship during the School Transition’. R Silver , J R Measelle , J Armstrong , M Essex . \textit{Journal of School Psychology} 2005. 43 p. . \end{bibitemlist} \end{document}