Milosis C.D., Siatras A.T.: GENDER DIFFERENCES IN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' …             Vol. 14, Issue 3: 401 - 420 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                401                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
 
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS’ 
GYMNASTICS SPECIFIC SELF-EFFICACY AND 
PERFORMANCE 
 
 
Dimitrios C. Milosis and Theophanis A. Siatras 
 
Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Aristotle University of 
Thessaloniki, Greece 
 
Original article                                                                          DOI:10.52165/sgj.14.3.401-420 
Abstract 
The aim of the study was to examine differences between male and female university students 
and their gymnastics specific self-efficacy and performance in gymnastics. In the study, 201 
male and 160 female students and their 7 teachers participated voluntarily. The students  
attended the second year in the School of Physical Education and Sport Science (SPESS) and 
were obliged to take the course "Teaching of Gymnastics" for two semesters. Students’ self-
efficacy was evaluated by suitable questionnaires at the beginning of the academic year, at 
the end of the first semester, and at the end of the academic year. Gymnastics skills’ difficulty 
was evaluated by teachers, and students’ performance was graded by their teachers at the 
end of the first semester, and at the end of the academic year. The main findings were: (a) 
both genders increased their self-efficacy during the academic year, while females had higher 
overall self-efficacy towards all gymnastics apparatus than males’ in the three measurements; 
(b) there were no gender differences in the average of the three measurements of self-efficacy 
toward common gymnastics skills; (c) there were no differences in gymnastics skills’ difficulty 
performed by males and females, and (d) females received higher grades than males. 
Considering the limitations of the study, the findings can be very useful for more effective 
organization and teaching of university gymnastics courses. 
 
Keywords: Self-efficacy, Artistic gymnastics, Males, Females, Performance. 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
Gymnastics is considered a very 
important sport for the motor development 
of children (Nilges, 1997) and for this 
reason it is included in the curricula of 
physical education at every level of 
education. Gymnastics is taught as a core 
compulsory applied course for two 
semesters in the second year to students in 
the School of Physical Education and Sport 
Science (SPESS). The syllabus of the 
course focuses on the development of the 
dominant movement patterns: locomotion, 
statics/balance, spring, landing, 
rotation/rolling, flight, and swing. The  
 
 
 
practical content of the course includes 
gymnastics skills at a basic level for each 
of the 4 apparatus for female and the 6 
apparatus for male students respectively 
(MAG; WAG, Code of points, Fédération 
Internationale de Gymnastique, 2020a,b). 
Students must attend at least 70% of the 
three-hour weekly classes (two practical 
and one theoretical) to meet the 
requirements of the course in each 
semester. Τo successfully pass the exams, 
students must be graded with an average of 
at least 5 (out of 10) in practical (60%) and 
Milosis C.D., Siatras A.T.: GENDER DIFFERENCES IN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' …             Vol. 14, Issue 3: 401 - 420 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                402                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
theoretical (40%) examination of the 
course. 
In the context of improving the quality 
of the course, some of the issues that 
concern teachers who teach gymnastics at 
the SPESS are poor performance of some 
students; non-participation in the practical 
part of the course for various reasons; 
failure to attend at least 70% of the three-
hour weekly classes needed to fulfill the 
requirements to pass the course; dropout 
and abstention from the course exams at 
the end of semester. Specifically, our 
analysis of the data from the previous 
academic year included the present 
investigation showed that about 24% of 
students, did not attend at all in the fall 
semester, or did not engage in the practical 
course of gymnastics for a variety of 
reasons (unknown). About 14% did not 
participate at all in the exam, and 12% got 
below the baseline. In the spring semester, 
the situation was even worse: 29% did not 
attend, 23% did not participate in the 
exam, and 8% got below baseline (total 
percentage greater than 50%). 
Self-efficacy is the self-evaluation of 
one’s competence to successfully perform 
a specific task or to obtain specific 
performance outcomes in a particular 
situation (Bandura, 1997; Pajares, 1996). 
Self-efficacy expectations influence the 
task selection; expenditure of effort; 
persistence in the face of barriers; 
resilience, and ultimately behavior 
(Bandura, 1997; Bandura, & Schunk, 
1981); personal goals and performance 
(Locke. & Latham, 1990), and goal setting 
and commitment; cognitive actions, and 
affective processes (Maddux, 1995). Self-
efficacy has been well-researched as one of 
the most influential psychological concepts 
affecting motivation to engage to achieve 
results in sport performance (Moritz, Feltz, 
Fahrbach, & Mack, 2000; Vealey, 
Hayashi, Garner-Holman, & Giacobbi, 
1998). Considering that the development 
of specific skills and performance in 
gymnastics requires strong motivation, 
courage, determination, personal goals and 
commitment, it can be assumed that the 
importance of perceived self-efficacy is 
crucial (Ede, Hwang, & Feltz, 2011). 
Furthermore, research results have 
demonstrated that students’ skill-specific 
self-efficacy in gymnastics significantly 
predicted their performance at the end of 
the two semester course (Milosis et al., 
2018). 
Self-efficacy is a multidimensional 
construct (Zimmerman, 2000), directly 
related to a specific activity domain 
(Bandura, 1997; Maddux, 1995), and can 
be specific to a task at a particular level of 
performance (Yeo, & Neal, 2006). 
Considering the situational specific nature 
of self-efficacy, researchers typically 
develop self-efficacy scales specific to the 
research environment in which they are to 
be applied (Bandura, 1997; Lane, 
Devonport, Milton, & Williams, 2003). 
Such measurements evaluate students’ 
judgments about their capabilities to have a 
clear activity or task in mind, and allow 
researchers to relate self-efficacy to 
achievement and to predict performance 
(Bandura, 1986; Pajares, 1996). 
Correspondingly, in sport and physical 
activity settings, it has been found that 
task-specific scales predict better specific 
tasks (McAuley, & Gill, 1983). Significant 
positive correlations between self-efficacy 
and subsequent performance 
measurements have been reported for 
gymnastics among other sports (Ede, 
Hwang, & Feltz, 2011). For example, 
Weiss, Wiese, and Klint (1989) have 
concluded that artistic gymnasts with 
higher expectations of final achievement 
before a competition tended to be more 
successful than gymnasts with low 
expectations of success. 
However, the nature of the activity 
and the situation under consideration are 
determining factors for the level of 
specificity where self-efficacy is measured 
(Bandura, 1992). For example, a high-level 
basketball player may have higher 
perceptions of self-efficacy on the 
basketball court, but might lack self-
Milosis C.D., Siatras A.T.: GENDER DIFFERENCES IN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' …             Vol. 14, Issue 3: 401 - 420 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                403                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
confidence if required to perform a routine 
on the trampoline (McAuley, & Gill, 
1983). However, it is possible that even 
within a domain of action one may have 
high self-efficacy for one parameter of 
performance but not another. For example, 
it is doubtful whether the performance of 
the forward roll could predict the 
performance on the cartwheel due to the 
different degree of difficulty of the skills 
(LaForge-MacKenie, & Sullivan, 2014). 
Thus, it is possible that a female student is 
highly efficacious for a turn or a jump 
performed on the floor apparatus, but 
inefficacious for the same skill executed on 
the balance beam. Correspondingly, a male 
student is likely to have a high level of 
self-efficacy to perform a handstand on the 
floor, but a lower level to execute the 
handstand on the parallel bars. Also, a 
male student may have higher self-efficacy 
to perform a forward tucked salto on the 
floor compared to a female student, but 
lower self-efficacy to perform a 
handspring on the floor compared to the 
same female student. 
Μany attempts have been made to 
investigate the factors that may affect 
different performance and achievement of 
the two genders’ defining perceptions 
about the self as a key parameter (e.g., 
Eisenberg, Martin, & Fabes, 1996). Gender 
differences in psychological parameters 
have been reported by many researchers 
and perhaps the most researched topic in 
sport psychology has been in the area of 
self-efficacy/self-confidence (Lirgg, 
George, Chase, & Ferguson, 1996).  
In general, most self-efficacy research 
has concluded that male athletes 
consistently evaluate higher their overall 
physical competence and are more positive 
than female athletes about their ability and 
their performance expectations in most 
traditional sport activities (Moritz et al., 
2000; Rattanakoses et al., 2009; 
Woodman, & Hardy’s, 2003). Conversely, 
it was hypothesized that females would 
give lower performance estimates, perform 
more poorly, report a lower ability level, 
and attribute success or failure to external 
causes when compared to males in a 
competitive task (Corbin, & Nix, 1979; 
Woodman, & Hardy, 2003).  
However, it has been suggested that 
gender identity and gender stereotypes 
may affect sports competence and self-
efficacy. Gender identity is a complex, 
multidimensional construct which 
evaluates one’s self-appraisal of being 
male or female (Egan, & Perry, 2001). 
Gender stereotypes relate to children’s 
beliefs about behavioral differences 
between the genders (and the desirability 
of such differences), specifying that certain 
behaviors are more important for, or more 
common to, one gender than the other. 
According to Choi (2004), self-efficacy is 
related to gender-role orientation, 
masculinity or femininity. Masculinity 
operationalizes self-efficacy through 
competitiveness, independence, 
aggressiveness, and assertiveness. Self-
efficacy is related to femininity when it is 
in the domain of submissiveness, 
dependence, and interpersonal 
relationships. Earlier studies provided 
support for this theory. For example, 
findings supported that if an activity is 
considered more masculine, females will 
have less self-efficacy in the task (Corbin, 
& Nix, 1979; Lirgg et al., 1996; 
Sanguinetti, Lee, & Nelson, 1985). On the 
other hand, females had higher self-
perceptions of ability and expectancies for 
success than males on activities considered 
more feminine, for example dance, 
gymnastics, figure skating, cheerleading, 
etc. (Lirgg et al, 1996; Clifton, & Gill, 
1994). In general, females were less 
confident than males on a perceived 
masculine task, and males were less 
confident than females on a perceived 
feminine task (Lirgg, 1996). 
Gymnastics has been described as a 
sport that includes different combinations 
of aesthetic and acrobatic dimensions 
(Goirand, 1996). According to the 
literature, those dimensions are marked by 
gendered stereotypes, defining the 
Milosis C.D., Siatras A.T.: GENDER DIFFERENCES IN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' …             Vol. 14, Issue 3: 401 - 420 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                404                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
aesthetics of a movement as feminine and 
the acrobatic dimension as masculine 
(Kirk, 2010). Ιt has still been argued that 
the more decisive the force for the 
execution of a skill is, the more masculine 
it can be considered (Whitson, 1994). In 
gymnastics, males perform skills and 
exercises in 6 “men’s” apparatus, and 
females in 4 “women’s” apparatus. There 
are skills performed by both genders (e.g., 
cartwheel, forward or backward 
handspring or salto), skills performed only 
by males (e.g., cross support on still rings) 
or only by females (e.g., jumps, leaps, 
turns on balance beam).  
Following the guidance obtained from 
the prior literature review, the aim of the 
study was to verify whether there were 
substantial differences between male and 
female students’ gymnastics specific self-
efficacy and performance in gymnastics 
skills in a sample of university students. As 
gender differences existed in most sports 
self-efficacy in general, it was 
hypothesized that gender differences exist 
in gymnastics self-efficacy as well. 
Exploring students’ gymnastics-specific 
self-efficacy is important for a better 
understanding of how to better organize 
and teach a gymnastics course to increase 
male and female students’ self-efficacy 
beliefs and eventually their performance in 
gymnastics skills and exercises. 
 
METHODS 
 
In the study, 361 students (201 males; 
M = 20.16 years old, SD = 2.44, and 160 
females; M = 19.95 years old, SD = 2.30) 
who attended the second year in the School 
of Physical Education and Sport Science 
(SPESS) and their 7 teachers (over 20 
years of experience) participated 
voluntarily. Data collected from five 
students (2 males and 3 females) who were 
competitive gymnastics athletes in the past 
were excluded from the statistical analyses. 
According to the curriculum of the SPESS, 
all students were obliged to attend the 
course "Teaching of Gymnastics" for two 
semesters. The teaching of fundamental 
gymnastics skills for male and female 
students (e.g., forward, and backward roll, 
cartwheel, headstand, handstand) is 
included in the Greek physical education 
curriculum for primary and secondary 
education. However, due to a lack of 
gymnastics facilities and suitable 
equipment in Greek schools, most Greek 
students have been taught gymnastics at a 
very low level or not at all. Consequently, 
the participants that were involved in the 
present study had very little or no 
experience and were considered as novices 
in gymnastics. Participants were informed 
that the purpose of the research was to 
improve the course “Didactics of 
Gymnastics”, that their answers in the 
questionnaire were confidential and would 
not be disclosed to third parties, and that 
they would not affect their grades in the 
two semesters. All participants were fully 
informed about the purpose of the study 
and the implementation of the protocols, 
according to the Ethical Committee of the 
University guidelines. Written informed 
consent was obtained from all participants. 
For the evaluation of students’ self-
efficacy, two reliable and valid skill-
specific self-efficacy questionnaires 
individualized for male and female 
students were used. Particularly, males’ 
questionnaire consisted of 33 skills-
specific items divided into 6 subscales, one 
for each apparatus (11 items for MFX, 3 
for PH, 3 for SR, 3 for MV, 7 for PB, and 
6 for HB). Accordingly, females’ 
questionnaire consisted of 41 skills-
specific items divided into 4 subscales, one 
for each apparatus (3 items for FV, 9 for 
UB, 14 for BB, and 15 for FFX). The level 
of difficulty of the skills presented to the 
students was evaluated by 7 teachers (with 
over 20 years of experience each) who 
taught in the SPESS gymnastics courses 
and who had themselves responded to a 
properly designed questionnaire. Τo 
investigate gender differences in self-
efficacy, only the items for the skills that 
were common to male and female students 
Milosis C.D., Siatras A.T.: GENDER DIFFERENCES IN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' …             Vol. 14, Issue 3: 401 - 420 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                405                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
were used [9 skills on the FX, 3 on the V, 
and 4 on the HB and UB (HBUB) (Table 
1)]. The vault skills were presented (and 
performed) on the “vaulting horse” 
(pommel horse, but without the handles 
placed sideways) for females, and on the 
“vaulting table” for male students 
respectively. The squat through and the 
straggle over vault skills were performed 
using springboard and the handspring 
using mini trampoline for both genders. 
Furthermore, video elicitation based on 
criteria for the optimal performance was 
used as a tool to provide students an 
accurate movement of execution of each 
gymnastic skill that was to perform. The 
instruments used in the present study were 
developed for the evaluation of second 
year students’ gymnastics self-efficacy, 
based on the curriculum of the compulsory 
course “Teaching of Gymnastics” of 
SPESS (Milosis et al., 2018). 
 
Table 1 
Common gymnastics skills for male and female students. 
Floor exercise 
Forward handspring Backward roll to handstand
Back standing scale Forward roll tucked
Salto forward tucked Backward roll tucked
Handstand forward roll Round off
Cartwheel 
Vault Horizontal bar/Uneven bars 
Squat through  Glide kip
Straddle over  From hang pull over to support
Forward handspring Back hip circle
 Underswing dismount
 
The questionnaire evaluating the level 
of difficulty of the gymnastics skills was 
completed by the teachers before the 
beginning of the first semester. The self-
efficacy questionnaire was completed by 
the students three times during the 
academic year: (a) in the first gymnastics 
lesson at the beginning of the first 
semester; (b) in the last lesson of the first 
semester before the examinations, and (c) 
in the last lesson of the second semester 
before the final examinations for the 
academic year. Before the process began, it 
was highlighted to the students that the 
skills would be presented in random order 
regardless of their difficulty. In addition, 
students were asked not to comment on the 
difficulty of the skills so that they would 
not affect their co-examined peers either 
positively or negatively. Then, 
corresponding video clips related to the 
technical execution of each skill were 
projected.  
Each video clip was screened twice so 
that the students could get the best picture 
of the performance required based on the 
criteria that were set in the design of the 
study. Immediately afterwards, students 
were asked to answer one self-efficacy 
question regarding the presented 
gymnastics skill. For example, for the skill 
“squat through” on the “vaulting horse” for 
female students, the corresponding video 
clip related to the technical execution was 
projected and the following question was 
posed to female students: “How confident 
are you that after your participation in the 
gymnastics courses you will be able to 
perform the ‘squat through’ on the 
‘vaulting horse’ at the end of the academic 
year in the way shown in the video?” 
Afterwards, students rated their confidence 
on a 10-point scale (1 = not at all 
confident, 10 = extremely confident). The 
above procedure was followed throughout 
the questionnaire for both male and female 
Milosis C.D., Siatras A.T.: GENDER DIFFERENCES IN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' …             Vol. 14, Issue 3: 401 - 420 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                406                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
students and lasted 30-40 minutes for each 
measurement. 
Students’ grades from their teachers 
(n = 7) for the first and the second 
semester based on their performance in the 
practical examination were collected. 
Specifically, the students performed all the 
skills on the six apparatus for males and 
four apparatus for females and were 
evaluated by their teachers and graded 
from 1 to 10 for each skill according to the 
quality of execution. Each skill was 
evaluated and assessed in 2-7 predefined 
criteria for quality execution depending on 
the magnitude of the deviation from 
perfect execution. The content validity of 
the criteria used were tested in a previews 
study (Milosis et al., 2018). The average 
score of all apparatus (ALL) for males and 
females was calculated and was used in 
statistical analyses (Table 4). 
The normality of the data was 
examined using Kolmogorov-Smirnov 
Test. A p value less than 0.05 was 
considered significant. The data were 
analysed using the SPSS software (SPSS v. 
23, SPSS Statistics, IBM Corp., NY USA). 
The internal consistency of students’ self-
efficacy towards each gymnastics 
apparatus was assessed using the 
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. The 
differences between the evaluation of male 
and female skills’ difficulty by their 
teachers were examined using multivariate 
analysis of variance (MANOVA). To 
examine gender effects on students’ self-
efficacy and grades, repeated-measures 
ANOVAs were used. 
 
RESULTS 
 
Reliability, repeatability, content, 
concurrent, and predictive validity of the 
instruments used were supported by the 
results of a previous study (Milosis et al., 
2018). The frequency distributions of self-
efficacy sum scores come close to a 
normal distribution. For both males and 
females, skewness and kurtosis had values 
between –1.0 and +1.0. Kolmogorov-
Smirnov test of normality was not 
significant p > .05. The alpha reliability 
coefficient was satisfactory for all 
variables (Tables 1, 2). 
Differences in students’ self-efficacy 
during the academic year 
Repeated-measures analyses of 
variance were conducted in order to 
examine changes in students’ self-efficacy 
during the academic year. More 
specifically, they tested within-subjects 
effects between the three measurements of 
male and female students’ self-efficacy 
towards each gymnastics apparatus as 
illustrated in the following. Males’ 
apparatus MFX, PH, SR, MV, PB, HB, 
and the mean score of all apparatus 
(MALL); Females’ apparatus FV, UB, BB, 
FFX, and the mean score of all apparatus 
(FALL). 
Differences in males’ self-efficacy during 
the academic year 
Separate repeated-measures ANOVAs 
were conducted with students’ self-
efficacy towards each gymnastics 
apparatus as dependent variable and time 
of measurement as the within-subjects 
factor. Results revealed that there was a 
significant within-subjects effect for 
students’ self-efficacy towards each 
gymnastics apparatus (see Table 2): (a) 
MFX, F(2,400) = 30.25, p < .001, η² = .13, 
(b) PH, F(2,400) = 44.07, p < .001, η² = 
.18, (c) SR, F(2,400) = 95.74, p < .001, η² 
= .32, (d) MV, F(2,400) = 46.18, p < .001, 
η² = .19, (e) PB, F(2,400) = 28.87, p < 
.001, η² = .13, (f) HB, F(2,400) = 26.20, p 
< .001, η² = .12, and (g) MALL, F(2,400) 
= 92.32, p < .001, η² = .32. Pairwise 
comparisons revealed that except for the 
measurements of the initial and the first 
semester for the PB, males’ self-efficacy 
increased significantly (p < .005) 
measurement by measurement (Table 1, 
Figure 1).  
 
Milosis C.D., Siatras A.T.: GENDER DIFFERENCES IN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' …             Vol. 14, Issue 3: 401 - 420 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                407                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
 
 
Table 1 
Means (M), standard deviations (SD), alpha reliabilities, significant differences (F), and 
effect size (η²) of males (n = 201) self-efficacy, for the three measurements. 
Abbreviations: MFX, males’ floor exercise; PH, pommel horse; SR, still rings; MV, males’ 
vault; P, parallel bars; HB, horizontal bar; MALL, the mean score on all males’ apparatus.  
Excluding the means of the initial and first semester for the males’ PB (means in boldface), 
all means differed significantly between the three measurements (p < .05). All F statistics 
were statistically significant (p < .001).  
 
 
 
Table 2 
Means (M), standard deviations (SD), alpha reliabilities, significant differences (F), and 
effect size (η²) of females (n = 160) self-efficacy, for the three measurements. 
Abbreviations: FV, females’ vault; UB, uneven bar; BB, balance beam, FFX, females’ floor 
exercise, FALL, the mean score on all females’ apparatus.  
Excluding the means of the first and second semester for the females’ FFX (means in 
boldface), all means differed significantly between the three measurements (p < .05). All F 
statistics were statistically significant (p < .001).  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Initial Measure End of First Semester End of Second Semester   
 M SD α M SD α M SD α F η² 
MFX 6.21 1.50 .89 6.46 1.68 .92 6.92 1.67 .91 30.25 .13 
PH 5.22 1.64 .86 6.11 1.81 .82 6.43 1.62 .61 44.07 .18 
SR 4.60 2.07 .89 5.83 2.18 .89 6.78 2.01 .89 95.74 .32 
MV 5.23 1.98 .90 6.00 2.01 .87 6.60 1.94 .84 46.18 .19 
PB 5.78 1.63 .90 5.83 1.79 .92 6.57 1.80 .91 28.87 .13 
HB 5.20 1.75 .89 5.81 1.84 .91 6.02 1.90 .89 26.20 .12 
MALL 5.39 1.47 .96 6.03 1.70 .97 6.60 1.62 .97 92.32 .32 
 Initial Measure End of First Semester End of Second Semester   
 M SD α M SD α M SD α F η² 
FV 4.78 1.86 .85 5.95 1.93 .87 6.75 1.72 .73 96.30 .38 
UB 5.97 1.48 .91 6.68 1.58 .91 7.22 1.68 .89 51.26 .24 
BB 6.44 1.84 .95 7.38 1.47 .94 7.78 1.41 .93 82.58 .34 
FFX 6.68 1.78 .94 7.26 1.48 .93 7.23 1.63 .93 18.56 .11 
FALL 5.98 1.48 .97 6.84 1.39 .96 7.28 1.47 .97 144.13 .48 
Milosis C.D., Siatras A.T.: GENDER DIFFERENCES IN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' …             Vol. 14, Issue 3: 401 - 420 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                408                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
 
 
 
Figure 1. Males’ vs. females’ self-efficacy towards each gymnastics apparatus and the mean 
score of all apparatus for the three measurements. Excluding the measurements for the initial 
and first semester for the PB (male) and for the first and the second semester for the FFX 
(female) self-efficacy increased significantly (p < .05) measurement by measurement. 
Abbreviations: MFX, males’ floor exercise; PH, pommel horse; SR, still rings; MV, males’ vault; PB, parallel 
bars; HB, horizontal bar; MALL, the mean score of all males’ apparatus; ΤMALL, teachers’ evaluation of 
difficulty for of all males’ apparatus; FV, females’ vault; UB, uneven bar; BB, balance beam, FFX, females’ 
floor exercise, FALL, the mean score of all females’ apparatus; ΤFALL, teachers’ evaluation of difficulty for of 
all females’ apparatus. 
 
 
 
 
 
Milosis C.D., Siatras A.T.: GENDER DIFFERENCES IN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' …             Vol. 14, Issue 3: 401 - 420 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                409                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
 
Figure 2. Teachers’ evaluation of gymnastics skills difficulty. 
Abbreviations: TMFALL, teacher evaluation for the total number of gymnastics skills on the six males’ and four 
females’ apparatus; TMFFX, teacher evaluation for the nine common gymnastics skills for males and females on 
the floor exercise; TMFV, teacher evaluation for the three common gymnastics skills on the vault; THBUB, 
teacher evaluation for the four common gymnastics skills on the horizontal bar and the uneven bars.  
Higher scores represent lower difficulty.  
 
 
 
Table 3 
Descriptive statistics for contrast effects followed the within subjects interaction between 
group and time.  
Abbreviations: M, Means; SD, Standard deviations; F, Significant differences; η², Effect size; ALL, the total 
number of gymnastics skills on the six males’ and four females’ apparatus; F, nine common gymnastics skills for 
males and females on the floor exercise; V, the three common gymnastics skills on the vault; HBUB, four 
common gymnastics skills on the HB and UB.  
Means in boldface were increased more compared to the corresponding mean of the opposite gender relatively 
with the means of the prior measurement. 
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 
 
 
 
 Initial measure End of first semester End of second semester   
 Males Females Males Females Males Females   
 M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD F η²
ALL 5.39 1.47 5.98 1.48 6.03 1.70 6.84 1.39 6.60 1.62 7.28 1.47     4.37* .01
FX 6.09 1.37 5.95 1.76 6.42 1.44 6.56 1.50 6.63 1.49 6.63 1.49 6.41** .02
V 5.32 1.87 4.80 1.86 5.97 1.87 5.78 1.82 6.47 1.85 6.70 1.54 6.48** .02
HBUB 4.59 1.79 5.19 1.89 5.49 1.89 5.64 1.81 5.75 1.68 5.98 1.88 7.61** .02
Grades     6.58 1.80 7.41 1.68 6.18 1.08 7.03 1.86 11.74*** .05
Milosis C.D., Siatras A.T.: GENDER DIFFERENCES IN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' …             Vol. 14, Issue 3: 401 - 420 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                410                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3. Males’ vs. females’ self-efficacy towards all gymnastics apparatus, floor exercise, 
vault, horizontal bar and uneven bars. 
 
 
Milosis C.D., Siatras A.T.: GENDER DIFFERENCES IN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' …             Vol. 14, Issue 3: 401 - 420 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                411                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
Figure 4. Males’ vs. females’ average self-efficacy of the three measurements (initial, first, 
second semester) for the common skills, the total skills on all apparatus (6 for male and 4 for 
female) and grades (first, second semester). 
Abbreviations: AMFFX, average self-efficacy of the three measurements for male and female common floor 
exercise skills; AMFV, average self-efficacy of the three measurements for male and female common vault skills; 
AMFHBUB, average self-efficacy of the three measurements for male and female common horizontal and 
uneven bars skills; AMFC, average self-efficacy of the three measurements for all male and female common 
skills; AMFALL, average self-efficacy of the three measurements for male and female skills of all apparatus (6 
for males, 4 for females); Grades, average grades of the two semesters. 
 
 
 
Differences in females’ self-efficacy during 
the academic year 
Separate repeated-measures ANOVAs 
were conducted with students’ self-
efficacy towards each gymnastics 
apparatus as dependent variable and time 
of measurement as the within-subjects 
factor. Results revealed that there was a 
significant within-subjects effect for 
students’ self-efficacy towards each 
gymnastics apparatus (see Table 1): (a) 
FV, F(2,318) = 96.30, p < .001, η² = .38, 
(b) UB, F(2,318) = 51.26, p < .001, η² = 
.24, (c) BB, F(2,318) = 82.58, p < .001, η² 
= .34, (d) FFX, F(2,318) = 18.56, p < .001, 
η² = .11, (e) FALL, F(2,318) = 144.13, p < 
.001, η² = .48. Pairwise comparisons 
revealed that except for the measurements 
for the second and the third semester for 
the FFX, females’ self-efficacy increased 
significantly (p < .05) measurement by 
measurement (Table 2, Figure 1). 
 
Teachers’ evaluation of gymnastics skills 
difficulty 
Multivariate analysis of variance 
(MANOVA) was conducted in order to 
examine differences between the 
evaluation of male and female skills 
difficulty by their teachers. Students’ 
gender was the independent variable and 
teachers’ evaluation of the difficulty of 
gymnastics skills for: (a) the total number 
of skills of the six males’ and four females’ 
apparatus (TMFALL), (b) nine common 
skills of the floor exercise (TMFFX), (c) 
the three common skills of the vault 
(TMFV), and (d) four common skills of the 
horizontal bar and uneven bars (THBUB) 
were the dependent variables. Results 
revealed a significant main effect for 
gender, Wilks’ λ = .152, F(4,9) = 12.56, p 
< .001, η² = .85. Given the significance of 
the overall test, the univariate main effects 
were examined. Not significant univariate 
main effects for gender were obtained for 
all variables (a) TMFALL, F(1,12) = .23, p 
Milosis C.D., Siatras A.T.: GENDER DIFFERENCES IN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' …             Vol. 14, Issue 3: 401 - 420 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                412                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
= .639, η² = .02 (males 6.50 ± 0.98, 
females 6.75 ± 0.94, mean ± SD), (b) 
TMFFX, F(1,12) = .35, p = .567, η² = .03 
(6.65 ± 0.75, 6.05 ± 0.71), (c) TMFV, 
F(1,12) = 1.22, p = .292, η² = .09 (7.14 ± 
1.54, 6.33 ± 1.19), (d) THBUB, F(1,12) = 
2.38, p = .149, η² = .17 (6.18 ± 1.38, 5.82 ± 
1.35) (Figure 2).  
 
Gender differences on students’ self-
efficacy and grades 
Repeated-measures ANOVAs were 
conducted in order to examine gender 
effects on students’ self-efficacy and 
grades. More specifically, they tested (a) 
within-subjects effects between the three 
measurements, (b) between-group 
differences from first up to the third 
measurement, and (c) possible differences 
on the mean of the three measurements 
between males and females. For the 
estimation of students’ self-efficacy, 
students’ responses were computed to: (a) 
the total number of skills of the six males’ 
and four females’ apparatus (ALL), (b) 
nine common skills of the FX, (c) the three 
common skills of the V, and (d) four 
common skills of the HB and UB (HBUB). 
 
Differences in self-efficacy towards ALL 
A repeated-measures ANOVA was 
conducted with students’ self-efficacy 
towards ALL as dependent variable, time 
of measurement as the within-subjects 
factor and students’ gender as the between-
subjects factor; it revealed that there was a 
significant within-subjects effect for the 
total sample, F(2,359) = 215.41, p < .001, 
η² = .38, and no significant within-subjects 
interaction between group (gender) and 
time of measurement, F(2,359) = 1.79, p = 
.171, η² = .01. Inspection of between-
subjects effects revealed that there were 
significant differences between the two 
groups across all measurements, F(1,359) 
= 22.64, p < .001, η² = .06. Subsequent 
ANOVAs revealed that females had higher 
overall self-efficacy towards ALL than 
males’ in the initial, F(1,359) = 14.38, p < 
.001, η² = .04, the first, F(1,359) = 24.28, p 
< .001, η² = .06, and the second semester 
measurement respectively, F(1,359) = 
17.11, p < .001, η² = .05. Moreover, 
contrast effects following the within 
subjects interaction between group and 
time revealed that from initial 
measurement to first semester 
measurement, the self-efficacy towards 
ALL of females increased more compared 
to males’, F(1,359) = 4.37, p < .05, η² = 
.01 (Table 3, Figure 3). 
 
Differences in self-efficacy towards FX 
A repeated-measures ANOVA was 
conducted with students’ self-efficacy 
towards FX as dependent variable, time of 
measurement as the within-subjects factor 
and students’ gender as the between-
subjects factor, revealed that there was a 
significant within-subjects effect for the 
total sample, F(2,718) = 77.38, p < .001, η² 
= .18, and a significant within-subjects 
interaction between gender and time of 
measurement, F(2,718) = 3.63, p < .05, η² 
= .01. Inspection of between-subjects 
effects revealed that there were no 
significant differences between the two 
groups across all measurements, F(1,359) 
= .000, p = .999, η² = .00. Moreover, 
contrast effects following the within 
subjects interaction between group and 
time revealed that from initial 
measurement to first semester 
measurement the self-efficacy towards FX 
of females increased more compared to 
males’, F(1,359) = 6.41, p < .01, η² = .02 
(Table 3, Figure 3). 
 
Differences in self-efficacy towards V 
A repeated-measures ANOVA was 
conducted with students’ self-efficacy 
towards V as dependent variable, time of 
measurement as the within-subjects factor 
and students’ gender as the between-
subjects factor; it revealed that there was a 
significant within-subjects effect for the 
total sample, F(2,718) = 140.32, p < .001, 
η² = .28, and a significant within-subjects 
interaction between gender and time of 
measurement, F(2,718) = 8.00, p < .001, η² 
Milosis C.D., Siatras A.T.: GENDER DIFFERENCES IN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' …             Vol. 14, Issue 3: 401 - 420 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                413                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
= .02. Inspection of between-subjects 
effects revealed that there were no 
significant differences between the two 
groups across all measurements, F(1,359) 
= 1.14, p = .286, η² = .00. However, 
subsequent ANOVAs revealed that males’ 
self-efficacy towards V in the initial 
measurement was higher compared to 
females’, F(1,359) = 9.39, p < .01, η² = 
.03. Moreover, contrast effects following 
the within subjects interaction between 
group and time revealed that from first 
semester measurement to second semester 
measurement the self-efficacy towards V 
of females increased more compared to 
males’, F(1,359) = 6.48, p < .01, η² = .02 
(Table 3, Figure 3). 
 
Differences in self-efficacy towards HBUB 
A repeated-measures ANOVA was 
conducted with students’ self-efficacy 
towards HBUB as dependent variable, time 
of measurement as the within-subjects 
factor and students’ gender as the between-
subjects factor; it revealed that there was a 
significant within-subjects effect for the 
total sample, F(2,718) = 71.40, p < .001, η² 
= .17, and a significant within-subjects 
interaction between gender and time of 
measurement, F(2,359) = 4.04, p < .05, η² 
= .01. Inspection of between-subjects 
effects revealed that there were significant 
differences between the two groups across 
all measurements, F(1,718) = 3.81, p < .05, 
η² = .01. Subsequent ANOVAs revealed 
that females’ self-efficacy towards HBUB 
in the initial measurement was higher 
compared to males, F(1,359) = 9.39, p < 
.01, η² = .03. Moreover, contrast effects 
following the within subjects interaction 
between group and time revealed that from 
initial measurement to first semester 
measurement the self-efficacy towards 
HBUB of males increased more compared 
to females’, F(1,359) = 7.61, p < .01, η² = 
.02 (Table 3, Figure 3). 
 
Differences in students’ grades 
Frequencies analyses conducted 
revealed that for the first semester, 10.5% 
of the males and 1.9% of the females were 
graded below 5, while 20.9% of the males 
and 28.1% of the females did not 
participate in the examinations. 
Correspondingly for the second semester, 
13% of the males and 0.6% of the females 
were graded below 5, while 37.8% of the 
males and 35.6% of the females did not 
participate in the examinations. A 
multivariate analysis of variance 
(MANOVA), conducted with students’ 
grades in gymnastics for the first and the 
second semester as the dependent variables 
and students’ gender as the independent 
variable, revealed that there was a 
significant main effect of gender on 
students’ grades, F(2,201) = 6.21, p < .01, 
η² = .06. Subsequent ANOVAs revealed 
significant differences between males and 
females in average grades for the first 
semester, F(1,201) = 11.74, p < .001, η² = 
.05, and the second semester, F(1,201) = 
9.54, p < .01, η² = .04, with females 
outperforming males in both cases (Table 
3, Figure 3).  
 
Differences in students’ average self-
efficacy and grades 
Multivariate analysis of variance 
(MANOVA) was conducted in order to 
examine differences for the average of the 
three measurements of males’ and females’ 
self-efficacy and the grades for the first 
and the second semester. Students’ gender 
was the independent variable and the 
average score of their grades (first, second 
semester) and their self-efficacy 
measurements (initial, first, second 
semester) for: (a) nine common skills of 
the floor exercise (AMFFX), (b) the three 
common skills of the vault (AMFV), and 
(c) four common skills of the horizontal 
bar and uneven bars (AHBUB), (d) the 
total number of the common skills 
(AMFC), (e) the total number of skills of 
the six males’ and four females’ apparatus 
(AMFALL), were the dependent variables. 
Results revealed a significant main effect 
for gender, Wilks’ λ = .619, F(5,206) = 
25.36, p < .001, η² = .38. Given the 
Milosis C.D., Siatras A.T.: GENDER DIFFERENCES IN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' …             Vol. 14, Issue 3: 401 - 420 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                414                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
significance of the overall test, the 
univariate main effects were examined. 
Significant univariate main effects for 
gender were obtained for the variables (a) 
AMFALL, F(1,210) = 7.30, p < .01, η² = 
.03 (males 6.27 ± 1.39, females 6.78 ± 
1.32, mean ± SD) and (b) Grades, F(1,210) 
= 12.18, p < .001, η² = .06 (6.38 ± 1.79, 
7.22 ± 1.66) and not significant for the 
other variables (a) AMFFX, F(1,210) = 
.74, p = .787, η² = .00 (6.56 ± 1.28, 6.50 ± 
1.47), (b) AMFV, F(1,210) = 2.28, p = 
.132, η² = .01 (6.19 ± 1.43, 5.89 ± 1.48), 
(c) AHBUB, F(1,210) = .74, p = .787, η² = 
.00 (5.55 ± 1.61, 5.69 ± 1.61), and (d) 
AMFC, F(1,210) = .14, p = .709, η² = .00 
(5.86 ± 1.36, 5.91 ± 1.45) (Figure 4).  
 
DISCUSSION 
 
The aim of the present study was to 
examine gymnastics specific self-efficacy 
differences between male and female 
university students. Results revealed that 
except for the measurements of the initial 
and the first semester for the PB and for 
the first and the second semester for the 
FFX, students’ self-efficacy significantly 
increased, measurement by measurement, 
for both genders (Table 1 & 2, Figure 1). 
These findings are consistent with the self-
efficacy theory, according to which 
mastery experiences provide the most 
influential source of efficacy information 
(Bandura, 1986). In the first measurement 
of the current study, participants had no 
previous experience with either of the tasks 
and consequently relied on other sources of 
efficacy information, as, for example, 
perceptions of the gender-appropriateness 
of the task and conception of ability. In 
line with research findings, during the 
academic year, as learning progressed, 
students’ self-efficacy increased (Bandura, 
1997; Schunk, 1996).  
According to Schunk (1996), students 
enter learning situations with varying 
degrees of self-efficacy for learning. As 
they engage in activities, students are 
affected by personal factors (e.g., goal 
setting, information processing) and 
situational influences (e.g., rewards, 
teacher feedback) that provide them with 
cues about how well they are learning 
(Schunk, 1996). Self-efficacy is enhanced 
when students perceive they are 
performing well or becoming more skillful 
(Bandura, 1997; Schunk, 1996) and focus 
on personal achievements (Maddux, 1995). 
Lack of success or slow progress do not 
necessarily diminish self-efficacy if 
learners believe they know how to perform 
better, such as by working harder, seeking 
help, or switching to a more effective 
strategy (Schunk, 1996). In Figure 1 it 
appears that females in general tend to 
have higher self-efficacy beliefs for all 
gymnastics skill on the 4 women’s 
gymnastics apparatus compared to males 
(for the 6 men’s gymnastics apparatus). It 
is also shown that males realized that it 
was easier to perform the skills on FX and 
more difficult on SR, while females 
perceived as easier the skills on the BB and 
more difficult on V.  
Results revealed a significant main 
effect for gender between the evaluation of 
male and female skills difficulty by their 
teachers. Although teachers showed a 
tendency to evaluate as more difficult the 
gymnastics skills performed on all 
apparatus (6 for males and 4 for females) 
for males and the common skills 
performed on FX, V, and HB/UB for 
females, examining the univariate main 
effects did not find significant effects for 
gender for all variables. Looking at the 
curriculum, it seems that it includes skills 
with increasing level of difficulty, and 
common skills for both genders, as well as 
skills that could be characterized as more 
suitable for males (e.g., dynamic skills on 
SR) or females (e.g., turns, leaps, and 
jumps on FX and/or BB). However, the 
non-significant differences regarding 
difficulty of skills performed on all 
apparatus that favor females could be 
explained by the fact that the curriculum 
includes proportionately easier skills for 
females compared to males. The evaluation 
Milosis C.D., Siatras A.T.: GENDER DIFFERENCES IN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' …             Vol. 14, Issue 3: 401 - 420 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                415                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
of male and female skills difficulty by the 
teachers was in complete agreement with 
the students' grades based on their 
performance. Specifically, as shown by the 
results, females had higher grades 
compared to males for the first and the 
second semester. In contrast, the 
evaluation of the common skills as more 
difficult for females, by the teachers, is 
likely, since the common skills are few, 
with an objectively higher level of 
difficulty. Furthermore, the successful 
execution of many of them is based to a 
decisive degree on strength and speed.  
In relation to these results, the 
examination of students’ self-efficacy 
towards ALL, and common skills on FX, 
V, and HB/UB, across all measurements 
revealed the following results. Females had 
significantly higher overall self-efficacy 
towards ALL than males’ in the initial, the 
first and the second semester measurement, 
and for the average of the three 
measurements. Furthermore, from the 
initial measurement to the first semester 
measurement, their self-efficacy increased 
more compared to that of males. Weitlauf, 
Cervone, Ronald and Wright (2001) also 
reported a significant increase in self-
efficacy in women attending a voluntary 
self-defense training program. These 
findings are contrary to the findings from 
previous research where males reported 
higher levels of confidence in a variety of 
physical skills (Moritz et al., 2000; 
Rattanakoses et al., 2009; Woodman, & 
Hardy’s, 2003).  
The findings of the current study 
could be explained partially by the fact 
that, according to teachers’ evaluation, 
females’ skills on the 4 women’s apparatus 
included more skills, in general, and many 
of them were evaluated as much easier 
compared to the set of skills related to the 
6 apparatus of males. Furthermore, 
although females performed on a fewer 
apparatus compared to males (4 vs. 6), 
they performed more skills, including 
“female” skills (e.g., choreography, dance, 
turns, jumps, leaps), and this likely 
resulted in higher self-efficacy. In support, 
it has been found that females are more 
confident than males on a feminine type of 
tasks (Clifton, & Gill, 1994; Lirgg et al., 
1996) and on selected physical activities, 
such as cheerleading, gymnastics, and 
dance (Eder & Parker, 1987). As supported 
by recent research (Clifton, & Gill, 1994; 
Lirgg et al., 1996; Sanguinetti et al., 1985), 
females do not display a lack of confidence 
in all situations. It seems that individuals’ 
expectancies for success increase when 
participating in activities deemed gender 
appropriate.  
Regarding the common skills on FX, 
there were no significant differences 
between the two groups, with the 
exception that from the initial 
measurement to the first semester 
measurement, the self-efficacy towards FX 
of females increased more compared to 
that of males. However, in the initial 
measurement, females had not 
significantly lower self-efficacy than 
males. The skills “backward roll to 
handstand” and “salto forward tucked” 
may have led to this result because those 
are the skills that need great speed and 
strength for effective and quality 
execution.  
Considering the common skills on V, 
there were no significant differences 
between the two groups across all 
measurements. However, self-efficacy of 
males towards V in the initial measurement 
was higher compared to that of females. 
Moreover, from the first semester 
measurement to the second semester 
measurement, the self-efficacy of females 
towards V increased more compared to 
that of males. It is very important to 
mention that the vault skills were presented 
(and performed) on the “vaulting horse” 
(pommel horse, but without handles, 
placed sideways) for females (it is easier to 
perform the skills) and on the “vaulting 
table” for male students. The squat through 
and the straggle over vault skills were 
performed using springboard and the 
handspring using mini trampoline for both 
Milosis C.D., Siatras A.T.: GENDER DIFFERENCES IN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' …             Vol. 14, Issue 3: 401 - 420 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                416                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
genders. However, to perform well on V 
requires great speed and strength for 
effective push down onto the springboard 
(on foot), and shoulder and hands block 
onto the vaulting horse/table. Τhis is why 
males are more likely to perform these 
skills more easily and efficiently compared 
to females. Researchers reported that 
females were less confident than males on 
this perceived masculine task (Clifton, & 
Gill, 1994; Lirgg, et al., 1996).  
Finally, there were significant 
differences towards HBUB between the 
two groups across all measurements. 
Specifically, females’ self-efficacy towards 
HBUB in the initial measurement was 
higher compared to males. In contrast, 
males’ self-efficacy towards HBUB 
increased more from the initial 
measurement to the first semester 
measurement compared to that of females. 
However, there were no significant 
differences between genders regarding the 
average of the self-efficacy for the 
common skills on FX, V and HBUB.  
Τhe results of the present study 
provide support for the arguments that 
there is a tendency for most gender 
differences in self-efficacy beliefs to be 
small and with no clear direction, and that 
there is a continuum of gender differences 
as opposed to the simple yes or no answer 
(Pajares, 2005). As reported by Clifton and 
Gill (1994), since educational gymnastics 
includes skills that can be characterized as 
feminine or masculine, it is possible for 
male and female students to show similar 
patterns in terms of self-efficacy beliefs. 
Furthermore, as educational gymnastics 
involves students working within their own 
abilities, both male and female university 
students may overestimate or 
underestimate their self-efficacy depending 
on how they perceive their ability (Milosis 
et al., 2018). 
The findings of the present study 
should be viewed in light of some 
limitations. The data for the evaluation of 
self-efficacy were collected solely from 
university male and female students and 
this must be considered before we 
generalize the results to include students of 
other levels of education or gymnasts. 
Furthermore, the current study concerns 
students’ self-efficacy in terms of specific 
gymnastics skills taught in the course 
“Didactics of Gymnastics”. Expanding the 
study to include students in other 
individual or team sports courses may lead 
to different results, and thus could be an 
interesting inquiry for future research. The 
present study did not examine students’ 
perceptions about gender appropriateness 
of the gymnastics skills included in the 
curriculum. Such an assessment would to 
some extent explain the differences found 
in self-efficacy between genders.  
Additionally, it would be beneficial to 
investigate students’ pre-existing implicit 
beliefs about intelligence, or conception of 
ability. It has been suggested that pre-
existing belief systems, such as implicit 
theories of intelligence, or conceptions of 
ability, also exert an influence on self-
efficacy beliefs, especially in adults 
(Jourden, Bandura, & Banfield, 1991). 
Future studies could also investigate other 
personality and social factors that 
influence different types of confidence and 
sources of confidence, such as  the 
structure of the teaching environment, the 
academic program, and extracurricular 
involvement. Next, a qualitative research 
based on student interviews would also be 
of interest. 
Self-efficacy acts as a cognitive 
mediator of behavior, including task 
selection, persistence in the face of 
barriers, resilience, goal setting and 
commitment, and effort expended 
(Bandura, 1997; Bandura, & Schunk, 
1981; Locke, & Latham, 1990; Maddux, 
1995). It has been shown that is a 
significant predictor of students’ 
gymnastics performance (Milosis et al., 
2018). It has been argued that in order to 
promote female’ self-efficacy, females 
should be engaged in environments that 
provide social support (e.g., positive 
feedback from teammates, encouragement 
Milosis C.D., Siatras A.T.: GENDER DIFFERENCES IN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' …             Vol. 14, Issue 3: 401 - 420 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                417                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
from significant others, a sense of 
belonging and control) while allowing 
them to develop their skills. Females often 
use self-regulation skills in a learning 
setting, and they express more confidence 
in the ability to accomplish tasks.  
On the other hand, demonstration of 
ability (i.e., showing an ability by 
outperforming others or winning) and 
satisfaction with accomplishments were 
significantly more important for the 
promotion of male athletes’ self-efficacy 
(Vealey et al., 1998). Thus, teachers may 
need to be intentional with their teaching 
style when interacting with female versus 
male students, realizing the potential 
differences in self-efficacy between the 
genders. Generally, students gain 
confidence when they engage in 
environments structured to be inclusive, 
supportive of autonomy, challenging, 
motivating, to provide clear performance 
evaluation and to encourage self-regulation 
of cognitions and behavior, skill building, 
and healthy norms (Dzewaltowski, 
Estabrooks, Gyurcsik, & Johnston, 2002). 
Furthermore, by offering student activities 
that are considered gender-appropriate, 
they are likely to increase their 
expectations of success and consequently 
increase their self-efficacy (Lirgg et al., 
1996). 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
Considering the limitations of the 
present study, the results provide useful 
information regarding the changes in 
university students’ skill-specific self-
efficacy in gymnastics as a consequence of 
learning during an academic year. These 
results support the hypothesis that during 
the academic year, as learning progressed, 
students’ self-efficacy increased because 
students gained mastery experience and 
ccould see progress in their performance. 
In addition, tracking of self-efficacy and 
performance over a series of sessions may 
provide useful information about 
individual students and may help to early 
identify students that are low in self-
efficacy, guide teachers’ judgements, and 
reduce failure rates. Thus, it is critical for 
teachers to formulate and maintain positive 
expectations for all students, to develop an 
inclusive, autonomy-supportive, 
challenging, and task/mastery-oriented 
environment, and to encourage self-
regulation of cognitions and behavior.  
Furthermore, exploring male and 
female students’ gymnastics-specific self-
efficacy differences is important for a 
better understanding of how to better 
organize and teach a gymnastics course to 
increase male and female students’ self-
efficacy beliefs and eventually their 
performance in gymnastics skills and 
exercises. Gender differences in 
competency beliefs influence students’ 
activity choices and participation and 
should be considered when studying 
achievement. Therefore, it is crucial for 
teachers to convey to students that the 
gender appropriateness of skills is socially 
constructed, not based on biological 
factors, and that gymnastics skills are 
developed through deliberate practice. By 
doing so, students may be encouraged to 
attempt a variety of skills, which, in turn, 
may positively influence their beliefs about 
what they are truly capable of achieving. 
Teachers must cultivate student's beliefs in 
their capabilities, while at the same time 
create conditions for the desired success to 
be achieved since it is usually easier to 
weaken self-efficacy beliefs through 
negative appraisals than to strengthen such 
beliefs through positive encouragement. 
 
 
 
REFERENCES 
 
Bandura, A. (1986). Social 
foundations of thought and action: A social 
cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: 
Prentice-Hall. 
Bandura, A. (1992). On rectifying the 
comparative anatomy of perceived control: 
Comments on” cognates of personal 
Milosis C.D., Siatras A.T.: GENDER DIFFERENCES IN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' …             Vol. 14, Issue 3: 401 - 420 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                418                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
control.” Applied and Preventative 
Psychology, 1, 121-126. doi: 
10.1016/S0962-1849(05)80153-2 
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The 
exercise of control. New York: Freeman.  
Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). 
Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and 
intrinsic interest through proximal self-
motivation. Journal of Personality and 
Social Psychology, 41(3), 586-598. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.41.3.586 
Choi, N. (2004). Sex role group 
differences in specific, academic, and 
general self-efficacy. The Journal of 
Psychology, 138(2), 149-59. 
Clifton, R. T., & Gill, D. L. (1994). 
Gender differences in self-confidence on a 
feminine-typed task. Journal of Sport and 
Exercise Psychology, 16(2), 150-162. 
doi:10.1123/jsep.16.2.150 
Corbin, C. B., & Nix, C. (1979). Sex-
typing of physical activities and success 
predictions of children before and after 
cross-sex competition. Journal of Sport 
Psychology, 1, 43-52.  
Dzewaltowski, D. A., Estabrooks, P. 
A., Gyurcsik, N. C., & Johnston, J. A. 
(2002). Promotion of physical activity 
through community development. In J. L. 
Van Raalte, & B. W. Brewer (Eds.), 
Exploring Sport & Exercise Psychology 
(pp. 209-233). Washington: American 
Psychological Association. 
Ede, A., Hwang, S., & Feltz, D. L. 
(2011). Current directions in self-efficacy 
research in sport. Revista Iberoamericana 
de Psicología del Ejercicio y el Deporte, 
6(2), 181-201. 
Eder, D., & Parker, S. (1987). The 
cultural production and reproduction of 
gender: The effect of extracurricular 
activities on peer-group culture. Sociology 
of Education, 60(3), 200-213. 
https://doi.org/10.2307/2112276 
Egan, S. K., & Perry, D. G. (2001). 
Gender identity: A multidimensional 
analysis with implications for psychosocial 
adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 
37(4), 451-463. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-
1649.37.4.451 
Eisenberg, N., Martin, C. L., & Fabes, 
R. A. (1996). Gender development and 
gender effects. In D. C. Berliner, & R. C. 
Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational 
psychology (pp. 358-396). New York: 
Macmillan. 
Fédération Internationale de 
Gymnastique (2020a). 2022-2024 Code of 
points: Men’ s artistic gymnastics. 
ПРАВИЛА СУДЕЙСТВА. Fédération 
Internationale de Gymnastique. 
Fédération Internationale de 
Gymnastique (2020b). 2022-2024 Code of 
points: Women’ s artistic gymnastics. 
ПРАВИЛА СУДЕЙСТВА. Fédération 
Internationale de Gymnastique. 
Goirand, P. (1996). Evolution 
historique des objets techniques en 
gymnastique. In P. Goirand, & J. Metzler 
(Eds.), Une histoire culturelle du sport, 
techniques sportives et culture scolaire 
(pp. 99-144). Paris: Revue E.P.S. 
Jourden, F. J., Bandura, A., & 
Banfield, J. T. (1991). The impact of 
conceptions of ability on self-regulatory 
factors and motor skill acquisition. Journal 
of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 13(3), 
213-226. 
Kirk, D. (2010). Physical education 
futures. London & New York, NY: 
Routledge. 
LaForge-MacKenzie, K., & Sullivan, 
P. J. (2014). An analysis of the relationship 
between self-efficacy and performance 
within a continuous educational 
gymnastics routine. International Journal 
of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12, 206-
217. doi: 10.1080/10413200.2014.894154 
Lane, A. M., Devonport, T. J., Milton, 
K. E., & Williams, L. (2003). Self-efficacy 
and dissertation performance among sport 
students. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, 
Sport and Tourism Education, 2(2), 59-66. 
doi: 10.3794/johlste.22.46 
Lirgg, C. D., George, T. R., Chase, M. 
A., & Ferguson, R. H. (1996). Impact of 
conception of ability and sex-type of task 
on male and female self-efficacy. Journal 
Milosis C.D., Siatras A.T.: GENDER DIFFERENCES IN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' …             Vol. 14, Issue 3: 401 - 420 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                419                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18, 426-
343.  
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). 
A theory of goal setting and task 
performance. Prentice-Hall, Inc. 
Maddux, J. E. (1995). Self-efficacy 
theory: An introduction. In J. E. Maddux 
(Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation, and 
adjustment: Theory, research, and 
application (pp. 3-36). New York: Plenum. 
McAuley, E., & Gill, D. L. (1983). 
Reliability and validity of the physical self-
efficacy scale in a competitive sport 
setting. Journal of Sport and Exercise 
Psychology, 5, 410-418. 
Milosis, C. D., Siatras, A. T., 
Christoulas, I. K., Proios, K. M., Proios, K. 
M., & Papaioannou, G. A. (2018). 
Accuracy of University students’ skill-
specific self-efficacy and self-efficacy-
performance in gymnastics relationship. 
International Journal of Sport Psychology, 
49, 429-447. 
Moritz, S. E., Feltz, D. L., Fahrbach, 
K., &Mack, D. (2000). The relation of self-
efficacy measures to sport performance: A 
meta-analytic review. Research Quarterly 
for Exercise and Sport, 71(3), 280-294. 
doi: 10.1080/02701367.2000.10608908 
Nilges, L. M. (1997). Educational 
gymnastics-stages of content development. 
Journal of Physical Education, Recreation 
& Dance, 68(3), 50-55. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.1997.10
604911 
Pajares, F. (2005). Gender differences 
in mathematics self-efficacy beliefs. In A. 
Gallagher, & J. Kaufman (Eds.), Mind 
Gap: Gender differences in mathematics 
(pp. 294-315). Boston: Cambridge 
University Press. 
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy 
beliefs in academic settings. Review of 
Educational Research, 66, 543-578. doi: 
10.3102/00346543066004543 
Rattanakoses, R., Omar-Fauzee, M. 
S., Geok, S., Abdullah, M., Choosakul, C., 
Nazruddin, M., & Nordin, H. (2009). 
Evaluating the relationship of imagery and 
self-confidence in female and male 
athletes. European Journal of Social 
Sciences, 10(1), 129-142.  
Sanguinetti, C., Lee, A. M., & Nelson, 
J. K. (1985). Reliability estimates and age 
and gender comparisons of expectations of 
success in sex-typed activities. Journal of 
Sport Psychology, 7, 379-388. 
Schunk, D. H. (1996). Learning 
theories: An educational perspective (2nd 
ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill. 
Vealey, R. S., Hayashi, S. W., Garner-
Holman, M., & Giacobbi, P. (1998). 
Sources of sport-confidence: 
Conceptualization and instrument 
development. Journal of Sport and 
Exercise Psychology, 20(1), 54-80. 
Weiss, M. R., Wiese, D. M., & Klint, 
K. A. (1989). Head over heels with 
success: The relationship between self-
efficacy and performance in competitive 
youth gymnastics. Journal of Sport & 
Exercise Psychology, 11, 444-451. 
Weitlauf, J. C., Cervone, D., Ronald, 
E. S., & Wright, P. M. (2001). Assessing 
generalization in perceived self-efficacy: 
Multidomain and global assessments of the 
effects of self-defense training for women. 
Personality and Social Psychology 
Bulletin, 27(12), 1683-1691. doi: 
10.1177/01461672012712011 
Whitson, D. (1994). The embodiment 
of gender: Discipline, domination, and 
empowerment. In S. Birrell, & C. Cole 
(Eds.), Women, sport and culture (pp. 353-
371). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 
Woodman, T., & Hardy, L. (2003). 
The relative impact of cognitive anxiety 
and self-confidence upon sport 
performance: a meta-analysis. Journal of 
Sports Sciences, 21, 443-457. doi: 
10.1080/0264041031000101809 
Yeo, G., & Neal, A. (2006). An 
examination of the dynamic relationship 
between self-efficacy and performance 
across levels of analysis and levels of 
specificity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 
91, 1088-1101. doi: 10.1037/0021-
9010.91.5.1088 
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-
efficacy: An essential motive to learn. 
Milosis C.D., Siatras A.T.: GENDER DIFFERENCES IN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' …             Vol. 14, Issue 3: 401 - 420 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                420                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 
25, 82-91. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1016 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Corresponding author: 
 
Dimitrios Milosis 
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 
Department of Physical Education and 
Sports Science, Laboratory of Evaluation 
of Human Biological Performance - New 
facilities  
Thermi, 57001 Thessaloniki, Greece. 
Email: dmylosis@phed.auth.gr     
 
Article received: 2.4.2022 
Article accepted: 13.6.2022