A comprehensive investigation involving 54 articles and new analyses on 27 meta-analyses and large-scale studies looked into the gender equality paradox, examining the relationship between living conditions and psychological sex differences. This research was published in Perspectives on Psychological Science.
Studies have shown that better living conditions are associated with larger sex differences in personality and cognitive function, a phenomenon sometimes referred to as the “gender-equality paradox.” However, this observation does not uniformly apply across all domains. For example, smaller sex differences in sexuality or no significant differences in spatial skills have been observed in countries with higher living conditions.
In this work, Agneta Herlitz and colleagues strived to determine the extent to which variations in living conditions correspond with either larger or smaller psychological sex differences.
Psychological sex differences are well-documented, with numerous studies reporting differences in cognitive abilities, emotions, and behaviors between men and women. Women often have higher academic grades and outperform men in areas like reading comprehension and episodic memory, while men typically excel in spatial and numerical tasks. In terms of mental health, men usually experience fewer depressive symptoms but are more affected by suicide and addictive behaviors. The reasons behind these differences are not fully understood and are a subject of considerable debate.
Some literature has focused on the impact of living conditions on individuals’ lives, concluding that environmental factors significantly influence psychological traits (e.g., the Flynn effect). Various country-level indicators of living conditions, such as gender equality, economic opportunities, education, health, and longevity, are used to study their potential effects on psychological dimensions.
The present research studied if and how these living conditions might influence the magnitude of psychological sex differences. The researchers conducted literature searches of previous studies and meta-analyses. To be included, papers had to involve quantitative research on human subjects, examine sex differences, assess specific psychological measures or behaviors, and include data from more than 1000 participants and at least five countries.
A systematic and quantitative review was conducted on a combined 54 articles (“old analyses”), along with new analyses performed on 27 meta-analyses and large-scale studies. The researchers analyzed the effect sizes of the included studies, examining how they were linked to different indicators of living conditions such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP), gender equality, and education, across numerous countries.
Dependent variables were grouped into various categories, including personal characteristics, cognition, interpersonal relations, mental health, emotion, academic self-concept, morals and values. Each category was then analyzed in relation to indicators of living conditions.
Herlitz and colleagues employed a variety of statistical methods to better understand the relationship between living conditions and sex differences, tracking correlations and trends across different countries and time periods. There were three main takeaways.
First, sex differences in personality, verbal episodic memory, verbal ability, aggressive behavior, female negative emotions, depression, and general self-esteem were larger in countries with higher living conditions. On the other hand, sex differences in mathematics, semantic memory, sexual behavior, partner preferences, and aggression towards partners were smaller in these countries.
Second, most indicators of living conditions were not associated with the magnitude of sex differences. However, more sex differences were larger, rather than smaller, in countries with higher living conditions. This pattern suggests that despite societal advancements, certain psychological sex differences persist or even amplify.
Third, economic indicators, such as GDP, were more sensitive in detecting associations with the magnitude of sex differences compared to indicators of gender equality. This suggests that economic factors play a more significant role than gender equality measures in influencing psychological sex differences.
A limitation the researchers note is the variety of methodologies that were used across studies in the included meta-analyses; this has the potential of introducing noise in the data, and thus reported results. As well, the analyses were confined to publicly available indicators of living conditions, which largely offered crude summary measures.
Overall, these findings challenge the basic assumption that improved living conditions would reduce gender disparities.
The study, “A Systematic Review and New Analyses of the Gender-Equality Paradox”, was authored by Agneta Herlitz, Ida Hönig, Kåre Hedebrant, and Martin Asperholm.
