A study published in Journal of Personality & Social Psychology challenges the prevailing notion of the “gender-equality paradox” by deconstructing how gender differences vary across societies with high gender equality.
The gender-equality paradox has garnered significant attention, positing that as societies become more gender-equal, gender differences in various domains like personality, attitudes, and preferences paradoxically become larger. This theory, rooted in evolutionary psychology, suggests that more gender-equal environments give individuals the freedom to express intrinsic gender differences, which then become more pronounced.
Previous research has supported this notion by examining cross-country differences in gender gaps using gender-equality indices. However, the accuracy of the methods used in these studies, particularly the reliance on difference scores to measure gender gaps, has been questioned by methodologists.
In this work, Ville-Juhani Ilmarinen and Jan-Erik Lönnqvist revisited these findings to critically examine whether the gender-equality paradox is a genuine phenomenon or simply a product of inadequate statistical methods.
The researchers analyzed data from three large cross-cultural datasets, focusing on examining specific country-level data for both men and women, rather than simply calculating a difference score between genders, which has been the traditional method used in past research.
In Study 1, they used data from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) to explore gender differences in attitudes toward science. This involved analyzing three key variables: science self-efficacy (SSE), broad interest in science, and enjoyment of science. The sample sizes for these analyses were substantial, with 384,897 individuals from 61 countries for SSE, 330,681 individuals from 50 countries for broad interest in science, and 396,470 individuals from 61 countries for enjoyment of science.
The main predictor for these attitudes was the Global Gender Gap Index (GGGI), a widely used measure of gender equality that takes into account factors such as political empowerment, economic participation, and educational attainment.
In Study 2, the authors examined economic preferences across 75 countries, using data on variables such as altruism, trust, patience, risk-taking, and reciprocity. The participant count ranged from 73,177 to 74,443, depending on the specific economic preference analyzed. To assess gender differences, they reconstructed a composite Gender Equality Index (GEI), which included the GGGI, along with other country-level indicators like labor force participation and the number of years since women’s suffrage.
The results from Study 1 revealed that the gender-equality paradox did not apply universally across all science attitudes. For science self-efficacy and broad interest in science, gender differences did not significantly increase in more gender-equal countries. However, in the case of enjoyment of science, a modest widening of the gender gap was observed, primarily driven by a decrease in girls’ enjoyment of science in highly gender-equal societies. This result challenged the simplistic interpretation of the paradox, showing that boys’ and girls’ attitudes do not always diverge in more gender-equal environments.
In Study 2, the results were more complex. For variables like altruism, both men’s and women’s scores shifted in response to gender equality, but men showed a lower level of altruism in gender-equal countries, while both men and women exhibited greater patience. However, the gender gap in patience increased slightly because the change was more pronounced for men.
In other domains, such as trust and risk-taking, the differences were less clear-cut, with gender gaps either remaining stable or showing smaller, non-significant changes. Although gender differences might increase in more gender-equal societies, the patterns are domain-specific and not as uniform as the paradox suggests.
One limitation is the reliance on publicly available datasets, which constrained the scope of this reanalysis.
The research, “Deconstructing the Gender-Equality Paradox”, was authored by Ville-Juhani Ilmarinen and Jan-Erik Lönnqvist.