Gender stereotypes can explain the gender-equality paradox

Abstract

The so-called “gender-equality paradox” is the fact that gender segregation across occupations is more pronounced in more egalitarian and more developed countries. Some scholars have explained this paradox by the existence of deeply rooted or intrinsic gender differences in preferences that materialize more easily in countries where economic constraints are more limited. In line with a strand of research in sociology, we show instead that it can be explained by cross-country differences in essentialist gender norms regarding math aptitudes and appropriate occupational choices. To this aim, we propose a measure of the prevalence and extent of internalization of the stereotype that “math is not for girls” at the country level. This is done using individual-level data on the math attitudes of 300,000 15-y-old female and male students in 64 countries. The stereotype associating math to men is stronger in more egalitarian and developed countries. It is also strongly associated with various measures of female underrepresentation in math-intensive fields and can therefore entirely explain the gender-equality paradox. We suggest that economic development and gender equality in rights go hand-in-hand with a reshaping rather than a suppression of gender norms, with the emergence of new and more horizontal forms of social differentiation across genders.

Pandemic Leadership: Sex Differences and Their Evolutionary–Developmental Origins

“…While some hold the position that socialization into gender roles causes sex differences in humans, this hypothesis is generally not supported when considering the biological, developmental, neuroscientific, and cross-national evidence more broadly ( Christov-Moore et al, 2014 ; Schmitt, 2015 ; Janicke et al, 2016 ; Archer, 2019 ; Del Giudice, 2019 ; Luoto et al, 2019a ; Liu et al, 2020 ; Stoet and Geary, 2020 ). In fact, cross-national evidence indicates that in more gender-egalitarian countries, sex differences are of a higher magnitude than in less gender-egalitarian countries, which is the opposite of what the gender role hypothesis would predict ( Schmitt et al, 2008 ; Falk and Hermle, 2018 ; Atari et al, 2020 ; Stoet and Geary, 2020 ; see also Breda et al, 2020 ) 9 . Furthermore, since evolutionary processes pre-date social conceptualizations of gender roles by several million years, a complete explanation of the interplay between social conceptions of gender roles and evolved biological predispositions would need to account for how evolutionary processes act as precursors to gender roles ( Janicke et al, 2016 ; Sweet-Cushman, 2016 ; Archer, 2019 ).…”

Pandemic leadership: Sex differences and their evolutionary–developmental origins

“…While some hold the position that socialization into gender roles causes sex differences in humans, this hypothesis is generally not supported when considering the biological, developmental, neuroscientific, and cross-national evidence more broadly (Christov-Moore et al, 2014;Schmitt, 2015;Janicke et al, 2016;Archer, 2019;Del Giudice, 2019;Luoto et al, 2019a;Liu et al, 2020;Stoet and Geary, 2020). In fact, cross-national evidence indicates that in more gender-egalitarian countries, sex differences are of a higher magnitude than in less gender-egalitarian countries, which is the opposite of what the gender role hypothesis would predict (Schmitt et al, 2008;Falk and Hermle, 2018;Atari et al, 2020;Stoet and Geary, 2020; see also Breda et al, 2020). 9 Furthermore, since evolutionary processes pre-date social conceptualizations of gender roles by several million years, a complete explanation of the interplay between social conceptions of gender roles and evolved biological predispositions would need to account for how evolutionary processes act as precursors to gender roles (Janicke et al, 2016;Sweet-Cushman, 2016;Archer, 2019).…”

An Evolutionary Explanation for the Female Leadership Paradox

“…A contribution of sexual selection to gender differences in competition and cooperation suggests average differences in leadership style are unlikely to universally disappear, but rather may be moderated by norms and institutional settings that change the gender-specific costs and benefits to particular forms of competition and cooperation (Gneezy et al, 2009;Cassar and Rigdon, 2021). Across societies, increased gender equity may even associate with increased (not decreased) average gender differences in many values and motivations (Falk and Hermle, 2018) -a phenomenon known as the gender equality paradox (Stoet and Geary, 2019, but also see: Breda et al, 2020). However, inter-individual variation independent of gender has and will likely continue to eclipse any average gender differences in predicting leader behavior (Bass and Stogdill, 1990).…”