Inequitable Gender Norms From Early Adolescence to Young Adulthood in Uganda: Tool Validation and Differences Across Age Groups

Abstract

Young people internalize gender norms about sexual and intimate relationships, and violence, at early ages. Programs to address negative health outcomes should explicitly address inequitable gender norms and more consistently expand to reach younger age groups. In this first application of the GEM Scale among 10- to 14-year-olds, we confirm that it is a valid measure in this setting.

Gender norms associated with adolescent sexual behaviours in Uganda

“…; Vu et al . ). Promoting gender equitable attitudes should start in childhood and continue during the formative period of adolescence and into adulthood.…”

“…; Vu et al . ). The general discourse in studies that used the GEM scale in sub‐Saharan Africa (SSA) settings found that both men and women were in high support for gender inequitable norms, with women being less gender equitable (Kazaura et al .…”

“…; Vu et al . ). We adopted the GEM scale because it is a standardised measure widely used to explore gender norms perspectives.…”

“…Yet messages around gender norms that influence behaviour are transmitted early in life, and by adolescence are internalised in a young person's world‐view (Vu et al . ). Therefore, adolescents’ gender perspectives and inequitable gender norms found to affect sexual and reproductive health service uptake need to be addressed in the design of adolescent health programmes (Chandra‐Mouli et al .…”

Theory and Practice of Social Norms Interventions: Eight Common Pitfalls

“…The third strategy is facilitator-led group conversations, where participants look critically at existing norms and practices within their group and renegotiate those norms among themselves. A few models exist of how group reflection processes can help achieve change in harmful social norms [18,20,[61][62][63][64]. Studying effective facilitator-led programmes, Cislaghi [65,66] identified three steps for social norms change: 1) motivation (where participants learn about the detrimental consequences for themselves and others of their compliance with the harmful norm); 2) deliberation (where participants create a new positive norm within their reference group and identify strategies to motivate others in their surroundings); and 3) action (where participants publicly enact their strategies and motivate others to join the group, eventually reaching the critical mass needed for normative change).…”