Cited by 217Personality Traits and PsychologyCultural Differences and ValuesGender Roles and Identity Studies

Sex differences in personality are larger in gender equal countries: Replicating and extending a surprising finding

Open access
Mac Giolla, Erik, Kajonius, Petri J.·2019·International Journal of Psychology

Abstract

Sex differences in personality have been shown to be larger in more gender equal countries. We advance this research by using an extensive personality measure, the IPIP‐NEO‐120, with large country samples ( N > 1000), from 22 countries. Furthermore, to capture the multidimensionality of personality we measure sex differences with a multivariate effect size (Mahalanobis distance D ). Results indicate that past research, using univariate measures of effect size, have underestimated the size of between‐country sex differences in personality. Confirming past research, there was a strong correlation ( r = .69) between a country's sex differences in personality and their Gender Equality Index. Additional analyses showed that women typically score higher than men on all five trait factors (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness), and that these relative differences are larger in more gender equal countries. We speculate that as gender equality increases both men and women gravitate towards their traditional gender roles.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ijop.12529

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • After controlling for language regions, all personality studies (1-3) had negative correlations between gender equality and gender differences, with rs = −0.79 to −0.88 and ps < 0.002.

    “After controlling for language regions, all personality studies (1–3) had negative correlations between gender equality and gender differences (rs = −0.79 to −0.88, ps < 0.002).”

    From Simpson’s gender-equality paradox (2025) · cites this paper as [2]

    The Results report a positive correlation between gender equality and the magnitude of sex differences in personality (r = .69, p < .001), contrary to the claimed negative correlations. The paper does not report the stated range of r values or an analysis controlling for language regions. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In the causal interpretation of GEP, gender equality or a related variable is held responsible for the magnitude of gender differences across countries.

    “The variable to explain is the magnitude of gender differences across countries and the variable responsible is gender equality (or some related variable).”

    From Simpson’s gender-equality paradox (2025) · cites this paper as [2]

    The Discussion reports that gender equality is associated with the magnitude of cross-country sex differences in personality, and offers a possible explanation for that pattern. It also says the exact reason remains unknown, so the paper does not establish that gender equality—or a related variable—causes those differences. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Gender equality, like gender differences, is multidimensional, and GEP-studies tend to measure equality and differences along different dimensions, which should weaken relationships between variables.

    “A further potential issue in GEP-studies is that gender equality, like gender differences, is multidimensional, and that GEP-studies tend to measure equality and differences along different dimensions (see (1–6))—which should weaken relationships between variables.”

    From Simpson’s gender-equality paradox (2025) · cites this paper as [2]

    The Gender Gap Index section describes an equality measure spanning economic, political, educational and health criteria; the Abstract and Discussion describe personality differences as multidimensional. The paper thus exemplifies measuring equality and differences in different domains, but it does not establish that GEP studies generally tend to do so or that this weakens relationships between variables. (LLM, conf=0.81)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The gender-equality paradox refers to the result that places, often operationalized as countries, with more gender equality exhibit larger gender differences on certain measures.

    “The gender-equality paradox (GEP) refers to the result that places (often operationalized as countries) with more gender equality exhibit larger gender differences* on certain measures (1–6).”

    From Simpson’s gender-equality paradox (2025) · cites this paper as [2]

  • Many scholars interpret GEP findings with a causal lens.

    “Scholars vary in how they explain such paradoxes, but many interpret the findings with a causal lens (for 1–6), this interpretation is more prevalent in (1, 2, 4, 5); see SI Appendix, section 1.1 for more details): The variable to explain is the magnitude of gender differences across countries and the variable responsible is gender equality (or some related variable).”

    From Simpson’s gender-equality paradox (2025) · cites this paper as [2]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 21 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [14]14. Mahalanobis, P. C. (1936). Mahalanobis distance. Proceedings National Institute of Science of India, 49(2), 234-256.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mac Giolla, E., & Kajonius, P. J.
Affiliations
  • Department of Psychology University of Gothenburg Gothenburg Sweden
  • University West (SE)
Venue
International Journal of Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-09-11
Volume
54
Issue
6
Pages
705-711
ISSN
  • 0020-7594 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-066X
OpenAlex
W2891670863
Cited by
217
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 69 · 2019: 9
FWCI
29.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Psychology (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Cultural Differences and Values
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Roles and Identity Studies
Keywords
sex differences in personality, gender equality, cross-national comparison, Mahalanobis distance, Big Five personality traits, gender equality index, traditional gender roles, replication
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Female, Gender Identity, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Personality, Personality Inventory, Sex Characteristics, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review