The Gender-Equality Paradox in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education
Open accessAbstract
The underrepresentation of girls and women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields is a continual concern for social scientists and policymakers. Using an international database on adolescent achievement in science, mathematics, and reading ( N = 472,242), we showed that girls performed similarly to or better than boys in science in two of every three countries, and in nearly all countries, more girls appeared capable of college-level STEM study than had enrolled. Paradoxically, the sex differences in the magnitude of relative academic strengths and pursuit of STEM degrees rose with increases in national gender equality. The gap between boys’ science achievement and girls’ reading achievement relative to their mean academic performance was near universal. These sex differences in academic strengths and attitudes toward science correlated with the STEM graduation gap. A mediation analysis suggested that life-quality pressures in less gender-equal countries promote girls’ and women’s engagement with STEM subjects.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
No sex differences could be found for Science.
“or Science (Stoet & Geary, 2018)”
From A Systematic Review and New Analyses of the Gender-Equality Paradox (2025) · cites this paper as Stoet & Geary, 2018
The 'Sex Differences in Science Literacy' section reports statistically significant sex differences in 41 of 67 countries or regions; only 26 had no significant difference. The near-zero mean national effect does not support the unqualified claim that no sex differences were found for science. Page numbers are not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn 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 [5]
The Mediation Model section reports that sex differences in STEM graduation and science literacy are larger in more gender-equal countries. The Explanations section proposes possible mechanisms but cautions that unobserved confounders may affect the results. The source therefore supports the cross-country pattern, not a firm claim that gender equality is responsible for it. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredGender 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 [5]
The Gender Equality section describes an index spanning economic, educational, health, and political indicators. The Explanations section distinguishes absolute performance from academic strengths and says this distinction may contribute to mixed findings across studies. The paper does not establish the broader claim that GEP studies generally measure equality and gender differences along different dimensions. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredNeither the single study in the Science category nor the single study that assessed School performance showed any association between sex differences and living conditions.
“Neither the single study in the Science category (Stoet & Geary, 2018) nor the single study that assessed School performance (Voyer & Voyer, 2014) showed any association between sex differences and living conditions.”
From A Systematic Review and New Analyses of the Gender-Equality Paradox (2025) · cites this paper as Stoet & Geary, 2018
The Science Literacy section reports no statistically significant association between the absolute sex gap in science scores and national gender equality. But the Academic Strengths section finds a significant association for the sex difference in relative science strength, and the Mediation Model relates life satisfaction—a proxy for living conditions—to the STEM graduation gap. The unqualified claim of no association is therefore too broad; the Voyer & Voyer finding is outside this source. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn old analyses using PISA or TIMSS, 19 analyses showed associations suggesting that sex differences in Self-concept STEM are larger in societies with higher living conditions.
“there are 19 analyses in the old analyses that showed associations suggesting that sex differences are larger in societies with higher living conditions (Else-Quest et al., 2010; Goldman & Penner, 2016; Stoet & Geary, 2018).”
From A Systematic Review and New Analyses of the Gender-Equality Paradox (2025) · cites this paper as Stoet & Geary, 2018
The Science Attitudes and Gender Equality section reports a larger boy–girl gap in science self-efficacy in more gender-equal countries, based on PISA 2015. It does not report 19 analyses or a direct association between STEM self-concept gaps and higher living conditions; the Mediation Model discusses living conditions in relation to STEM graduation gaps instead. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)
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 [5]
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 [5]
The cross-cultural results of ref. (5) do not appear to be because Western countries once had a larger proportion of women in STEM, which dropped when their gender equality increased.
“Consequently, the cross-cultural results of ref. (5) do not appear to be because Western countries once had a larger proportion of women in STEM, which dropped when their gender equality increased.”
From Simpson’s gender-equality paradox (2025) · cites this paper as [5]
The GEP preference studies that do not rely on self-assessment, specifically STEM and chess, also typically use measures that may be more culturally meaningful for Westerners and their cultural perceptions.
“The GEP preference studies that do not rely on self- assessment— specifically, STEM (5) and chess (6)—also typically use measures that may be more culturally meaningful for Westerners and their cultural perceptions.”
From Simpson’s gender-equality paradox (2025) · cites this paper as [5]
The prime evidence for the GEP is based on correlations across countries.
“The prime evidence for the GEP is based on correlations across countries (1–6, 32).”
From Simpson’s gender-equality paradox (2025) · cites this paper as [5]
Stoet and Geary (2018) could not find evidence for a significant overall effect of students' gender on scientific literacy in PISA 2015 (d = -0.01).
“For instance, synthesizing the findings from the PISA 2015 study in science, Stoet and Geary (2018) could not find evidence for a significant, overall effect of students' gender on scientific literacy in a large sample of students from 67 countries (d = -0.01).”
From Is there a gender gap? A meta-analysis of the gender differences in students' ICT literacy (2019) · cites this paper as Stoet and Geary (2018)
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
mediation : R Package for Causal Mediation Analysis
Tingley, D. H., Yamamoto, T., Hirose, K., Keele, L. J., & Imai, K. (2014) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v059.i05 · Cited by 4,216 · see citing works
A general approach to causal mediation analysis.
Imai, K., Keele, L., & Tingley, D. (2010) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/a0020761 · Cited by 4,143 · see citing works
Expectancies, values and academic behaviors
Eccles, J. S. (1983) · Publication Server of Goethe University Frankfurt am Main (Goethe University Frankfurt) · Cited by 3,901 · see citing works
Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2013
National Science Foundation (2013) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e558442013-001 · Cited by 2,491 · see citing works
Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: A meta-analysis.
Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (2010) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0018053 · Cited by 1,630 · see citing works
Identification, Inference and Sensitivity Analysis for Causal Mediation Effects
Imai, K., Keele, L., & Yamamoto, T. (2010) · Statistical Science · doi:10.1214/10-sts321 · Cited by 1,628 · see citing works
Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others?
Cheryan, S., Ziegler, S. A., Montoya, A. K., & Jiang, L. (2017) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000052 · Cited by 1,259 · see citing works
Black, C. F. (2016) · Encyclopedia of Family Studies · doi:10.1002/9781119085621.wbefs350 · Cited by 1,231 · see citing works
Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science
Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2011) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1014871108 · Cited by 1,114 · see citing works
Guiso, L., Monte, F., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2008) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1154094 · Cited by 1,026 · see citing works
Women's underrepresentation in science: sociocultural and biological considerations
Ceci, S. J., Williams, W. M., & Barnett, S. M. (2009) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0014412 · Cited by 957 · see citing works
Identification, Inference, and Sensitivity Analysis for Causal Mediation Effects
Imai, K., & Keele, L. J. (2008) · Cited by 887 · see citing works
The Role of Parents and Teachers in the Development of Gender-Related Math Attitudes
Gunderson, E. A., Ramirez, G., Levine, S. C., & Beilock, S. L. (2011) · Sex Roles · doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9996-2 · Cited by 876 · see citing works
Wang, M.-T., & Degol, J. (2013) · Developmental Review · doi:10.1016/j.dr.2013.08.001 · Cited by 837 · see citing works
Ceci, S., Ginther, D., Kahn, S., & Williams, W. (2014) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100614541236 · Cited by 751 · see citing works
Achievement and Achievement Motives: Psychological and Sociological Approaches
Flaherty, J. A. (1984) · American Journal of Psychotherapy · doi:10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.1984.38.3.459a · Cited by 751 · see citing works
Gender, culture, and mathematics performance
Hyde, J. S., & Mertz, J. E. (2009) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0901265106 · Cited by 534 · see citing works
Not Lack of Ability but More Choice
Wang, M., Eccles, J. S., & Kenny, S. (2013) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797612458937 · Cited by 496 · see citing works
Social Forces Shape Math Attitudes and Performance
Eccles, J. S., & Jacobs, J. E. (1986) · Signs · doi:10.1086/494229 · Cited by 484 · see citing works
National Hiring Experiments Reveal 2:1 Faculty Preference for Women on Stem Tenure Track
Williams, W. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2015) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1418878112 · Cited by 435 · see citing works
PISA 2015 Assessment and Analytical Framework
OECD (2016) · Programme for international student assessment/Internationale Schulleistungsstudie · doi:10.1787/9789264255425-en · Cited by 407 · see citing works
Su, R., & Rounds, J. (2015) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00189 · Cited by 390 · see citing works
Lippa, R. A., Collaer, M. L., & Peters, M. (2010) · Archives of Sexual Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9460-8 · Cited by 273 · see citing works
Sex differences in academic achievement are not related to political, economic, or social equality
Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2015) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2014.11.006 · Cited by 227 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…and these educational gaps (e.g., as demonstrated by Else-Quest, Hyde, & Linn, 2010; Guiso, Monte, Sapienza, & Zingales, 2008; Hyde & Mertz, 2009; Reilly, 2012) can be difficult to determine and is not always found (Ellison & Swanson, 2010; for an in-depth discussion, see Stoet & Geary, 2015).”
BackgroundSelf-citationArab Human Development Report 2016
United Nations Development Programme (2016) · Arab human development report · doi:10.18356/e525b80e-en · Cited by 226 · see citing works
Gender, Culture, and Sex-Typed Cognitive Abilities
Reilly, D. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0039904 · Cited by 194 · see citing works
Ellison, G., & Swanson, A. (2010) · The Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.24.2.109 · Cited by 185 · see citing works
Women and minorities in science, technology, engineering and mathematics: upping the numbers
(2008) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.45-3752 · Cited by 181 · see citing works
Economic Disparities and Life Satisfaction in European Regions
Pittau, M. G., Zelli, R., & Gelman, A. (2009) · Social Indicators Research · doi:10.1007/s11205-009-9481-2 · Cited by 177 · see citing works
Stoet, G., Bailey, D. H., Moore, A. M., & Geary, D. C. (2016) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0153857 · Cited by 167 · see citing works
Self-citationGirls’ comparative advantage in reading can largely explain the gender gap in math-related fields
Breda, T., & Napp, C. (2019) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1905779116 · Cited by 158 · see citing works
Women and Minorities in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics
Powell, A., Bagilhole, B., & Dainty, A. (2007) · Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks · doi:10.4337/9781847206879 · Cited by 154 · see citing works
Schmitt, D. P. (2014) · Evolutionary psychology · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-09384-0_11 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
OECD (2016) · PISA in focus · doi:10.1787/aa9237e6-en · Cited by 83 · see citing works
Beliefs in “Brilliance” and Belonging Uncertainty in Male and Female STEM Students
Deiglmayr, A., Stern, E., & Schubert, R. (2019) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01114 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
The sexual paradox: men, women, and the real gender gap
(2008) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.45-6283 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Can Test Anxiety Interventions Alleviate a Gender Gap in an Undergraduate STEM Course?
Harris, R. B., Grunspan, D. Z., Pelch, M. A., Fernandes, G., Ramirez, G., & Freeman, S. (2019) · CBE—Life Sciences Education · doi:10.1187/cbe.18-05-0083 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
The sexual paradox : men, women, and the real gender gap
Pinker, S. (2008) · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [8]8. Ellison, G. & Swanson, A. (2010). The gender gap in secondary school mathematics at high achievement levels. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 28, 109-128.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Is there a gender gap? A meta-analysis of the gender differences in students' ICT literacy
Siddiq, F., & Scherer, R. (2019) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2019.03.007 · Cited by 297 · see citing works
Gender stereotypes can explain the gender-equality paradox
Breda, T., Jouini, E., Napp, C., & Thebault, G. (2020) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2008704117 · Cited by 233 · see citing works
What did you do yesterday? A meta-analysis of sex differences in episodic memory.
Asperholm, M., Högman, N., Rafi, J., & Herlitz, A. (2019) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000197 · Cited by 182 · see citing works
Men, women and STEM: Why the differences and what should be done?
Stewart-Williams, S., & Halsey, L. G. (2021) · European Journal of Personality · doi:10.1177/0890207020962326 · Cited by 117 · see citing works
Can Test Anxiety Interventions Alleviate a Gender Gap in an Undergraduate STEM Course?
Harris, R. B., Grunspan, D. Z., Pelch, M. A., Fernandes, G., Ramirez, G., & Freeman, S. (2019) · CBE—Life Sciences Education · doi:10.1187/cbe.18-05-0083 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Fors Connolly, F., Goossen, M., & Hjerm, M. (2020) · Sex Roles · doi:10.1007/s11199-019-01097-x · Cited by 65 · see citing works
A Systematic Review and New Analyses of the Gender-Equality Paradox
Herlitz, A., Hönig, I., Hedebrant, K., & Asperholm, M. (2025) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/17456916231202685 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
“We subdivided the category Cognition into Math (Dickerson et al., 2015; Else-Quest et al., 2010; Marks, 2008; Stoet & Geary, 2013, 2015; Tao & Michalopoulos, 2018; van Hek et al., 2019; Voyer & Voyer, 2014; Weber et al., 2014), Spatial skills (e.g., line-angle judgment, mental rotation; Lauer et al., 2019; Lippa et al…”
InfluentialAsperholm, M., Nagar, S., Dekhtyar, S., & Herlitz, A. (2019) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0214945 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Queen’s Gambit Declined: The Gender-Equality Paradox in Chess Participation Across 160 Countries
Vishkin, A. (2022) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/09567976211034806 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Edelsbrunner, P. A., Malone, S., Hofer, S. I., Küchemann, S., Kuhn, J., Schmid, R., Altmeyer, K., Brünken, R., & Lichtenberger, A. (2023) · International Journal of STEM Education · doi:10.1186/s40594-023-00435-6 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Simpson’s gender-equality paradox
Berggren, M., & Bergh, R. (2025) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2422247122 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
“¶ The GEP preference studies that do not rely on self - assessment— specifically, STEM ( 5 ) and chess ( 6 )—also typically use measures that may be more culturally meaningful for Westerners and their cultural perceptions.”
InfluentialErdmann, M., Marques Hill, A., Helbig, M., & Leuze, K. (2023) · Frontiers in Sociology · doi:10.3389/fsoc.2023.1175651 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Block, K., olsson, M. I. T., Schmader, T., van Laar, C., Martiny, S. E., Schuster, C., Van Grootel, S., Meeussen, L., & Croft, A. (2022) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/k6g5d · Cited by 7 · see citing works
- Authors
- Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C.
- Affiliations
- Leeds Beckett University (GB)
- University of Missouri (US)
- Corresponding author
- Stoet, Gijsbert
- Venue
- Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2018-02-14
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 581-593
- ISSN
- 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9280
- OpenAlex
- W2786372958
- Cited by
- 1,054
- References
- 38
- Citations by year
- 2026: 103 · 2025: 132 · 2024: 116 · 2023: 146 · 2022: 119 · 2021: 158 · 2020: 166 · 2019: 82 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 216.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- correction (2019-12-06)
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Open Access at Essex (University of Essex) (acceptedVersion)
- Leeds Beckett Repository (Leeds Beckett University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Career Development and Diversity
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Technology in Education
- Keywords
- gender equality, STEM education, women in STEM, attitudes toward science, cross-national comparison, adolescent achievement
- MeSH terms
- Academic Performance, Adolescent, Engineering, Female, Humans, Male, Mathematics, Motivation, Science, Students, Technology, Models, Statistical, Sex Distribution, Internationality, Sexism
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
