CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 32Gender and Technology in EducationLabor market dynamics and wage inequalityEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Will Artificial Intelligence Get in the Way of Achieving Gender Equality?

Open access
Carvajal, Daniel, Franco, Catalina, Isaksson, Siri·2024·SSRN Electronic Journal
DOI 10.2139/ssrn.4759218
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We conduct two surveys with preregistered experiments to examine gender differences in generative AI adoption and potential labor market consequences. First, we document a substantial gender gap in AI adoption among students at a top business school in Norway, with female students, particularly top students, opting out of AI use. Second, a survey of managers shows that acquiring AI skills would significantly enhance job prospects for top female students currently avoiding AI. Finally, we provide causal evidence on policy tools to close the gender gap in AI adoption. Our findings show that while generative AI could widen existing gender gaps in the labor market, with the right policies, it could instead be leveraged to help close them.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2139/ssrn.4759218

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The gender gap among Norwegian bachelor's students largely reflects male students continuing to use ChatGPT even when explicitly banned.

    “This pattern mirrors findings by Carvajal, Franco and Isaksson (2024), who document a similar gender gap in ChatGPT use among Norwegian bachelor's students and show, using a vignette experiment, that the gap largely reflects male students continuing to use the tools even when explicitly banned.”

    From Still Waters, Rapid Currents: Early Labor Market Transformation under Generative AI (2025) · cites this paper as Carvajal, Franco and Isaksson (2024)

  • A similar gender gap in ChatGPT use exists among Norwegian bachelor's students.

    “This pattern mirrors findings by Carvajal, Franco and Isaksson (2024), who document a similar gender gap in ChatGPT use among Norwegian bachelor's students and show, using a vignette experiment, that the gap largely reflects male students continuing to use the tools even when explicitly banned.”

    From Still Waters, Rapid Currents: Early Labor Market Transformation under Generative AI (2025) · cites this paper as Carvajal, Franco and Isaksson (2024)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Carvajal, D., Franco, C., & Isaksson, S.
Affiliations
  • Norwegian School of Economics (NO)
  • Stockholm School of Economics (SE)
Corresponding author
Isaksson, Siri
ORCID
Venue
SSRN Electronic Journal
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024
ISSN
1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2139/ssrn.4759218
OpenAlex
W4392799079
Cited by
32
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
Norges Forskningsråd
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Technology in Education
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Labor market dynamics and wage inequality
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
generative AI adoption, gender gap, gender equality, labor market outcomes, AI competencies, female students, business students, managers, AI policy

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