Does the gender-equality paradox hold on the micro level? An assessment of the effect of household wealth on gendered math intentions for 60 countries
Open accessAbstract
The Gender-Equality Paradox (GEP) describes the phenomenon that the gender gap in the preference for and choice of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors is larger in more affluent and gender-egalitarian societies. GEP has theoretically been explained by greater economic opportunities in affluent societies for gendered self-realization, yet the literature lacks a test of this explanation on the individual level. This study tests (a) whether household wealth is associated with a greater male-favorable gender gap in student's math intentions, (b) whether this association, if any, is different in size and shape in more affluent and less affluent countries, and (c) whether household wealth can account for GEP regarding math intentions. Multilevel regression analyses of 15-year-old students' intentions to study math rather than language from 60 countries of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2012 display that household wealth is only weakly and positively related to girls' and boys' math intentions and does not increase or decrease the gender gap in math intentions. This pattern of household wealth effects does not differ between more affluent and less affluent countries, and household wealth cannot account for GEP regarding math intentions. These findings underline that the economic need/opportunity interpretation of GEP does not hold on the micro level and requires further research into the drivers of GEP.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
This further supports other research that has found GEP results to replicate poorly across time, and within countries.
“This further supports other research that has found GEP results to replicate poorly across time (33, 34), and within countries (52).”
From Simpson’s gender-equality paradox (2025) · cites this paper as [52]
Cites
Indulging Our Gendered Selves? Sex Segregation by Field of Study in 44 Countries
Charles, M., & Bradley, K. (2009) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/595942 · Cited by 996 · see citing works
Relationship of gender differences in preferences to economic development and gender equality
Falk, A., & Hermle, J. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aas9899 · Cited by 378 · 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
The Impact of Parental Occupation and Socioeconomic Status on Choice of College Major
Leppel, K., Williams, M. L., & Waldauer, C. (2001) · Journal of Family and Economic Issues · doi:10.1023/a:1012716828901 · Cited by 189 · 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
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
“This further supports other research that has found GEP results to replicate poorly across time ( 33 , 34 ), and within countries ( 52 ).”
- Authors
- Uunk, W.
- Affiliations
- Universität Innsbruck (AT)
- Corresponding author
- Uunk, Wilfred
- ORCID
- Uunk, Wilfred
- Venue
- Frontiers in Education
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2023-06-22
- Volume
- 8
- ISSN
- 2504-284X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4381855885
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 2.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Frontiers in Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Digital Library of the University of Innsbruck (University of Innsbruck) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Universität Innsbruck
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Career Development and Diversity
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
- Social Sciences › Education › School Choice and Performance
- Keywords
- gender-equality paradox, gender gap in STEM, household wealth, gender equality, economic opportunities, PISA 2012, cross-national comparison, adolescent students, gender differences in education
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