Cited by 9Career Development and DiversityEducation, Achievement, and GiftednessSchool Choice and Performance

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 access
Uunk, Wilfred·2023·Frontiers in Education

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.3389/feduc.2023.1155492

Cites

5 of 5 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?

  • 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Uunk, W.
Affiliations
Universität Innsbruck (AT)
Corresponding author
Uunk, Wilfred
Venue
Frontiers in Education
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
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