Can Gender Stereotypes Explain the Gender‐Equality Paradox? A Reassessment

ABSTRACT The social science literature surprisingly found that gender differences in the choice of and preference for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) study majors are larger in more gender‐equal and affluent countries. This phenomenon is known as the Gender‐Equality Paradox (GEP). Some scholars attributed GEP regarding students' mathematics intentions entirely to gender stereotypes, particularly the stereotype that “math is not for girls”. In this study, I reassess the finding that gender stereotypes can explain GEP because (a) the stereotype measure was not independently assessed from the prime respondents, overestimating the stereotype effect, (b) gender‐STEM stereotypes may not associate with gender equality and societal affluence, and (c) the effect of gender‐STEM stereotypes on gendered mathematics intentions may decrease with societal affluence. Multilevel analyses of data from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2012 support my suggestions. A measure of gender‐science stereotypes independently assessed from PISA—the Implicit Association Test—cannot satisfactorily account for GEP regarding students' mathematics intentions. The reasons are a weak association between gender‐science stereotypes and societal affluence/gender equality, an only partially significant effect of these stereotypes on the gender gap in mathematics intentions, and a normative effect that decreases with societal affluence. Therefore, GEP remains a puzzling issue that warrants further investigation.