The STEM Conundrum: Sex Differences in Intraindividual Academic Strengths and the Gender Equality Paradox Across Academic Achievement Levels

Girls typically perform better in reading than in mathematics or science, whereas boys typically perform better in mathematics or science than in reading. We assessed these sex differences in intraindividual academic strengths using data from 1.6 million adolescents across 82 countries and regions for three waves (2012, 2015, and 2018) of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) among high (95th percentile), average (> 5th to < 95th percentile), and low (5th percentile) achievers. Girls’ intraindividual strength in reading and boys’ strength in mathematics or science were stable across countries, waves, and achievement levels. For countries in which boys had larger advantages in mathematics or science as an intraindividual strength, girls had an even larger advantage in reading. In line with a gender equality paradox, the magnitude of the sex differences in reading and science as intraindividual strengths increased with increases in national gender equality at each PISA achievement level. Interaction models suggest that the paradox arises because, as national gender equality increases, the sex with an overall advantage improves on their intraindividual strength, while the sex with an overall disadvantage shows a decline. The results have implications for understanding sex disparities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Intelligence & Cognitive Abilities
Published
2025-11-10
DOI
https://doi.org/10.65550/001c.146580
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.24

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The STEM Conundrum: Sex Differences in Intraindividual Academic Strengths and the Gender Equality Paradox Across Academic Achievement Levels

Marie‐Pier Larose, Marco Balducci, Gijsbert Stoet, David C. Geary
2 citations
Intelligence & Cognitive Abilities
Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
4.24
article

The STEM Conundrum: Sex Differences in Intraindividual Academic Strengths and the Gender Equality Paradox Across Academic Achievement Levels

Marie‐Pier Larose, Marco Balducci, Gijsbert Stoet, David C. Geary
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Girls typically perform better in reading than in mathematics or science, whereas boys typically perform better in mathematics or science than in reading. We assessed these sex differences in intraindividual academic strengths using data from 1.6 million adolescents across 82 countries and regions for three waves (2012, 2015, and 2018) of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) among high (95th percentile), average (> 5th to < 95th percentile), and low (5th percentile) achievers. Girls’ intraindividual strength in reading and boys’ strength in mathematics or science were stable across countries, waves, and achievement levels. For countries in which boys had larger advantages in mathematics or science as an intraindividual strength, girls had an even larger advantage in reading. In line with a gender equality paradox, the magnitude of the sex differences in reading and science as intraindividual strengths increased with increases in national gender equality at each PISA achievement level. Interaction models suggest that the paradox arises because, as national gender equality increases, the sex with an overall advantage improves on their intraindividual strength, while the sex with an overall disadvantage shows a decline. The results have implications for understanding sex disparities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields.

Intelligence & Cognitive AbilitiesVol. 1(2)
University of Essex (GB), University of Turku (FI), University of Missouri (US)
Suomen Kulttuurirahasto
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
4.24
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.