articles about gender equality in education

How our education system undermines gender equity

Subscribe to the brown center on education policy newsletter, and why culture change—not policy—may be the solution, joseph cimpian jc joseph cimpian associate professor of economics and education policy - new york university @joecimpian.

April 23, 2018

There are well-documented achievement and opportunity gaps by income and race/ethnicity. K-12 accountability policies often have a stated goal of reducing or eliminating those gaps, though with questionable effectiveness . Those same accountability policies require reporting academic proficiency by gender, but there are no explicit goals of reducing gender gaps and no “hard accountability” sanctions tied to gender-subgroup performance. We could ask, “Should gender be included more strongly in accountability policies?”

In this post, I’ll explain why I don’t think accountability policy interventions would produce real gender equity in the current system—a system that largely relies on existing state standardized tests of math and English language arts to gauge equity. I’ll argue that although much of the recent research on gender equity from kindergarten through postgraduate education uses math or STEM parity as a measure of equity, the overall picture related to gender equity is of an education system that devalues young women’s contributions and underestimates young women’s intellectual abilities more broadly.

In a sense, math and STEM outcomes simply afford insights into a deeper, more systemic problem. In order to improve access and equity across gender lines from kindergarten through the workforce, we need considerably more social-questioning and self-assessment of biases about women’s abilities.

As soon as girls enter school, they are underestimated

For over a decade now, I have studied gender achievement with my colleague Sarah Lubienski, a professor of math education at Indiana University-Bloomington. In a series of studies using data from both the 1998-99 and 2010-11 kindergarten cohorts of the nationally representative Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, we found that no average gender gap in math test scores existed when boys and girls entered kindergarten, but a gap of nearly 0.25 standard deviations developed in favor of the boys by around second or third grade.

For comparison purposes, the growth of the black-white math test score gap was virtually identical to the growth in the gender gap. Unlike levels and growth in race-based gaps, though, which have been largely attributed to a combination of differences in the schools attended by black and white students and to socio-economic differences, boys and girls for the most part attend the same schools and come from families of similar socio-economic status. This suggests that something may be occurring within schools that contributes to an advantage for boys in math.

Exploring deeper, we found that the beliefs that teachers have about student ability might contribute significantly to the gap. When faced with a boy and a girl of the same race and socio-economic status who performed equally well on math tests and whom the teacher rated equally well in behaving and engaging with school, the teacher rated the boy as more mathematically able —an alarming pattern that replicated in a separate data set collected over a decade later .

Another way of thinking of this is that in order for a girl to be rated as mathematically capable as her male classmate, she not only needed to perform as well as him on a psychometrically rigorous external test, but also be seen as working harder than him. Subsequent matching and instrumental variables analyses suggested that teachers’ underrating of girls from kindergarten through third grade accounts for about half of the gender achievement gap growth in math. In other words, if teachers didn’t think their female students were less capable, the gender gap in math might be substantially smaller.

An interaction that Sarah and I had with a teacher drove home the importance and real-world relevance of these results. About five years ago, while Sarah and I were faculty at the University of Illinois, we gathered a small group of elementary teachers together to help us think through these findings and how we could intervene on the notion that girls were innately less capable than boys. One of the teachers pulled a stack of papers out of her tote bag, and spreading them on the conference table, said, “Now, I don’t even understand why you’re looking at girls’ math achievement. These are my students’ standardized test scores, and there are absolutely no gender differences. See, the girls can do just as well as the boys if they work hard enough.” Then, without anyone reacting, it was as if a light bulb went on. She gasped and continued, “Oh my gosh, I just did exactly what you said teachers are doing,” which is attributing girls’ success in math to hard work while attributing boys’ success to innate ability. She concluded, “I see now why you’re studying this.”

Although this teacher did ultimately recognize her gender-based attribution, there are (at least) three important points worth noting. First, her default assumption was that girls needed to work harder in order to achieve comparably to boys in math, and this reflects an all-too-common pattern among elementary school teachers, across at least the past couple decades and in other cultural contexts . Second, it is not obvious how to get teachers to change that default assumption. Third, the evidence that she brought to the table was state standardized test scores, and these types of tests can reveal different (often null or smaller) gender achievement gaps than other measures.

On this last point, state standardized tests consistently show small or no differences between boys and girls in math achievement, which contrasts with somewhat larger gaps on NAEP and PISA , as well as with gaps at the top of the distribution on the ECLS , SAT Mathematics assessment, and the American Mathematics Competition . The reasons for these discrepancies are not entirely clear, but what is clear is that there is no reason to expect that “hardening” the role of gender in accountability policies that use existing state tests and current benchmarks will change the current state of gender gaps. Policymakers might consider implementing test measures similar to those where gaps have been noted and placing more emphasis on gains throughout the achievement distribution. However, I doubt that a more nuanced policy for assessing math gains would address the underlying problem of the year-after-year underestimation of girls’ abilities and various signals and beliefs that buttress boys’ confidence and devalue girls, all of which cumulatively contributes to any measured gaps.

More obstacles await women in higher education and beyond

Looking beyond K-12 education, there is mounting evidence at the college and postgraduate levels that cultural differences between academic disciplines may be driving women away from STEM fields, as well as away from some non-STEM fields (e.g., criminal justice, philosophy, and economics). In fact, although research and policy discussions often dichotomize academic fields and occupations as “STEM” and “non-STEM,” the emerging research on gender discrimination in higher education finds that the factors that drive women away from some fields cut across the STEM/non-STEM divide. Thus, while gender representation disparities between STEM and non-STEM fields may help draw attention to gender representation more broadly, reifying the STEM/non-STEM distinction and focusing on math may be counterproductive to understanding the underlying reasons for gender representation gaps across academic disciplines.

In a recent study , my colleagues and I examined how perceptions on college majors relate to who is entering those majors. We found that the dominant factor predicting the gender of college-major entrants is the degree of perceived discrimination against women. To reach this conclusion, we used two sources of data. First, we created and administered surveys to gather perceptions on how much math is required for a major, how much science is required, how creative a field is, how lucrative careers are in a field, how helpful the field is to society, and how difficult it is for a woman to succeed in the field. After creating factor scales on each of the six dimensions for each major, we mapped those ratings onto the second data source, the Education Longitudinal Study, which contains several prior achievement, demographic, and attitudinal measures on which we matched young men and women attending four-year colleges.

Among this nationally representative sample, we found that the degree to which a field was perceived to be math- or science-intensive had very little relation to student gender. However, fields that were perceived to discriminate against women were strongly predictive of the gender of the students in the field, whether or not we accounted for the other five traits of the college majors. In short, women are less likely to enter fields where they expect to encounter discrimination.

And what happens if a woman perseveres in obtaining a college degree in a field where she encounters discrimination and underestimation and wants to pursue a postgraduate degree in that field, and maybe eventually work in academia? The literature suggests additional obstacles await her. These obstacles may take the form of those in the field thinking she’s not brilliant like her male peers in graduate school, having her looks discussed on online job boards when she’s job-hunting, performing more service work if she becomes university faculty, and getting less credit for co-authored publications in some disciplines when she goes up for tenure.

Each of the examples here and throughout this post reflects a similar problem—education systems (and society) unjustifiably and systematically view women as less intellectually capable.

Societal changes are necessary

My argument that policy probably isn’t the solution is not intended to undercut the importance of affirmative action and grievance policies that have helped many individuals take appropriate legal recourse. Rather, I am arguing that those policies are certainly not enough, and that the typical K-12 policy mechanisms will likely have no real effect in improving equity for girls.

The obstacles that women face are largely societal and cultural. They act against women from the time they enter kindergarten—instilling in very young girls a belief they are less innately talented than their male peers—and persist into their work lives. Educational institutions—with undoubtedly many well-intentioned educators—are themselves complicit in reinforcing the hurdles. In order to dismantle these barriers, we likely need educators at all levels of education to examine their own biases and stereotypes.

Related Content

Michael Hansen, Diana Quintero

July 10, 2018

Jaymes Pyne

July 30, 2020

Seth Gershenson

January 13, 2016

Education Access & Equity Higher Education K-12 Education

Governance Studies

Brown Center on Education Policy

Katharine Meyer

May 7, 2024

Jamie Klinenberg, Jon Valant, Nicolas Zerbino

Thinley Choden

May 3, 2024

• Chronicle Conversations
• Article archives
• Issue archives
• Join our mailing list

Education as the Pathway towards Gender Equality

About the author.

Amartya Sen, often referred to as the father of the concept of ‘human development’, reminds us of a quote by H.G. Wells, where he said that “human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe”. Sen maintains that “if we continue to leave vast sections of the people of the world outside the orbit of education, we make the world not only less just, but also less secure”. To Sen, the gender aspect of education is a direct link between illiteracy and women’s security.

Not being able to read or write is a significant barrier for underprivileged women, since this can lead to their failure to make use of even the rather limited rights they may legally have (to own land or other property, or to appeal against unfair judgment and unjust treatment). There are often legal rights in rule books that are not used because the aggrieved parties cannot read those rule books. Gaps in schooling can, therefore, directly lead to insecurity by distancing the deprived from the ways and means of fighting against that deprivation. 1

For Sen, illiteracy and innumeracy are forms of insecurity in themselves, “not to be able to read or write or count or communicate is a tremendous deprivation. The extreme case of insecurity is the certainty of deprivation, and the absence of any chance of avoiding that fate”. 2 The link between education and security underlines the importance of education as akin to a basic need in the twenty-first century of human development.

GENDERED EDUCATION GAPS: SOME CRITICAL FACTS

While a moral and political argument can continue to be made for the education of girls and women, some facts speak powerfully to the issue at hand. Girls accounted for 53 per cent of the 61 million children of primary school age who were out of school in 2010. Girls accounted for 49 per cent of the 57 million children out of school in 2013. In surveys of 30 countries with more than 100,000 out-of-school children, 28 per cent of girls were out of school on average compared to 25 per cent of boys. Completion of primary school is a particular problem for girls in sub-Saharan Africa and Western Asia. 3

Surveys in 55 developing countries reveal that girls are more likely to be out of school at a lower secondary age than boys, regardless of the wealth or location of the household. Almost two thirds of the world’s 775 million illiterate adults are women. In developing regions, there are 98 women per 100 men in tertiary education. There are significant inequalities in tertiary education in general, as well as in relation to areas of study, with women being over-represented in the humanities and social sciences and significantly under-represented in engineering, science and technology.

Gender-based violence in schools undermines the right to education and presents a major challenge to achieving gender equality in education because it negatively impacts girls’ participation and their retention in school. In addition, ineffective sexual and reproductive health education inhibits adolescents’ access to information and contributes to school dropouts, especially among girls who have reached puberty.

The education of girls and women can lead to a wide range of benefits from improved maternal health, reduced infant mortality and fertility rates to increased prevention against HIV and AIDS. 4 Educated mothers are more likely to know that HIV can be transmitted by breastfeeding, and that the risk of mother-to-child transmission can be reduced by taking drugs during pregnancy.

Each extra year of a mother’s schooling reduces the probability of infant mortality by 5-10 per cent. Children of mothers with secondary education or higher are twice as likely to survive beyond age 5 compared to those whose mothers have no education. Improvements in women’s education explained half of the reduction in child deaths between 1990 and 2009. A child born to a mother who can read is 50 per cent more likely to survive past age 5. In sub-Saharan Africa, an estimated 1.8 million children’s lives could have been saved in 2008 if their mothers had at least a secondary education. In Indonesia, 68 per cent of children with mothers who have attended secondary school are immunized, compared with 19 per cent of children whose mothers have no primary schooling. Wages, agricultural income and productivity—all critical for reducing poverty— are higher where women involved in agriculture receive a better education. Each additional year of schooling beyond primary offers greater payoffs for improved opportunities, options and outcomes for girls and women.

In the varied discussions on the post-2015 education related agendas, there was strong consensus that gender equality in education remains a priority. Various inputs noted that inequalities in general, and particularly gender equality, need to be addressed simultaneously on multiple levels—economic, social, political and cultural. A response on behalf of the International Women’s Health Coalition maintained that “all girls, no matter how poor, isolated or disadvantaged, should be able to attend school regularly and without the interruption of early pregnancy, forced marriage, maternal injuries and death, and unequal domestic and childcare burdens”.

Other inputs highlighted the importance of ensuring access to post-basic and post-secondary education for girls and women. Referring to secondary education, the German Foundation for World Population noted that the “completion of secondary education has a strong correlation with girls marrying later and delaying first pregnancy.” While access to good quality education is important for girls and women, preventing gender-based violence and equality through education clearly also remains a priority.

Gender-based discrimination in education is, in effect, both a cause and a consequence of deep-rooted differences in society. Disparities, whether in terms of poverty, ethnic background, disability, or traditional attitudes about their status and role all undermine the ability of women and girls to exercise their rights. Moreover, harmful practices such as early marriage, gender-based violence, as well as discriminatory education laws and policies still prevent millions of girls from enrolling and completing their respective education. 5

Additionally, given the extensive and growing participation of women in income generating activities, education for girls and women is particularly important, especially in attempting to reverse gendered patterns of discrimination. Not only is it impossible to achieve gender equality without education, but expanding education opportunities for all can help stimulate productivity and thereby also reduce the economic vulnerability of poor households.

GENDER EQUALITY, EQUITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Equity is the strongest framing principle of a post-2015 rights-based agenda, and underlines the need to redress historical and structural inequalities in order to provide access to quality education at all levels. This heralds what was effectively one of the strongest themes that emerged in the post-2015 education consultations, i.e., a rights-based approach in which rights are indivisible. This implies that all aspects of education should be considered from a rights perspective, including structural features of education systems, methods of education, as well as the contents of the education curricula. Indeed, overcoming structural barriers to accessing good quality education is vital for realizing education rights for all.

In related post-2015 consultations, equity is affirmed as a fundamental value in education. Several inputs noted that inequality in education remains a persistent challenge. This is connected to a focus in the Millennium Development Goals on averages without an accompanying consideration of trends beneath the averages. Many contributions in the education consultation, as well as in the other thematic consultations, highlighted the lack of attention to marginalized and vulnerable groups.

Equal access to good quality education requires addressing wide-ranging and persistent inequalities in society and should include a stronger focus on how different forms of inequality intersect to produce unequal outcomes for marginalized and vulnerable groups. Post-2015 consultations suggest that overcoming inequality requires a goal that makes national governments accountable for providing minimum standards and implementing country specific plans for basic services, including education. Equity in education also implies various proactive and targeted measures to offer progressive support to disadvantaged groups.

Amartya Sen notes empirical work which has brought out very clearly how the relative respect and regard for women’s well-being is strongly influenced by their literacy and educated participation in decisions within and outside the family. Even the survival disadvantage of women compared with men in many developing countries (which leads to “such terrible phenomenon as a hundred million of ‘missing women’) seems to go down sharply, and may even get eliminated, with progress in women’s empowerment, for which literacy is a basic ingredient”.

In the summer of 2009, the International Labour Organization (ILO) issued a report entitled “Give Girls a Chance: Tackling child labour, a key to the future”, which makes a disturbing link between increasing child labour and the preference being given to boys when making decisions on education of children. The report states that in cultures in which a higher value is placed on education of male children, girls risk being taken out of school and are then likely to enter the workforce at an early age. The ILO report noted global estimates where more than 100 million girls were involved in child labour, and many were exposed to some of its worst forms.

Much of the research around women and education highlights the importance of investing in the education of girls as an effective way of tackling the gamut of poverty. This is in line with assertions made in numerous other references, which also point to a strong link between education, increased women’s (as opposed to girls’) labour force participation, the wages they earn and overall productivity, all of which ultimately yields higher benefits for communities and nations. In other words, it pays to invest in girls’ and women’s education.

GENDER SOCIALIZATION

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Western feminist stalwarts, such as Simone de Beauvoir, were elaborating the difference between biological ‘sex’ and social gender. Anne Oakley in particular, is known for coining the term gender socialization (1979), which indicates that gender is socially constructed. According to Oakley, parents are engaged in gender socialization but society holds the largest influence in constructing gender. She identified three social mechanisms of gender socialization: manipulation, canalization, and verbalization (Oakley, 1972). Oakley noted that gender is not a fixed concept but is determined by culture through the use of verbal and nonverbal signifiers and the creation of social norms and stereotypes, which identify proper and acceptable behavior. The signifiers are then perpetuated on a macro level, reinforced by the use of the media, as well as at the micro level, through individual relationships.

The concept entered mainstream lexicon on gender relations and development dynamics, and through criticism and counter criticism, ‘gender socialization’ itself became an important signifier. As a tool to highlight discriminatory practices, laws and perceptions (including stereotypes), gender socialization is often identified as the ‘root cause’ which explains various aspects of gender identities, and what underlies many gender dynamics.

In 2007, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) defined gender socialization as “[T]he process by which people learn to behave in a certain way, as dictated by societal beliefs, values, attitudes and examples. Gender socialization begins as early as when a woman becomes pregnant and people start making judgments about the value of males over females. These stereotypes are perpetuated by family members, teachers and others by having different expectations for males and females.”

There is, therefore, a clear interaction between socio-cultural values (and praxis) with gender socialization. This only partly explains why it is that in many developing societies there is a persistent prioritization of women’s ‘domestic’ roles and responsibilities over public ones. Most young girls are socialized into the ‘biological inevitability’ of their socially determined future roles as mothers. This is closely connected, in many relatively socially conservative contexts, with the need to ensure (the prerequisite of) marriage.

Most related studies maintain that women with formal education are much more likely to use reliable family planning methods, delay marriage and childbearing, and have fewer and healthier babies than women with no formal education. The World Bank estimates that one year of female schooling reduces fertility by 10 per cent, particularly where secondary schooling is undertaken.

In fact, because women with some formal education are more likely to seek medical care and be better informed about health care practices for themselves and their children, their offspring have higher survival rates and are better nourished. Not only that, but as indicated earlier, these women are less likely to undergo early pregnancy. Being better informed increases the chances of women knowing how to space their pregnancies better, how to access pre and post-natal care, including prevention of HIV/AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases and family planning in general. The World Bank estimates that an additional year of schooling for 1,000 women helps prevent two maternal deaths.

The World Bank, along with UNICEF and the United Nations Population Fund highlight in several of their reports the intergenerational benefits of women’s education. An educated mother is more likely, it is maintained, to attempt to ensure educational opportunities for her children. Indeed, the World Bank specifically notes that “ in many countries each additional year of formal education completed by a mother translates into her children remaining in school for an additional one- third to one-half year”. 6

In short, girls’ education and the promotion of gender equality in education are critical to development, thus underlining the need to broadly address gender disparities in education.

The rhetorical question that needs to be raised here is whether the consistent elements of gender socialization in the region, and the confusing messages for both sexes, can only lead to entrenching processes of gender inequality. At the very least, it is safe to argue that gender socialization, combined with the continuing discrepancies in education opportunities and outcomes not only provide a negative feedback loop, but effectively contribute to entrenching patriarchal norms.

Political events and the endorsement of political leadership are often catalytic, if not necessary determinants, of policy change. In fact, most education reform programmes are often linked to political dynamics. To date, such reforms are typically launched through a political or legal act. In most cases, countries prioritize aspects such as forging a common heritage and understanding of citizenship, instruction in particular language(s), and other means of building capacities as well as popular support for party programmes. All developing country governments have, at one time or another, put special effort into including girls in the education system. While there is a continuous role for policy makers and governments, it is increasingly clear that the socio-cultural terrain is where the real battles need to be waged in a studied, deliberate and targeted fashion.

Influencing the way people think, believe and behave; i.e., culture is the single most complicated task of human development. And yet, in policy and advocacy circles globally, this particular challenge still remains largely considered as ‘soft’ and, at best, secondary in most considerations. What is maintained here is that within the current global geopolitical climate, particularly where an increasing number of young men—and now also young women—are reverting to extremes such as inflicting violence, and where this is often exacerbated by socialization processes which often enforce certain harmful practices (e.g., early marriage) and outdated forms of gender identity and roles, then culture needs to be a high priority.

Needed cultural shifts require several key conditions. One of these is the importance of bridging the activism around gender equality and doing so by involving both men and women. While this still remains anathema to many women’s rights activists, it is nevertheless necessary that men become more engaged in gender equality work, and that women realize that their rights are incumbent on the systematic partnership with men and on appreciating the specific needs and challenges that young boys and men themselves are struggling with.

Another critical determinant of cultural change is that it has to be from within. Those who have worked with human rights issues more broadly have had to learn the hard way that any change that appears to be induced ‘from outside’, even if responding to a dire need and with perfectly sound reason, is destined for failure in many cases. Sustainable change has to be owned and operated locally. This points to the importance of identifying the ‘cultural agents of change’ in any given society, which include both its men and women activists, religious leaders, traditional and community leaders (in some cases these categories converge), media figures, charismatic community mobilizers, and especially youth themselves, who are the most critical agents of change.

At the same time, it is a fallacy to think that there can be no linkages whatsoever between local ownership and external dynamics. International, especially multilateral, development partners have an important role to play in facilitating the bridge building between and among the cultural agents of change themselves on the one hand, and between them and their respective policymakers on the other. But in this day and age of technology and increasing speed of technology, international development actors, as well as transnational academic actors, are already facilitating the building of bridges between youth. Some of this is already happening through a plethora of fora (including social websites), and the impact remains difficult to gauge.

All this points to the fact that education in the traditional sense of school enrolment, drop-out rates, curricula development, and structural dynamics thereof are in multiple stages of transition. It remains to be seen how, and in what way, new forms of education, knowledge acquisition, and information sharing will significantly change patterns of gender socialization itself. It is too soon to definitely assess the shifting sands we are standing on. Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to either overestimate the power of entrenched patriarchy, or to underestimate the capacity of women and men to significantly refashion their realities. At the same time, the changes in the culture of international development goal setting are already producing critical insights and inputs which are shaping the agenda of global, regional and national dynamics for upcoming decades.

The opinions expressed in this article belong to the author only and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or positions of any institution, Board or staff member.

1 UNICEF and UNESCO: The World We Want— Making Education a Priority in the Post-2015 Development Agenda: Report of the Global Thematic Consultation on Education in the Post-2015 Development Agenda, 2013 . Available at http://www.unicef.org/education/files/ Making_education_a_Priority_in_the_Post-2015_Development_ Agenda.pdf.

3 “Making education a Priority in the Post-2015 Development Agenda: report of the Global Thematic Consultation on education in the Post-2015 Development Agenda”.

4 All the figures and data herein presented from UNESCO. 2011b. EFA Global Monitoring Report 2011. The Hidden Crisis: Armed Conflict and Education, Paris and UNESCO . World Atlas of Gender equality in education. Paris, 2012.

5 UNESCO— http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-international-...

Alger, Chadwick. “Religion as a Peace Tool”, The Global Review of Ethnopolitics , vol.1,4: 94 -109. (June 2002).

Diamond, Larry (ed.). Political Culture and Democracy in Developing Countries (Boulder and London, Lynne Rienner, 1994). Huntington, Samuel. ‘The Clash of Civilizations?’, Foreign Affairs , vol.72, No.3, Summer 1993, pp. 19 -23.

Johnson, Chalmers. Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire (New York , Henry Holt and Company, 2000).

Karam, Azza. Transnational Political Islam: Religion, Ideology and Power (London, Pluto Press, 2004).

Leftwich, Adrian (ed.). Democracy and Development: Theory and Practice (London, Polity Press, 1996).

Macrae, Joanna. Aiding Recovery? The Crisis of AID in Chronic Political Emergencies (London and New York, Zed Books in Association with ODI, 2001).

Pilch, John J. “Beat His ribs While He is young” (Sir 30:12): A Window on the Mediterranean World”, Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology, vol. 23, 3 (1993) pp 101-113.

Tynedale, Wendy. (ed.). Visions of Development: Faith-based Initiatives (UK: Ashgate, 2006).

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)’s Arab Human Development Report (New York, 2002, 2004, and 2005).

UNESCO, “Key Messages and Data on Girls’ and Women’s education and literacy” (Paris, April 2012).

UNICEF and UNESCO, The World We Want—Making Education a Priority in the Post-2015 Development Agenda: Report of the Global Thematic Consultation on Education in the Post-2015 Development Agenda, 2013 . Available at http://www.unicef.org/education/files/Making_education_a_Priority_in_the... . United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) State of World Population Report: Reaching Common Ground—Culture, Gender and Human Rights (2008).

Williams, Brett (ed.). The Politics of Culture (Washington D.C., The Smithsonian Institution, 1991).

World Bank MENA report: The Road Not Travelled: Education Reform in the Middle East and North Africa , (Washington D.C. The World Bank, 2008).

The UN Chronicle  is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.

Thirty Years On, Leaders Need to Recommit to the International Conference on Population and Development Agenda

With the gains from the Cairo conference now in peril, the population and development framework is more relevant than ever. At the end of April 2024, countries will convene to review the progress made on the ICPD agenda during the annual session of the Commission on Population and Development.

The LDC Future Forum: Accelerating the Attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals in the Least Developed Countries

The desired outcome of the LDC Future Forums is the dissemination of practical and evidence-based case studies, solutions and policy recommendations for achieving sustainable development.

From Local Moments to Global Movement: Reparation Mechanisms and a Development Framework

For two centuries, emancipated Black people have been calling for reparations for the crimes committed against them. 

Documents and publications

• Yearbook of the United Nations 
• Basic Facts About the United Nations
• Journal of the United Nations
• Meetings Coverage and Press Releases
• United Nations Official Document System (ODS)
• Africa Renewal

Libraries and Archives

• Dag Hammarskjöld Library
• UN Audiovisual Library
• UN Archives and Records Management 
• Audiovisual Library of International Law
• UN iLibrary 

News and media

• UN News Centre 
• UN Chronicle on Twitter
• UN Chronicle on Facebook

The UN at Work

• 17 Goals to Transform Our World
• Official observances
• United Nations Academic Impact (UNAI)
• Protecting Human Rights
• Maintaining International Peace and Security
• The Office of the Secretary-General’s Envoy on Youth
• United Nations Careers

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Editorial article, editorial: gender equality and women’s empowerment in education.

• 1 Department of Specific Didactics, Faculty of Education, University of Burgos, Burgos, Spain
• 2 Department of Educational Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

Editorial on the Research Topic Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment in Education

Current scholarly literature shows that gender inequalities are still present in the process of curricular decision making and teacher practices. These inequalities are expressed through the selection of educational content, the application of methodological strategies, the selection of teaching resources, interpersonal relationships, specific task assignments, or even seating choices within the classroom. These ongoing gender-related issues drive the need for teachers to receive specific and transversal training in this area. Such trainings should be aimed at revealing gender relations as a type of power relationship for the promotion of social change.

The literature in the field of teacher training indicates that the maintenance of gender stereotypes and biases in teacher discourses and practices reinforces the sex-gender system and, consequently, inequalities. Further research is therefore still needed to study the discourses that emerged from the teaching practices around gender. Moreover, research in this field should encourage critical reflection on teacher training plans and the teaching curriculum itself.

The adoption of coeducational approaches and the promotion of education in and for gender equality entails transforming the traditional teaching curriculum to overcome the androcentric constructive bases of historical, social, and literary knowledge. Such transformation would also motivate the incorporation of “polysemic views” in the understanding and interpretation of social reality. Even today, it is common to recognize in mainstream social communication discourses, such as advertising or audio-visual artistic expressions, clear imagery of unquestionable, allegedly identarian gender cultural patterns. The overcoming or relativization of these patterns should necessarily go through the reexamination of curricular content.

The eradication of gender inequalities requires not only the integration of all the voices that have built social knowledge but also the overcoming of gender stereotypes within the education system. It is thus essential to identify the shortcomings of teachers’ training and encourage gender studies as a requisite for their curricula in order to achieve inclusive, plural, and diverse models for teaching practices.

This Research Topic includes 15 manuscripts, from nine prestigious international academic institutions (Austria, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Finland, Germany, Spain, and Sweden) on important topics related to the inclusion of gender inequalities in teacher training, and the analysis of this concept in the official school curriculum, materials, and teacher practices.

The experiences and socio-cultural constructions of the concept of gender constitute the explanatory core of the research problem addressed in “ The Challenge of Women’s Inclusion for Novel Teachers. Case Study in a Teacher Educator Public University ”. This research analyzes the representations of novice teachers of History and Social Sciences on the presence and absence of women’s historical experience in their teaching practices. The research demonstrates the permanence of positivist and androcentric epistemological approaches in the teaching of History, and highlights the urgency of addressing gender inequalities as one of the most pressing social problems of our contemporaneity. In this vein, “ Classical Sociology Through the Lens of Gendered Experiences ” seeks to promote discussion on the mediating role of gendered experiences in classical sociology’s theories of the move towards modern society. This study evidences the constructive relativity of social knowledge and its consequences for sociological teaching and learning.

From the conception of a socio-constructive nature of sexism, the research “ Intersections Around Ambivalent Sexism: Internalized Homonegativity, Resistance to Heteronormativity and Other Correlates ” explores the levels of internalized sexism and homonegativity, and the resistance to heteronormativity of Spanish psychology students. Its results are consistent with those obtained in the study “ Evaluation of Sexist and Prejudiced Attitudes Toward Homosexuality in Spanish Future Teachers: Analysis of Related Variables ”, focused on the analysis of sexist and prejudiced attitudes toward homosexuality of future Spanish teachers. Both studies show the influence of factors such as political ideology, gender identity and sexual orientation on students’ beliefs and perceptions. They also point out the need to advance in the eradication of discrimination based on sex and sexual diversity in the training of future professionals, and the implementation of intersectional approaches to understand the sexist construct.

The consequences of the invisibility of female referents in education and, therefore, of models on which to build plural and empowered identities, derives from the limitations inherent in traditional gender expectations and attributions. The educational hegemony of these attributions, the basis of the study “ Nine Contradictory Observations About Girls’ and Boys’ Upbringing and Education—The Strength-Based Approach as the Way to Eliminate the Gender Gap ”, continue to limit the potential expectations and talents of girls. Through “nine contradictory observations”, this article directs its proposal towards a “strength-based approach” as a way to eradicate the gender gap. Along these lines, “ Mindfulness and Empathy: Mediating Factors and Gender Differences in a Spanish Sample ” highlights the lack of studies aimed at analyzing the potential moderating role of gender in the development of empathic skills.

The research production around the gender gap and gender-segregated differentiation seems not to have received the desired impact in educational social spaces. From this perspective, on the one hand, the article “ Differentiations in Visibility-Male Advantages and Female Disadvantages in Gender-Segregated Programmes ” starts from the differential articulation of inter- and intra-group visibility, by gender, in students, underrepresented in their programmes. On the other hand, the works “ Distributing Feedback Wisely to Empower Girls in STEM ” and “ Girls in STEM: Is It a Female Role-Model Thing? ” highlight the still distant presence of women in the development of STEM professions, a circumstance originating in the educational context and influenced, therefore, by traditional gender models and by social factors that have an impact on the construction of personal identities, as also evidenced by the work “ What Dominates the Female Class Identification? Evidence From China ”.

These constructed identities are revealed in the underestimation of the self-efficacy of secondary school students regarding their competences in STEM subjects, as shown in the work “ Parent and Teacher Depictions of Gender Gaps in Secondary Student Appraisals of Their Academic Competences ”. Consequently, the analysis of self-efficacy, expectations of results, interest in STEM areas and the intervention in the classrooms of plural female role models are proposed as necessary working spaces to redirect this trend. These results are completed with the analysis of the potential influence of gender stereotypes in biased student evaluations of teaching in “ Gender Stereotypes in Student Evaluations of Teaching ”.

From the area of Brazilian physical education, “ Gender Participation and Preference: A Multiple-Case Study on Teaching Circus at PE in Brazilians Schools ” reports on the elective influence of Primary Education teachers in the assignment of circus physical activities according to gender, extensible to the sports activities of traditional teaching. In order to advance in critical and emancipatory training proposals in gender equality in this area, “ Breaking Cultural ‘Taboos’ About the Body and Gender: Brazilian Students’ Emancipation From a Thematic Perspective of School Physical Education ” stresses the importance of teaching programs oriented to the cultural construction of the differential concept of the body. From this perspective, the work “ REFLECT—A Teacher Training Program to Promote Gender Equality in Schools ” emphasizes the hegemonic role of socializing agents in maintaining the status quo of gender stereotypes in education and in the future professional development of men and women. As a response to the permanence of the sex-gender system, and to the evidence of the influence of teachers’ attitudes and practices in the promotion of truly coeducational educational environments, this program, aimed at future teachers of Secondary Education, aims to contribute, in a sustainable way, to gender equality from the educational spaces of subjective action (such as self-efficacy), and objective action (teaching methods and knowledge).

Author Contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication.

This Research Topic was completed with the main support of the Research Group Recognized in Didactics of History and Social Sciences (DHISO) (cod. 137), directed by Prof. Dr. Delfín Ortega-Sánchez (University of Burgos, Spain). Likewise, it has also been carried out within the framework of the projects Teach and learn to interpret contemporary problems and conflicts. What do social sciences contribute to the formation of a critical global citizenship? (EDU2016-80145-P), financed by the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (Spanish Government), and Future Education and Democratic Hope. Rethinking Social Studies Education in changing times (PID2019-107383RB-I00), financed by the Ministry of Science, and Innovation (Spanish Government).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Keywords: gender equality, teacher training, gender representation, gender stereotypes, higher education, primary and secondary education, early childhood education

Citation: Ortega-Sánchez D, Sanz de la Cal E, Ibáñez Quintana J and Borghi B (2022) Editorial: Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment in Education. Front. Educ. 7:833977. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.833977

Received: 12 December 2021; Accepted: 10 January 2022; Published: 26 January 2022.

Edited and reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Ortega-Sánchez, Sanz de la Cal, Ibáñez Quintana and Borghi. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Delfín Ortega-Sánchez, [email protected]

This article is part of the Research Topic

Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment in Education

• High contrast
• Press Centre

Search UNICEF

Girls' education, gender equality in education benefits every child..

• Girls' education
• Available in:

Investing in girls’ education transforms communities, countries and the entire world. Girls who receive an education are less likely to marry young and more likely to lead healthy, productive lives. They earn higher incomes, participate in the decisions that most affect them, and build better futures for themselves and their families.

Girls’ education strengthens economies and reduces inequality. It contributes to more stable, resilient societies that give all individuals – including boys and men – the opportunity to fulfil their potential.

But education for girls is about more than access to school. It’s also about girls feeling safe in classrooms and supported in the subjects and careers they choose to pursue – including those in which they are often under-represented.

When we invest in girls’ secondary education

• The lifetime earnings of girls dramatically increase
• National growth rates rise
• Child marriage rates decline
• Child mortality rates fall
• Maternal mortality rates fall
• Child stunting drops

Why are girls out of school?

Despite evidence demonstrating how central girls’ education is to development, gender disparities in education persist.

Around the world, 129 million girls are out of school, including 32 million of primary school age, 30 million of lower-secondary school age, and 67 million of upper-secondary school age. In countries affected by conflict, girls are more than twice as likely to be out of school than girls living in non-affected countries.

Worldwide, 129 million girls are out of school.

Only 49 per cent of countries have achieved gender parity in primary education. At the secondary level, the gap widens: 42 per cent of countries have achieved gender parity in lower secondary education, and 24 per cent in upper secondary education.

The reasons are many. Barriers to girls’ education – like poverty, child marriage and gender-based violence – vary among countries and communities. Poor families often favour boys when investing in education.

In some places, schools do not meet the safety, hygiene or sanitation needs of girls. In others, teaching practices are not gender-responsive and result in gender gaps in learning and skills development.

Gender equality in education

Gender-equitable education systems empower girls and boys and promote the development of life skills – like self-management, communication, negotiation and critical thinking – that young people need to succeed. They close skills gaps that perpetuate pay gaps, and build prosperity for entire countries.

Gender-equitable education systems can contribute to reductions in school-related gender-based violence and harmful practices, including child marriage and female genital mutilation .

Gender-equitable education systems help keep both girls and boys in school, building prosperity for entire countries.

An education free of negative gender norms has direct benefits for boys, too. In many countries, norms around masculinity can fuel disengagement from school, child labour, gang violence and recruitment into armed groups. The need or desire to earn an income also causes boys to drop out of secondary school, as many of them believe the curriculum is not relevant to work opportunities.

UNICEF’s work to promote girls’ education

UNICEF works with communities, Governments and partners to remove barriers to girls’ education and promote gender equality in education – even in the most challenging settings.

Because investing in girls’ secondary education is one of the most transformative development strategies, we prioritize efforts that enable all girls to complete secondary education and develop the knowledge and skills they need for life and work.

This will only be achieved when the most disadvantaged girls are supported to enter and complete pre-primary and primary education. Our work:

• Tackles discriminatory gender norms and harmful practices that deny girls access to school and quality learning.
• Supports Governments to ensure that budgets are gender-responsive and that national education plans and policies prioritize gender equality.
• Helps schools and Governments use assessment data to eliminate gender gaps in learning.
• Promotes social protection measures, including cash transfers, to improve girls’ transition to and retention in secondary school.
• Focuses teacher training and professional development on gender-responsive pedagogies.
• Removes gender stereotypes from learning materials.
• Addresses other obstacles, like distance-related barriers to education, re-entry policies for young mothers, and menstrual hygiene management in schools.

More from UNICEF

1 in 3 adolescent girls from the poorest households has never been to school

Let’s shape tech to be transformative

Gender-responsive digital pedagogies: A guide for educators

Stories of suffering and hope: Afghanistan and Pakistan

Catherine Russell reflects on her first field visit as UNICEF's Executive Director

Where are the girls and why it matters as schools reopen?

School closures due to the COVID-19 pandemic risk reversing the massive gains to girls’ education

Advancing Girls' Education and Gender Equality through Digital Learning

This brief note highlights how UNICEF will advance inclusive and transformative digital technology to enhance girls’ learning and skills development for work and life.

Reimagining Girls' Education: Solutions to Keep Girls Learning in Emergencies

This resource presents an empirical overview of what works to support learning outcomes for girls in emergencies.

e-Toolkit on Gender Equality in Education

This course aims to strengthen the capacity of UNICEF's education staff globally in gender equality applied to education programming.

Fixing the Broken Promise of Education for All

This report draws on national studies to examine why millions of children continue to be denied the fundamental right to primary education.

GirlForce: Skills, Education and Training for Girls Now

This report discusses persistent barriers girls face in the transition from education to the workforce, and how gender gaps in employment outcomes persist despite girls’ gains in education.

UNICEF Gender Action Plan (2022-2025)

This plan specifies how UNICEF will promote gender equality across the organization’s work, in alignment with the UNICEF Strategic Plan.

Global Partnership for Education

This partnership site provides data and programming results for the only global fund solely dedicated to education in developing countries.

United Nations Girls’ Education Initiative

UNGEI promotes girls’ education and gender equality through policy advocacy and support to Governments and other development actors.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• 06 September 2023

Gender equality: the route to a better world

You have full access to this article via your institution.

The Mosuo people of China include sub-communities in which inheritance passes down either the male or the female line. Credit: TPG/Getty

The fight for global gender equality is nowhere close to being won. Take education: in 87 countries, less than half of women and girls complete secondary schooling, according to 2023 data. Afghanistan’s Taliban continues to ban women and girls from secondary schools and universities . Or take reproductive health: abortion rights have been curtailed in 22 US states since the Supreme Court struck down federal protections, depriving women and girls of autonomy and restricting access to sexual and reproductive health care .

SDG 5, whose stated aim is to “achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls”, is the fifth of the 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, all of which Nature is examining in a series of editorials. SDG 5 includes targets for ending discrimination and violence against women and girls in both public and private spheres, eradicating child marriage and female genital mutilation, ensuring sexual and reproductive rights, achieving equal representation of women in leadership positions and granting equal rights to economic resources. Globally, the goal is not on track to being achieved, and just a handful of countries have hit all the targets.

How the world should oppose the Taliban’s war on women and girls

In July, the UN introduced two new indices (see go.nature.com/3eus9ue ), the Women’s Empowerment Index (WEI) and the Global Gender Parity Index (GGPI). The WEI measures women’s ability and freedoms to make their own choices; the GGPI describes the gap between women and men in areas such as health, education, inclusion and decision making. The indices reveal, depressingly, that even achieving a small gender gap does not automatically translate to high levels of women’s empowerment: 114 countries feature in both indices, but countries that do well on both scores cover fewer than 1% of all girls and women.

The COVID-19 pandemic has made things worse, with women bearing the highest burden of extra unpaid childcare when schools needed to close, and subjected to intensified domestic violence. Although child marriages declined from 21% of all marriages in 2016 to 19% in 2022, the pandemic threatened even this incremental progress, pushing up to 10 million more girls into risk of child marriage over the next decade, in addition to the 100 million girls who were at risk before the pandemic.

Of the 14 indicators for SDG 5, only one or two are close to being met by the 2030 deadline. As of 1 January 2023, women occupied 35.4% of seats in local-government assemblies, an increase from 33.9% in 2020 (the target is gender parity by 2030). In 115 countries for which data were available, around three-quarters, on average, of the necessary laws guaranteeing full and equal access to sexual and reproductive health and rights had been enacted. But the UN estimates that worldwide, only 57% of women who are married or in a union make their own decisions regarding sexual and reproductive health and rights.

Systemic discrimination against girls and women by men, in many contexts, remains a colossal barrier to achieving gender equality. But patriarchy is not some “natural order of things” , argues Ruth Mace, an anthropologist at University College London. Hundreds of women-centred societies exist around the world. As the science writer Angela Saini describes in her latest book, The Patriarchs , these are often not the polar opposite of male-dominated systems, but societies in which men and women share decision making .

After Roe v. Wade: dwindling US abortion access is harming health a year later

One example comes from the Mosuo people in China, who have both ‘matrilineal’ and ‘patrilineal’ communities, with rights such as inheritance passing down either the male or female line. Researchers compared outcomes for inflammation and hypertension in men and women in these communities, and found that women in matrilineal societies, in which they have greater autonomy and control over resources, experienced better health outcomes. The researchers found no significant negative effect of matriliny on health outcomes for men ( A.  Z. Reynolds et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117 , 30324–30327; 2020 ).

When it comes to the SDGs, evidence is emerging that a more gender-equal approach to politics and power benefits many goals. In a study published in May, Nobue Amanuma, deputy director of the Integrated Sustainability Centre at the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies in Hayama, Japan, and two of her colleagues tested whether countries with more women legislators, and more younger legislators, are performing better in the SDGs ( N. Amanuma et al. Environ. Res. Lett. 18 , 054018; 2023 ). They found it was so, with the effect more marked for socio-economic goals such as ending poverty and hunger, than for environmental ones such as climate action or preserving life on land. The researchers recommend further qualitative and quantitative studies to better understand the reasons.

The reality that gender equality leads to better outcomes across other SDGs is not factored, however, into most of the goals themselves. Of the 230 unique indicators of the SDGs, 51 explicitly reference women, girls, gender or sex, including the 14 indicators in SDG 5. But there is not enough collaboration between organizations responsible for the different SDGs to ensure that sex and gender are taken into account. The indicator for the sanitation target (SDG 6) does not include data disaggregated by sex or gender ( Nature 620 , 7; 2023 ). Unless we have this knowledge, it will be hard to track improvements in this and other SDGs.

The road to a gender-equal world is long, and women’s power and freedom to make choices is still very constrained. But the evidence from science is getting stronger: distributing power between genders creates the kind of world we all need and want to be living in.

Nature 621 , 8 (2023)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-02745-9

Reprints and permissions

Related Articles

• Sustainability
• Public health

Diana Wall obituary: ecologist who foresaw the importance of soil biodiversity

Obituary 10 MAY 24

The refinery of the future

Perspective 08 MAY 24

Beware of graphene’s huge and hidden environmental costs

Correspondence 07 MAY 24

How ignorance and gender inequality thwart treatment of a widespread illness

Outlook 09 MAY 24

Bird flu in US cows: where will it end?

News 08 MAY 24

US funders to tighten oversight of controversial ‘gain of function’ research

News 07 MAY 24

US TikTok ban: how the looming restriction is affecting scientists on the app

News 09 MAY 24

Judge dismisses superconductivity physicist’s lawsuit against university

News 25 APR 24

European ruling linking climate change to human rights could be a game changer — here’s how

World View 23 APR 24

Faculty Positions at the Center for Machine Learning Research (CMLR), Peking University

CMLR's goal is to advance machine learning-related research across a wide range of disciplines.

Beijing, China

Center for Machine Learning Research (CMLR), Peking University

Faculty Positions at SUSTech Department of Biomedical Engineering

We seek outstanding applicants for full-time tenure-track/tenured faculty positions. Positions are available for both junior and senior-level.

Shenzhen, Guangdong, China

Southern University of Science and Technology (Biomedical Engineering)

Southeast University Future Technology Institute Recruitment Notice

Professor openings in mechanical engineering, control science and engineering, and integrating emerging interdisciplinary majors

Nanjing, Jiangsu (CN)

Southeast University

Staff Scientist

A Staff Scientist position is available in the laboratory of Drs. Elliot and Glassberg to study translational aspects of lung injury, repair and fibro

Maywood, Illinois

Loyola University Chicago - Department of Medicine

W3-Professorship (with tenure) in Inorganic Chemistry

The Institute of Inorganic Chemistry in the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences at the University of Bonn invites applications for a W3-Pro...

53113, Zentrum (DE)

Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Challenges of education for gender equality in the 21st century

Digitalization, automation and Artificial Intelligence are deeply transforming countries, societies and communities, with impact on economic, social and political structures. While these developments pose challenges, they also offer new opportunities. The use of digital platforms is providing women with greater access to markets, knowledge and more flexible working arrangements, which can result in higher female employment rates in the digital economy than in traditional industries.

To talk about the challenges and opportunities of digitalization, outstanding women activists and entrepreneurs leading the digital transformation of economy and society came together at the Mediterranean Women Digital Summit, which took place in Tunis on 23 and 24 September.

The Mediterranean Women Digital Summit aimed at providing a platform to women’s empowerment, by the sharing of best practices and innovative ideas. Ms Saniye Gülser Corat, UNESCO’s Director for Gender Equality, gave a keynote speech on the second day of the Summit on the importance of education and digital skills for women’s empowerment.

More than 750 million adults, two-thirds of whom are women, are marginalized by illiteracy. “Behind each one of them there is a face, a story, a life. Education is their right, and our future,” said Ms Corat. Educating girls and women is an essential brick in building a more peaceful and sustainable world. However, education should take into account the transformations that the world is going through, such as the digital revolution. It is vital to help teachers adapt to this brand new world. UNESCO stands ready to provide them with the knowledge and tools to face the challenges of education and learning in the 21 st century.

Another important aspect UNESCO pays attention to is the way in which technologies and the digital space are designed and used as this can affect equality and the future of our societies and the planet. “Think of your digital voice assistants on your phone or computers. Many companies sell these digital assistants as female by default: Amazon’s Alexa, Apple’s Siri, Microsoft’s Cortana and Google Home are all encoded ‘women’ by default.”, said Ms Corat.

For her, this is no coincidence. “Female voices are thought to be more profitable, because customers perceive them to be more cooperative.” UNESCO’s recent publication I’d Blush if I Could: Closing Gender Divides in Digital Skills through Education as part of the EQUALS global partnership for gender equality in the digital age, shares strategies to close gender divides in digital skills through education.

Girls and women must have the opportunity to develop the skills that will enable them to thrive in today’s world, and to participate equally in creating the world of tomorrow.

To learn more about the Summit, please click here.

More on this subject

Other recent news

4 things our schools should do now to help prevent gender-based violence

Researcher and Phd Candidate, Edith Cowan University

PhD Candidate, RMIT University

Associate Professor, Curtin University

Disclosure statement

Giselle Natassia Woodley is a PhD scholarship recipient as part of the Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Project Adolescents' perceptions of harm from accessing online sexual content (DP 190102435). Giselle is also part of a not-for-profit Relationships and Sexuality education advocacy group, Bloom-Ed whose views are not expressed here.

Sarah Vrankovich receives funding via a PhD RTP Stipend scholarship. Sarah is also part of a not-for-profit Relationships and Sexuality Education advocacy group, Bloom-Ed and is a board director of The STOP Campaign. These groups' views are not expressed here.

Sharyn Burns is Professor of Health Promotion at Curtin University. Her research focuses on sexual and mental health promotion with an emphasis on school-based programs and families. Sharyn Burns currently receives funding from WA Department of Health to implement the Relationships and Sexuality Education project to provide training to in-service and preservice teachers. Sharyn has been involved as an external evaluator for the evaluation of the pilot of the Respectful Relationships Teacher Support Project.

RMIT University provides funding as a strategic partner of The Conversation AU.

Edith Cowan University and Curtin University provide funding as members of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

There is widespread agreement Australia needs to do better when it comes to gender-based violence. Anger and frustration at the numbers of women being killed saw national rallies over the weekend and a special National Cabinet meeting on Wednesday.

This is a complex issue that still needs input from police, experts, parliaments and broader society. As part of this, it also involves our school system.

In recent years there has been a push to teach consent as part of sexuality and relationships education from the first year of school to Year 10.

This is a welcome start. But there remain large gaps in the curriculum and schools’ approaches to these issues. Here are four things schools, teachers and education authorities should implement now to make our communities safer.

1. Make ‘pornography literacy’ a mandatory part of the curriculum

We know some young people are first seeing porn online before they are ten and the eSafety Commissioner has heard anecdotal reports it is happening as young as six or seven.

Research also shows a lot of freely available pornography has high levels of aggression and dominance towards women and rarely displays safe sexual practices or consent negotiations. This inevitably shapes young people’s understanding and expectations of sex.

While exposure to porn will not necessarily have only negative impacts, and pornography is not to solely blame, studies indicate it can contribute to sexual violence .

On Wednesday, as part of a range of measures to address gender-based violence, the federal government announced A$6.5 million for an “age assurance technologies” pilot. This is technology to try and prevent young people from being able to access pornography online.

But we cannot rely on measures like this alone. Last August, the federal Infrastructure Department described current age assurance technologies as “immature” and carrying privacy and security risks. This echoes similar concerns from researchers .

As a 2020 UK study also showed, prohibiting young people from watching pornography is unrealistic and impractical. Young people also tend to find workarounds for such measures.

A more effective approach is teaching young people “ porn literacy ”. This means they learn to critically analyse and deconstruct messages commonly found in pornography. In doing so, they can counter the potentially harmful messages or images they might see.

But porn literacy is not currently part of the mandatory curriculum. It is only mentioned as a suggested option as part of the health and physical education learning area in Year 9 and Year 10.

Mandatory age-appropriate discussions about porn should be starting in the primary years, to match when young people may first encounter this material, and continue to develop into the high school years.

2. Keep teaching about sex and relationships in Year 11 and 12

At the moment, sexuality education in the national curriculum stops in Year 10, with students selecting specific subjects in the final two years of schooling.

This is a problem because students are increasingly likely to be dating or sexually active in their senior years. On average, Australians become sexually active at 15 (which is in Year 9 and 10).

While Year 11 and 12 students are busy with their academic studies, they can still have regular relationship and sexuality lessons. This could include sessions led by experts or teachers, or smaller group discussions with peers, which can involve anonymous question boxes .

3. Teach all young people to be ‘upstanders’

Research shows education about gender-based violence works better when it encourages boys and men to be part of the solution, rather than portraying them as “wrongdoers”.

This means education needs to focus on showing young people how to be “ upstanders ” when they witness harmful behaviours.

Schools and teachers can do this by offering information that helps them identify what behaviours they need to stand up to and how to stand up to them effectively.

Schools can also teach their students how to manage their emotions and communicate to resolve conflicts without resorting to violence or aggression.

All genders can experience sexual violence, although, boys and men often encounter less support and face greater stigma when disclosing their experiences. It is important for school environments to acknowledge all young people so they feel safe to get support if they need it.

4. Train teachers to teach sensitive content

Delivering such sensitive content can be difficult and therefore, requires specific training.

But at the moment, there is not enough training in sexuality education for teachers before they start teaching and once they are in classrooms. Teachers from other areas – such as maths or history – often find themselves delivering sex and relationships content.

This leaves teachers underprepared and undersupported to deliver this content.

So we need to make sure specific units on sexuality and relationships are part of all teaching degrees and there is professional development for existing teachers. This training should be mandated and funded by governments.

• Sex education
• Violence against women
• Primary school
• High school
• Gender-based violence
• relationships and sexuality education

Events and Communications Coordinator

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

Sydney Horizon Educators (Identified)

A collective action approach to improving attitudes and self-efficacy towards gender equality among male STEM academics

• Open access
• Published: 11 May 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Zachary W. Petzel   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4503-3781 1 ,
• Lynn Farrell 2 ,
• Teresa McCormack 3 ,
• Rhiannon N. Turner 3 ,
• Karen Rafferty 4 &
• Ioana M. Latu 3  

Despite the implementation of equality interventions within higher education, progress towards gender parity in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) remains slow. Male educators often exhibit poorer engagement with diversity initiatives, potentially contributing to persisting gender disparities in STEM given men’s longstanding dominance in these programs. Two experiments investigate how equality interventions should be designed to maximize support from male educators. Experiment 1 ( N  = 72; M age  = 39.72, SD age  = 12.33) used virtual reality to manipulate 2 factors among male academics: (1) exposure to gender inequality and (2) virtually taking the perspective of a female scientist. Using self-report and behavioral measures, viewing an empirical presentation outlining the prevalence of gender issues in STEM yielded the greatest support for equality initiatives following successful perspective-taking. Experiment 2 ( N  = 120; M age  = 32.48, SD age  = 10.36) varied two additional factors among male academics: (1) evidence-based methods to reduce gender biases in STEM (i.e., promoting self-efficacy) and (2) blaming male academics for gender inequalities. Promoting self-efficacy and blaming men for disparities led to greater confidence in male academics’ ability to address gender inequalities in their field. Notably, higher self-efficacy accounted for greater support for equality initiatives and internal motives to engage with diversity programs. Findings provide an empirical framework and high-tech training tools for promoting engagement with diversity initiatives among male educators, informing development of interventions within higher education to improve student and faculty experiences in STEM.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

After significant investments in gender equality initiatives over many years (e.g., Athena SWAN in UK and Ireland, SAGE in Australia, SEA Change in the US), enrollment and hiring of women within higher education have slowly increased (Badura et al., 2018 ; Carey et al., 2020 ; Ceci & Williams, 2015 ). However, closing the gender gap in fields with severe disparities (e.g., science, technology, engineering, and mathematics; STEM) may take over a century to achieve (Holman et al., 2018 ). One reason for this slow progress is ineffective equality initiatives within STEM, which are often met with negative attitudes among educators, fostering backlash against groups they are designed to help (Ovseiko et al., 2017 , Tzanakou et al., 2019 ). Notably, negative attitudes are more prominent among men who make up the majority of STEM educators (Caffrey et al., 2016 ; Ovseiko et al., 2017 ), perpetuating culture that negatively affects women’s academic performance and success (Legault et al., 2011 ). Yet, there is currently a gap in our understanding concerning how interventions uniquely impact academics, since they differ from the general and student population due to their scientific training, level of education, and role within academia. Given men may disengage from equality initiatives, the goal of the present research is to inform development of intervention techniques to improve engagement among male STEM academics using relevant psychological theory (e.g., the social identity model of collective action).

Theoretical rationale

STEM academics benefit from scientific education and technological advances due to the nature of their research. Thus, present work investigates how to use these skills to improve the effectiveness of perspective-taking interventions, an established method to reduce bias towards women in STEM (Crone & Kallen, 2022 ). Across two experiments, the social identity model of collective action (van Zomeren et al., 2008 , 2018 ) was used to determine how to best incorporate perspective-taking within equality initiatives. This model outlines three factors which promote equality-focused action (e.g., engagement with initiatives, allyship): (1) emphasizing perceptions of injustice, (2) highlighting men’s social identity, and (3) promoting self-efficacy or confidence in enacting social change (van Zomeren et al., 2008 ). While equality initiatives often target these factors, how they affect perspective-taking among male academics is unclear.

Experiment 1 replicates prior work examining how perspective-taking in virtual reality can promote equality-focused action (Crone & Kallen, 2022 ; van Loon et al., 2018 ). However, men may underestimate the amount of problematic sexism in STEM (De Souza & Schmader, 2022 ). Thus, Experiment 1 manipulates salience of gender issues via detailing the negative experiences faced by women in STEM prior to taking the perspective of a female scientist (i.e., emphasizing perceptions of injustice). Relatedly, initiatives often frame disparities as the fault of men which may promote guilt among male educators (i.e., via highlighting men’s social identity; Dobbin et al., 2015 ; Moss-Racusin, 2014 ). Interventions may also provide educators with practical methods to address inequalities to promote self-efficacy (i.e., confidence one’s actions will enact change; Combs & Luthans, 2007 ). Thus, Experiment 2 examines how perspective-taking interacts with these factors (i.e., promoting guilt and self-efficacy) to foster support for equality initiatives.

Experiment 1

Perspective-taking often requires participants to imagine themselves as a member of a stigmatized group to promote understanding of their experiences and feelings (i.e., fostering empathy; Decety & Cowell, 2014 ; White, 1997 ). Thus, effective perspective-taking may provide deeper understanding of women’s experiences in STEM, motivating male academics to engage in altruistic behaviors to address gender issues within academia (Dovidio et al., 2004 ; Vescio et al., 2003 ). Relevant to STEM, virtual reality is used as a robust method to facilitate perspective-taking via altering participants’ avatars. For example, White participants may view themselves as a Black avatar to reduce racist attitudes (Groom et al., 2009 ) or young participants may see elderly avatars to diminish ageist attitudes (Oh et al., 2016 ). Relevant to gender inequities, men who view themselves as a female avatar are less likely to exhibit biases during hiring exercises (Crone & Kallen, 2022 ). Notably, use of virtual reality to facilitate perspective-taking is more effective than traditional paradigms (e.g., writing from the perspective of an individual), lasting up to 8 weeks after an intervention (Herrera et al., 2018 ).

Perceived injustices in STEM

One caveat of perspective-taking is the assumption that male educators can accurately imagine the lived experiences of women in STEM. Despite men explicitly supporting women’s advancement in STEM, they are unlikely to engage in equality-focused action due to inaccurate perceptions of gender disparities (De Souza & Schmader, 2022 ). For example, lack of male allies and low number of men leading equality initiatives may foster assumptions that these disparities are no longer an issue within academia (De Souza & Schmader, 2022 ). These misperceptions of gender disparities often coincide with lack of awareness of the consequences women experience as minorities in STEM (Becker & Swim, 2011 ; Martínez et al., 2010 ). Importantly, these patterns of ignorance are not unique to STEM, with White Americans underestimating the consequences and severity of racial inequities in the United States (Callaghan et al., 2021 ; Kraus et al., 2017 ).

According to the social identity model of collective action, male educators may be more likely to address gender disparities when they accurately perceive these injustices (van Zomeren et al., 2008 ). Thus, ignorance of these inequalities may limit men’s ability to take the perspective of a female scientist, subsequently hindering equality-focused action. Yet, presentations which provide evidence of women’s experiences as a minority in STEM may offer greater insight when taking the perspective of a female scientist (Callaghan et al., 2021 ). For example, this data-driven presentation may refute claims there are differences in brain anatomy between sexes (Allen et al., 1991 ), as recent research suggests these differences are due to spurious factors such as body size rather than sex (Luders et al., 2014 ). Further, published gender differences in performance are typically marginal (Hyde, 2014 ), with up to 85% of studies demonstrating small effects (Zell et al., 2015 ). Thus, gender disparities might be perpetuated through negative gender stereotypes, given that greater endorsement of these stereotypes within a country predicts larger gender inequalities within those respective STEM fields (Nosek et al., 2009 ). Notably, inaccurate gender stereotypes lead to poorer evaluations of women’s publications (Knobloch-Westerwick et al., 2013 ), teaching (Morgan et al., 2016 ), and recommendation letters (Schmader et al., 2007 ), in addition to negatively affecting employability (Moss-Racusin et al., 2012 ). Women’s knowledge of stereotypes may also worsen math performance (Spencer et al., 1999 ) and negatively impact physiology (Murphy et al., 2007 ; Vick et al., 2008 ). Yet, recent investigations into stereotype threat indicate effects might be smaller than initially reported, suggesting issues with publication bias and limitations of laboratory methods (Zigerell, 2017 ). Notwithstanding potential issues, using the above evidence to outline the consequences of gender disparities can promote support for equality initiatives among students (Zawadzki et al., 2012 ), suggesting this approach may also benefit male academics prior to perspective-taking.

Present study

It was expected male academics taking the perspective of a female scientist would exhibit greater support for equality initiatives. Similarly, men who learned about the pervasiveness of inequalities were predicted to report greater support for initiatives due to enhanced perception of injustices (van Zomeren et al., 2008 ). Moreover, enhanced perception of injustices was expected to boost the effectiveness of perspective-taking in promoting support for interventions. Self-report (explicit) and behavioral (implicit) measures were used to assess support for initiatives.

Participants

Related studies using virtual perspective-taking included samples ranging from 20–84 participants (Chang et al., 2019 ; Hamilton-Giachritsis et al., 2018 ; Oh et al., 2016 ; Schutte & Stilinović, 2017 ; Starr et al., 2019 ). Thus, 72 participants were recruited, which a sensitivity power analysis (GPower 3.1; Faul et al., 2009 ) indicated 80% power to detect significant effects given a moderate to large effect size (η 2  = 0.10). To be eligible to participate, participants were required to be a male faculty member (e.g., lecturer, professor), postdoctoral researcher, or PhD student within STEM. Recruiting across career stages ensures diverse representation of expertise in STEM, addressing a gap in the literature which tends to focus on undergraduates (Yadav et al., 2020 ). The inclusion of participants from varying career levels may also provide insight into the challenges of implementing initiatives across the professional spectrum, informing development of tailored intervention approaches based on men’s academic position and experience in STEM.

Participants ( M age  = 39.72, SD age  = 12.33) were male academics from engineering (55.6%), physics or astronomy (16.7%), computer science (15.3%), and other STEM fields (e.g., chemistry, mathematics, information systems; 12.4%) and were recruited from a UK university to participate in a study described as investigating virtual emulation of research conferences (i.e., participants blind to the purpose of the study). Participants identified as White (80.6%), Asian (13.9%), or another race (5.5%; see supplemental Table S1 for breakdown of demographics; https://osf.io/8p7y9/ ). Permanent faculty (51.4%), postdoctoral researchers (25%), and PhD students (23.6%) were randomly assigned to one condition in a 2 (Presentation: gender issues, neutral) × 2 (Perspective-taking: male, female avatar) between-subjects design.

Procedure and measures

After providing consent, participants had electrodes attached to the middle and ring fingers of their non-dominant hand to assess electrodermal activity (data not presented here). Participants then wore a virtual reality headset (Vive Pro; HTC; Fig.  1 a) to view a computer-generated environment developed in Unity 2017.1.5f1 (Unity Technologies). The first virtual space was a conference room, consisting of a projector screen, podium, and mirror (Fig.  1 b).

Virtual reality experience. Participant wearing headset ( a ) and their point of view during ( b ) presentation, ( c ) perspective-taking, and ( d ) conference reception

Virtual environment

Participants first explored the room for two minutes to become accustomed to moving in virtual reality. Next, participants watched a four-minute presentation delivered by a male presenter, containing evidence-based information about the consequences of gender inequality in science as described in the introduction to this experiment (e.g., biological differences, cultural stereotypes, performance detriments) or a neutral presentation about the host city of a conference, similar to previous research (Pietri et al., 2017 ; see supplemental materials for presentation slides). A male presenter was chosen as men respond more positively to gender issues when presented by male sources (Hardacre & Subašic, 2018 ).

Participants then walked towards a mirror and were instructed to view themselves for 2 min. Depending on the experimental condition, participants saw themselves as a male or female avatar matched on characteristics such as hair and skin color (Fig.  1 c). Participants were told, “imagine a day in the life of this woman [man], looking at the world through their eyes and walking through the world in their shoes” (Oh et al., 2016 ). Participants then explored a room which rendered a reception of a research conference for two minutes (Fig.  1 d), after being told, “imagine how you would feel in this environment as the woman [man] you currently are.” Participants assigned to the gender issues presentation were told, “with your knowledge of the negative effects of gender disparities, take note of the number of male and female attendees,” which was designed to reflect male–female ratios in many STEM fields (5:1).

Explicit measures

Following the virtual reality experience, participants completed a manipulation check assessing the perspective-taking experience using 9-items (e.g., “It was easy for me to take the perspective of the avatar I was given;” α = 0.77). Participants also reported their support for gender equality initiatives and demographics. Explicit support for equality initiatives was assessed using 5-items adapted from Dover et al., ( 2016 ; e.g., “I would like to work for a University with a gender equality initiative”; α = 0.80). Explicit support was also assessed using a 3-item scale adapted from Danbold and Huo ( 2017 ; e.g., “I think an equality initiative would be a poor use of resources.”). However, due to this scale’s poorer reliability (α = 0.69), results focus on the scale adapted from Dover et al. ( 2016 ). All items were rated from 1 ( Strongly disagree ) to 5 ( Strongly agree ).

Implicit measures

Implicit attitudes were measured with a single-category Implicit Association Test (IAT) using Inquisit software (Millisecond; Seattle, WA), associating equality initiatives with positive versus negative affective words (Karpinski & Steinman, 2006 ). In one set of critical trials, participants sorted initiatives with positively valanced words, and in another set of trials initiatives were sorted with negatively valanced words (see table S2 in supplemental materials). Whether positive versus negative pairings were presented first was counterbalanced and reaction time-based D scores were calculated using the IAT scoring algorithm outlined in Greenwald et al. ( 2003 ), such that positive scores indicated positive associations with equality initiatives and negative scores suggested stronger negative associations with equality initiatives. Since participants may not have been familiar with initiatives categorized during the task, they were provided with a list of stimuli and asked to familiarize themselves with the initiatives, in addition to being provided with practice trials which asked participants to categorize initiatives. Approval was received from the university’s ethics committee. Data, materials, and supplemental tables (e.g., scale items, factor loadings) can be found at https://osf.io/8p7y9/ .

Descriptive statistics for variables used in Experiment 1 are displayed in Table  1 . Chi-squared tests indicated equal distribution of academic positions (e.g., PhD students, postdoctoral researchers, faculty) across presentation, χ 2 (2) = 0.78, p = 0.679, ϕ = 0.104, and perspective-taking conditions, χ 2 (2) = 0.76, p = 0.686, ϕ = 0.102. Levene’s test indicated homogeneity of variances across conditions for explicit, F (3,68) = 0.56, p  = 0.641, and implicit support for initiatives, F (3,68) = 0.14, p  = 0.938, in addition to the manipulation check, F (3,68) = 0.68, p  = 0.568.

Manipulation check

A one-sample t- test indicated scores for the manipulation check ( M  = 3.50, SD  = 0.53) were significantly above the scale midpoint across conditions, t (71) = 8.01, p  < 0.001, indicating a medium effect ( d  = 0.53), suggesting participants effectively took the perspective of their avatar. A 2 (Presentation: gender issues, neutral) × 2 (Perspective-taking: male, female avatar) ANOVA indicated effectiveness did not differ among conditions or their interaction, all p s > 0.161.

Explicit measure of support

A 2 (Presentation) × 2 (Perspective-taking) ANOVA indicated a moderate effect on explicit support, suggesting presentation of gender issues elicited greater self-reported intentions to engage with equality initiatives compared to neutral presentations, F (1,68) = 6.29, p  = 0.015, η p 2  = 0.085. No main effect emerged between male versus female avatars for explicit support, F (1,68) = 2.25 , p  = 0.138, η p 2  = 0.032. Presentation significantly interacted with perspective-taking, F (1,68) = 4.25, p  = 0.043, η p 2  = 0.059. Female avatars moderately increased explicit support after viewing the gender issues presentation compared to male avatars, F (1,68) = 6.72, p  = 0.012, η p 2  = 0.091 (Fig.  2 a). No differences emerged between avatar conditions after neutral presentations, F (1,68) = 0.15, p  = 0.700, η p 2  = 0.002. Race, age, and academic position did not interact with conditions to affect self-reported intentions to engage with equality initiatives, all p s > 0.359.

Effects of conditions on initiative support (Experiment 1) . Explicit ( a ) and implicit ( b ) support for gender equality initiatives as a function of presentation and perspective-taking conditions. Error bars represent standard error. * p  < .05

Implicit measure of support

Similarly, a 2 (Presentation) × 2 (Perspective-taking) ANOVA indicated a large effect for implicit support, with the gender issues presentation eliciting more positive associations with initiatives compared to the neutral presentation, F (1,68) = 11.87, p  = 0.001, η p 2  = 0.149. No main effects emerged between male versus female avatars, F (1,68) = 2.19, p  = 0.143, η p 2  = 0.031. Yet, presentation significantly interacted with perspective-taking to affect levels of implicit support, F (1,68) = 4.10, p  = 0.047. η p 2  = 0.057. Female avatars moderately increased positive associations with initiatives compared to male avatars after viewing the gender issues presentation, F (1,68) = 6.51, p  = 0.013, η p 2  = 0.090, (Fig.  2 b). No differences in implicit associations emerged between avatar conditions after neutral presentations, F (1,68) = 0.14, p  = 0.710, η p 2  = 0.002. Race, age, and academic position did not interact with conditions to affect implicit support, all p s > 0.463.

Using virtual reality, findings demonstrate how perspective-taking effectively promotes support for gender equality initiatives among male educators, extending research which has used perspective-taking to reduce biases towards stigmatized groups among students (Crone & Kallen, 2022 ; Groom et al., 2009 ; Oh et al., 2016 ). Unlike prior research, perspective-taking alone did not promote support for equality initiatives. Instead, taking the perspective of a female scientist only increased support following a presentation outlining the consequences of gender disparities. This suggests male educators may not have extensive understanding of women’s lived experiences as a minority in STEM, limiting their ability to engage with perspective-taking. Ignorance of social injustices is common among majority group members (Becker & Swim, 2011 ; Callaghan et al., 2021 ; De Souza & Schmader, 2022 ; Kraus et al., 2017 ; Martínez et al., 2010 ) and may contribute to lack of collective action to address gender inequalities among male STEM academics. Thus, making gender disparities salient among male educators may provide the necessary context to facilitate taking the perspective of a female scientist to increase support for equality initiatives.

Interestingly, the data-driven presentation alone was sufficient in promoting support for initiatives. This effect is consistent with work demonstrating how evidence-based interventions increase awareness of disparities and promote positive perceptions of equality (Callaghan et al., 2021 ). Findings also support longstanding theory which suggests emphasizing the perception of injustices may promote actions to address inequalities (van Zomeren et al., 2008 , 2018 ). Thus, the presentation may have alleviated potential ignorance among male academics, highlighting the prevalence of problematic sexism and stereotypes in STEM to promote equality-focused action.

Experiment 2

While enhancing perceptions of injustice increased the efficacy of perspective-taking among male STEM academics, the effectiveness of this approach may be further bolstered via targeting men’s social identity and self-efficacy (van Zomeren et al., 2008 , 2018 ). Even if men are aware of inequalities in STEM, they may not engage with initiatives due to perceptions that gender disparities are too difficult or substantive to address (van Zomeren et al., 2008 ). Yet, these misperceptions may be alleviated when gender disparities are saliently attributed to men’s social identity (e.g., promoting guilt) and when men are confident their actions will enact social change (i.e., self-efficacy; van Zomeren et al., 2008 ). While promotion of guilt and self-efficacy are often components of diversity initiatives, whether they influence support for interventions after taking the perspective of a female scientist remains untested.

Social identity and guilt

Individuals are more likely to engage in equality-focused action when injustices are relevant to their social identity (van Zomeren et al., 2008 , 2018 ). Equality initiatives often frame inequalities as the responsibility of intervention targets, such as male educators being personally accountable for gender disparities in STEM (Dobbin et al., 2015 ; Moss-Racusin, 2014 ). Thus, linking gender inequalities to men’s social identity may promote support for equality initiatives by fostering guilt (i.e., feeling responsible for disparities caused by one’s social group; Doosje et al., 1998 ; Ferguson & Branscombe, 2014 ). Yet, assigning blame may also create backlash against initiatives due to threatening men’s status or success in STEM. For example, men feel threatened when their privilege is highlighted or attributed to social inequities (Lowery et al., 2007 ; Phillips & Lowery, 2020 ). Unfortunately, feelings of threat often promote deflection of responsibility for these disparities to avoid negative feelings associated with guilt (Danbold & Huo, 2017 ; Leach et al., 2006 ; McGarty et al., 2005 ). Thus, male STEM academics might attribute gender inequalities to external factors outside their control (e.g., organizational policy) or assume inequities are due to intrinsic factors (e.g., biological differences; Rothschild et al., 2012 ).

However, acknowledgement of privilege and the promotion of guilt can promote support for policies which address social inequalities (Leach et al., 2006 ; Lowery et al., 2007 ). Notably, this behavioral change fostered by guilt is often due to internalized, altruistic motivations rather than external or defensive motivations (Gausel et al., 2016 ). Thus, facilitating guilt through highlighting men’s social identity and involvement in the creation of gender disparities may be effective in promoting equality-focused action. However, promoting guilt alone may not be sufficient in increasing support for gender equality initiatives. For example, if men do not feel confident in their abilities to improve disparities (i.e., low self-efficacy), they may not engage with initiatives since they believe their actions will not contribute to effective social change to reach gender parity (Legault et al., 2011 ; van Zomeren et al., 2008 ).

Self-efficacy

Self-efficacy is one’s confidence to complete a task and is an essential mechanism in reducing drug use (Foster et al., 2014 ), improving academic performance (Honicke & Broadbent, 2016 ), and adopting healthier diets (Prestwich et al., 2014 ). Relevant to improving inequalities in STEM, equality self-efficacy is the belief one’s actions will make a positive impact on diversity issues (Combs & Luthans, 2007 ). Educators often report low equality self-efficacy, such as having less motivation to help stigmatized students (Geerlings et al., 2018 ). Self-efficacy is an established precursor of attitude change, thought to precede long-term changes in habitual behaviors (Combs & Luthans, 2007 ; Maddux, 2009 ). Supporting the potential importance of equality self-efficacy, successful equality initiatives are often mediated by self-efficacy, with the effects on confidence lasting up to a year after the initial intervention (Combs & Luthans, 2007 ).

Educators’ self-efficacy may be improved by repeatedly engaging in equality-focused actions (real or imagined) or observing colleagues exhibiting these actions. Relevant to brief interventions, verbal messages of strategies to address inequalities may similarly promote self-efficacy (Maddux, 2009 ). Thus, training which provides methods to reduce gender disparities should boost confidence to address equality issues (Carnes et al., 2012 ; Zawadzki et al., 2012 ). As in Experiment 1, imagining counter-stereotypical representatives of male-dominated careers (i.e., female scientists) can reduce bias (Blair et al., 2001 ; Burns et al., 2017 ) and simply raising awareness about biases has long-term impacts on prejudice (Devine et al., 2012 ). During hiring processes, biases can be limited by using structured interviews; emphasizing the qualifications and achievements of an applicant to minimize the influence of gender (Alonso et al., 2017 ; Ceci & Williams, 2015 ). Diversifying the curriculum and using examples of female scientists through coursework, media, or textbooks can also allow educators to form stronger associations between women and science to reduce bias (Good et al., 2010 ; Steinke, 2005 ).

Providing these methods to address biases may be effective in promoting self-efficacy among male educators due to reducing the effort required to engage in equality-focused action. When self-efficacy is low, individuals assume behavior change is difficult and often default to habitual behaviors (Maddux, 2009 ). Yet, when confidence is promoted via providing methods to enact change, new behaviors persevere due to requiring less effort to maintain. Importantly, self-efficacy promotes spontaneity of actions (George & Jones, 1997 ), knowledge sharing (Hsu et al., 2007 ), commitment to change (Herold et al., 2007 ), and autonomy (Cupertino et al., 2011 ) which encapsulate internal motivations. Thus, promoting self-efficacy and internal motives may lead to greater support for initiatives.

It was expected blaming male educators for STEM gender disparities would elicit greater support and internal motivations to engage with equality initiatives compared to when both men and women were attributed as responsible for disparities (i.e., reducing feelings of blame). It was also expected providing methods to address inequalities would elicit higher initiative support and internal motivations. Lastly, men blamed for disparities were expected to report highest levels of support and internal motivations when also provided with methods to address inequalities. Since self-efficacy is an established mechanism of behavioral change, men’s confidence in addressing gender issues was expected to mediate support and internal motives to engage with initiatives.

Sample size was determined using rationale described in Experiment 1; however, due to expected attrition from the online format, the study oversampled and recruited 120 participants which a sensitivity power analysis (GPower 3.1; Faul et al., 2009 ) indicated 80% power to detect significant effects given a moderate effect size (η 2  = 0.08). Participants were required to be a male faculty member (e.g., lecturer, professor), postdoctoral researcher, or PhD student in STEM who did not participate in Experiment 1. Participants ( M age  = 32.48, SD age  = 10.36) were male academics from physics or astronomy (42.5%), engineering (21.7%), mathematics (15.8%), chemistry (10.8%), computer science (4.2%), and other fields (e.g., information systems; 5.0%) and were recruited from 3 UK Universities to participate in a study investigating the online emulation of research conferences. Participants identified as White (79.2%), Asian (16.7%), or another race (4.1%; see supplemental Table S5 for breakdown of demographics; https://osf.io/8p7y9/ ). Faculty (25.0%), postdoctoral researchers (25.8%), and PhD students (49.2%) were assigned to one condition in a 2 (Blame for gender disparities: male blame, reduced blame) × 2 (Methods to address bias: provided, not provided) between-subjects design.

Due to implementation of COVID restrictions which occurred during data collection, Experiment 2 used an online intervention. Interested participants were given a link to the study hosted by Qualtrics (Provo, UT). After providing consent, participants were asked to watch a 6-min video containing information about gender issues in STEM as in Experiment 1. However, presentations were manipulated to link gender disparities to men’s social identity (i.e., assigning blame) versus stating no unique social group is at fault for disparities (i.e., reduced blame). In the blame condition, evidence was presented suggesting men perpetuate the existence of stereotypes to justify their dominance in STEM fields. In the reduced blame condition, participants were told both men and women endorse gender stereotypes and that not one social group is responsible for gender inequalities in STEM. This approach to assigning blame is consistent with prior work that manipulated guilt and shame via intergroup (e.g., men) versus human-level categorizations (e.g., both men and women; Wohl & Branscombe, 2005 ). Presentations also included information to foster self-efficacy (i.e., stereotypes are malleable, tools to address biases) versus diminish self-efficacy (i.e., stereotypes are unchanging, no effective methods to reduce bias; see supplemental materials for presentations). Regardless of condition, all participants then took the perspective of a female scientist by viewing a 2-min video which started with a 30-s static image of a female professional and stated via recorded audio:

“You will now watch footage from a research conference. Using the information from the previous presentation, imagine how it would feel being this woman while attending a research conference in your academic field, looking at the world through their eyes and walking through the world in their shoes. For example, think about how it would make you feel as a woman to walk into a room full of men.”

Participants then watched 90-s of real-life footage of professionals interacting at male-dominated research conferences, similar to prior perspective-taking paradigms (Todd et al., 2011 ). Participants then wrote for 5-min from the perspective of a female scientist, writing a narrative about a typical day as a woman in STEM (adapted from Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000 ; Ku et al., 2010 ). Prior to writing the essay, participants read the following prompt:

“Using the information from the presentation and reflecting on the video you just watched, imagine the day in the life of the woman from the previous video attending a research conference in your academic field, looking at the world through their eyes and walking through the world in their shoes. Please write for the next 5 minutes about how you would imagine this experience and how it would make you feel. As a reminder, your responses are anonymous. Once 5 minutes has passed, you will be able to continue to the rest of the study.”

Participants then self-reported support and internal motivations to engage with initiatives, in addition to equality self-efficacy. Explicit support was assessed using a 5-item scale adapted from Dover et al., 2016 as described in Experiment 1 (α = 0.79). Internal motivations were adapted from Plant and Devine ( 1998 ) with additional items being created and validated in Farrell et al. ( 2021 ). Five items assessed internal motives to engage with initiatives (e.g., “Gender equality initiatives are a good use of my personal time.” α = 0.87). Self-efficacy was assessed using 10-items adapted from previous work (Chemers et al., 2001 ; Pietri et al., 2017 ). Example items included, “I believe that I can help address gender bias in my professional field,” and, “The presented information provided opportunities for me to strengthen my ability to address gender bias in my professional field.” (α = 0.87). All items were rated from 1 ( Strongly disagree ) to 5 ( Strongly agree ). Approval was received from the university’s ethics committee. Due to shifting data collection online and issues with software compatibility (i.e., Inquisit), no implicit measure of initiative support was assessed in Experiment 2. Data, materials, and supplemental tables (e.g., scale items, factor loadings) can be found at https://osf.io/8p7y9/ .

Descriptive statistics are displayed in Table  2 . Participants from each university were equally distributed across blame, χ 2 (3) = 2.53, p = 0.470, ϕ = 0.145, and self-efficacy conditions, χ 2 (3) = 5.26, p = 0.154, ϕ = 0.209. Similarly, academic positions were also equally distributed across blame, χ 2 (2) = 2.13, p = 0.345, ϕ = 0.133, and self-efficacy conditions, χ 2 (2) = 5.61, p = 0.060, ϕ = 0.216. Levene’s test indicated homogeneity of variances for support, F (3,116) = 0.17, p  = 0.914, internal motives, F (3,116) = 0.96, p  = 0.414, and self-efficacy, F (3,116) = 0.47, p  = 0.702.

A 2 (Blame for gender disparities: male blame, reduced blame) × 2 (Methods to address bias: provided, not provided) between-subjects ANOVA was used to test the primary hypotheses. No main effects emerged for blame, F (1,116) = 1.71, p  = 0.193, η p 2  = 0.015, or methods to address bias for explicit support, F (1,116) = 0.01, p  = 0.956, η p 2  < 0.001. No significant interaction between conditions emerged, F (1,116) = 0.08, p  = 0.781, η p 2  = 0.001.

Explicit measure of internal motivations

No main effects emerged for blame, F (1,116) = 1.35, p  = 0.247, η p 2  = 0.012, or methods to address bias for internal motivations, F (1,116) = 0.06, p  = 0.805, η p 2  = 0.001. No interaction among factors was observed, F (1,116) = 0.02, p  = 0.881, η p 2  < 0.001.

Explicit measure of equality self-efficacy

Assigning blame, F (1,116) = 3.31, p  = 0.072, η p 2  = 0.028, and providing methods to address biases, F (1,116) = 1.16, p  = 0.282, η p 2  = 0.010, had no main effects on self-efficacy. However, the interaction between factors significantly affected self-efficacy, F (1,116) = 4.86, p  = 0.029, η p 2  = 0.040. Blaming men for gender inequalities had a small effect, F (1,116) = 5.32, p  = 0.023, η p 2  = 0.044, with male educators given methods to reduce bias reporting greater self-efficacy ( M  = 3.79, SD  = 0.70) compared to those not provided any methods ( M  = 3.33, SD  = 0.71). No differences between conditions emerged when no unique social group was responsible for gender disparities, F (1,116) = 0.64, p  = 0.425, η p 2  = 0.005 (see Fig.  3 ). Race, age, academic position, and university did not interact with conditions to affect support, internal motives, or self-efficacy, all p s > 0.343.

Effects of conditions on equality self-efficacy (Experiment 2) . Equality self-efficacy as a function of blame for gender disparities and methods to address bias. Error bars represent standard error. * p  < .05

Self-efficacy as a mechanism for support

Self-efficacy was tested as a mechanism for support and internal motivations to engage with initiatives using the PROCESS macro for SPSS (model 8; Hayes, 2012 ). Self-efficacy was specified as a mediator between the interaction among conditions and dependent variables. Self-efficacy significantly predicted initiative support, b  = 0.22, β  = 0.53, p  = 0.007. Results indicated a moderated-mediation effect for self-efficacy on support, b  = 0.19, β  = 0.42, SE  = 0.11, 95% CI [0.01, 0.43]. Self-efficacy accounted for the relation between blame conditions and support, but only among those given methods to address gender bias, b  = 0.14, β  = 0.38, SE  = 0.08, 95% CI [0.02, 0.32], and not among those who did not receive these methods, b  = -0.05, β  = -0.03, SE  = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.10] (see Table S6 in supplemental materials for detailed analysis).

Equality self-efficacy also predicted internal motivations to engage with initiatives, b  = 0.52, β  = 0.48, p  < 0.001. Results indicated a moderated-mediation effect for equality self-efficacy on internal motives, b  = 0.33, β  = 0.37 SE  = 0.16, 95% CI [0.02, 0.66]. Self-efficacy accounted for the relation between blame conditions and internal motives, but only among male academics given methods to address gender biases in STEM, b  = 0.30, β  = 0.34, SE  = 0.12, 95% CI [0.09, 0.54], and not when these methods were withheld, b  = -0.03, β  = -0.03, SE  = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.16] (see Table S7 in supplemental materials for detailed analysis).

These findings initially suggest attributing gender disparities in STEM to men’s social identity, in addition to providing methods to address inequalities, may not influence support or motivations to engage with initiatives. While there are several reasons for these inconclusive results, a major limitation was the decision to include these factors alongside the most effective intervention established in Experiment 1. Since emphasizing perceived injustices in STEM prior to perspective-taking promoted greater support as established in Experiment 1, this may have left little variance for additional manipulations to influence. This assumption is partly confirmed by average responses for initiative support being above the mid-point of the scale in Experiment 2, suggesting participants may have been similarly supportive of initiatives regardless of condition. However, the promotion of guilt and self-efficacy are known to reduce prejudiced attitudes and behaviors (Carnes et al., 2012 ; Leach et al., 2006 ; Zawadzki et al., 2012 ). Further, while blaming men for inequalities is thought to promote backlash (Dobbin et al., 2015 ; Legault et al., 2011 ; Moss-Racusin, 2014 ), no reductions in support emerged after blaming men for gender disparities in STEM. Thus, assigning blame for these inequalities may not promote disengagement from interventions, particularly when provided with tools to address biases.

While the combination of blame and methods to reduce biases increased levels of self-efficacy, neither factor alone affected confidence. These findings support theory suggesting guilt may only be effective in promoting collective action when individuals are confident behaviors will facilitate positive change (van Zomeren et al., 2008 , 2018 ). Thus, men given methods to address biases may feel more confident in confronting gender issues, but only when disparities are made relevant to their social identity (i.e., via assigning blame). While manipulations did not directly impact initiative support or motivations, it is important to note the influence of self-efficacy on these outcomes. Notably, equality self-efficacy indirectly accounted for greater support and motivations, suggesting men’s confidence may be a necessary antecedent for viable progress towards gender parity in higher education. This mechanistic interpretation is consistent with prevailing evidence establishing self-efficacy as a precursor for behavior change (Foster et al., 2014 ; Honicke & Broadbent, 2016 ; Prestwich et al., 2014 ).

General discussion

Across two experiments, the use of virtual reality and online tools provides evidence for effective methods to improve support for equality initiatives and promote self-efficacy, important factors which may contribute towards improving STEM gender disparities (Holman et al., 2018 ). Guided by the social identity model of collective action (van Zomeren et al., 2008 ), highlighting perceived injustices in STEM uniquely fostered support for equality initiatives, particularly when men also took the perspective of a female scientist. Experiment 1 developed immersive tools for male academics via the use of virtual reality, while Experiment 2 built upon this intervention by targeting additional factors thought to promote equality-focused action (i.e., social identity, self-efficacy; van Zomeren et al., 2008 , 2018 ). As suggested by the social identity model of collective action, attributing men’s social identity to gender disparities (via assigning blame) and providing methods to address bias yielded greater confidence in confronting gender issues in STEM which accounted for increased support and internal motivations to engage with initiatives, suggesting self-efficacy may play an essential role in changing attitudes towards equality within academia.

Importantly, the present research examined these factors among a pertinent group, male academics and educators. Since men make up a large percentage of STEM programs, it is vital to understand what factors promote support for equality initiatives among this population. Despite the presence of interventions within academia, vast disparities are still present in STEM (Holman et al., 2018 ). Thus, novel approaches to achieve gender parity are needed to improve engagement and effectiveness of interventions, since current initiatives elicit indifferent or negative attitudes from male faculty (Caffrey et al., 2016 ; Ovseiko et al., 2017 ). Yet, our results suggest men may already endorse ambivalent or positive attitudes towards equality initiatives, as many participants scored above the midpoint on measures of support regardless of manipulations. However, despite privately supporting gender equality, men are unlikely to engage in equality-focused action due to misperceptions of problematic sexism and assumptions their colleagues may not endorse pro-equality attitudes (De Souza & Schmader, 2022 ; van Zomeren et al., 2008 ). Thus, initiatives may not succeed without clear and outward support from the majority of educators. This assumption is consistent with work suggesting gender parity may only be achieved when entire organizations are motivated to address inequalities and support is consistent across intergroup boundaries (i.e., both men and women; Sherf et al., 2017 ). These findings provide tools and guidance to mobilize faculty more effectively, particularly targeting men who may perceive initiatives unfavorably which limits advancement towards gender parity (Caffrey et al., 2016 ; Ovseiko et al., 2017 ).

Limitations and future directions

Notably, the use of self-report measures to assess support for equality initiatives may limit the validity of findings due to social desirability (e.g., failing to capture true intentions of academics). While we also use behavioral measures to capture implicit associations with equality initiatives which tend to be less affected by social desirability (Greenwald et al., 2009 ), future work may longitudinally monitor engagement with university initiatives after participating. Yet, implicit measures were not collected in Experiment 2. Thus, results from the second iteration of the intervention may be limited by social desirability. Further, while virtual reality is common in facilitating perspective-taking (Herrera et al., 2018 ; Ventura et al., 2020 ), limitations include the depth of immersion felt by participants (Herrera et al., 2018 ) and whether the exercise promoted empathy. While manipulation checks indicated virtual reality facilitated perspective-taking, we did not assess empathy to minimize demand characteristics. Traditional paradigms outside of virtual reality were also not used to compare as prior work has done (Oh et al., 2016 ). However, traditional perspective-taking used in Experiment 2 (i.e., writing narrative essay) suggested this approach may have been effective in facilitating perspective-taking as a female scientist.

While the manipulation of blame in Experiment 2 was consistent with prior work which fostered guilt via attributing blame using interpersonal versus human-level categorizations (Wohl & Branscombe, 2005 ), other work has manipulated guilt by alleviating blame via promoting lack of control over the situation (e.g., no one is responsible for disparities; Rothschild et al., 2012 ). Thus, future work may consider how completely alleviating blame for inequalities may impact support and internal motivations to take part in initiatives. Further, while gender inequalities in STEM were explicitly linked to men’s social identity via assigning blame, levels of guilt were not assessed to avoid demand characteristics. Promotion of self-efficacy was also brief compared to prior work (e.g., Carnes et al., 2012 ; Zawadzki et al., 2012 ), as participants were only given a list of tools to reduce bias. Yet, findings suggest brief discussion of tools promoted confidence in addressing gender biases among male educators. Relatedly, while this manipulation was meant to foster self-efficacy, it may have affected learning mindsets. For instance, instructing participants stereotypes are static and difficult to change may have promoted fixed mindsets (i.e., associated with poorer behavior change) whereas instructing men that stereotypes are malleable may have promoted growth mindsets which often facilitate behavior change (Duchi et al., 2020 ; Wohl et al., 2015 ). Thus, future interventions may benefit from promoting dynamic over fixed mindsets.

Samples only contained STEM academics, since this population is relevant for the development of gender equality initiatives due to their majority status in these fields. Thus, findings may not generalize to fields or professions which do not have the expertise to evaluate the scientific evidence used in the manipulations. Female academics were also not recruited for these experiments, who may also hold negative attitudes towards equality initiatives due to fears their achievements may be attributed to interventions and positive discrimination (Ovseiko et al., 2017 ). Future research might include minority group members to determine if perspective-taking is effective across genders. For example, women taking the perspective of a successful female scientist may reduce the consequences of being a minority in STEM (Starr et al., 2019 ), while highlighting injustices and promoting self-efficacy promote equality attitudes and leadership among women (Becker & Swim, 2011 ; Carnes et al., 2012 ). Similarly, whether manipulations differ by source is unclear as information was always presented by a man in the present studies, since men are more likely to engage in equality-focused action when messages come from male sources (Hardacre & Subašic, 2018 ). Thus, whether men respond negatively to information when presented by female sources, and how these presentations may differentially impact women, should be addressed in future research. Lastly, experiments do not address racial disparities or intersectionality (e.g., female racial minorities) which are more severe than gender inequalities and further reduce student and faculty advancement in STEM (e.g., Charleston et al., 2014 ).

Notably, the present findings are informed by male academics recruited from a diverse range of career stages (e.g., PhD students, postdoctoral researchers, lecturers, and professors). However, our interventions may have differentially impacted participants based on their current academic position and experience in STEM. For instance, PhD students may not feel responsible for inequalities due to having little power to facilitate change needed to achieve gender equality. Postdoctoral researchers or staff on temporary or part-time contracts may also not feel motivated to engage with interventions if they are only employed temporarily. While interventions tested in these experiments were unaffected by academic position, other sociodemographic factors might impact engagement which were not assessed. For example, seniority within faculty positions may provide insight into potential resistance towards gender parity, given senior academics may contribute to poorer experiences among women students and faculty (O’Connell & McKinnon, 2021 ). Unfortunately, faculty seniority was not assessed in the present experiments to minimize identification of participants. However, analyses were unaffected by age which tends to capture similar career traits as seniority among STEM academics (Hall & Mansfield, 1975 ). Further, while part-time employees were not excluded from the studies, all participants reported full-time employment at their university. Thus, future work may examine whether interventions may differentially impact support for equality initiatives among academics in early versus late career stages, in addition to understanding motivations among part-time versus full-time academics.

Practical implications and conclusions

The current research deepens our understanding of how to best facilitate support for equality programs through perspective-taking, promoting awareness of inequalities and self-efficacy, and creating a sense of responsibility through promotion of guilt. Interventions should provide data-driven presentations outlining prevalence and consequences of gender inequalities in STEM, in addition to methods educators may use to address these disparities in the classroom and during hiring decisions, as this evidence can reduce ignorance and promote their confidence in improving inequalities (Callaghan et al., 2021 ; De Souza & Schmader, 2022 ; van Zomeren et al., 2008 ). This evidence may also provide greater context of the lived experiences of women in STEM, leading to more immersive perspective-taking among male educators. Importantly, using virtual reality to deliver interventions may provide greater immersion compared to the traditional paradigms (Herrera et al., 2018 ). However, as demonstrated in Experiment 2, these interventions might be scalable through utilizing online formats if virtual reality is unfeasible.

Results demonstrate how perspective-taking as a female scientist can promote support for equality initiatives, particularly when educators accurately perceive the severity of disparities in STEM. Support for initiatives may further be promoted through overtly blaming men for gender inequalities, in addition to providing male educators with practical solutions to address diversity issues. These findings are guided by the social identity model of collective action (van Zomeren et al., 2008 , 2018 ), suggesting equality-focused action is unlikely to occur until individuals are made aware of injustices, in addition for injustices to be highly relevant to one’s social identity and for individuals to feel confident in addressing disparities. The techniques discussed not only offer a recipe for creating effective interventions for educators but also provide a foundation for high-tech training tools to be widely used by equality initiatives within higher education.

Allen, L. S., Richey, M. F., Chai, Y. M., & Gorski, R. A. (1991). Sex differences in the corpus callosum of the living human being. Journal of Neuroscience, 11 (4), 933–942. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.11-04-00933

Article   Google Scholar  

Alonso, P., Moscoso, S., & Salgado, J. F. (2017). Structured behavioral interview as a legal guarantee for ensuring equal employment opportunities for women: A meta-analysis. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 9 (1), 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpal.2016.03.002

Badura, K. L., Grijalva, E., Newman, D. A., Yan, T. T., & Jeon, G. (2018). Gender and leadership emergence: A meta-analysis and explanatory model. Personnel Psychology, 71 (3), 335–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12266

Becker, J. C., & Swim, J. K. (2011). Seeing the unseen: Attention to daily encounters with sexism as way to reduce sexist beliefs. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35 (2), 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684310397509

Blair, I. V., Ma, J. E., & Lenton, A. P. (2001). Imagining stereotypes away: The moderation of implicit stereotypes through mental imagery. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81 (5), 828–841. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.5.828

Burns, M. D., Monteith, M. J., & Parker, L. R. (2017). Training away bias: The differential effects of counterstereotype training and self-regulation on stereotype activation and application. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 73 , 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.06.003

Caffrey, L., Wyatt, D., Fudge, N., Mattingley, H., Williamson, C., & McKevitt, C. (2016). Gender equity programmes in academic medicine: A realist evaluation approach to Athena SWAN processes. British Medical Journal Open, 6 (9), e012090. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012090

Callaghan, B., Harouni, L., Dupree, C. H., Kraus, M. W., & Richeson, J. A. (2021). Testing the efficacy of three informational interventions for reducing misperceptions of the Black-White wealth gap. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118 (38), e2108875118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2108875118

Carey, J. M., Carman, K. R., Clayton, K. P., Horiuchi, Y., Htun, M., & Ortiz, B. (2020). Who wants to hire a more diverse faculty? A conjoint analysis of faculty and student preferences for gender and racial/ethnic diversity. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 8 (3), 535–553. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2018.1491866

Carnes, M., Devine, P. G., Isaac, C., Manwell, L. B., Ford, C. E., Byars-Winston, A., Fine, E., & Sheridan, J. (2012). Promoting institutional change through bias literacy. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 5 (2), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028128

Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2015). Women have substantial advantage in STEM faculty hiring, except when competing against more-accomplished men. Frontiers in Psychology, 6 , 1532. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01532

Chang, F., Luo, M., Walton, G., Aguilar, L., & Bailenson, J. (2019). Stereotype threat in virtual learning environments: Effects of avatar gender and sexist behavior on women’s math learning outcomes. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 22 (10), 634–640. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2019.0106

Charleston, L. J., Adserias, R. P., Lang, N. M., & Jackson, J. F. (2014). Intersectionality and STEM: The role of race and gender in the academic pursuits of African American women in STEM. Journal of Progressive Policy & Practice, 2 (3), 273–293.

Google Scholar  

Chemers, M. M., Hu, L.-T., & Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first year college student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93 (1), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.55

Combs, G. M., & Luthans, F. (2007). Diversity training: Analysis of the impact of self-efficacy. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 18 (1), 91–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1193

Crone, C. L., & Kallen, R. W. (2022). Interview with an avatar: Comparing online and virtual reality perspective taking for gender bias in STEM hiring decisions. PLoS ONE, 17 (6), e0269430. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269430

Cupertino, A. P., Berg, C., Gajewski, B., Hui, S. A., Richter, K., Catley, D., & Ellerbeck, E. F. (2011). Change in self-efficacy, autonomous and controlled motivation predicting smoking. Journal of Health Psychology, 17 (5), 640–652. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105311422457

Danbold, F., & Huo, Y. J. (2017). Men’s defense of their prototypicality undermines the success of women in STEM initiatives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 72 , 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.12.014

De Souza, L., & Schmader, T. (2022). The misjudgment of men: Does pluralistic ignorance inhibit allyship? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122 (2), 265–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000362

Decety, J., & Cowell, J. M. (2014). The complex relation between morality and empathy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18 (7), 337–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.04.008

Devine, P. G., Forscher, P. S., Austin, A. J., & Cox, W. T. (2012). Long-term reduction in implicit race bias: A prejudice habit-breaking intervention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48 (6), 1267–1278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.06.003

Dobbin, F., Schrage, D., & Kalev, A. (2015). Rage against the iron cage: The varied effects of bureaucratic personnel reforms on diversity. American Sociological Review, 80 (5), 1014–1044. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122415596416

Doosje, B., Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1998). Guilty by association: When one’s group has a negative history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75 (4), 872–886. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.872

Dover, T. L., Major, B., & Kaiser, C. R. (2016). Members of high-status groups are threatened by pro-diversity organizational messages. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 62 , 58–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.006

Dovidio, J. F., ten Vergert, M., Stewart, T. L., Gaertner, S. L., Johnson, J. D., Esses, V. M., Riek, B. M., & Pearson, A. R. (2004). Perspective and prejudice: Antecedents and mediating mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30 (12), 1537–1549. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271177

Duchi, L., Lombardi, D., Paas, F., & Loyens, S. M. (2020). How a growth mindset can change the climate: The power of implicit beliefs in influencing people’s view and action. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 70 , 101461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101461

Farrell, L., Petzel, Z. W., McCormack, T., Turner, R. N., Rafferty, K., & Latu, I. M. (2021). When you put it that way: Framing gender equality initiatives to improve engagement among STEM academics. BioScience, 71 (3), 292–304. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaa136

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41 (4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149

Ferguson, M. A., & Branscombe, N. R. (2014). The social psychology of collective guilt. In C. von Scheve, & M. Salmela (Eds.), Collective emotions: Perspectives from psychology, philosophy, and sociology (pp. 251–265). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199659180.003.0017

Foster, D. W., Yeung, N., & Neighbors, C. (2014). I think I can’t: Drink refusal self-efficacy as a mediator of the relationship between self-reported drinking identity and alcohol use. Addictive Behaviors, 39 (2), 461–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2013.10.009

Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 (4), 708–724. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.708

Gausel, N., Vignoles, V. L., & Leach, C. W. (2016). Resolving the paradox of shame: Differentiating among specific appraisal-feeling combinations explains pro-social and self-defensive motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 40 (1), 118–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-015-9513-y

Geerlings, J., Thijs, J., & Verkuyten, M. (2018). Teaching in ethnically diverse classrooms: Examining individual differences in teacher self-efficacy. Journal of School Psychology, 67 , 134–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.12.001

George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (1997). Organizational spontaneity in context. Human Performance, 10 (2), 153–170. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1002_6

Good, J. J., Woodzicka, J. A., & Wingfield, L. C. (2010). The effects of gender stereotypic and counter-stereotypic textbook images on science performance. The Journal of Social Psychology, 150 (2), 132–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540903366552

Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85 (2), 197–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.197

Greenwald, A. G., Poehlman, T. A., Uhlmann, E. L., & Banaji, M. R. (2009). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97 (1), 17–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015575

Groom, V., Bailenson, J. N., & Nass, C. (2009). The influence of racial embodiment on racial bias in immersive virtual environments. Social Influence, 4 (3), 231–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510802643750

Hall, D. T., & Mansfield, R. (1975). Relationships of age and seniority with career variables of engineers and scientists. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60 (2), 201–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076549

Hamilton-Giachritsis, C., Banakou, D., Quiroga, M. G., Giachritsis, C., & Slater, M. (2018). Reducing risk and improving maternal perspective-taking and empathy using virtual embodiment. Scientific Reports, 8 (1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-21036-2

Hardacre, S. L., & Subašić, E. (2018). Whose issue is it anyway? The effects of leader gender and equality message framing on men’s and women’s mobilization toward workplace gender equality. Frontiers in Psychology, 9 , 2497. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02497

Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [white paper]. Retrieved July 31, 2023, from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf

Herold, D. M., Fedor, D. B., & Caldwell, S. D. (2007). Beyond change management: A multilevel investigation of contextual and personal influences on employees’ commitment to change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (4), 942–951. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.942

Herrera, F., Bailenson, J., Weisz, E., Ogle, E., & Zaki, J. (2018). Building long-term empathy: A large-scale comparison of traditional and virtual reality perspective-taking. PLoS ONE, 13 (10), e0204494. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204494

Holman, L., Stuart-Fox, D., & Hauser, C. E. (2018). The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented? PLoS Biology, 16 (4), e2004956. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2004956

Honicke, T., & Broadbent, J. (2016). The influence of academic self-efficacy on academic performance: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 17 , 63–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.11.002

Hsu, M. H., Ju, T. L., Yen, C. H., & Chang, C. M. (2007). Knowledge sharing behavior in virtual communities: The relationship between trust, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65 (2), 153–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.09.003

Hyde, J. S. (2014). Gender similarities and differences. Annual Review of Psychology, 65 , 373–398. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115057

Karpinski, A., & Steinman, R. B. (2006). The single category implicit association test as a measure of implicit social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91 (1), 16–32. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.1.16

Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Glynn, C. J., & Huge, M. (2013). The Matilda effect in science communication: An experiment on gender bias in publication quality perceptions and collaboration interest. Science Communication, 35 (5), 603–625. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012472684

Kraus, M. W., Rucker, J. M., & Richeson, J. A. (2017). Americans misperceive racial economic equality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114 (39), 10324–10331. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1707719114

Ku, G., Wang, C. S., & Galinsky, A. D. (2010). Perception through a perspective-taking lens: Differential effects on judgment and behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46 (5), 792–798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.04.001

Leach, C. W., Iyer, A., & Pedersen, A. (2006). Anger and guilt about ingroup advantage explain the willingness for political action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32 (9), 1232–1245. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F0146167206289729

Legault, L., Gutsell, J. N., & Inzlicht, M. (2011). Ironic effects of antiprejudice messages: How motivational interventions can reduce (but also increase) prejudice. Psychological Science, 22 (12), 1472–1477. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F0956797611427918

Lowery, B. S., Knowles, E. D., & Unzueta, M. M. (2007). Framing inequity safely: Whites’ motivated perceptions of racial privilege. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33 (9), 1237–1250. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207303016

Luders, E., Toga, A. W., & Thompson, P. M. (2014). Why size matters: Differences in brain volume account for apparent sex differences in callosal anatomy: The sexual dimorphism of the corpus callosum. NeuroImage, 84 , 820–824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.09.040

Maddux, J. E. (2009). Self-efficacy: The power of believing you can. In S. J. Lopez, & C. R. Snyder (Eds.),  Oxford handbook of positive psychology (pp. 335–343). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195187243.001.0001

Martínez, C., Paterna, C., Roux, P., & Falomir, J. M. (2010). Predicting gender awareness: The relevance of neo-sexism. Journal of Gender Studies, 19 (1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589230903057142

McGarty, C., Pedersen, A., Leach, C. W., Mansell, T., Waller, J., & Bliuc, A.-M. (2005). Group-based guilt as a predictor of commitment to apology. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44 (4), 659–680. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466604X18974

Morgan, H. K., Purkiss, J. A., Porter, A. C., Lypson, M. L., Santen, S. A., Christner, J. G., ... & Hammoud, M. M. (2016). Student evaluation of faculty physicians: gender differences in teaching evaluations. Journal of Women's Health , 25 (5), 453–456. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2015.5475

Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109 (41), 16474–16479. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211286109

Moss-Racusin, C. A. (2014). Male backlash: Penalties for men who violate gender stereotypes. In R. J. Burke, & D. A. Major (Eds.), Gender in organizations: Are men allies or adversaries to women’s career advancement?  (pp. 247–269). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781955703.00021

Murphy, M. C., Steele, C. M., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Signaling threat: How situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychological Science, 18 (10), 879–885. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01995.x

Nosek, B. A., Smyth, F. L., Sriram, N., Lindner, N. M., Devos, T., Ayala, A., ... & Greenwald, A. G. (2009). National differences in gender-science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 106 (26), 10593–10597. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0809921106

O’Connell, C., & McKinnon, M. (2021). Perceptions of barriers to career progression for academic women in STEM. Societies, 11 (2), 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc11020027

Oh, S. Y., Bailenson, J., Weisz, E., & Zaki, J. (2016). Virtually old: Embodied perspective-taking and the reduction of ageism under threat. Computers in Human Behavior, 60 , 398–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.007

Ovseiko, P. V., Chapple, A., Edmunds, L. D., & Ziebland, S. (2017). Advancing gender equality through the Athena SWAN Charter for Women in Science: An exploratory study of women’s and men’s perceptions. Health Research Policy and Systems, 15 (1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-017-0177-9

Phillips, L. T., & Lowery, B. S. (2020). I ain’t no fortunate one: On the motivated denial of class privilege. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119 (6), 1403–1422. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000240

Pietri, E. S., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Guha, D., Roussos, G., Brescoll, V. L., & Handelsman, J. (2017). Using video to increase gender bias literacy toward women in science. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 41 (2), 175–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684316674721

Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. G. (1998). Internal and external motivation to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75 (3), 811–832. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.811

Prestwich, A., Kellar, I., Parker, R., MacRae, S., Learmonth, M., Sykes, B., ... & Castle, H. (2014). How can self-efficacy be increased? Meta-analysis of dietary interventions. Health Psychology Review , 8 (3), 270–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2013.813729

Rothschild, Z. K., Landau, M. J., Sullivan, D., & Keefer, L. A. (2012). A dual-motive model of scapegoating: Displacing blame to reduce guilt or increase control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102 (6), 1148–1163. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027413

Schmader, T., Whitehead, J., & Wysocki, V. H. (2007). A linguistic comparison of letters of recommendation for male and female chemistry and biochemistry job applicants. Sex Roles, 57 (7–8), 509–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9291-4

Schutte, N. S., & Stilinović, E. J. (2017). Facilitating empathy through virtual reality. Motivation and Emotion, 41 (6), 708–712. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-017-9641-7

Sherf, E. N., Tangirala, S., & Weber, K. C. (2017). It is not my place! Psychological standing and men’s voice and participation in gender-parity initiatives. Organization Science, 28 (2), 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1118

Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35 (1), 4–28. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1998.1373

Starr, C. R., Anderson, B. R., & Green, K. A. (2019). “I’ma computer scientist!”: Virtual reality experience influences stereotype threat and STEM motivation among undergraduate women. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28 (5), 493–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09781-z

Steinke, J. (2005). Cultural representations of gender and science: Portrayals of female scientists and engineers in popular films. Science Communication, 27 (1), 27–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547005278610

Todd, A. R., Bodenhausen, G. V., Richeson, J. A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2011). Perspective-taking combats automatic expressions of racial bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100 (6), 1027–1042. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022308

Tzanakou, C., & Pearce, R. (2019). Moderate feminism within or against the neoliberal university? The example of Athena SWAN. Gender, Work & Organization, 26 (8), 1191–1211. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12336

Van Loon, A., Bailenson, J., Zaki, J., Bostick, J., & Willer, R. (2018). Virtual reality perspective-taking increases cognitive empathy for specific others. PLoS ONE, 13 (8), e0202442. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202442

van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134 (4), 504–535. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504

van Zomeren, M., Kutlaca, M., & Turner-Zwinkels, F. (2018). Integrating who “we” are with what “we” (will not) stand for: A further extension of the Social Identity Model of Collective Action. European Review of Social Psychology, 29 (1), 122–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2018.1479347

Ventura, S., Badenes-Ribera, L., Herrero, R., Cebolla, A., Galiana, L., & Baños, R. (2020). Virtual reality as a medium to elicit empathy: A meta-analysis. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 23 (10), 667–676. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2019.0681

Vescio, T. K., Sechrist, G. B., & Paolucci, M. P. (2003). Perspective taking and prejudice reduction: The mediational role of empathy arousal and situational attributions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33 (4), 455–472. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.163

Vick, S. B., Seery, M. D., Blascovich, J., & Weisbuch, M. (2008). The effect of gender stereotype activation on challenge and threat motivational states. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44 (3), 624–630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2007.02.007

White, S. J. (1997). Empathy: A literature review and concept analysis. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 6 (4), 253–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.1997.tb00313.x

Wohl, M. J. A., & Branscombe, N. R. (2005). Forgiveness and collective guilt assignment to historical perpetrator groups depend on level of social category inclusiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88 (2), 288–303. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.2.288

Wohl, M. J. A., Cohen-Chen, S., Halperin, E., Caouette, J., Hayes, N., & Hornsey, M. J. (2015). Belief in the malleability of groups strengthens the tenuous link between a collective apology and intergroup forgiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41 (5), 714–725. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215576721

Yadav, A., Seals, C. D., Sullivan, C. M. S., Lachney, M., Clark, Q., Dixon, K. G., & Smith, M. J. T. (2020). The forgotten scholar: Underrepresented minority postdoc experiences in STEM fields. Educational Studies: Journal of the American Educational Studies Association, 56 (2), 160–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2019.1702552

Zawadzki, M. J., Danube, C. L., & Shields, S. A. (2012). How to talk about gender inequity in the workplace: Using WAGES as an experiential learning tool to reduce reactance and promote self-efficacy. Sex Roles, 67 (11–12), 605–616. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0181-z

Zell, E., Krizan, Z., & Teeter, S. R. (2015). Evaluating gender similarities and differences using metasynthesis. American Psychologist, 70 (1), 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038208

Zigerell, L. J. (2017). Potential publication bias in the stereotype threat literature: Comment on Nguyen and Ryan (2008). Journal of Applied Psychology, 102 (8), 1159–1168. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000188

Download references

Acknowledgements

Support for this research was provided by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/S011919/1). Data, materials, and supplemental tables can be found at https://osf.io/8p7y9/ . Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Zachary W. Petzel, School of Psychology, Newcastle University, Dame Margaret Barbour Building, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4DR, United Kingdom. E-mail: [email protected]

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Psychology, Newcastle University, Dame Margaret Barbour Building, Richardson Rd, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK

Zachary W. Petzel

Psychology Department, School of Business, National College of Ireland, International Financial Services Centre, Mayor Street Lower, Dublin, Ireland

Lynn Farrell

School of Psychology, Queen’s University Belfast, David Keir Building, 18-30 Malone Rd, Belfast, UK

Teresa McCormack, Rhiannon N. Turner & Ioana M. Latu

School of Electronics, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Queen’s University Belfast, Computer Science Building, 16A Malone Rd, Belfast, UK

Karen Rafferty

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zachary W. Petzel .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors have no conflicts of interests or competing interests to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Current Themes of Research

Recent work from the authors informs understanding of gender disparities within STEM fields, such as the role of stereotypes and discrimination, in addition to development of interventions to improve engagement with equality initiatives within higher education to achieve gender parity.

Relevant Publications

Jones, A., Turner, R. N., & Latu, I. M. (2022). Resistance towards increasing gender diversity in masculine domains: The role of intergroup threat.  Group Processes & Intergroup Relations ,  25 (3), 24-53.

Petzel, Z. W. & Casad, B. J. (2022). Take a chance on STEM: Risk-taking buffers negative effects of stereotype threat.  The Journal of Experimental Education ,  90 (3), 656-672.

Farrell, L., Petzel, Z. W., McCormack, T., Turner, R. N., Rafferty, K., & Latu, I. M. (2021). When you put it that way: Framing gender equality initiatives to improve engagement among STEM academics.  BioScience ,  71 (3), 292-304.

Casad, B. J., Franks, J. E., Garasky, C. E., Kittleman, M. M., Roesler, A. C., Hall, D. Y., & Petzel, Z. W. (2021). Gender inequality in academia: Problems and solutions for women faculty in STEM.  Journal of Neuroscience Research ,  99 (1), 13-23.

Farrell, L., Nearchou, F., & McHugh, L. (2020). Examining the effectiveness of brief interventions to strengthen a positive implicit relation between women and STEM across two timepoints.  Social Psychology of Education ,  23 , 1203-1231.

Farrell, L. & McHugh, L. (2020). Exploring the relationship between implicit and explicit gender-STEM bias and behavior among STEM students using the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure.  Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science ,  15 , 142-152.

Casad, B. J., Petzel, Z. W., & Ingalls, E. A. (2019). A model of threatening academic environments predicts women STEM majors’ self-esteem and engagement in STEM.  Sex Roles ,  80 , 469-488.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Petzel, Z.W., Farrell, L., McCormack, T. et al. A collective action approach to improving attitudes and self-efficacy towards gender equality among male STEM academics. Eur J Psychol Educ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-024-00844-3

Download citation

Received : 31 July 2023

Revised : 09 April 2024

Accepted : 24 April 2024

Published : 11 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-024-00844-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Intervention
• Virtual reality
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

How it works

For Business

Join Mind Tools

Article • 11 min read

Breaking the Glass Ceiling

Overcoming invisible barriers to success.

By the Mind Tools Content Team

Great strides have been made toward equality in the workplace. But, even today, many people find that they're unfairly blocked from advancing their careers.

They may be ideal candidates for promotion, with relevant qualifications, experience, and "can-do" attitudes – but time and again they see less competent co-workers overtake them, or are overlooked for senior positions.

They've hit the glass ceiling. In this article, we explore what the glass ceiling is, and we look at what individuals and organizations can do to smash it!

What Is the Glass Ceiling?

The glass ceiling is a metaphor for the invisible barrier that prevents some people from rising to senior positions.

It's a subtle but damaging form of discrimination , where you cannot take the opportunities you see in front of you – despite your suitability and your best efforts. Crucially, this "failure" is not the result of a lack of skills and experience, or because you haven't tried hard enough.

The glass ceiling is most often associated with women at work – research suggests that women are 18 percent less likely to be promoted than their male co-workers. [1]

The term is applied to minority groups, too, but it goes beyond issues of gender and ethnicity. It can affect people from all walks of life for a range of reasons. Let's consider these examples:

• The knowledgeable and skilled female executive who is denied a promotion because of her gender, because men in her organization are traditionally viewed as more "suitable" leaders.
• The highly experienced software developer who is rejected for a role by a start-up business because, at 52, he's far older than the mostly Millennial workforce, and bosses feel that he might not "fit in."
• The bright law graduate who is refused an internship at a prestigious law firm because she doesn't have the "right upbringing."

All seem to be ideal candidates, but they are held back by long-standing traditions, biases, and beliefs about what the "right" candidate looks like – the glass ceiling.

Chances are, having their career progressions blocked like this could leave them feeling confused, disorientated, depressed, or isolated. They may feel mistrust, anger or resentment, and start to doubt themselves.

But glass ceilings negatively impact organizations, too. Studies have shown that diversity is often the key to innovation, growth and higher revenue. [2]

Another phenomenon to be wary of is the "glass cliff." This refers to how "non-traditional" leaders tend to be promoted to senior positions where there is a high likelihood of failure.

For example, research suggests that women and people from ethnic minorities are more often promoted to CEO positions in organizations that are in decline. [3]

Why Do Glass Ceilings Exist?

Glass ceilings are often the result of unconscious bias – instinctive, underlying beliefs about ethnicity, gender, age, sexuality, social class, religion, and so on. This may be largely unintentional.

However, in some cases, glass ceilings have become a systemic problem – an inherent part of company culture, but one many organizations turn a blind eye to . Elsewhere, glass ceilings are intentional, showing up as overt discrimination or bullying , as a form of "power play."

In these instances, people "at the top" may deny that a glass ceiling exists, because they haven't experienced it themselves. Or, they fear that acknowledging it would threaten their positions. Either way, they'll likely want to preserve the status quo.

The discriminatory nature of the glass ceiling is one of the reasons cited for women being more likely than men to work in positions below their level of competence. This phenomenon has been dubbed "The Paula Principle" by researcher and author Tom Schuller. [4]

Other contributing factors identified by Schuller include the challenge of Combining Parenthood and Work , and positive choices based around work-life balance .

Mind Tools Corporate users and Premium members of the Mind Tools Club can listen to a detailed discussion with Schuller in our Expert Interview .

Three Ways to Smash the Glass Ceiling!

The glass ceiling is a difficult problem to tackle, but it's not impossible. Here are three strategies for doing so.

1. Recognize That It Exists

To break a glass ceiling, you first have to know that it's there. This can be difficult when it's likely disguised as culture or tradition. There are, however, signs to show that one may exist in your organization:

• The phrase "that's just the way things are done here" is used to justify appointments or decisions.
• There's little diversity at the top.
• Atypical leaders model their behavior on that of "typical" leaders, altering their management styles or taking up new activities to "fit in."
• Sexist, racist, or other prejudicial language is common across the organization, but people excuse it as "banter."
• There's resistance to innovation and change, especially over the long term.
• There are illogical pay gaps between different groups of employees.
• Fast-track career programs are in place for minority groups, but few participants progress. (These programs are often a genuine effort to redress an imbalance, but some are intended to demonstrate equality, without creating it.)
• It's hard for employees to get senior leaders' time, and there are limited opportunities for mentoring from senior personnel.

2. What You Can Do as an Employee

The first thing to realize is that the glass ceiling is no reflection of your value as a person or as an employee. The very nature of glass ceilings means that even if you've positioned yourself to meet every demand of a role, you'll still be denied the opportunity.

So, we assume here that you understand and have the key competencies and self-confidence required for the upper levels of your organization, but that you are still being denied advancement.

Let's explore some actions that you can take to reach the top:

• Channel your frustration into purposeful action. Experiencing or witnessing the impact of a glass ceiling can leave you feeling frustrated, depressed, or angry at the injustice. Use this passion as a catalyst for action, but don't allow it to control your behavior .
• Develop your awareness of the issue. Learn more about where glass ceilings exist in your business, who they affect and how. The better you understand the issue, the more opportunities you'll identify to promote change.
• Raise your concerns. If you believe that there's a glass ceiling in your organization, but your managers don't realize it (or, worse, they deny it), speak up or tell them (appropriately) that they're in the wrong . This makes it harder for others to ignore the issue, and you may find important allies.
• Be patient, but assertive . Dismantling a glass ceiling will take time, but check in regularly with your manager to see what progress is being made. Don't allow those at the top to "park" or forget the issue.
• Take responsibility for your own development. If you're not being given the opportunities that you feel you deserve in your current situation, it might be time to seek them elsewhere.

3. Actions Your Organization Can Take

As a manager, your role in helping your organization to dismantle glass ceilings is critical. But without the input of senior leaders, change will be far harder.

Below, we explore some strategies for encouraging organizational change.

First, you need to open a dialog about the issue. This can mean having some difficult conversations, and it requires honest introspection from senior leaders. Have they done anything, inadvertently or otherwise, that may have sabotaged people's progression? Do they fear "losing out" themselves if the organization becomes more inclusive? Do they worry that it will affect performance?

Encourage open conversations about these issues, and see where they lead. There may be a backlash, but you can counter this by stressing that change needn't be threatening. It should simply allow those who deserve opportunities to access them, regardless of gender, race, or any other factor.

Ask your team members for their views. You may discover important facts and suggestions for improvement by asking people about their experiences.

Next, encourage your organization to recognize and challenge bias. You can learn more about this in our article, Avoiding Unconscious Bias at Work .

A key action is to review your recruitment and promotion practices. These are the areas where the glass ceiling is most commonly imposed. Conduct a "deep dive" into your current practices and consider how they may be affecting different groups' chances of progression.

Support your teams to reach their goals. You can do this through mentoring , skills assessments , encouraging innovation , helping people to find their allies (or to become one), and raising their profiles .

The overall focus should be on promoting diversity: diversity of ideas, diversity of perspectives, and diversity of innovation.

Mind Tools Club and Corporate users can listen to our Expert Interviews with Natalie Holder-Winfield , about her book, "Exclusion: Strategies for Improving Diversity in Recruitment, Retention and Promotion," and with Sally Helgesen about her book "How Women Rise: Break the 12 Habits Holding You Back from Your Next Raise, Promotion, or Job."

The term "glass ceiling" refers to the way that some groups of people are held back in their careers by traditions, biases and the status quo.

To break the glass ceiling, you first have to identify it. Look for warning signs such as a lack of diversity in leadership roles, inappropriate comments, and a lack of innovation.

Individuals can tackle the problem by learning more about it, raising their concerns, and taking responsibility for their own development.

Organizations can take action by honestly exploring whether a glass ceiling exists, asking employees for their views, investing in unconscious bias training, and offering support to employees.

[1] McKinsey and Company. (2017). Women in the Workplace 2017 Study [online]. Available here . [Accessed September 11, 2018.]

[2] Groysberg, B. and Connolly, K. (2013). 'Great Leaders Who Make the Mix Work,' Harvard Business Review , September 2013. Available here .

[3] Cook, A., and Glass, C. (2013). 'Above the Glass Ceiling: When Are Women and Racial/Ethnic Minorities Promoted to CEO?' Strategic Management Journal , 35, 1080–1089. Available here .

[4] Schuller, T. (2017). ' The Paula Principle: How and Why Women Work Below Their Level of Competence ,' London: Scribe U.K.

You've accessed 1 of your 2 free resources.

Get unlimited access

Discover more content

Working with purpose.

Bringing More Meaning to Your Career

Personal PEST Analysis

Add comment

Comments (0)

Be the first to comment!

Get 30% off your first year of Mind Tools

Great teams begin with empowered leaders. Our tools and resources offer the support to let you flourish into leadership. Join today!

Sign-up to our newsletter

Subscribing to the Mind Tools newsletter will keep you up-to-date with our latest updates and newest resources.

Subscribe now

Business Skills

Personal Development

Leadership and Management

Member Extras

Most Popular

Latest Updates

Tips for Dealing with Customers Effectively

Pain Points Podcast - Procrastination

Mind Tools Store

About Mind Tools Content

Discover something new today

Pain points podcast - starting a new job.

How to Hit the Ground Running!

Ten Dos and Don'ts of Career Conversations

How to talk to team members about their career aspirations.

How Emotionally Intelligent Are You?

Boosting Your People Skills

Self-Assessment

What's Your Leadership Style?

Learn About the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Way You Like to Lead

Recommended for you

Organizational communication overview.

An Overview of Organizational Communication From a Strategic Perspective

Business Operations and Process Management

Strategy Tools

Customer Service

Business Ethics and Values

Handling Information and Data

Project Management

Knowledge Management

Self-Development and Goal Setting

Time Management

Presentation Skills

Learning Skills

Career Skills

Communication Skills

Negotiation, Persuasion and Influence

Working With Others

Difficult Conversations

Creativity Tools

Self-Management

Work-Life Balance

Stress Management and Wellbeing

Coaching and Mentoring

Change Management

Team Management

Managing Conflict

Delegation and Empowerment

Performance Management

Leadership Skills

Developing Your Team

Talent Management

Problem Solving

Decision Making

Member Podcast

Kids Ain't Cheap

11 Gender-Specific Lessons We Need to Stop Teaching Children in a Modern World

Posted: February 28, 2024 | Last updated: May 1, 2024

In a world that is increasingly embracing diversity and equality, traditional gender roles and stereotypes seem archaic and limiting. As we strive towards a society that values individuals for who they are rather than the gender they were assigned at birth, it’s crucial to re-evaluate the lessons we impart to children. Here are 11 gender-specific lessons that need to be rethought in our modern world.

1. Boys Don't Cry

We’ve often told boys that showing emotion is a sign of weakness, a lesson that stifles their emotional development. Telling boys not to cry teaches them to bottle up their feelings, leading to emotional repression and difficulty in forming healthy relationships.

Encouraging emotional expression in boys can foster empathy, resilience, and emotional intelligence. It’s essential to teach all children that emotions are a natural part of being human, regardless of gender. This shift can lead to a more emotionally healthy and empathetic generation.

2. Girls Must Always Be Polite and Passive

Traditionally, girls are taught to be compliant, polite, and not too outspoken, reinforcing a passive role in society. This can limit their ability to assert themselves, express their opinions, and lead.

Encouraging assertiveness and confidence in girls can empower them to pursue leadership roles and speak up for themselves.

Teaching all children the value of politeness coupled with assertiveness is key to developing well-rounded individuals. It’s vital to encourage girls to be as bold and assertive as their male counterparts.

3. Boys Shouldn't Play with Dolls

The idea that boys should avoid playing with dolls limits their opportunity to learn nurturing and caregiving skills. Playing with dolls can be beneficial for children of any gender, as it teaches empathy, responsibility, and emotional intelligence.

Gender-neutral play encourages children to explore a wide range of interests and skills, unhindered by gender stereotypes.

Encouraging boys to engage in diverse forms of play can foster a more inclusive and empathetic mindset. This approach allows children to discover their true interests and talents freely.

4. Girls Aren't Good at Math and Science

This outdated stereotype undermines girls’ confidence and interest in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) fields.

Encouraging girls to engage in and excel at math and science is crucial for gender equality in these industries. Showcasing female role models in STEM can inspire girls and break down the stereotype.

It’s important to teach all children that intelligence and capability are not gender specific. Fostering an environment of equal opportunity in education can lead to more diverse and innovative STEM fields.

5. Boys Are Naturally Aggressive

Labeling boys as naturally aggressive can lead to excusing unhealthy behavior and discouraging emotional intelligence. It’s important to teach boys healthy ways to express emotions and resolve conflicts.

Encouraging empathy and communication skills in boys can reduce aggression and foster better relationships. Recognizing that aggression is not an inherently male trait is essential.

Teaching all children non-violent communication and emotional regulation is key to raising a more peaceful and empathetic generation.

6. Girls Should Focus on Their Appearance

Emphasizing physical appearance as a girl’s most valuable asset can lead to body image issues and superficiality. Teaching girls that their worth is not tied to their appearance fosters self-esteem and confidence.

Encouraging interests and skills beyond physical appearance allows girls to develop a well-rounded sense of self. It’s important to celebrate diverse forms of beauty and challenge narrow beauty standards.

Promoting the idea that intelligence, kindness, and creativity are as valuable as physical appearance can lead to a more inclusive and empowering society.

7. Boys Don't Do Household Chores

Assigning household chores based on gender reinforces traditional domestic roles and limits life skills development. Teaching boys to participate in domestic tasks prepares them for independent living and promotes gender equality in household responsibilities.

Sharing household chores among all family members, regardless of gender, models teamwork and equality.

It’s important to teach children that domestic responsibilities are a shared aspect of life, not gender-specific duties. This approach fosters a sense of responsibility and respect for domestic work in all individuals.

8. Girls Must Be Caretakers

The expectation that girls should naturally be more nurturing and responsible for caretaking can limit their personal and professional aspirations. Encouraging girls to explore a wide range of roles, including leadership and independence, is crucial for gender equality.

Teaching all children the value of empathy and care, regardless of gender, can lead to more compassionate and balanced relationships. It’s important to allow girls the freedom to choose their path without the burden of gendered expectations. Fostering a culture that values diverse roles and skills in all individuals can lead to a more equitable society.

9. Boys Are the Protectors

Labeling boys as protectors and defenders can create undue pressure and reinforce traditional power dynamics. Teaching boys that showing vulnerability is not a sign of weakness, but a strength can foster healthier relationships.

Encouraging mutual support and protection among all children, regardless of gender, can lead to a more balanced and respectful society. It’s important to challenge the notion that protection is solely a male responsibility. Promoting the idea that everyone has the right to feel safe and supported, without gendered expectations, is key to gender equality.

10. Girls Shouldn't Be Too Loud or Opinionated

Discouraging girls from being loud or opinionated can stifle their voices and limit their influence. Encouraging girls to express their opinions and speak up is crucial for developing self-confidence and leadership skills.

Teaching all children the value of respectful communication and active listening is important for balanced discourse.

It’s essential to create environments where girls feel safe and encouraged to share their thoughts and ideas. Promoting the idea that all voices, regardless of gender, deserve to be heard and respected can lead to a more inclusive and diverse society.

11. Boys Must Always Be Strong and Independent

Teaching boys that they must always be strong and independent can lead to isolation and difficulty in seeking help. Encouraging boys to ask for help and collaborate with others fosters teamwork and community.

Teaching all children the value of interdependence and mutual support is key to a healthy society. It’s important to challenge the notion that needing help is a sign of weakness. Promoting the idea that strength can also be found in vulnerability and collaboration can lead to more supportive and resilient communities.

Rethinking Gender Norms

In the journey towards a more equitable and inclusive world, rethinking the gender-specific lessons we teach children is paramount.

By challenging these outdated notions and promoting values of empathy, equality, and emotional intelligence, we can raise a generation that respects and values diversity.

Embracing a future where individuals are not confined by gender stereotypes but are celebrated for their unique strengths and abilities is the key to a progressive and harmonious society.

More for You

Shock Miss USA resignations are just the tip of the iceberg, insiders say

US Housing Market To Be Upended This Summer: What To Know

Controversy follows Gov. Kristi Noem as she is banned by two more South Dakota tribes

18 Home Remedies Our Grandparents Used That Actually Work

NBA Champion Dwyane Wade says it took years to learn how to manage his millions: 'I had never really handled more than $500 at a time'

15 Fictional Things That Made the Jump to Reality

Where To Find the Most Famous Restaurants in All 50 States

‘Have we made a terrible mistake?’ My brother put our names on the deed to our 88-year-old mother’s home. What should we do?

Losing Weight After 60: 13 Practical Tips To Lose Body Fat And Maintain Muscle, According To Experts

Trump's Wildwood, NJ rally was 'truly stunning': Joe Concha

17 Least Welcoming Cities in the US

Here are 7 of the best foods for high blood pressure

All 27 Pixar Movies Ranked From Worst to Best

Here is the true value of having a fully paid-off home in America — especially when you're heading into retirement

Largest Private Hospital Chain in The U.S. Files for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

Four RBs who could be the NFL's next breakout star

24 Dog Breeds That Might Not Make Great Family Pets

If You Only Do 5 Exercises, a Physical Therapist Says These Are the Most Effective for Keeping You Pain-Free

Fewer Young Men Are Going to College — Here's a State-By-State Breakdown of Where They'll Have the Best and Worst Job Prospects

20 Best Sandwiches in America You Need to Try At Least Once