Modifica di Paradosso dell'uguaglianza di genere


Inizialmente tradotto da [[wikipedia:Gender-equality_paradox|Wikipedia]]{{Short description|Concept in psychology and sociology}}
[[File:The Global Gender Gap Index (GGGI) vs. the female share of STEM degrees.svg|thumb|The Global Gender Gap Index compared to the female share of STEM degrees in different countries.]]
Il '''gender-equality paradox ('''paradosso dell'uguaglianza di genere) è la scoperta che varie [[differenze di genere]] nella personalità e nelle scelte occupazionali sono maggiori nei paesi più [[Gender equality|gender equal]]. Sono state trovate maggiori differenze nei tratti dei Big Five, nei tratti della Triade Oscura, nell'autostima, nella depressione, nei valori personali, nella scelta professionale e nell'istruzione. 

Questo fenomeno è apparentemente paradossale perché ci si aspetterebbe che le differenze di genere si riducano man mano che i paesi diventano più egalitari di genere<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Fors Connolly|first=Filip|last2=Goossen|first2=Mikael|last3=Hjerm|first3=Mikael|date=2020-07-01|title=Does Gender Equality Cause Gender Differences in Values? Reassessing the Gender-Equality-Personality Paradox|url=https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01097-x|journal=Sex Roles|language=en|volume=83|issue=1|pages=101–113|doi=10.1007/s11199-019-01097-x|issn=1573-2762|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Are Women More Emotional Than Men? {{!}} Psychology Today|url=https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/sexual-personalities/201504/are-women-more-emotional-men|access-date=2021-12-11|website=www.psychologytoday.com|language=en}}</ref>.

Sono state proposte varie spiegazioni per il paradosso. 
* Alcuni studiosi suggeriscono che gli stereotipi e le aspettative di genere maggiori nei paesi più uguali di genere sono responsabili 
* che le donne in nazioni meno sviluppate sono più propense a scegliere i campi [[Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics|STEM]], a causa del maggior bisogno di sicurezza e di un buon reddito. 
* Altri teorizzano che le differenze di genere profondamente radicate e intrinseche sono meno frenate e si materializzano più facilmente nei paesi con più parità di genere<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Breda|first=Thomas|last2=Jouini|first2=Elyès|last3=Napp|first3=Clotilde|last4=Thebault|first4=Georgia|date=2020-12-08|title=Gender stereotypes can explain the gender-equality paradox|url=https://www.pnas.org/content/117/49/31063|journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences|language=en|volume=117|issue=49|pages=31063–31069|doi=10.1073/pnas.2008704117|pmc=7733804|issn=0027-8424|pmid=33229558}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Gender equality paradox: fewer women in developed nations go after STEM degrees|url=https://bigthink.com/culture-religion/the-downside-to-greater-gender-equality-fewer-girls-go-after-stem-degrees/|access-date=2021-12-11|website=Big Think|language=en-US}}</ref>.
== Gender-equality paradox in STEM ==
===Stoet and Geary (2018) study===
{{Primary sources|section|date=January 2021}}
This research originally claimed that within the study's sample, more gender equality in a country is linked with a lower proportion of [[Female education in STEM|women]] studying STEM fields.<ref name=":12">{{cite web|title=The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more-gender-equality-the-fewer-women-in-stem/553592/|last=Khazan|first=Olga|website=The Atlantic|language=en-US|date=2018-02-18|access-date=2019-12-23}}</ref><ref name=":13">{{Cite web|url=https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/women-gender-equal-countries-less-likely-gain-stem-degrees|title=Women in gender-equal countries less likely to gain STEM degrees|date=2018-02-23|website=Times Higher Education (THE)|language=en|access-date=2019-12-23}}</ref><ref name=":14">{{Cite web|url=https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/globally-women-tend-to-avoid-science-careers-even-when-theyre-good-at-it/|title=Women go into science careers more often in countries without gender equality|last=Timmer|first=John|date=2018-02-19|website=Ars Technica|language=en-us|access-date=2019-12-23}}</ref><ref name=":15">{{Cite news|url=https://www.macleans.ca/society/could-helping-boys-be-the-key-to-closing-the-stem-gap/|title=Could helping boys be the key to closing the STEM gap?|last=Taylor|first=Peter Shawn|date=March 26, 2019|work=Maclean's|access-date=2019-12-22}}</ref> It conducted an analysis of the 2015 results (n=472,242 across 67 nations/regions) of the [[Programme for International Student Assessment]] (PISA), focusing on the results of questions based on science aptitude and attitudes. This was contrasted with the level of gender equality as defined by the [[Global Gender Gap Index]] (GGGI).
==== Findings ====
The study had a number of primary findings. These can be summarized as follows:
* Girls performed similarly or better than boys in two out of every three countries, and were more capable of STEM tertiary education in nearly all countries examined.
*Science or mathematics is much more likely to be a personal academic strength for boys than for girls
* More girls entered STEM degrees than graduated.
* The difference between both the performance of girls in PISA was inversely related to the country's GGGI.
* This gap was found to be correlated with the STEM graduation gap, showing that there is a similar gap between the number of girls and boys that enter STEM university programmes compared to those that complete their degrees in more gender-equal countries.
It's important to note that the absolute size of the gap found was not shown to be significant. Rather it is the relative relationship between the two that was found to show an effect. In other words, no relation was found between the total number of girls who entered and completed STEM degrees and the GGGI of the country. Rather, the effect was between the relative difference in number of girls vs. boys who entered and completed STEM degrees, and the GGGI of their country.
=== Correction to original paper and Richardson et al. (2020) ===
Separate Harvard researchers were unable to recreate the data reported in the study, and after internal review at the journal, a correction was issued to the original paper.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|url=https://slate.com/technology/2020/02/women-stem-innate-disinterest-debunked.html|title=We Dug Into Data to Disprove a Myth About Women in STEM|last=Richardson|first=Meredith Reiches, Sarah S.|date=2020-02-11|website=Slate Magazine|language=en|access-date=2020-03-03}}</ref><ref name=":7">{{Cite journal|date=2020-01-01|title=Corrigendum: The Gender-Equality Paradox in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education|journal=Psychological Science|language=en|volume=31|issue=1|pages=110–111|doi=10.1177/0956797619892892|pmid=31809229|issn=0956-7976|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name=":18">{{Cite web|url=https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/women-stem-gender-equality-paradox-correction|title=A Controversial Study Claimed To Explain Why Women Don't Go Into Science And Tech. It Just Got A 1,113-Word Correction.|website=BuzzFeed News|language=en|access-date=2020-03-03}}</ref> The correction outlined that the authors had created a previously undisclosed and unvalidated method to measure "propensity" of women and men to attain a higher degree in STEM, as opposed to the originally claimed measurement of "women’s share of STEM degrees".<ref name=":7" /><ref name=":0" /><ref name=":17">{{Cite web|url=https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/scholars-debate-causes-of-womens-underrepresentation-in-stem-67117|title=Scholars Debate Causes of Women's Underrepresentation in STEM|website=The Scientist Magazine®|language=en|access-date=2020-03-03}}</ref> However, even incorporating the newly disclosed method, the investigating researchers could not recreate all the results presented.<ref name=":17"/><ref name=":18"/> A follow-up paper by the researchers who discovered the discrepancy found conceptual and empirical problems with the gender-equality paradox in STEM hypothesis.<ref name=":19">{{Cite journal|last1=Richardson|first1=Sarah S.|last2=Reiches|first2=Meredith W.|last3=Bruch|first3=Joe|last4=Boulicault|first4=Marion|last5=Noll|first5=Nicole E.|last6=Shattuck-Heidorn|first6=Heather|date=2020-02-11|title=Is There a Gender-Equality Paradox in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM)? Commentary on the Study by Stoet and Geary (2018)|journal=Psychological Science|volume=31|issue=3|language=en|pages=338–341|doi=10.1177/0956797619872762|pmid=32043923|s2cid=211079357|issn=0956-7976}}</ref><ref name=":17"/> In February 2020, Stoet and Geary issued a reply, as a commentary in ''Psychological Science,'' claiming that, despite their approach, the overall correlation that they had found remained the same,<ref>{{Cite web|title=A Controversial Study Claimed To Explain Why Women Don't Go Into Science And Tech. It Just Got A 1,113-Word Correction.|url=https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/women-stem-gender-equality-paradox-correction|access-date=2021-03-25|website=BuzzFeed News|language=en}}</ref> and restated their hypothesis that "men are more likely than women to enter STEM careers because of endogenous interest", with the hope that future studies would "help to confirm or reject such a theoretical account."<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Stoet |first1=Gijsbert |last2=Geary |first2=David C. |date=2020-02-11 |title=The Gender-Equality Paradox Is Part of a Bigger Phenomenon: Reply to Richardson and Colleagues (2020) |url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797620904134 |journal=Psychological Science |volume=31 |issue=3 |pages=342–344 |language=en |doi=10.1177/0956797620904134|pmid=32043920 |s2cid=211079901 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=STEM's ongoing sex-difference debate|url=https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/02/14/stems-ongoing-sex-difference-debate|access-date=2021-01-08|website=www.insidehighered.com|language=en}}</ref>
=== Breda, Jouini, Napp and Thebault (2020) study on economic development and gendered study choices ===
In 2020, a study by Thomas Breda, Elyès Jouini, Clotilde Napp and Georgia Thebault on PISA 2012 data found that the "paradox of gender equality" could be "entirely explained" by the stereotype associating math to men being stronger in more egalitarian and developed countries.<ref name=":30">{{Cite journal|last1=Breda|first1=Thomas|last2=Jouini|first2=Elyes|last3=Napp|first3=Clotilde|last4=Thebault|first4=Georgia|date=November 2020|title=Gender stereotypes can explain the gender-equality paradox|journal= Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences|volume=117|issue=49|pages=31063–31069|doi=10.1073/pnas.2008704117| pmc=7733804 |pmid=33229558|issn= 1091-6490}}</ref><ref name="CNRS">{{cite web | title=Les stéréotypes de genre peuvent expliquer le paradoxe de l'égalité des sexes | website=[[CNRS]] | url=https://www.cnrs.fr/fr/les-stereotypes-de-genre-peuvent-expliquer-le-paradoxe-de-legalite-des-sexes | language=fr | access-date=Jan 9, 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|first1=Judith M.|last1=Delaney|first2=Paul J.|last2=Devereux|accessdate=2021-11-30|title=The Economics of Gender and Educational Achievement: Stylized Facts and Causal Evidence|url=https://oxfordre.com/economics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190625979.001.0001/acrefore-9780190625979-e-663|date=31 August 2021|website=Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Economics and Finance|doi=10.1093/acrefore/9780190625979.013.663|isbn=978-0-19-062597-9}}</ref>
== Usage to describe personality and preference differences by gender ==
The gender equality paradox has also been used to describe [[gender differences]] in personality tests and preferences in more gender equal and wealthier countries, primarily in relation to studies conducted by Falk and Hermle (2018)<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Falk |first1=Armin |last2=Hermle |first2=Johannes |date=2018-10-19 |title=Relationship of gender differences in preferences to economic development and gender equality |url=https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aas9899 |journal=Science |language=en |volume=362 |issue=6412 |pages=eaas9899 |doi=10.1126/science.aas9899 |pmid=30337384 |issn=0036-8075|hdl=10419/193353 |s2cid=53012633 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> and by Mac Giolla and Kajonius (2018)<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Mac Giolla |first1=Erik |last2=Kajonius |first2=Petri J. |date=2018-10-19 |title=Sex differences in personality are larger in gender equal countries: Replicating and extending a surprising finding |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ijop.12529 |journal=International Journal of Psychology |language=en |volume=54 |issue=6 |pages=705–711 |doi=10.1002/ijop.12529 |pmid=30206941 |s2cid=52189807 |issn=0020-7594}}</ref>.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|last=O'Grady|first=Cathleen|date=2018-10-18|title=Why figuring out what's behind a big gender paradox won't be easy|url=https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/10/gender-differences-in-personality-are-bigger-in-egalitarian-countries/|access-date=2021-01-10|website=Ars Technica|language=en-us}}</ref><ref name=":3">{{Cite news|last=Radio|first=Sveriges|title=Jordan B Peterson har delvis rätt om jämställdhetsparadoxen - Faktiskt|url=https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/7099255|access-date=2021-01-10|newspaper=Sveriges Radio|date=27 November 2018|language=sv}}</ref> Falk and Hermle (2018) used the 2012 Gallup World Poll that explored the preferences of around 80,000 people from 76 different countries and found that richer and more gender-equal countries had bigger gender gaps in people’s preferences.<ref name=":1" /> Mac Giolla and Kajonius (2018) found that women tend to rate higher than men on all five facets of personality on the [[International Personality Item Pool|IPIP‐NEO‐120]] personality test and that the gap gets wider in countries that rank higher on the GGGI.<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":3" />
== Other usage in academic sources ==
{{Primary sources|section|date=January 2021}}The gender equality paradox has also been used to describe separate claims within the academic literature. Examples include:
* Usdansky (2011) to describe a claim that "less educated couples with less skilled occupations and less money tend to voice more enthusiasm for specialized gender roles"''.''<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Usdansky|first=Margaret L.|date=2011|title=The Gender-Equality Paradox: Class and Incongruity Between Work-Family Attitudes and Behaviors|url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2011.00094.x|journal=Journal of Family Theory & Review|language=en|volume=3|issue=3|pages=163–178|doi=10.1111/j.1756-2589.2011.00094.x|issn=1756-2589}}</ref>
* A conference paper by Klaus and Kroezen (2017) to describe the rule differences by gender in professional tennis.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Claus|first1=Laura|last2=Kroezen|first2=Jochem|date=2016-01-01|title=How Do Institutional Paradoxes Evolve? The Gender Equality Paradox in Professional Tennis|url=https://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/ambpp.2016.159|journal=Academy of Management Proceedings|volume=2016|issue=1|pages=14026|doi=10.5465/ambpp.2016.159|issn=0065-0668}}</ref>
* Thelwall and Mas-Bleda (2020) to describe a claim that "countries with a higher proportion of female first-authored journal articles have larger first-author gender disparities between fields". This was based on a "first-author gender comparison of 30 million articles from all 27 Scopus broad fields within the 31 countries with the most Scopus-indexed articles 2014–2018".<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Thelwall|first1=Mike|last2=Mas-Bleda|first2=Amalia|date=2020-05-28|title=A gender equality paradox in academic publishing: Countries with a higher proportion of female first-authored journal articles have larger first-author gender disparities between fields|journal=Quantitative Science Studies|volume=1|issue=3|pages=1260–1282|doi=10.1162/qss_a_00050|arxiv=2004.12159|doi-access=free}}</ref>
== See also ==
* [[Sex differences in humans|Gender differences]] 
* [[Women in STEM fields]]
==References==
{{reflist |refs=
<!-- <ref name=SG>{{citation |title=The Gender-Equality Paradox in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education |last1=Stoet |first1=Gijsbert |last2=Geary |first2=David C. |author-link2=David C. Geary |date=14 February 2018  |doi=10.1177/0956797617741719 |pmid=29442575 |journal=[[Psychological Science]] |pages=581–593 |volume=29 |number=4 |s2cid=4874507 |url=http://eprints.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/4753/6/symplectic-version.pdf }}</ref> -->
}}
{{Gender equality}}
[[Category:Gender equality]]
[[Category:Gender roles]]