Gender inequality has been an enduring issue throughout history and continues to persist in modern society. Although we have achieved much gender equality, this progress has stagnated. We propose that gender equality differentiation, defined as the variance in the levels of gender equality across different dimensions, is a critical but neglected factor that impedes progress toward gender equality. Using a global dataset of 158 countries spanning from 2006 to 2022 (Study 1; N = 1,906), we find that countries with a higher level of gender equality differentiation at the focal year have a lower level of gender equality in the next year. A global survey (Study 2; N = 45,611) and a preregistered experiment (Study 3; N = 566) further demonstrate the underlying mechanisms. This research reveals a paradox—isolated efforts in addressing some aspects of gender inequality inadvertently stall efforts to address holistic gender inequality.
AsonguS. A.NnannaJ.Acha-AnyiP. N. (2020). Inequality and gender economic inclusion: The moderating role of financial access in Sub-Saharan Africa. Economic Analysis and Policy, 65, 173–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2020.01.002
2.
BalducciM. (2023). Linking gender differences with gender equality: A systematic-narrative literature review of basic skills and personality. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1105234. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1105234
3.
BerggrenM.BerghR. (2025). Simpson’s gender-equality paradox. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(23), e2422247122. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2422247122
4.
BettioF.CorsiM.d’IppolitiC.LyberakiA.LodoviciM. S.VerashchaginaA. (2013). The impact of the economic crisis on the situation of women and men and on gender equality policies. European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2838/53123
5.
CimpianJ. R.KimT. H.McDermottZ. T. (2020). Understanding persistent gender gaps in STEM. Science, 368(6497), 1317–1319. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba7377
6.
CostaP. T.TerraccianoA.McCraeR. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(2), 322–331. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322
7.
DamannT. J.SiowJ.TavitsM. (2023). Persistence of gender biases in Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(12), e2213266120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2213266120
8.
DuY. Y. L.WeeS.RoundsJ. (2024). Gender differences in vocational interests across 57 countries: A test of the interest–gender-equality paradox. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 16(1), 27–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506241280321
9.
EibachR. P.EhrlingerJ. (2006). “Keep your eyes on the prize”: Reference points and racial differences in assessing progress toward equality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(1), 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205279585
FaďošM.BohdalováM. (2019). Unemployment gender inequality: Evidence from the 27 European Union countries. Eurasian Economic Review, 9(3), 349–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40822-018-0107-3
12.
FalkA.HermleJ. (2018). Relationship of gender differences in preferences to economic development and gender equality. Science, 362(6412), eaas9899. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aas9899
13.
HainesE. L.JostJ. T. (2000). Placating the powerless: Effects of legitimate and illegitimate explanation on affect, memory, and stereotyping. Social Justice Research, 13(3), 219–236. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026481205719
14.
HengY. T.WagnerD. T.BarnesC. M.GuaranaC. L. (2018). Archival research: Expanding the methodological toolkit in social psychology. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 78, 14–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.04.012
15.
HennesE. P.NamH. H.SternC.JostJ. T. (2012). Not all ideologies are created equal: Epistemic, existential, and relational needs predict system-justifying attitudes. Social Cognition, 30(6), 669–688. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2012.30.6.669
16.
HennesE. P.RuischB. C.FeyginaI.MonteiroC. A.JostJ. T. (2016). Motivated recall in the service of the economic system: The case of anthropogenic climate change. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(6), 755–771. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000148
17.
HerlitzA.HönigI.HedebrantK.AsperholmM. (2025). A systematic review and new analyses of the gender-equality paradox. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 20(3), 503–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231202685
18.
HofstedeG.HofstedeG. J.MinkovM. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind, third edition. McGraw Hill Professional.
19.
IlmarinenV.-J.LönnqvistJ.-E. (2024). Deconstructing the gender-equality paradox. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 127(1), 217–237. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000508
20.
InglehartR.HaerpferC. W.MorenoA.WelzelC.KizilovaK.Diez-MedranoJ.LagosM.NorrisP.PonarinE.PuranenB. (2018). World Values Survey: Round five—Country-pooled datafile (Version 20180912) [Dataset]. World Values Survey Association.
JoshiA.SonJ.RohH. (2015). When can women close the gap? A meta-analytic test of sex differences in performance and rewards. Academy of Management Journal, 58(5), 1516–1545. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0721
23.
JostJ. T. (2019). A quarter century of system justification theory: Questions, answers, criticisms, and societal applications. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58(2), 263–314. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12297
24.
JostJ. T. (2020). A theory of system justification. Harvard University Press.
25.
JostJ. T.BanajiM. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x
26.
JostJ. T.BanajiM. R.NosekB. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25(6), 881–919. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x
LatanH.Chiappetta JabbourC. J.LopesdeSousa JabbourA. B. (2021). To blow or not to blow the whistle: The role of rationalization in the perceived seriousness of threats and wrongdoing. Journal of Business Ethics, 169(3), 517–535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04287-5
29.
LaurinK.GaucherD.KayA. (2013). Stability and the justification of social inequality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(4), 246–254. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1949
30.
LedgerwoodA.MandisodzaA. N.JostJ. T.PohlM. J. (2011). Working for the system: Motivated defense of meritocratic beliefs. Social Cognition, 29(3), 322–340. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2011.29.3.322
31.
LeeK.AshtonM. C. (2020). Sex differences in HEXACO personality characteristics across countries and ethnicities. Journal of Personality, 88(6), 1075–1090. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12551
32.
LeslieL. M.FlynnE.Foster-GimbelO. A.ManchesterC. F. (2023). Happy talk: Is common diversity rhetoric effective diversity rhetoric?Academy of Management Journal, 67(3), 595–624. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2021.1402
MarshH. W.ParkerP. D.GuoJ.BasarkodG.NiepelC.Van ZandenB. (2021). Illusory gender-equality paradox, math self-concept, and frame-of-reference effects: New integrative explanations for multiple paradoxes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 121(1), 168–183. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000306
35.
MoninB.MillerD. T. (2001). Moral credentials and the expression of prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1), 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.33
NappC. (2023). Gender stereotypes embedded in natural language are stronger in more economically developed and individualistic countries. PNAS Nexus, 2(11), pgad355. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgad355
38.
QinX.ChuaR. Y. J.TanL.LiW.ChenC. (2023). Gender bias in cultural tightness across the 50 US states, its correlates, and links to gender inequality in leadership and innovation. PNAS Nexus, 2(8), pgad238. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgad238
39.
RidgewayC. L. (2011). Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the modern world. Oxford University Press.
40.
RobersonQ. M.SturmanM. C.SimonsT. L. (2007). Does the measure of dispersion matter in multilevel research? A comparison of the relative performance of dispersion indexes. Organizational Research Methods, 10(4), 564–588. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106294746
41.
RobersonQ. M.WilliamsonI. O. (2012). Justice in self-managing teams: The role of social networks in the emergence of procedural justice climates. Academy of Management Journal, 55(3), 685–701. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0491
42.
ShepherdS.KayA. C. (2012). On the perpetuation of ignorance: System dependence, system justification, and the motivated avoidance of sociopolitical information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(2), 264–280. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026272
43.
ShultzK. S.HoffmanC. C.Reiter-PalmonR. (2005). Using archival data for I-O research: Advantages, pitfalls, sources, and examples. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 42(3), 31–37.
StoetG.GearyD. C. (2018). The gender-equality paradox in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Psychological Science, 29(4), 581–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617741719
Uematsu‑ErvastiK.KawachiK. (2022). How intercultural experience affects university students’ gender views: Potential for transforming higher education in Japan. Asia Pacific Education Review, 23(4), 625–637. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-022-09801-5
51.
VishkinA. (2022). Queen’s gambit declined: The gender-equality paradox in chess participation across 160 countries. Psychological Science, 33(2), 276–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976211034806
52.
VishkinA.SlepianM. L.GalinskyA. D. (2022). The gender-equality paradox and optimal distinctiveness: More gender-equal societies have more gendered names. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(2), 490–499. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211037576
53.
VlasceanuM.AmodioD. M. (2022). Propagation of societal gender inequality by internet search algorithms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(29), e2204529119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2204529119
54.
WakslakC. J.JostJ. T.TylerT. R.ChenE. S. (2007). Moral outrage mediates the dampening effect of system justification on support for redistributive social policies. Psychological Science, 18(3), 267–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01887.x
55.
WaldfogelH. B.Sheehy-SkeffingtonJ.HauserO. P.HoA. K.KteilyN. S. (2021). Ideology selectively shapes attention to inequality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(14), e2023985118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023985118
56.
WelzelC. (2013). Freedom rising: Human empowerment and the quest for emancipation. Cambridge University Press.
YeganehH. (2022). A cross-national investigation into the effects of religion on gender equality. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 42(5/6), 434–454. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSSP-10-2020-0479
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
