Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background

Adolescents’ gender attitudes shape not only their personal identities and opportunities but also the wider social systems they enter as future workers, citizens, and decision-makers. Despite increasing academic attention, no comprehensive synthesis has examined how these attitudes have been studied quantitatively over the past two decades.

Objective

This review examines how adolescent gender attitudes have been studied using quantitative methods, focusing on the geographical scope, research aims, analytical strategies, and measurement practices.

Methods

A systematic review of 134 empirical studies published between 2000 and 2024 was conducted, based on searches in Web of Science and Scopus.

Results

Findings indicate a substantial increase in publication output, alongside pronounced regional imbalances in the English language quantitative literature. Studies are predominantly drawn from Asia, North America, and Europe, with fewer contributions from Global South contexts, where relevant research may be published in other languages or regional outlets. In addition, the field relies heavily on established measurement instruments and shows limited theoretical engagement, while school and intersectional contexts remain underexamined, limiting the ability of existing evidence to inform policy and systemic change.

Conclusions

Future research requires updated and context-sensitive measures, stronger theoretical grounding, and methodological innovation. Such advances are essential to support inclusive education, sustainable development, and effective management of gender equity in social systems.

Keywords

review gender equality adolescence quantitative methodologies

Introduction

Despite the progress made worldwide to tackle gender inequality, gender disparities remain embedded in multiple societal dimensions^1,2: wages,^3,4 labour participation, higher education enrolment and completion,⁵ domestic violence,⁶ among others. These inequalities are not only matters of personal circumstance but also shape the functioning of wider human systems: they affect the distribution of opportunities, constrain social cohesion, and undermine sustainable development.

Previous research has suggested that traditional gender role attitudes are responsible for the persisting discrimination and gender inequality present in societies.⁷ As indicated by West & Zimmerman (1987) and Kroska (2014), gender status and beliefs contribute to organisational policies and societal structures that perpetuate these inequalities.^8,9 Notably, Brandt (2011) has shown that in contexts where there is a high level of sexism, there is also lower gender equality.¹⁰ This suggests that gender attitudes extend beyond personal beliefs to become system-level resources or constraints that shape institutional practices and policy outcomes.

Attitudes toward gender equity refer to individuals’ dispositions regarding the positions men and women assume in society.¹¹ Drawing on Social Identity Theory from social psychology, we frame these attitudes not only as cognitive and evaluative judgments of these roles but also as part of normative and social dynamics based on social groups and shared identities.^12,13 From a systems perspective, these attitudes operate through families, schools, peer groups, and media to influence long-term social and organisational outcomes.

Gender attitudes play an important role in shaping adolescents’ experiences and opportunities. It therefore becomes essential to understand how these attitudes have been studied, as the design of research directly influences what we know about them. Quantitative studies are widely used to analyse gender attitudes among adolescents, as they allow researchers to identify large-scale patterns, trends, and structural inequalities.^14,15 However, the choice of research design, measurement tools, and analytical methods affects which aspects of gender attitudes are examined and whose experiences are captured or excluded. Understanding these approaches is necessary to critically assess existing evidence, recognise its limitations, and ensure that future research provides a more complete and nuanced understanding of gender attitudes.

Despite the breadth of research on gender attitudes among adolescents, prior reviews have either taken a broad methodological scope, encompassing both qualitative and quantitative studies, or focused on younger populations.^16,17 As a result, there is a limited synthesis of how quantitative studies have specifically approached gender attitudes in adolescence, particularly in terms of research designs, measurement strategies, and the use of theory. Given the increasing reliance on quantitative data to inform education policy and programming,¹⁸ it is essential to evaluate whether the existing body of research adequately captures the complexity of adolescent experiences and attitudes.

This review examines how quantitative research has approached the study of gender attitudes among adolescents over the past two decades. By mapping publication trends, geographical distribution, research objectives, theoretical frameworks, measurement strategies, and methodological choices, this review offers an updated account of the field’s evolution and identifies persistent blind spots. In addition to mapping the evidence base, the review identifies gaps that limit how research can inform education practice and broader social policy. In doing so, it contributes to discussions on how gender equity is conceptualised and measured within adolescent populations and calls for more theoretically engaged, contextually inclusive, and methodologically diverse research agendas.

Gender attitudes among adolescents

Adolescence is a crucial stage in human development, a phase during which young people become more capable of abstract thinking about social categories, such as gender, and start to develop a desire for peer acceptance.^17,19 Therefore, it is a period during which young people define their gender norms and attitudes.^17,20

Attitudes toward gender equity can significantly influence adolescents’ decisions and their self-definition during this period of identity formation. Previous research has suggested that reinforcing traditional gender stereotypes in adolescence results in attitudes that limit women’s career expectations, promote submissive roles,¹⁷ and make men more likely to engage in risky behaviours.²¹ Thus, gender norms and attitudes consolidated during this stage influence not only self-concept but also later educational and occupational choices.

It is critical to understand gender attitudes among adolescents because we can use this to inform education. Educational experiences are crucial for adolescents.²² They experience family as a primary source of education and socialisation, where parents or caregivers communicate values, norms, opinions, and preferences.²³ Children, in particular, emulate and acknowledge individuals as pivotal in fulfilling their necessities, but this continues in adolescence.^24,25 Additionally, families facilitate the intergenerational transmission of structural factors, such as class, race, and religion, which means the transmission of social identity and location within the social structure.²⁴

This transmission of social and demographic characteristics implies that family socialisation differs across society. Young people come from heterogeneous backgrounds where political norms and attitudes are not uniformly distributed, which means fewer opportunities to have, for instance, political discussions at home for those who have a lower socioeconomic background.^25,26 Therefore, schools can provide opportunities to learn societal norms and desirable behaviours.²⁷ Some classroom practices, such as open discussions promoted by teachers, can be effective in promoting democratic and tolerant values.²⁸

The insight provided by previous research into understanding gender attitudes can help inform education about best practices in classrooms to enhance adherence to gender equality in societies where there seems to be a backlash. Sally Nuamah highlights the insufficient efforts by schools to provide equitable education for girls, often caused by discriminatory practices and the absence of safe learning environments.²⁹ Thus, understanding adolescents’ attitudes toward gender can help shape more inclusive educational approaches. Additionally, previous research can provide insights into the intergenerational transmission of these attitudes within families and explore how structural social factors, such as gender and race, influence them.

Understanding gender attitudes among adolescents: Qualitative and quantitative approaches

Quantitative and qualitative research approaches contribute to the understanding of gender attitudes among adolescents. Qualitative approaches enable the capture of the depth and meaning of individual or collective experiences.³⁰ Through interviews, focus groups, and ethnographic methods, researchers can explore how gender attitudes are formed, negotiated, and expressed in everyday educational settings.^31–33

Quantitative approaches are particularly valuable for identifying broad patterns and trends. Through tools such as Likert scales, researchers can measure and compare attitudes towards gender roles across large populations. This measurement enables the assessment of how widely the population holds traditional or egalitarian gender views, and how these attitudes vary across different contexts, such as age, class, ethnicity, or geographical location.^11,34,35 Such evidence underpins the design of policies and interventions in education, labour markets, and social development.

The quantitative analysis of attitudes towards gender equity involves assessing the level of agreement or disagreement between women’s and men’s positions in society, particularly concerning the private and public spheres.^34,35 These positions pertain to individuals’ beliefs or perspectives regarding the societal roles that men and women should occupy.¹¹ Individuals who endorse a traditional division of labour between genders – where women are predominantly confined to domestic roles or play minor roles in the public sphere, while men assume prominent positions therein – are identified as adhering to traditional gender role attitudes.¹¹ Conversely, those who reject this division of roles and advocate for a more equitable distribution are regarded as having egalitarian attitudes toward gender roles.¹¹

By using quantitative methods, researchers can identify trends, test hypotheses on the dynamics of gender attitudes, and contribute to analysing social changes and intersections affecting gender attitudes. Studying publications using a quantitative approach will contribute to understanding patterns of analysis in gender attitudes.

Why is it important to know how quantitative studies look at gender attitudes among adolescents?

Understanding how quantitative research addresses gender attitudes among adolescents is important for several reasons. The primary value of quantitative research lies in its ability to provide a comprehensive view of the changes and variability in social phenomena. It enables the identification of patterns and trends, and the examination of factors associated with those patterns, making it well-suited to analysing gender attitudes across large populations and diverse contexts.¹⁵ The use of quantitative data can complement an individual-focused understanding of discrimination, revealing systematic and structural inequities, and considering complex dimensions of gender inequality at structural levels.³⁶ Thus, identifying trends in gender attitudes enables researchers to assess gender equity among adolescents at the population level and to pinpoint areas requiring greater attention, particularly in education.^37,38

The design of quantitative studies has crucial implications for the knowledge they produce. Research designs, theoretical frameworks, measurement tools, and analytical methods influence which dimensions of gender attitudes are studied, how they are measured, and whose experiences are represented. As D'Ignazio and Klein (2020) explain, data production always involves decisions about what to measure, how to measure it, and whose perspectives are included or excluded, meaning that these choices shape research outcomes.³⁹ Examining these aspects is essential to assess whether existing research adequately captures the complexity of gender attitudes, especially in relation to intersecting factors such as age, social class, ethnicity, or migration background.

The use of quantitative methods to study gender inequalities has been subject to debate within some strands of feminist scholarship. Nevertheless, as Scott (2010) notes, no serious researcher would claim that women’s experiences can be reduced to numbers (as the criticism raises).¹⁴ Quantitative research has provided substantial evidence showing how gender inequalities have increased for women.^14,36 As well, one of the advantages of quantitative research is that it is possible to deduce hypotheses from theoretical frameworks, and “see how data support or refute these expectations (p. 230).¹⁴

Additionally, the quantitative approach offers the possibility of accounting for intersecting forms of inequality.⁴⁰ The ability to account for these multiple, intersecting forms of discrimination is critical for understanding how gender attitudes are shaped within broader systems of power. D’Ignazio and Klein (2023) argue that data science has the potential to reveal hidden patterns of inequality, but such approaches are still underutilised in this area.

Critically reflecting on how quantitative research approaches gender attitudes among adolescents is therefore valuable for the broader field. It provides insights into the assumptions embedded in existing research, helps to identify areas that remain underexplored, and encourages greater attention to methodological diversity and theoretical rigour. Such reflection is necessary to ensure that future research can better capture the complex social processes that shape adolescents’ gender attitudes and contribute to more comprehensive understandings of gender inequalities.

Existing studies of gender attitudes among adolescents

Previous reviews on gender attitudes are varied. Some reviews have examined the synthesis of life-course influences on the development of gender attitudes among men, drawing on cross-disciplinary work,^41,42 non-restrictive or focused methodologies, or adolescence.

Two reviews were found that focused on adolescents and gender attitudes and gender stereotypes.

First, the study by Kågesten et al. (2016) examines the factors that are associated with gender attitudes in early adolescence (10 to 14 years old), incorporating articles from 1984 to 2014 into their analysis.¹⁷ The key findings of this publication highlight the interpersonal, familial, and peer influences, as well as the lack of community-level factors (such as media), and the experiences that qualitative studies synthesise, including the clashing cultural messages that immigrant adolescents face. Kågesten and colleagues (2016) published their review 10 years ago, which included studies up to 2014, encompassing both quantitative and qualitative analyses. The questions addressed in this review are twofold: what factors are associated with gender attitudes in quantitative studies, and how adolescents acquire gender attitudes, as explored in the qualitative analyses.

Second, the study de Morais et al. (2024), the analysis examines various methodological strategies employed over the past decade in psychological studies, regarding gender stereotypes in children aged up to 12 years old.¹⁶ According to the results of this study, publications adopted cross-sectional, descriptive or correlational designs, with few using standardised instruments. And stereotypes were assessed regarding activities, attributes and traits, occupations and STEM topics, focusing on the attitudes toward these areas, and mainly analysing girls between 3 and 8 years old. Notably, de Morais (2024) focuses on psychological studies, and the analysis does not focus on a particular methodology. The study is oriented to gender stereotypes, which is not precisely “attitudes”. Nevertheless, they have also encountered “attitudes” among the topics they analysed. This review has objectives rather than questions, focusing on methods, instruments, and domains of gender stereotypes in their selected publications.

Both of these reviews defined their scope based on a topic or concept, selecting publications accordingly, rather than requiring a specific outcome variable. This approach is partly due to their inclusion of both qualitative and quantitative studies. In qualitative research, the concept of a clearly defined outcome variable is generally not applicable.

The present study

The present work builds upon previous systematic literature analyses in several ways: (i) we have included several questions to identify what is known about gender attitudes in adolescents (considering geographical focus, objectives, methodologies, measurement, and theory); (ii) we are interested in pieces of research that focus on this concept as the primary interest variable (in other words, as the outcome or dependent variable); (iii) we are including publications that analyse adolescent populations (not just young adolescents); (iv) we offer an updated perspective that includes the last 24 years of research; and (v) we focus solely on quantitative analyses.

This review addresses the following questions:

• Trends in academic interest: How has the volume of research on adolescents’ gender attitudes evolved between 2000 and 2024?

• Geographical focus: In which countries or regions has this research predominantly been conducted, and where are the gaps?

• Research foci: What are the main topics and objectives of these studies – for example, are they examining family influences, peer and school factors, media exposure, interventions, attitude change over time, etc.?

• Theoretical frameworks: Do studies anchor their investigations in theory (and which theories are most commonly applied)?

• Measurement: What is the origin of the scales used in the papers? Which type of scales do they use?

• Methodological approaches: Which research designs and analytical methods are used to study adolescent gender attitudes (e.g. surveys, experiments, regression analyses, scale development).

In this review, we define gender attitudes as individuals’ evaluative orientations towards the socially constructed roles, responsibilities, rights, and expectations assigned to women and men in both private and public spheres. Drawing on sociological and social-psychological traditions, these attitudes capture beliefs about how gender relations are and how they should be, including views on the division of labour, access to education and work, political participation, authority, and caregiving responsibilities. Consistent with prior quantitative research, gender attitudes are conceptualised as a continuum ranging from traditional or restrictive orientations, which endorse a gender-differentiated social order, to egalitarian orientations, which support equal rights, opportunities, and responsibilities for women and men. Importantly, the review treats gender attitudes not as purely individual traits but as socially embedded dispositions shaped through family socialisation, schooling, peer interaction, and broader cultural contexts during adolescence.

Following the PRISMA guidelines,^43,44 we developed a systematic literature review to answer the previous questions. We noted the publication year of the studies, their geographical locations, the objectives of analysing these attitudes, the underlying theories, the methods used, and the measurement of the outcome variables. We followed the definition of the World Health Organisation (WHO), considering adolescents to be those between the ages of 10 and 19 (World Health Organisation (WHO),⁴⁵ 2024). Our search was also extended between 2000 and 2024, including, as mentioned above, only empirical analyses with a quantitative design. This focus implied the exclusion of qualitative studies that were more interested in addressing why questions.⁴⁶

By answering these questions, we aim to map the state of the art in this field and identify areas that require further exploration.

Methods

This work presents a systematic literature review conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) method,^43,44 which enables systematic reviews to be conducted while controlling for bias (see Appendix 1). This section describes the search process, eligibility criteria, selection process, coding process, and data analysis procedure.

Search process

The systematic review was conducted using the Web of Science and Scopus databases, two central international and multidisciplinary databases. Web of Science contains high-quality papers published globally from 1900 to the present. Additionally, Scopus is the largest database of peer-reviewed literature,^47,48 containing over 90.6 million records.⁴⁹

As this research focuses on attitudes toward gender roles among adolescents, a term equation was designed, incorporating expressions related to attitudes, gender roles, and adolescents. The full equations used in Web of Science and Scopus are displayed in Table 1.

Table 1.

Search equations in Web of Science and Scopus.

Web of Science	Scopus
(“attitude” OR “belie” OR “stereotype” OR “opinion” OR “view”) NEAR/6 (“gender attitude” OR “gender role” OR “gender norm” OR “gender equalit” OR “gender equit” OR “sex role” OR “sex norm” OR “sex equalit” OR “sex equit”) AND (“young” OR “youth” OR “adolescent” OR “teen” OR “teenager” OR “secondary education student” OR “secondary student” OR “high school student” OR “middle school student” OR “intermediate school student*”)	(“attitude” OR “belie” OR “stereotype” OR “opinion” OR “view”) W/6 (“gender attitude” OR “gender role” OR “gender norm” OR “gender equalit” OR “gender equit” OR “sex role” OR “sex norm” OR “sex equalit” OR “sex equit”) AND (“young” OR “youth” OR “adolescent” OR “teen” OR “teenager” OR “secondary education student” OR “secondary student” OR “high school student” OR “middle school student” OR “intermediate school student*”)

Web of Science

Scopus

(“attitude*” OR “belie*” OR “stereotype*” OR “opinion*” OR “view*”) NEAR/6 (“gender attitude*” OR “gender role*” OR “gender norm*” OR “gender *equalit*” OR “gender *equit*” OR “sex role*” OR “sex norm*” OR “sex *equalit*” OR “sex *equit*”) AND (“young*” OR “youth” OR “adolescent*” OR “teen*” OR “teenager*” OR “secondary education student*” OR “secondary student*” OR “high school student*” OR “middle school student*” OR “intermediate school student*”)

(“attitude*” OR “belie*” OR “stereotype*” OR “opinion*” OR “view*”) W/6 (“gender attitude*” OR “gender role*” OR “gender norm*” OR “gender *equalit*” OR “gender *equit*” OR “sex role*” OR “sex norm*” OR “sex *equalit*” OR “sex *equit*”) AND (“young*” OR “youth” OR “adolescent*” OR “teen*” OR “teenager*” OR “secondary education student*” OR “secondary student*” OR “high school student*” OR “middle school student*” OR “intermediate school student*”)

The search began in July 2023 and was completed in March 2025. The “topic” field was used for these searches, as it enables the retrieval of documents in which the search terms appear in the title, abstract, and keywords, thereby ensuring the inclusion of relevant papers. The filter applied to the searches was that articles had to be published between January 2000 and December 2024, a time interval that allowed for observation of the trend in academic interest in the topic.

Eligibility criteria

The criteria for including articles are consistent with the research objectives.

▪ Topic: Identification and measurement of gender attitudes in adolescents.

▪ Outcome variable: gender attitudes.

▪ Type of population: adolescents between 10 and 19 years old. That implies that more restricted ranges were included when they were inside the range. For instance, if the focus of a study was on adolescents from 12 to 16 or 10 to 14 years old, the study was considered.

▪ Type of study: empirical.

▪ Type of design: quantitative.

▪ Type of document: Journal articles.

▪ Language: English.

The inclusion criteria also informed the exclusion criteria that guided the screening process.

▪ Topic: Studies that did not focus on identifying and measuring attitudes towards gender roles in adolescents. We excluded articles focusing on gender roles or violence in the context of romantic relationships due to the topic’s specificity and particularities.

▪ Outcome variable: studies in which attitudes towards gender roles in adolescents were one of the independent variables (instead of a dependent variable) were excluded.

▪ Type of population: individuals who were not adolescents (less than 10 or more than 19 years old).

▪ Type of study: theoretical studies and systematic reviews.

▪ Type of design: qualitative or mixed.

▪ Type of document: documents published in a format different from scientific papers (for instance, book chapters or doctoral theses).

▪ Language: other than English.

Selection process

The selection process for the 2771 studies identified in the Scopus and Web of Science databases began with the removal of duplicates. This selection resulted in a set of 1676 unique records. Subsequently, we conducted a review of the titles and abstracts of the documents, applying the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two independent researchers performed a pilot screening of the initial 50 records to ensure the accuracy of the criteria’s application and to avoid bias. Following the pilot screening, the two researchers independently screened each of the remaining records. This process resulted in the exclusion of 1190 articles, while 486 articles were selected for further full-text retrieval, yielding an inter-rater agreement of 92.34%. Finally, examining the full texts yielded a final sample of 134 articles (see the complete list in Appendix 2). Figure 1 shows the screening process.⁵⁰

Figure 1.

Flow diagram.

Operationalisation of gender attitudes in quantitative research

Across the studies included in this review, gender attitudes are operationalised as a latent or composite outcome variable measured through adolescents’ responses to standardised survey items. These items typically ask respondents to indicate their level of agreement, endorsement, or perceived appropriateness with statements about gender roles and norms.

Operationally, three core domains recur across measures:

(1) Normative beliefs about gender roles, particularly regarding paid work, domestic labour, caregiving, leadership, and decision-making.

(2) Evaluations of gender equality, including support for equal rights, educational and occupational opportunities, and participation in social and political life.

(3) Expectations about appropriate behaviour, such as conformity to gendered traits, responsibilities, or authority structures.

Most studies rely on Likert-type response formats, allowing attitudes to be treated as continuous constructs where higher scores indicate stronger endorsement of gender equality, depending on coding direction. Other formats include task-allocation questions or scenario-based evaluations that indirectly capture normative judgments.

Although the substantive content of items and their analytical treatment vary across studies, gender attitudes are consistently positioned as the primary outcome of interest. Some studies operationalise gender attitudes as a unidimensional construct capturing a general orientation towards gender equality. In contrast, others distinguish multiple but related dimensions, such as beliefs about gender roles, support for equal rights, or expectations about appropriate behaviour. Regardless of whether the outcome is constructed as a composite scale, estimated as a latent trait, or used to derive attitudinal profiles, the dependent variable captures adolescents’ evaluative orientations towards gendered roles, norms, or inequalities. These differences reflect methodological and modelling choices rather than conceptual disagreement about the nature of the construct, which remains centred on adolescents’ assessments of gendered social arrangements and their endorsement of more egalitarian versus more traditional positions.

Coding of variables

We coded the information from the selected empirical articles using a data extraction sheet. The variables considered included the country, objective, theory, measurement scales, and methods of the selected papers. Specifically, we coded the following aspects:

▪ Publication year: We extracted the publication year from the papers’ metadata.

▪ Country: the countries considered in each article were coded.

▪ Objective: first, we identified the objectives of the articles in vivo. In a second round, the objectives were recoded based on 11 different topics: (1) intergenerational transmission, (2) changes through time, (3) interventions, (4) gender views, (5) scales, (6) exposure to media content, (7) comparisons based on being migrant, siblings, low SES, or practice sports, (8) schooling factors, (9) gender conformity, (10) classification of attitudes, (11) intersectional approach. More details about these objectives are provided in the results section.

▪ Measurement scales: The use of scales in each paper was analysed. We considered two dimensions: (1) the origin of the scale. Some papers mentioned that the scale used in their study was adapted or based on a previously established scale. Some secondary analyses used scales provided by the survey being analysed. Others created their indexes. (2) to the measurement itself, specifically, how the responses to questions were formulated (e.g. Likert scales).

▪ Theory: This was coded based on whether the paper made (1) explicit mention of a theory or theory-based model in the body of the text. In cases where they did, the (1.1), we coded the specific theory.

▪ Methods: We coded he analytical strategy in vivo. In a second round, we grouped the methods in 9 strategies: (1) descriptive statistics, (2) regressions, (3) factor analyses, (4) hierarchical analyses, (5) quasi-experimental and experimental models, (6) time models, (7) Latent Class Analysis (LCA) and Item Response Theory (IRT), (8) other analyses.

Data analysis

We descriptively analysed all dimensions of interest. This process involved observing the frequency and proportion of each aspect or its repetition in the selected studies. The analyses were primarily conducted in Excel to produce tables, graphs, and figures that were easily editable for publication.

When categorising objectives, we primarily highlighted the topics under analysis to understand gender attitudes. We also highlighted the type of analysis (e.g. interventions) when this was explicitly mentioned in the article’s objective. This categorisation implies that the objectives are not exclusive, as some publications fit into multiple categories.

The data file with the analysed categories can be found in this link: https://figshare.com/s/fdc005b49521dd1c4b18.

Results

This section presents the results of the analysis of the 134 papers in this review, which are consistent across six axes: publication trends in gender attitudes, geographical focus, primary objective, presence of theories, measurement, and methods used in the analyses.

Academic production through the years

Academic research on adolescents’ attitudes toward gender equity has increased significantly over the past 24 years, employing a quantitative approach. Between 2000 and 2014, the publication frequency maintained a trend of between one and four articles per year for this outcome. Nevertheless, the inflexion point seems to be in 2015, when the number of publications reached six articles. Then, as Figure 2 shows, the number of publications per year on this topic as an outcome variable, employing a quantitative methodology, achieves 10 articles in 2020 and a high peak of 23 articles in 2024.

Figure 2.

Publication trends in gender attitudes.

This trend may be associated with the increase in the number of existing academic journals over the past decade, a pattern supported by data showing annual growth rates of 3.5% to over 5% in recent years.⁵¹

Nevertheless, as shown in Table 2, 48 of the 83 journals that have published these articles began publishing before 2000. This antecedent suggests that the increase in publications can also be attributed to an increasing interest in the topic, as well as the societal attention that also increased during these years, which is reflected in gender equality becoming a key axis in public policies (e.g. in the Sustainable Development Goals.⁵²

Table 2.

Journal frequency in our review and their coverage start (considering the last period of publications^a).

Journals	Count	Coverage since (Scimago source)
Education	6
Citizenship Teaching and Learning	1	2013
Erpa International Congresses on Education 2018 (Erpa 2018)	1	2018
International Journal of Educational Development	1	1981
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education	1	1996
Large-Scale Assessments In Education	1	2013
Pensamiento Educativo	1	2018
Family Studies	9
Families in Society-The Journal of Contemporary Human Services	1	1920
Family Process	1	1962
Journal of Comparative Family Studies	2	1976
Journal of Family Issues	2	1980
Studies in Family Planning	1	1970
Journal of Marriage and Family	2	1996
Gender Studies	28
Affilia-Journal of Women and Social Work	1	1986
Gender and Education	1	1989
Gender Issues	3	2005
Journal of Homosexuality	1	1976
Men and Masculinities	1	1998
Psychology of Men & Masculinity	1	2000
Psychology of Women Quarterly	1	1976
Sex Roles	18	1975
Violence Against Women	1	1995
Media/Communication	4
Communication Research	1	1974
Humanities & Social Sciences Communications	1	2020
Journal of Children and Media	1	2014
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly	1	1995
Migration/Ethnic Studies	4
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies	3	1971
Journal of Intercultural Studies	1	1980
Psychology	21
Archives of Sexual Behavior	1	1971
Behavioral Sciences	1	2011
Bmc Psychology	1	2013
British Journal of Developmental Psychology	2	1996
Child Development	3	1950
Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking	1	2010
Developmental Psychology	2	1969
European Journal of Developmental Psychology	1	2009
Frontiers in Psychology	1	2010
International Journal of Psychology	1	1966
Journal of Counseling and Development	1	1984
Journal of Counseling Psychology	1	1954
Psychology in Russia-State of the Art	1	2012
Social Behavior and Personality	1	1996
Social Development	1	1992
Journal of Latina-O Psychology	1	2017
Political Psychology	1	1996
Public Health/Medicine	18
African Journal of Reproductive Health	1	2000
Aids and Behavior	1	1997
BMC Public Health	2	2001
Bmc Womens Health	1	NA
Bmj Open	1	2011
Frontiers in Public Health	1	2013
Journal of Adolescent Health	7	1991
Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care	1	NA
Plos Global Public Health	1	2021
International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology	1	2005
Journal of Indian Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health	1	2010
Sociology	10
British Journal of Sociology	1	1987
Chinese Journal of Sociology	1
European Sociological Review	1	1985
Journal of Asian Sociology	1	2019
Social Forces	1	1925
Social Science Research	4	1972
Sociological Science	1	2014
Youth/Adolescence Studies	21
Child Indicators Research	1	2010
Children and Youth Services Review	1	1979
Children-Basel	2	NA
International Journal of Adolescence and Youth	2	1987
Journal of Adolescence	1	1978
Journal of Adolescent Research	2	1986
Journal of Early Adolescence	1	1981
Journal of Youth and Adolescence	6	1972
Journal of Youth Development	1	2019
Journal of Youth Studies	1	2003
Youth & Society	3	1969
Multidisciplinary/Other	13
ACM International Conference Proceeding Series	1	1999
American Economic Review	1	1978
Discovery Global	1	NA
International Area Studies Review	1	1997
Journal of Development Studies	3	1964
Journal of Interpersonal Violence	1	1986
Plos One	4	2006
Politics, Groups, and Identities	1	NA

Source: Own elaboration based on the review and search on Scimago Journal & Country Rank website (https://www.scimagojr.com). Note: The areas of the journals are highlighted in bold.

^aFor instance, Journal of Marriage and Family has several periods of publication: 1973-1978, 1980-1981, 1985, 1996-2025. We are including the beginning of the last period, meaning 1996. The same election is made for all those journals with this type of long trajectory.

As can be seen in Appendix 3, the journal that consistently publishes about gender attitudes is Sex Roles, which has published 18 papers with a quantitative perspective on gender attitudes between 2000 and 2024.

Geographic focus

Regarding the locations of interest in the analysed studies, we noted the countries or regions considered in each article.

Regionally speaking (Table 3), 29.10% of the publications focused on Asia, 25.37% on North America (specifically the US), and 22.39% on Europe. This trend contrasts significantly with the focus on Africa (10.45%), Latin America (2.99%), and Oceania (2.24%). It is also worth noting that most articles tend to focus on a single region. Only 5.22% were concentrated in countries from several regions at the same time (that means the paper mentioned countries from different continents).

Table 3.

Regional focus.

	Frequency	Percentage
Asia	39	29.10
North America	34	25.37
Europe	30	22.39
Africa	14	10.45
Several	7	5.22
Latin America	4	2.99
Oceania	3	2.24
Europe/Asia	3	2.24
Total	134	100

Source: Own Elaboration based on Systematic Literature Review.

Considering how many times the countries were mentioned across the publications (except for article number 31, which did not specify the countries analysed), the studies presented analyses geographically concentrated (Figure 3): 13.79 % of the contexts mentioned in the publications indicated the US, followed by India with an 6.51%, 4.98% of the times was Germany, and 4.98 for the United Kingdom or England. Then, Sweden (4.6%), Israel (3.45%), China (3.07%), the Netherlands (3.07%), Belgium (2.68%), and Spain (2.68%) follow. It is interesting to note that Asia is in the lead among the regions analysed, with countries such as India being among the most frequently mentioned across the studies.

Figure 3.

Geographical focus. Source: Own elaboration based on systematic literature review. Numbers indicate frequency.

Although gender inequality is a salient issue in many Global South contexts, these regions are less visible in the English-language quantitative literature covered by this review. Latin America presents a worrying level of gender inequity,^37,38,53 and the context is the focus of the publications, accounting for only 3%.

Main objective

As mentioned in the data analysis, we grouped the 134 articles into 11 objectives based on their purpose (Table 4).

Table 4.

Distribution of papers by main objective.

Objective	Main objective	Paper number	Number	%
O1. Compare attitudes of parents versus offspring, from an intergenerational transmission	Intergenerational transmission: comparison with parents’ attitudes toward gender; congruence or agreement with parents’ views, family patterns of gender roles attitudes, as well as parents’ or family background influence; gender socialisation	5; 11; 14; 17; 18; 21; 24; 28; 32; 36; 37; 38; 41; 47; 49; 51; 59; 64; 67; 75; 78; 81; 88; 92; 100; 102; 103; 115; 116; 117; 126; 132	32/134	23.88
O2. Evaluate interventions or programs	Interventions: Programs results, interventions’ evaluations; gender sensitization; government cash plus interventions; TV gender stereotypes; advertisements	25; 27; 34; 45; 48; 56; 65; 68; 70; 74; 96; 98; 108; 110; 114; 121; 123	17/134	12.69
O3. Analyse changes in attitudes toward gender equality through time	Changes through time: transition to other life stages; gender attitude development; patterns of change, considering ecological perspective; family and sociodemographic background; schooling variables; community-based factors	4; 6; 7; 8; 10; 12; 13; 14; 17; 19; 22; 33; 62; 73; 77; 128; 130	17/134	11.94
O4. Investigate gender views considering different factors	Gender views: Sex differences in various cultural settings: Influence of parents and community; gender equality as a second-level unit; women’s protest levels; patterns of perceptions about gender stereotypes in different contexts; views of children versus adolescents; bullying; gender attitudes among refugees	3; 29; 30; 40; 46; 57; 58; 63; 71; 72; 83; 99; 104; 122; 125; 131; 133	17/134	12.69
O5. Evaluate or develop scales to measure gender attitudes	Scales: Evaluation of the dimensionality of a scale to measure gender attitudes; development of a scale to measure gender attitudes in specific contexts; testing reliability and validity of a measure in a specific context; critical examination of a scale’s quality in a specific context	2; 15; 26; 35; 39; 42; 61; 84; 86; 87; 94; 95; 113; 125	14/134	10.45
O6. Compare gender attitudes according to being or not being a migrant or sibling, having cross-gender friendship, having low SES, and being an athlete	Migrant: comparison of attitudes of different generations of immigrants or migrants in different settings	20; 69; 105; 118	4	8.96
	Siblings: comparison of attitudes among siblings (depending on their birth order)	60; 82; 91	3
	Low SES: Adolescents from low SES backgrounds	9, 97	2
	Friendship and peers	10; 107	2
	Sport: Being an athlete and holding egalitarian attitudes	50	1
O7. Analyse the relationship between exposure to media content and gender attitudes	Exposure to media content: TV and online material related with gender stereotypes and with sexual behaviour material (porn); connection with global telecommunications, music and video exposure; video game exposure	16; 31; 44; 54; 55; 80; 89; 91; 93; 112; 134	11/134	8.21
O8. Examine the relationship between school factors and gender attitudes	Schooling factors: Nature of schools (depending on religion); relationship with teachers; school quality; activities developed in a school setting; obtaining a school degree	12; 23; 43; 52; 53; 101; 109; 110; 111; 120; 124; 129	12/134	8.96
O9. Examine gender conformity	Gender conformity, agreement with “consistent” gender behaviours; pressure for gender conformity; images of how a leader related to gender stereotypes should look	76; 79; 86; 108	4	2.99
O10. Classify attitudes	Classification of attitudes: Low, medium or high score of gender equitable attitudes; latent class analysis, assess gender attitudes	1; 66; 119; 131	4	2.99
O11. Examine the relationship between racial and gender identity among black male adolescents and gender roles	Intersectional approach: Being black and a man, and the relationship with gender attitudes	90	1	0.75

Source: Own Elaboration based on Systematic Literature Review.

Note. Each row presents the percentage relative to the total number of analysed papers (n = 134). Some papers present more than one objective (in bold). Objectives are not exclusive.

Table 4 shows that 23.88% of the studies were interested in analysing the intergenerational transmission of patterns related to parents’ attitudes or the socialisation process of gender role attitudes in family environments or backgrounds, some of which compared the position of parents versus offspring (intergenerational transmission). 12.69% of the articles focused on analysing interventions or program results related to gender sensitisation or gender stereotypes (interventions).

Also, 11.94% of the publications were interested in seeing attitudes change over time, considering their development and, in some cases, background predictors (changes over time). Additionally, 12.69% focused on observing the differences in gender attitudes, considering various variables, primarily sex (gender views concerning sex differences).

From the total, 10.45% of the publications were interested in developing the evaluation of a scale to measure attitudes toward gender norms in specific settings (scales). 8.96% of the articles were interested in comparing gender attitudes, focusing on the presence of a condition: being a migrant, having siblings, having a low SES or being an athlete. We condensed these alternatives into one theme (being or not being a migrant, sibling, low SES, or athlete).

Another 8.21 % focused on exposure to media, TV, or online material, with some of them analysing the exposure to sexual material concerning the perpetration of gender stereotypes (exposure to media content).

Only 8.96% of the articles were interested in analysing school factors and their influence on gender attitudes (schooling factors). This result is an interesting input, considering that the socialisation process of children and adolescents does not occur only through family members but also through peers, school climates, and teacher interactions.

Finally, 2.99% of the publications were interested in observing associations regarding gender conformity and the trend toward traditional norms among adolescents (gender conformity). Notably, few publications focused on classifying attitudes into distinct profiles or levels (2.99%; classification of attitudes) or employed an intersectional approach to examine gender norms (0.75%; intersectional approach).

In summary, it is notable that most of the collected studies focus on the intergenerational transmission of gender attitudes. A few of them have as their primary objective to evaluate the association with schooling factors or the influence, even though schools are a space of socialisation and opportunities.⁵⁴ Few studies primarily focus on friendships, even when peer interaction becomes relevant in identity formation during this period of adolescence.^17,19

Presence of theory by objectives

Forty-four of the 134 papers analysed in this work (32.84%) presented a theory or theory-based model. To quantify this aspect, we considered the explicit mention of a theory in the body of the text of each article.

As Table 5 shows, Objective 1 accounts for 28.13% of the documents, with many mentioning theoretical frameworks such as the Cultural Ecological Framework, Gender Schema theory, Ambivalent Sexism theory, and the Social Cognitive theory of Gender Development, among others. Then, Objective 2 with 11.76% of papers indicating explicit mention of a theory. Objective 3, with 29.41% of articles using theory, such as Gender development theory and Cultural Ecological framework. Objective 4, 23.53%; Objective 5, 35.71%; and so on.

Table 5.

Number of papers theory-based by objective.

Objective	Number of documents with this objective	Number of them with theory	%
O1. Compare attitudes of parents versus offspring, from an intergenerational transmission	32	9	28.13
O2. Evaluate interventions or programs	17	2	11.76
O3 Analyse changes of attitudes toward gender equity through time	17	5	29.41
O4. Investigate gender views considering different factors	17	4	23.53
O5. Evaluate or develop scales to measure gender attitudes	14	5	35.71
O6. Compare gender attitudes according to being or not being a migrant or a sibling, having low SES, and being an athlete	12	3	25.00
O7. Analyse the relationship between exposure to media content and gender attitudes	11	7	63.64
O8. Examine the relationship between school factors and gender attitudes	12	5	41.67
O9. Examine gender conformity	4	2	50.00
O10. Classify attitudes	4	1	25.00
O11. Examine the relationship between racial and gender identity among black male adolescents and gender roles	1	1	100.00

Source: Own Elaboration based on Systematic Literature Review.

Note. The percentage column is based on the total of documents by objective.

The theories that appear among the reviewed articles are: Theory of Gender development (papers number 4, 6, 22), Socialization Theory, including sexual and gender socialisation (papers number 20, 23, 55, 67, 69, and 101), Sexism Theories (papers number 81 and 96), Masculinity theories (papers 58, 61, and 87), Social Learning Theory (papers number 20, 40, 60), Cognitive Theory (papers 4, 22, 83, 124, 126), Ecological Frameworks (papers number 4, 17 and 41), Identity theories (papers number 7, 10, and 85), Gender roles (papers number 20, 104), Social Construction Theory (papers number 93, 94), Cultivation Theory (papers number 16, 80, and 91), Gender Schema Theory (papers 49, 71, and 90), Adler’s Theories of Psychology (21, and 37), Assimilation Theory (69), Females Objectification and Identity (93), Gender egalitarianism (88), Marianism (86), Gender ideologies (84), Gender Conformity (79), Countervailing expectations (76), Time Constraints Theory (47), Social Exchange Theory (47), Model of Heterogeneous Development (31), Assertive Mating Theory (21), Gratification theory (16), Doing gender (120), Theory of Change (123), Stage-environmental fit theory (127).

These theories generally fall under the categories of psychology (developmental, cognitive, environmental, social, organisational, and individual psychology), sociology, gender studies, anthropology, political science, and cultural studies.

Gender attitudes measurement

Gender attitudes were measured across studies using multi-item survey instruments capturing adolescents’ evaluations of gender roles, equality, and normative expectations. Most studies conceptualised gender attitudes as gender role attitudes (43.3%) or as attitudes towards gender equality and related constructs (28.4%), while smaller proportions focused on gender ideology (11.2%), gender stereotypes or essentialism (8.2%), gender norms (6.0%), perceptions of gender inequality (2.2%), or sexualised gender roles (0.7%) (Table 6).

Table 6.

Definition used to label gender attitudes and corresponding studies.

Definition used by authors	Paper IDs	Share of studies (%)
Gender role attitudes/attitudes towards gender roles	4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 28, 29, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 47, 51, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 62, 68, 69, 71, 73, 74, 79, 82, 83, 86, 90, 99, 100, 102, 104, 105, 107, 109, 113, 114, 115, 124, 132	43.3
Attitudes towards gender equality/gender equality attitudes/attitudinal structures/gender attitudes/egalitarian attitudes on gender roles/support for gender equality/gender equity attitudes	1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 48, 50, 52, 61, 66, 77, 92, 97, 101, 103, 106, 108, 111, 116, 117, 119, 120, 122, 123, 125, 128, 129, 130, 131	28.4
Gender norms	22, 39, 63, 65, 70, 95, 98, 121	6.0
Gender ideology/sexism related constructs (e.g. benevolent sexism, misogyny)	49, 59, 64, 67, 78, 80, 81, 84, 87, 88, 91, 94, 96, 133, 134	11.2
Gender stereotypes/gender essentialism/attitudes towards the sexual division of labour (ASDL)	43, 46, 60, 75, 76, 85, 89, 110, 112, 118, 126	8.2
Perception of gender inequality/inegalitarian attitudes/gender climate scale	56, 72, 127	2.2
Sexualised gender roles and objectifying attitudes towards girls’ and women’s bodies	93	0.7

Source: Own elaboration based on systematic literature review.

Regarding the measurement of gender attitudes across the studies of this review, we have analysed two aspects (for more details, please check Appendix 4).

Scale origin

Around 40% of the papers (n = 53) adapted scales from other authors’ work. Papers number 4 (published in 2014), 13 (published in 2015), 17 (published in 2017), 47 (published in 2012), 73 (published in 2012) – for instance – have used or adapted a version of Hoffman and Kloskas’ scale of 1995. These authors have presented a scale with items assessing gender-role attitudes regarding child-rearing and marital roles statements (53).⁵⁵ Another example is the use of the Spence and Helmreich’ scale of attitudes toward gender roles or women, with scales work published in 1972 and 1978, cited by papers of the beginning of 2000s, such as the number 18 (published in 2005), 21 (published in 2009), 37 (published in 2004), and 51 (published in 2004).

It is interesting to observe that in this 40%, most of the scales were constructed before 2000s. In some cases the scales were validated by other authors afterwards, and used by the papers collected in this review such as paper number 41 (2021) that have used the Gender-role scale by Bem (from 1974) and revised by Liu et al. (2011); paper number 42 (published in 2018) that used Vermeersch et al.'s (2010), scale which was adapted from King and King (1997); paper number 82 (2015) employed the traditional gender role attitudes of Hoffman & Kloska, from 1995, validated recently for Mexican-Americans by Adams et al. in 2007; paper number 100 (2019) that used Sex Role Scale (Parent version), which was revised by Liu et al. in 2011 from the Bem Sex Role Inventory of 1981; and paper number 115 (2024) that employed the Gender-role scale of Liu et al. in 2011, which is a revised version of Bem’s gender-role inventory of 1974.

There is another 26.12% that have used the scales provided in the secondary data, which they are basing their analyses on. Papers 20, 69, 88, 107, 111, 117, 118, and 126 used the Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Survey in Four European Countries, which includes a set of questions related to gender division of labour in the domestic sphere. Six papers (numbers 3, 40, 77, 101, 119, and 129) in this group utilised the International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS), which includes a scale assessing students’ endorsement of Gender Equality.^56,57 Other papers have utilised secondary data sources that contain related scales, such as the Global Early Adolescent Study survey (GEAS) or national studies.

Among the publications, 20.15% of the studies included questions about gender equity attitudes, where the author(s) have created indices or operationalised the scales based on other scales, generating statements about the outcome. They have included dimensions connected to behaviours, and dimensions (such as family, work, and social life).

In 11.94% of the studies, items or the complete set of questions from recognised or known scales were used. For instance, papers number 9, 27, 39, 95, 121, and 123 have used the Gender Equitable Men (GEM) scale. Or the Attitudes toward Women Scale for Adolescents (such as papers 2 and 58).

Finally, approximately 3% of the papers have adapted scales from existing programs or projects. For instance, papers 1 and 25 have utilised the Gender Equitable Measurement Scale, developed for the Gender Equity Movement in Schools program in Mumbai, India, by UNICEF, as part of its Evaluation of Empowering Young Girls and Women.

Measurement

Most of the reviewed publications use Likert-type scales to assess gender attitudes, typically capturing levels of agreement with various statements, reported frequency of behaviours, or perceptions of role consistency (e.g. papers 41, 115). Some studies adopt more child-friendly formats, such as “smiley face” responses to indicate agreement or preference (e.g. papers 112, 116).

Several papers include items that assess normative views on gendered divisions of labour. These often involve categorical responses such as “Mostly the man”, “Mostly the woman”, or “Both about the same” to indicate who should perform specific tasks, typically related to domestic or care work (e.g. papers 20, 69, 89, 117, 118). Other instruments probe attitudes toward work arrangements by asking respondents to evaluate different scenarios involving employment status and gender roles (e.g. papers 46, 57, 66). One example includes assessing comfort with arrangements such as: “husband works full time, wife does not work”, or “both work full time”.

In some cases, measurement focuses on reported behaviours rather than attitudes. For instance, adolescents are asked whether they perform household tasks (e.g. paper 103) or to estimate the time spent on different activities (e.g. paper 59). Other instruments examine perceptions of who should be involved in specific activities or tasks by asking who tends to be “in charge” in various domains, such as politics, business, or the home (e.g. paper 72).

The analytical treatment of these scales varies across studies. Some use the scale items as continuous variables, where higher scores typically indicate greater support for gender equity (or the opposite, depending on coding direction). Other studies employ techniques such as latent class analysis to identify underlying attitudinal profiles (e.g. paper 119).

Methods

Among the analytical strategies employed in the publications (Table 7), the most frequent were regressions (linear or logistic models), with a prevalence of 34% among the studies, followed by descriptive analyses (20%, with measurement invariance analyses as the primary method), and factor analyses (17%). Then, hierarchical models were present in 12% of the papers in this review, followed by experimental and quasi-experimental analyses (7%). There is a scarce presence of time analysis models (5%), strategies such as Latent Class Analysis and Item Response Theory (3%), and other analyses (like non-parametric) with a 3% presence among the studied papers.

Table 7.

Methods Frequency among the analysed papers.

Analytical strategies	Examples	Frequency	Percentage
Descriptive Statistics	ANOVA, ANCOVA, MANOVA, t-tests, correlations	27	20%
Regressions	Linear regression, OLS regression, logistic regression models (multinomial, ordinal, binary)	45	34%
Factor analyses	CFA, EFA, PCA, SEM, Cronbach’s alpha	23	17%
Hierarchical analyses	Multilevel models, cluster analysis, hierarchical models	16	12%
Quasi-experimental and experimental models	Difference in difference, instrumental variable, propensity score matching, randomised control trials	9	7%
Time models	Latent growth models, longitudinal hierarchical regressions, time series analysis	6	4%
LCA and IRT	Latent class analysis, IRT, sociometry	4	3%
Others	Cronbach’s alpha, the Implicit Association Test measures	4	3%
	Total	134	100%

Source: Own Elaboration based on Systematic Literature Review.

Discussion

The results of this work present a picture of the state of the art regarding adolescents’ attitudes toward gender equity. Using the PRISMA approach, we analysed English-language articles published since 2000 that used a quantitative approach. The results provide critical insights into interest in gender attitudes, specifically regarding publication time trends, the geographical focus of research pieces, the goals of most quantitative analyses, the measurement of gender attitudes, the most commonly used methods, and the presence of an underlying theory depending on the objectives. These gaps not only restrict academic understanding but also limit the usefulness of findings for those designing education systems and social policies aimed at reducing inequality.

Even when there appears to be a decline in interest among the population regarding gender equity in various contexts,⁵⁸ the results show a growing interest in academic production that analyses this outcome using a quantitative approach. This is an important finding considering the connection between quantitative approaches and gender attitudes studies, a criticised approach to analyse this topic from some academic sectors (Scott, 2010), demonstrating the increasing importance of quantitative analyses in the field.

However, it is worth noting that this growth in publication output is geographically uneven within the English language quantitative literature. Despite gender equity being established as a global Sustainable Development Goal by the United Nations,⁵⁹ 29.46% of the reviewed studies focused on Asia, 25.58% on North America, primarily the United States, and 24.03% on Europe. In contrast, Global South contexts are less visible in the literature captured by this review. For example, studies focusing on Latin America account for a small share of the reviewed publications, even though existing evidence suggests that adolescents in the region report lower levels of support for gender equity compared to international averages.⁵³ This pattern should be interpreted as reflecting the scope and language of the review rather than the overall state of research activity in Global South countries, where relevant work may be published in other languages or regional outlets. Nevertheless, the limited visibility of these contexts in the English-language literature highlights an important gap for future quantitative research, particularly in understanding the structural and contextual factors shaping adolescents’ gender attitudes.

Regarding the objectives of the papers analysed, the most frequently addressed was number 1, which relates to examining the intergenerational transmission of attitudes toward gender equity. This was followed by Objective 2, which pertained to evaluating interventions or programs. Fewer papers analyse school factors as an objective or consider an intersectional approach. This highlights an area requiring further investigation in future research. While the family is the primary source of socialisation and values, the school also appears as a critical space that can allow adolescents to learn democratic standards, even when they come from heterogeneous backgrounds.⁵⁴ The school has a role, although not exclusive, in forming citizens, especially in terms of moral and political socialisation, shaping perceptions and assessments on the exercise of power and the social dynamics surrounding it, including gender relations.⁶⁰ In addition, the lack of intersectional analyses limits the comprehension of inequalities that come from the conjunction of categories such as race, ethnicity, social class, and gender identity, among others.⁶¹ Moreover, only a small proportion of studies explicitly focused on examining the connection between friendship and gender attitudes, even though peer relationships play a crucial role in the formation of attitudes during adolescence.¹⁷

One of the advantages of quantitative research is the ability to test theories. Developing hypotheses based on theoretical frameworks provides a pathway to new knowledge.⁶² However, only 32.84% of the studies reviewed explicitly referred to a theoretical framework. Whether this constitutes a limitation is a matter for discussion. While presenting background literature and some conceptualisation may suffice to construct a coherent argument, the explicit recognition of theoretical frameworks remains valuable. It clarifies the origins of concepts and situates them within broader structures or lines of thought, contributing to a more transparent and cumulative research process.

Across the reviewed studies, gender attitudes are most often conceptualised around a relatively small set of conceptual labels, most commonly gender role attitudes and attitudes towards gender equality. While this convergence supports comparability across studies, it also indicates a tendency to operationalise gender attitudes through similar conceptual lenses. At the same time, the review highlights considerable variation in how gender attitudes are measured across studies, which has implications for the comparability of findings in this field. A large proportion of the studies relied on established scales, many of which were originally developed several decades ago. While these instruments have been widely used and adapted, their continued prevalence raises questions about their suitability for capturing contemporary understandings of gender, especially among adolescents. Social attitudes towards gender have shifted significantly since these scales were first created, and there is a risk that older measures may not fully reflect the complexities of present-day gender relations.

Regarding the type of answers used to measure the scales, most studies use Likert-type scales to assess the level of agreement or consistency regarding gender attitudes or gender roles. Additionally, there are variations, including the use of smiley faces, questions to evaluate adolescents’ involvement in household tasks, or the time they spend on them. As a result, the apparent uniformity in response format masks substantial variation in how gender attitudes are conceptualised and operationalised across studies.

In contrast, some studies have relied on secondary datasets or have developed their own indices, often combining several dimensions of gender attitudes. Although these approaches allow for contextual adaptation, they also introduce a degree of inconsistency, making it difficult to compare results across studies. The widespread use of Likert-type scales suggests a certain degree of standardisation in measurement formats; however, differences in how these scales are operationalised and analysed may still affect the conclusions drawn.

Overall, these findings suggest that the field may benefit from greater reflection on measurement practices. There is a clear tension between the use of established, validated instruments – which support comparability – and the need to update and adapt measures to reflect changing social contexts. Future research could usefully engage more explicitly with questions of measurement, particularly by considering how theoretical frameworks inform the choice of scales and how these instruments align with current understandings of gender attitudes in adolescent populations.

Regarding the methods, there is a significant presence of regression analyses among the papers, followed by descriptive statistics and factor analyses as the primary analytical strategies. One of the criticisms against using quantitative approaches in analysing gender inequalities is the incapacity of capturing perceptions¹⁴ of reality. Whilst quantitative analyses cannot provide a comprehensive picture of the experiences of people regarding a particular phenomenon,⁴⁶ it should be noted that methods, such as latent class analysis (which was not widely used in the analysed papers, representing only 3%), could examine the adherence levels to gender attitudes, including individual perspectives (based on the responses to different questions of equity). This method detects and delineates hidden clusters or types within a population, illustrating its diversity by relying on individuals’ reactions to indicators rather than variables.⁶³

Taken together, these findings call for the development of updated and context-sensitive instruments, stronger theoretical integration, and methodological innovation. Strengthening research in these areas would not only advance scholarship but also provide the kind of evidence needed to support more equitable education systems, guide institutional reform, and contribute to broader social development goals.

Conclusions

This review presents an updated and focused analysis of quantitative studies on gender attitudes among adolescents over 24 years, addressing key questions regarding publication trends, geographical focus, research objectives, measurement practices, methods, and the application of theory.

The findings highlight the increasing academic interest in this area, particularly in recent years. However, this growth has been uneven, with Global South contexts remaining less visible in the English-language quantitative literature reviewed here, despite evidence that these regions experience substantial gender inequalities. The concentration of studies in the Global North reflects broader asymmetries in the international research landscape and in the visibility of different contexts within indexed, English-language outlets. These patterns point to the value of increased investment in research that brings greater representation of Global South contexts into the international quantitative literature, to better capture the diversity of adolescents’ experiences and the structural conditions shaping gender attitudes.

In this sense, it is important as well to consider that geographic coverage should be interpreted in light of the review’s selection criteria. By focusing on peer-reviewed journal articles published in English and indexed in international databases, the review is more likely to capture research produced in contexts with stronger integration into these publication venues. As a result, regions where scholarly output is more frequently disseminated through local journals, non-English outlets, or alternative formats may be less visible in the reviewed literature.

Another key insight is the intense focus on intergenerational transmission and programme interventions, with fewer studies examining school factors or taking an intersectional approach. Given the central role of schools in adolescents’ socialisation and the importance of intersectionality in understanding inequalities, future research would benefit from a broader scope in these directions.

The review also raises concerns about the limited use of explicit theoretical frameworks and the continued reliance on outdated measurement scales. Both issues may hinder the development of a more cumulative, theoretically grounded understanding of adolescent gender attitudes.

While quantitative research has advanced in this field, many studies still rely on conventional methods such as regression and descriptive analyses. Greater methodological diversification, including approaches like latent class analysis, could provide deeper insights into variations in gender attitudes.

Finally, the measurement of gender attitudes seems to still rely on outdated scales, that were constructed before the 2000s and modified afterwards. When we refer about gender, the scales are still following a binary conception. Currently, the complexity of the conception of gender has evolved and get more complex. Nevertheless, depending on the context, the use of the scale that considers a broad set of options can create political tensions. More work is needed on this issue; currently, there is insufficient academic discussion about it. This debate is increasingly visible within International Large-Scale Assessments (ILSAs), where efforts to include broader measures often encounter constraints tied to cross-cultural sensitivities and differing national policies.^64,65

While this systematic review was not registered with a public protocol database, we followed a well-defined and reproducible methodology, ensuring comprehensive coverage and critical appraisal of the relevant literature to avoid biases. The authors can be contacted with questions about the search process, data extraction, and analysis.

This review has some limitations, particularly its restriction to English-language publications and its focus on quantitative studies. Nonetheless, it offers a comprehensive overview of the field and identifies key areas where further research is both necessary and urgent.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Understanding gender attitudes among adolescents: A systematic review of international quantitative studies (2000–2024)

Supplemental Material for Understanding gender attitudes among adolescents: A systematic review of international quantitative studies (2000–2024) by Natalia López-Hornickel, Belén Gutiérrez-de-Rozas, Jesus Vidal Rojas, Andrés Sandoval-Hernández in Human Systems Management

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Understanding gender attitudes among adolescents: A systematic review of international quantitative studies (2000–2024)

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Understanding gender attitudes among adolescents: A systematic review of international quantitative studies (2000–2024)

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Understanding gender attitudes among adolescents: A systematic review of international quantitative studies (2000–2024)

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Adam Coates for his valuable support in editing and refining the structure of our arguments. His insights contributed to improving the clarity and coherence of the manuscript.

ORCID iDs

Natalia López-Hornickel

Belén Gutiérrez-de-Rozas

Jesús Vidal-Rojas

Andrés Sandoval-Hernández

Ethical Consideration

This Research does not involve Human Participants and/or Animals. Therefore, no informed consent was required.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Natalia López-Hornickel wants to acknowledge the support of the Economic and Social Research Council South West Doctoral Training Partnership (SWDTP) in developing her research, including this article. Grant number: 2573257.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data file with the analysed categories can be found in this link:

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Shang

. Tackling gender inequality: definitions, trends, and Policy designs. IMF Working Papers, [Internet]. 2022 Dec 2 [cited 2025 Apr 19];2022(232). Available from: https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/001/2022/232/article-A001-en.xml

Stefani

Prati

. Are dimensions of gender Inequality uniformly associated with human values? Eur J Psychol 2021; 17(2): 92–102.

Biasi

Sarsons

. Flexible wages, bargaining, and the gender gap. Q J Econ 2021; 137(1): 215–266.

Ciminelli

Schwellnus

Stadler

. Sticky floors or glass ceilings? The role of human capital, working time flexibility and discrimination in the gender wage gap. OECD Economics Department Working Papers 2021; 1668: 1–44.

Klasen

. From ‘MeToo’ to Boko Haram: a survey of levels and trends of gender inequality in the world. World Dev 2020: 128.

Piquero

Jennings

Jemison

, et al. Domestic violence during the COVID-19 pandemic - evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Crim Justice 2021; 74: 101806.

Farré

Vella

. The intergenerational transmission of gender role attitudes and its implications for female labour force participation. Economica 2013; 80(318): 219–247.

Kroska

. The social psychology of gender inequality. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research. Springer Science and Business Media B.V., 2014, pp. 485–514.

West

Zimmerman

. Doing gender. Gend Soc 1987; 1(2): 125–151.

10.

Brandt

. Sexism and gender inequality across 57 societies. Psychol Sci 2011; 22(11): 1413–1418.

11.

Horst

. Gender role attitudes. Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Springer, 2014, pp. 2451–2453.

12.

Allport

. Behavior and experiment in social psychology. J Abnorm Psychol 1919; 14(5): 297–306.

13.

Hogg

Smith

. Attitudes in social context: a social identity perspective. Eur Rev Soc Psychol 2007; 18(1): 89–131.

14.

Scott

. Quantitative methods and gender inequalities. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2010; 13(3): 223–236.

15.

Wilson

. Quantitative research. In: Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences [Internet]. Springer Singapore; 2019 p. 27–49. [cited 2025 Jul 11]. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_54

16.

de Morais

MAS

da Silva

de Oliveira

. Methodological strategies employed in psychological studies on gender stereotypes among children: a systematic review. Trends in Psychology 2024.

17.

Kågesten

Gibbs

Blum

, et al. Understanding factors that shape gender attitudes in early adolescence globally: a mixed-methods systematic review. PLoS One 2016; 11(6): e0157805.

18.

Munda

Albrecht

Becker

, et al. The use of quantitative methods in the policy cycle. In: Science for Policy Handbook [Internet]. Elsevier; 2020 p. 206–222. [cited 2025 Jul 24]. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/B9780128225967000188

19.

Leer

Gassman-Pines

Djé Blé

, et al. Young adolescents' endorsement of restrictive gender norms: evidence from a community-based intervention in Côte d'ivoire and Sierra Leone. J Early Adolesc 2022; 42(4): 453–481.

20.

Landry

Vyas

Malhotra

, et al. Adolescents' development of gender equity attitudes in India. Int J Adolesc Youth 2020; 25(1): 94–103.

21.

Varela

Sánchez

Aguayo

, et al. Gender attitudes, school violence and well-being among Chilean adolescents. Curr Psychol 2022.

22.

Simone

. Introduction: political socialisation in a changing world. Growing Into Politics: Contexts and Timing of Political Socialisation. ECPR Press, 2013, pp. 1–10.

23.

Dinas

. The long shadow of parental political socialization on the development of political orientations. Forum 2014; 12(3): 397–416.

24.

Simone

. Growing into politics: contexts and timing of political socialisation. ECPR Press, 2013, p. 280.

25.

Wasburn

Covert

TJA

. Making citizens. Political socialization research and beyond. Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2017, pp. 1–255.

26.

Treviño

Carrasco

López Hornickel

, et al. A school effectiveness approach to good citizenship. In 2021. p. 67–87.

27.

Hoskins

Janmaat

Melis

. Tackling inequalities in political socialisation: a systematic analysis of access to and mitigation effects of learning citizenship at school. Soc Sci Res 2017; 68: 88–101.

28.

Schlozman

Verba

Brady

. Chapter 7. Unequal at the starting line: the intergenerational persistence of political inequality. The Unheavenly Chorus: Unequal Political Voice and the Broken Promise of American Democracy [Internet], 2012, pp. 177–198. Available from: http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bath/detail.action?doc

29.

Carrasco

Banerjee

Treviño

, et al. Civic knowledge and open classroom discussion: explaining tolerance of corruption among 8th-grade students in Latin America. Educ Psychol 2020; 40(2): 186–206.

30.

Nuamah

. How girls achieve. Harvard University Press, 2019, pp. 1–216.

31.

Hollstein

. Qualitative approaches. In: The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis [Internet]. 1 Oliver’s Yard, 55 City Road, Sage Publications Ltd; 2014 p. 404–416. [cited 2025 Jul 3]. Available from: https://methods.sagepub.com/book/the-sage-handbook-of-social-network-analysis/n27.xml

32.

Bain

Rice

. The influence of gender on attitudes, perceptions, and uses of technology. J Res Technol Educ 2006; 39(2): 119–132.

33.

Belarmino

Roberts

. Japanese gender role expectations and attitudes: a qualitative analysis of gender inequality. 2019;20(7).

34.

Ramos-Galarza

Apolo

Peña-García

, et al. Gender differences towards gender equality: attitudes and perceptions of college students. Rev Eur Stud 2018; 10(1): 61.

35.

Davis

Greenstein

. Gender ideology: components, predictors, and consequences. Annu Rev Sociol 2009; 35: 87–105.

36.

Whsin

Duan

. Does school learning shape gender ideology? Academic performance and adolescents' attitudes toward gender practices. Soc Sci Res 2021; 95: 102524.

37.

Equal Measures

2030. The power of data-driven feminist movements [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://equalmeasures2030.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/EqualMeasures2030_WhitePaperDDFeministMvts_FINAL.pdf

38.

López-Hornickel

Carrasco

Lay

, et al. It is not just your opinion. Gender Equity Endorsement of Latin American Students and Their Peers at School. Large-Scale Assess Educ 2024; 12(1): 45.

39.

López-Hornickel

Sandoval-Hernández

. Profiles of attitudes toward gender equality among Latin American adolescents. PEL [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2024 Jan 12];60(2). Available from: https://pensamientoeducativo.uc.cl/index.php/pel/article/view/55395

40.

D’Ignazio

Klein

. Introduction: why data science needs feminism · data feminism. Data Feminism [Internet]. MIT Press, 2023. Available from: https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262547185/data-feminism/

41.

McCall

. The complexity of intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 2005; 30(3): 1771–1800.

42.

Casey

Ihrig

Roman

, et al. Life course and socioecological influences on gender-equitable attitudes among men: a scoping review. Trauma Violence Abuse 2022; 23(3): 764–777.

43.

Petersen

Hyde

. Gender differences in sexual attitudes and behaviors: a review of meta-analytic results and large datasets. J Sex Res 2011; 48(2–3): 149–165.

44.

Liberati

Altman

Tetzlaff

, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2009; 6(7): e1000100.

45.

World Health Organisation (WHO) . Adolescent health. [cited 2024 Apr 30]. Adolescent health. Available from: https://www.who.int/health-topics/adolescent-health#tab=tab_1 (2024).

46.

Page

Moher

Tetzlaff

, et al. Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review. Syst Rev 2009; 6(7): 263–266.

47.

Given

. Introduction. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods [Internet]. Sage Publication, Inc., 2008. [cited 2024 Apr 30]. Available from: https://sk.sagepub.com/reference/research

48.

Clarivate. Web of Science Journal citation reports 2022 infographic - web of Science Group [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2024 May 14]. Available from: https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/web-of-science-journal-citation-reports-2022-infographic/

49.

Al-Khoury

Hussein

Abdulwhab

, et al. Intellectual capital history and trends: a bibliometric analysis using scopus database. Sustainability 2022; 14(18): 11615.

50.

Kayyad Hakeem

Aldulaan

. A systematic literature review on the implementation of E-Learning platforms in the Covid-19 pandemic. Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (MJSSH) 2022; 7(11): e001942.

51.

Elsevier . Scopus now includes 90 million + content records! | Elsevier Scopus Blog [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2024 May 14]. Available from: https://blog.scopus.com/posts/scopus-now-includes-90-million-content-records

52.

Page

McKenzie

Bossuyt

, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 2021; 372: n71.

53.

Ware

Mabe

. The STM Report: an overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing. 2015.

54.

UN Women UN . Progress on the sustainable development goals [Internet]. Bloomfield: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, 2023. [cited 2024 Apr 27]. Available from: https://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2023/09/progress-on-the-sustainable-development-goals-the-gender-snapshot-2023

55.

UN . What’s the goal here? [Internet]. United Nations; 2023. Available from: http://www.un.org/

56.

Sandoval-Hernández

Carrasco

. A measurement strategy for SDG. Thematic Indicators 4.7.4 and 4.7.5 Using International large Scale assessments in education [Internet]. UNESCO; 2020. Available from: https://tcg.uis.unesco.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2020/06/Measurement-Strategy-for-474-and-475-using-ILSA_20200625.pdf

57.

Hoffman

Kloska

. Parents’ gender-based attitudes toward marital roles and child rearing: development and validation of new measures. Sex Roles 1995; 32(5): 273–295.

58.

Falk

Jung

Mirazchiyski

, et al. International Association for the evaluation of educational achievement. ICCS 2009 user guide for the international database. Supplement 5: IEA 2011.

59.

Schulz

Carstens

Losito

, et al. ICCS 2016 Technical Report. In: Schulz

Carstens

Losito

, et al. (eds). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. IEA), 2018.

60.

Ipsos. International Women’s Day 2024 . Global attitudes towards women’s leadership p. 1–77. [Internet]. Ipsos; 2024 [cited 2024 Apr 27] Available from: https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2024-03/International-Womens-day-2024-report.pdf

61.

De La Torre Díaz

. Socialización escolar y experiencia subjetiva de la desigualdad. Una aproximación teórica. Sinéctica [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2024 May 14];(60). Available from: https://sinectica.iteso.mx/index.php/SINECTICA/article/view/1462

62.

Clarke

McCall

. Intersectionality and social EXPLANATION in social science research. Du Bois Rev: Social Science Research on Race 2013; 10(2): 349–363.

63.

Creswell

. Chapter 3 - the Use of theory. Research Design Quialitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 6th ed. : Sage Publication, Inc., 2023.

64.

Nylund-Gibson

Choi

. Ten frequently asked questions about latent class analysis. Translational Issues in Psychological Science 2018; 4(4): 440–461.

65.

UNESCO. SDG 4 Data Digest . Using Household Survey Data to monitor SDG 4 [Internet]. UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2020. Available from: https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/sdg_4_data_digest_2020_eng_web3_2.pdf

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.

0.00 MB

0.15 MB

0.27 MB

1.43 MB