Queen’s Gambit Declined: The Gender-Equality Paradox in Chess Participation Across 160 Countries

Abstract

The gender-equality paradox refers to the puzzling finding that societies with more gender equality demonstrate larger gender differences across a range of phenomena, most notably in the proportion of women who pursue degrees in science, technology, engineering, and math. The present investigation demonstrates across two different measures of gender equality that this paradox extends to chess participation (N = 803,485 across 160 countries; age range: 3–100 years), specifically that women participate more often in countries with less gender equality. Previous explanations for the paradox fail to account for this finding. Instead, consistent with the notion that gender equality reflects a generational shift, mediation analyses suggest that the gender-equality paradox in chess is driven by the greater participation of younger players in countries with less gender equality. A curvilinear effect of gender equality on the participation of female players was also found, demonstrating that gender differences in chess participation are largest at the highest and lowest ends of the gender-equality spectrum.

Keywords

gender equality cross-cultural differences gender differences chess open materials

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abu Aleon

Weinstock

Manago

A. M.

Greenfield

P. M.

(2019). Social change and intergenerational value differences in a Bedouin community in Israel. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 50(5), 708–727. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022119839148

Atari

Lai

M. H. C.

Dehghani

(2020). Sex differences in moral judgements across 67 countries. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 287(1937), Article 20201201. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2020.1201

Biernat

(2003). Toward a broader view of social stereotyping. American Psychologist, 58(12), 1019–1027. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.12.1019

Breda

Jouini

Napp

Thebault

(2020). Gender stereotypes can explain the gender-equality paradox. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 117(49), 31063–31069. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2008704117

Buss

D. M.

(1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00023992

Chabris

F. C.

Glickman

M. E.

(2006). Sex differences in intellectual performance: Analysis of a large cohort of competitive chess players. Psychological Science, 17(12), 1040–1046.

Charles

Bradley

(2002). Equal but separate? A cross-national study of sex segregation in higher education. American Sociological Review, 67(4), 573–599.

Charles

Bradley

(2009). Indulging our gendered selves? Sex segregation by field of study in 44 countries. American Journal of Sociology, 114(4), 924–976. https://doi.org/10.1086/595942

Costa

P. J.

Terracciano

McCrae

R. 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

10.

De Felice

(2018). Chess international titleholders, 1950-2016. McFarland & Company Holders.

11.

Eagly

A. H.

Wood

(1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior. American Psychologist, 54, 408–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.6.408

12.

Falk

Hermle

(2018). Relationship of gender differences in preferences to economic development and gender equality. Science, 362(6412), Article eaas9899. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aas9899

13.

Geary

D. C.

(2021). Now you see them, and now you don’t: An evolutionarily informed model of environmental influences on human sex differences. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 125, 26–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.02.020

14.

Geary

D. C.

Stoet

(2020). Ideological blinders in the study of sex differences in participation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields. In Howell

Allen

(Eds.), Groupthink in science (pp. 175–183). Springer.

15.

Greenfield

P. M.

(2016). Social change, cultural evolution, and human development. Current Opinion in Psychology, 8, 84–92.

16.

Guimond

Branscombe

N. R.

Brunot

Buunk

A. P.

Chatard

Désert

Garcia

D. M.

Haque

Martinot

Yzerbyt

(2007). Culture, gender, and the self: Variations and impact of social comparison processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1118–1134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1118

17.

Hopcroft

R. L.

Bradley

D. B.

(2007). The sex difference in depression across 29 countries. Social Forces, 85(4), 1483–1507. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2007.0071

18.

Inglehart

Norris

(2003). Rising tide: Gender equality and cultural change around the world. Cambridge University Press.

19.

Miller

D. I.

Eagly

A. H.

Linn

M. C.

(2014). Women’s representation in science predicts national gender-science stereotypes: Evidence from 66 nations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3), 631–644.

20.

Muthukrishna

Henrich

Slingerland

(2021). Psychology as a historical science. Annual Review of Psychology, 72, 717–749.

21.

Norris

(1996). Mobilising the ‘women’s vote’: The gender-generation gap in voting behaviour. Parliamentary Affairs, 49(2), 333–342. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.pa.a028683

22.

Schmitt

D. P.

Realo

Voracek

Allik

(2008). Why can’t a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in Big Five personality traits across 55 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 168–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014651

23.

Schwartz

S. H.

Rubel-Lifschitz

(2009). Cross-national variation in the size of sex differences in values: Effects of gender equality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 171–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015546

24.

Simonsohn

(2018). Two lines: A valid alternative to the invalid testing of U-shaped relationships with quadratic regressions. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(4), 538–555. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918805755

25.

Smerdon

McLennan

von Hippel

Albrecht

(2020). Female chess players show typical stereotype-threat effects: Commentary on Stafford (2018). Psychological Science, 31(6), 756–759. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620924051

26.

Stafford

(2018). Female chess players outperform expectations when playing men. Psychological Science, 29(3), 429–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617736887

27.

Stoet

Geary

D. 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

28.

Rounds

(2015). All STEM fields are not created equal: People and things interests explain gender disparities across STEM fields. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 189. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00189

29.

United Nations Development Programme. (2020). Human development report 2020: The next frontier: Human development and the Anthropocene. http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr2020.pdf

30.

Vishkin

Slepian

M. L.

Galinsky

A. D.

(2021). The gender-equality paradox and optimal distinctiveness: More gender-equal societies have more gendered names. Social Psychological and Personality Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211037576

31.

Weinstock

Ganayiem

Igbaryia

Manago

A. M.

Greenfield

P. M.

(2015). Societal change and values in Arab communities in Israel: Intergenerational and rural–urban comparisons. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(1), 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022114551792

32.

Wood

Eagly

A. H.

(2012). Biosocial construction of sex differences and similarities in behavior. In Olson

J. M.

Zanna

M. P.

(Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 46, pp. 55–123). Academic Press.

33.

World Economic Forum. (2019). Global gender gap report 2020. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2020.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

0.50 MB