Chapter 29
Measurement and Analysis of
Nation-Level Gender Equity in
the Psychology of Women
Nicole M. Else-Quest and Veronica Hamilton
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
The status of women has advanced in
some important respects in the past
decade but that progress has been uneven,
inequalities between women and men
have persisted and major obstacles
remain, with serious consequences for the
well-being of all people. (Beijing Declara-
tion and Platform for Action, 1995, p.2)
Despite much progress since the Beijing Declara-
tion and Platform for Action was adopted in 1995,
gender inequity remains pervasive throughout the
world, such that there is no nation with comprehen-
sive gender equity (United Nations Development
Programme [UNDP], 2014). Broadly, we define
gender equity as economic, social, and political
freedom and justice regarding gender. Patriarchal
social structures partition public and private spaces
by gender, whereby men’s control of power, privi-
lege, and wealth are maintained in the occupation
of public space, which restricts women’s access
to resources and confines them to the private or
domestic spaces. The degree to which this partition-
ing and stratification occurs varies cross-nationally,
such that women in some nations experience greater
freedom and access to resources than women in
other nations. A quick look at international data
indicates that, averaged across all nations, women
hold only 21% of seats in national parliaments,
make up less than 4% of the CEOs in the world’s
500 largest corporations, and are disproportionately
unbanked (i.e., they do not have accounts at formal
financial institutions; United Nations [UN], 2015).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0000060-029
APA Handbook of the Psychology of Women: Vol. 2. Perspectives on Women’s Private and Public Lives, C. B. Travis and J. W. White (Editors-in-Chief)
Copyright © 2018 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.
APA Handbook of the Psychology of Women: Perspectives on Women's Private and
Public Lives, edited by S. L. Cook, A. Rutherford, C. B Travis, J. W. White, W.
S. Williams, and K. F. Wyche
Copyright © 2018 American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.
Variations in macrolevel gender equity represent
a dimension along which we can examine factors
shaping and contextualizing the psychology of
women, with the understanding that gender equity
systematically shapes the construction, develop-
ment, and experience of gender.
In this chapter we describe nation-level measures
of gender equity as tools for the analysis of structural
inequities in psychology, emphasizing the impor-
tance of transnational intersectionality in the psy-
chology of women. We review composite indices as
well as domain-specific indicators of gender equity,
and note their relative strengths and limitations.
Building on previous writing about the measurement
of nation-level gender equity (Else-Quest & Grabe,
2012; Grabe & Else-Quest, 2012), we also review
several areas of empirical research that have included
analyses of nation-level gender equity, and discuss
challenges in using these measures.
Feminists have long maintained that “the per-
sonal is political,” situating personal experiences
within a broader social, historical, and cultural con-
text that systematically subjugates women and girls
and privileges men and boys (e.g., Millett, 1970).
This feminist dictum reframes psychological phe-
nomena, understanding our personal experiences as
a microlevel recapitulation of macrolevel processes
and structures. Meanwhile, within mainstream
empirical psychology, the personal has rarely been
understood, framed, or explicitly analyzed as politi-
cal; individuals are most often studied in micro-
level investigations stripped of macrolevel context
(Griscom, 1992; Pettigrew, 1991; Yoder & Kahn, 2003).
545
 Else-Quest and Hamilton
Some psychological perspectives concede the impor-
tance of social context but largely focus on the indi-
vidual without adequately analyzing the influence
of institutionalized power differentials (Pettigrew,
1991; Riger, 1993).
Intersectional approaches reframe how we
think about gender and power, and implore us to
consider structural inequities in the construction
of gender across diverse contexts (Else-Quest &
Hyde, 2016a). Feminist psychology aims to foster
gender equity by analyzing individual psychol-
ogy within a broader sociopolitical context. For
example, psychological research on gender has
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
historically measured gender differences in a way
that reinforces women’s social inferiority (Hyde &
Else-Quest, 2013). Feminist psychologists have
shown that many gender differences are context-
specific and that effects vary in magnitude or
direction across different contexts (Yoder & Kahn,
2003). To understand gender similarities or differ-
ences and the psychology of women, psychologists
must include contextual variables (e.g., nation-
level gender equity) in the conceptualization and
analysis of research questions and data. Moreover,
the study of nation-level gender equity heeds calls
for the expansion of cross-national research and
non-Western samples (e.g., Arnett, 2008; Henrich,
Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010).
Gender Equity and Psychology
The political and personal have been explicitly
linked in several psychological theories, primarily
within community psychology and feminist frame-
works. For example, Martín-Baró (1994) described
a liberation psychology in which oppression is
examined, understood, and challenged on personal
as well as political levels. That is, oppressive ide-
ologies and interpersonal processes are embedded
within and supported by the sociopolitical context.
Building on that perspective, Moane (2010) noted
that linking liberation and feminist psychology
involves identifying connections between macro-
level structural inequalities or inequities and micro-
level situations. Moane (1999) argued, “A liberation
psychology aims to facilitate breaking out of oppres-
sion by identifying processes and practices which
546
can transform the psychological patterns associated
with oppression and facilitate taking action to bring
about change in social condition” (p. 180). Simi-
larly, empowerment theory links well-being to the
larger sociopolitical context, emphasizing access to
and control over resources as critical to agency and
mastery in the empowerment process (Zimmerman,
1995). The examination of structural gender-based
inequities, whereby men have greater access to and
control over resources relative to women, is essen-
tial to the study of women’s empowerment (Grabe,
2012).
Likewise, intersectionality is a critical theory
and approach that understands the personal
and political as interconnected. Intersectional
approaches recognize that all people are charac-
terized by simultaneous membership in multiple
intertwined social categories (e.g., gender, ethnic-
ity, class), which contain a dimension of power or
inequality, are properties of the individual as well
as the social context, and may be fluid and dynamic
(Else-Quest & Hyde, 2016a). Grabe and Else-Quest
(2012) argued for a transnational intersectional-
ity, which emphasizes multiple interconnected
social categories and how economic exploitation
and oppression are embedded in those categories
within a broader context of globalization (see
also Mohanty, 2003). In addition, transnational
intersectionality is embedded within the Beijing
Declaration and Platform for Action (1995), which
maintained that the experiences of women and girls
are shaped, simultaneously, by social categories
beyond gender:
We are determined to . . . [i]ntensify
efforts to ensure equal enjoyment of all
human rights and fundamental freedoms
for all women and girls who face mul-
tiple barriers to their empowerment and
advancement because of such factors as
their race, age, language, ethnicity, cul-
ture, religion, or disability, or because
they are indigenous people. (p. 4)
In the psychology of women, transnational intersec-
tionality calls for research that attends to the experi-
ences of girls and women as shaped simultaneously
and dynamically by gender as well as by other social
 Measurement and Analysis of Nation-Level Gender Equity in the Psychology of Women
categories, especially ethnicity, class, nativity, and
nationality. As an empirical strategy within an
intersectional perspective, researchers might use an
intercategorical or comparative approach (McCall,
2005), which compares groups of different intersec-
tional locations (e.g., at the intersection of gender
and nation or culture, comparing outcomes of boys
and girls within and across different nations). Such
an approach could include using nation-level indi-
cators of gender equity to examine commonalities
and differences in girls’ and women’s experiences
cross-nationally (Else-Quest & Hyde, 2016b). Inso-
far as nation-level indicators of gender equity reflect
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
gendered power differentials, their use can be con-
sistent with aims of transnational intersectionality
(although not all work using these measures quali-
fies as such).
Central to an intersectional approach is an
effort to examine and redress inequities linked to
social categories (Cole, 2009). Yet, efforts to criti-
cally examine gender-based inequities have been
limited by a lack of engagement with structural or
macrolevel factors. Cross-national indicators of
gender equity were designed as tools to examine
gender-based inequities and can be used to dem-
onstrate how macrolevel inequities are reflected or
recapitulated in microlevel experiences. Although
using nation-level indicators of gender equity may
obscure some degree of specificity at the local level,
inequities and inequalities at the national level are
still meaningful.
Before describing the measures and how psy-
chologists have made use of them, we wish to clarify
two issues. The first regards language. We write
about gender equity here, but note that others may
write of gender equality or parity, or of women’s
empowerment. At a broad and general level, we
understand gender equity as economic, social,
and political freedom and justice across genders;
gender equality or parity as outcomes in terms of
the collective status of genders (i.e., in most cases,
cisgender men and women); and women’s empower-
ment as a process whereby women, as lower status
individuals and groups, gain power at any of several
levels—including individual, interpersonal, and
institutional levels. These are related constructs, of
course, and a given indicator may be invoked as any
one of these constructs; for example, girls’ access to
education can be seen as a mechanism to achieve
gender equity and consequently the equal status of
women and men. Our definitions are intentionally
broad and expansive because we believe that equity,
equality, and empowerment are complex, intercon-
nected, and dynamic; more restrictive definitions
are not likely to be more precise. To simplify our
discussion, we choose the term equity to emphasize
freedom and justice but note that researchers will
choose language that is appropriate to their work.
In addition, we are sensitive to the problematic
use of terms such as developing and underdeveloped
to describe relatively poor nations, often in a way
that conveys inferiority. By contrast, some writ-
ers refer to the Global South or have reclaimed the
use of the term Third World (e.g., Mohanty, 2003).
Although there is no singularly recognized mea-
sure of the “development” of a nation (UN, 2015),
we use the UNDP’s Human Development Index
(a nation-level composite measure of education,
health, and earned income).
The second issue regards our perspective and
the need to make plain our intersectional loca-
tions as the authors of this chapter. We are White
women who grew up in working-class families,
obtained social and economic opportunities
through higher education, and are now writing as a
faculty member and graduate student, respectively,
from a public university in the United States. We
are also feminists, sharing a deep commitment to
the equality and dignity of all people regardless of
gender. As such, our perspectives on the experi-
ence and meaning of gender equity and inequity
are shaped by these intersectional locations. On
the issue of cross-national gender equity and trans-
national intersectionality, we recognize that our
locations privilege education in the form of formal
schooling as vital to empowerment and also posi-
tion gender equity as a core value. This value is
reflected in our writing this chapter on gender
equity and the psychology of women. We encour-
age researchers using cross-national gender equity
indicators to take a step back and reflect on their
intersectional locations, understanding that every
perspective is partial and no perspective is objec-
tive or disinterested.
547
 Else-Quest and Hamilton

Gender Equity Measures of gender equity exist and are used in empirical
research on the psychology of women and gender.
At the Fourth World Conference on Women, hosted
Else-Quest and Grabe (2012) reviewed nation-
in 1995 by the UN Commission on the Status of
level gender equity measures, distinguishing
Women, 17,000 participants and 30,000 activists
between domain-specific indicators (e.g., second-
met in Beijing, China, over two weeks, producing
ary school enrollment ratios as a measure of gender
and adopting the Beijing Declaration and Platform
equity in education) and composite indices (e.g., the
for Action (1995). Declaring that “women’s rights
UNDP’s Gender Empowerment Measure, which is
are human rights” (p. 3), the Platform for Action
based on several domain-specific indicators). In that
affirmed a commitment to women’s empowerment
article, Else-Quest and Grabe recommended that
and gender equality, and outlined specific action
researchers consider incorporating nation-level gen-
plans to improve the status of girls and women
der equity indicators into their work, within explic-
across multiple domains. Among the plans in the
itly feminist and emancipatory frameworks. They
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Platform for Action were that the UN would “Pro-

mote the further development of statistical methods
to improve data that relate to women in economic,
social, cultural and political development” (p. 89);
that national and international statistical organi-
zations would support these goals by collecting
gender-specific quantitative data; and that such data
would be published in a report, The World’s Women,
every five years.
That same year, as part of its Human Develop-
ment Report (HDR), the United Nations Develop-
ment Program (UNDP) produced and released
nation-level indicators of gender equity, such as
the gender empowerment measure. Feminist calls
for attention to international gender equity, which
were legitimized by adoption of the Beijing Decla-
ration and Platform for Action, contributed to the
development of these nation-level indicators, and
we continue to see tremendous progress on the mea-
surement of nation-level gender equity. UN agen-
cies, such as the UNDP, and other organizations,
such as the World Economic Forum, have since
published annual reports with composite indicators
intended to index human development and the sta-
tus of women at the national level. Today, the UN
maintains and provides on its public website data on
domain-specific indicators of gender equity and con-
tinues to publish The World’s Women (http://unstats.
un.org/unsd/gender/worldswomen.html). Dozens
of indicators of gender inequities span multiple
domains, including political, educational, economic,
and health. In sum, 20 years after the adoption of
the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and
the publication of the 1995 HDR, many indicators
also urged psychologists to choose domain-specific
measures rather than composite indices to identify
or assess mechanisms by which the personal and
political were linked. Adopting a feminist stance,
they also maintained that gender equity indicators
be used with the goal of empowering women and
girls to achieve gender equality.
Since that article was published, more gen-
der equity measures have been created, data have
become more easily accessible, and more psycho-
logical researchers have used such measures in their
analyses. We review here several of the current com-
posite indices of gender equity, as well as a handful
of indicators within the major domains of gender
equity, and list additional domain-specific indicators
in Table 29.1.
The Multidimensionality of Gender Equity
Gender equity is a multidimensional, dynamic con-
struct. It cannot be captured, with any real construct
validity, by one measure. Gender equity is best con-
sidered at the level of specific domains (e.g., politics,
education, health) in part because domain-specific
indicators are distinct and not reliably intercor-
related (Else-Quest & Grabe, 2012). For example,
based on data that comprise the gender inequal-
ity index and gender development index (UNDP,
2014), a nation like South Korea scores relatively
high on gender equity in the health domain (e.g.,
2.2% adolescent birth rate) but relatively low on
gender equity in the economic domain (e.g., 0.69
female-to-male ratio in labor force participation).
Or, a nation like the United States demonstrates

548
 Measurement and Analysis of Nation-Level Gender Equity in the Psychology of Women

Table 29.1

Selected Domain-Specific Indicators Available Through the United Nations

Domain Indicators

Politics Women’s share of government ministerial positions (as percent)

Women’s share of parliamentary seats (as percent)
Economics Female-to-male ratio in average number of hours spent on unpaid domestic work
Female-to-male ratio in average number of hours spent on paid and unpaid domestic work combined
Female-to-male ratio in labor force participation rate
Female-to-male ratio in average in GNI or full-time wages
Female-to-male ratio in proportion of adult population with access to credit
Female-to-male ratio in proportion of adult population owning land
Women’s share of research positions (as percent)
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Education Female-to-male ratio (or gender parity index) in primary, secondary, and/or tertiary enrollment ratios
Female-to-male ratio in literacy rate
Educational attainment of the population age ≥ 25, by gender
Health Contraceptive prevalence
Maternal mortality ratio
Female-to-male ratio in under-five mortality rate
Adolescent birth rate
Gender-based violence Proportion of women subjected to sexual violence by persons other than an intimate partner, since
age 15
Proportion of ever-partnered women subjected to physical and/or sexual violence by current or former
intimate partner, in past 12 months
Prevalence of female genital mutilation, for relevant countries
Rates of marriage or union before age 18
Legal minimum age at marriage, by gender

Note. GNI = gross national income per capita. Data from United Nations (2015).

political gender inequity favoring men (e.g., 18.2%
of parliamentary seats held by women) but slight
educational gender inequity favoring women (e.g.,
1.11 female-to-male ratio in expected years of
schooling). Considerable nuance and complex-
ity are gained by understanding gender equity as
multidimensional and analyzing multiple domains
separately.
In contrast, composite indices, which aggregate
multiple domains (i.e., distinct areas, like health,
education, and income) of gender equity into one
score, are less useful within psychological research
because they are not internally consistent scales
(nor were they designed to be such). Interpreting
a composite index as an internally consistent scale
also disguises the complexities of gender equity,
missing the point that gender equity is expressed
and enacted in diverse ways that are embedded
within larger cultural contexts. Values on composite
indices have little meaning on either a conceptual or
practical level. They cannot specify which domains
are relevant and so they provide no empirical evi-
dence for mechanisms or theory development, nor
for how specifically a nation might be made more
gender equitable. Nonetheless, because composite
indices are still so widely used, we review them here
so that readers may be informed consumers of such
research. As we hope is clear, we strongly encour-
age researchers to avoid composite indices and to
analyze domain-specific indicators within theoreti-
cally relevant domains of gender equity. We first
describe commonly used composite measures. In
our discussion of composite measures, we reference
some domains measured within the indices; these
domains are described in more detail in the follow-
ing section about domain-specific measures.
Composite Measures
Researchers have created many composite indi-
ces of gender equity or equality and women’s

549
 Else-Quest and Hamilton
empowerment. In this chapter, we highlight several
that are widely used by psychologists and some that
are new and promising.
The HDI and the new GDI.  The Human
Development Index (HDI) is a composite indicator
of nation-level human development in the areas of
education (enrollment and literacy rates), health
(life expectancy), and earned income. It was created
in 1990 as an alternative to gross domestic product
and is designed to index achievements in human
development. As such, the HDI is a key indica-
tor used by the UNDP and other organizations for
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
grouping and ranking nations. For example, the
2015 HDR grouped Singapore as very high (rank 11,
HDI = .912), Vietnam as medium (rank 116, HDI =
.666), and Afghanistan as low (rank 171, HDI =
.465; UNDP, 2015). In the past, the HDI was criti-
cized for being overly dependent on earned income,
in that the three components were equally weighted
but not normally distributed, so that the income
component explained more than 90% the variance
in the HDI in most countries (Walby, 2005). Today,
however, HDI values are based on normalized subin-
dices, and the concern about overreliance on earned
income is no longer an issue.
In the 2014 HDR, the UNDP released national
HDI values separately for women and men. Analyz-
ing the HDI for women is not an ideal measure of
women’s development, however, because it is so
heavily influenced by a nation’s overall wealth. A
better use of the gender-differentiated HDI is to con-
struct a ratio of the women’s HDI to the men’s HDI;
the 2014 HDR also included the Gender Develop-
ment Index (new GDI), which does just that. As the
female-to-male HDI ratio, it is independent of over-
all human development. Nonetheless, nations high
in human development tend to have higher values
on the new GDI.
The old GDI and the GEM.  The 1995 HDR
included two gender-related composite indices,
marking a new, more comprehensive approach to
assessing and conceptualizing the status of women
worldwide and the influence of gender inequity. In
that report, the Gender-Related Development Index
(old GDI) and Gender Empowerment Measure
(GEM) were presented. Each of these composite
550
indices was retired by the UNDP in 2010, yet psy-
chologists have used these measures a great deal in
published research; thus, we briefly review them
here. The old GDI does not measure gender equity;
instead, it is the HDI discounted for gender dispari-
ties in its components. Nonetheless, psychologists
and other social scientists have misconstrued the
old GDI as a measure of gender equity or equality
(Else-Quest & Grabe, 2012; Schüler, 2006).
In contrast, the GEM was designed to index
women’s decision-making power. It is based on
women’s share of parliamentary seats, women’s
share of executive and professional or technical
jobs, and gender ratios in estimated earned income
(UNDP, 2009). The GEM is largely influenced by
economic and political domains of gender equity,
and it tends to reflect the empowerment of upper-
class and urban women and their decision-making
power in the public sphere (Else-Quest & Grabe,
2012). That is, it does not reflect the empowerment
of lower-class women or women’s decision-making
power in the home. For these reasons, it was criti-
cized heavily and ultimately replaced by the UNDP.
GII.  The 2010 HDR introduced the Gender
Inequality Index (GII; UNDP, 2010). The GII
includes the health indicators of maternal mortal-
ity ratio and adolescent fertility rate, the political
indicator of proportion of parliamentary seats held
by women, the educational indicator of educational
attainment at or above secondary level, and the
economic indicator of labor force participation.
Concerns have been raised, however, about the con-
struction of GII values, namely that they conflate
gender ratios with absolute measures of women’s
status (Permanyer, 2013).
GGI.  The Global Gender Gap Index (GGI;
Hausmann, Tyson, Bekhouche, & Zahidi, 2014),
published by the World Economic Forum, was
designed to assess gender equity in access to
resources and opportunities. It comprises four
subindices addressing the domains of economics,
education, politics, and health, which are composed
of 14 domain-specific indicators. The subindices
include economic participation and opportunity
(which comprises five indicators across economic as
well as political domains), educational attainment
 Measurement and Analysis of Nation-Level Gender Equity in the Psychology of Women
(composed of gender ratios in enrollment ratios and
literacy rate), health and survival (composed of sex
ratio at birth and in life expectancy), and political
empowerment (composed of gender ratios in legisla-
tive and executive branch representation). Each sub-
index contributes equally to a nation’s gender equity
assessment, and the component gender ratios are
weighted within each subindex to account for their
differing variability (Hausmann et al., 2014).
Domains of Gender Equity and
Domain-Specific Indicators
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
In the following sections, we discuss the gender equity
domains of economics, politics, education, health
(including reproductive freedom), and gender-based
violence. In describing how these domains are con-
strued and measured, we also discuss relative strengths
and limitations and highlight areas for growth in the
measurement of nation-level gender equity.
Economics.  The importance of the economic
domain of gender equity cannot be overstated. The
Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (1995)
notes a commitment to economic empowerment,
planning to
promote women’s economic indepen-
dence, including employment, and eradi-
cate the persistent and increasing burden
of poverty on women by addressing the
structural causes of poverty through
changes in economic structures, ensur-
ing equal access for all women, including
those in rural areas, as vital development
agents, to productive resources, opportu-
nities and public services. (p. 4)
Insofar as women’s economic dependence on men
is an obstacle to women’s full autonomy and libera-
tion, measures of economic gender equity are useful
within a feminist framework. One approach is to
assess the magnitude of the gendered wage gap, or
the female-to-male ratio in estimated gross national
income per capita (GNI). Globally, this ratio is stag-
gering at 0.49, but it varies considerably in mag-
nitude cross-nationally, with 2011 gender ratios in
GNI ranging from .15 in Afghanistan to .81 in Rwanda
(UNDP, 2014). Another approach is to examine
gender ratios in full-time earnings; on this measure,
women earn less than men in all employment sec-
tors and in all nations (UN, 2015). The magnitude
of gendered wage gaps seems a promising measure
of economic gender equity (for a detailed discussion
of the gender pay gap in the United States, see
Volume 1, Chapter 21, this handbook).
Yet, understanding or analyzing the wage gap
as a measure of economic gender equity can be
problematic because it rests on several flawed or
untenable assumptions about women’s economic
activity (Cueva Beteta, 2006). First, we cannot
assume that earning one’s own income means that
one has the freedom to spend it. Data indicate that
husbands often control the income of their wives
(e.g., Goetz & Gupta, 1996; UN, 2015) and that,
even when women can control how their income is
spent, it tends to be spent on their children and fam-
ilies (whereas men have more “disposable income”;
UNDP, 2009). Second, we cannot assume that all
labor is paid. Women are more likely than men to
work in unpaid or informal labor arrangements
(UN, 2015). This puts women at risk for negative
outcomes because informal labor is not subject to
labor legislation or protective measures; in addition,
informal labor is not counted in measures of income
or labor force participation.
For these reasons, the wage gap is an imperfect
indicator of economic gender equity. Recogni-
tion of these untenable assumptions highlights an
important area of research for feminist psychol-
ogy, which is the study of economic gender equity
vis-à-vis women’s intrahousehold decision-making
power. Feminist researchers should continue to ask
questions about who controls household income,
how financial decisions are made within families,
and how families negotiate the division of paid and
unpaid labor.
The economic domain of gender equity might
also be assessed via the gender ratio in labor force
participation, which is the female-to-male ratio of
the proportion of a nation’s working-age popula-
tion (15 and older) that engages in the labor mar-
ket, either by working or actively looking for work.
Globally, 77% of men and 50% of women participate
in the labor market (UN, 2015). Yet, we cannot
assume that women’s greater participation in paid
551
 Else-Quest and Hamilton
labor will be accommodated by less participation in
“women’s work.” Although women’s participation in
paid labor outside the home has increased in recent
decades, this increase has not been accompanied
by a concomitant increase in men’s participation
in unpaid labor inside the home (UNDP, 2009).
In many parts of the world, women work what
Hochschild (1989) coined the second shift of unpaid
labor in the home. Indeed, when paid and unpaid
work are summed, women work more hours per
day than do men (UN, 2015). Similarly, the gender
ratio in labor force participation rates is also limited
to the extent that women’s work is often in unpaid
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
or informal labor agreements and is therefore not
included in such measures. We might also analyze
gender ratios in average amount of time spent in
unpaid domestic labor, which is available for some
nations (UN, 2015), to better indicate the ways in
which the economic exploitation of women goes
beyond the magnitude of the wage gap.
The income and employment domain of gen-
der equity also can be assessed through women’s
share of higher labor market positions, which is
composed of executive and professional or techni-
cal jobs and might be conceptualized as reflecting
the breaking through of the glass ceiling. Similar
to this, an economic indicator that has been in
use by psychologists seeking to understand cross-
national variations in math and science attitudes and
achievement is women’s share of research positions.
This measure indicates the proportion of jobs in
research—broadly defined as professionals engaged
in the conception or creation of knowledge, prod-
ucts, processes, methods, and systems, as well as
the management of these projects—held by women.
Globally, about 30% of researchers are women, and
men dominate in all areas of research (UN, 2015).
However, measuring women’s achievement in
higher labor market positions or research jobs might
exclude an analysis of other intersections (e.g.,
social class). Contemporary labor movements (such
as Fight for $15 in the United States) focus on how
women, especially women of color, disproportion-
ately hold minimum wage jobs that cannot support
them or their families.
Another aspect of the economic domain is land
ownership. Women own 2% of the world’s land,
552
despite providing nearly 80% of the world’s agri-
cultural labor (Rural Development Institute, 2010).
Throughout most of the world, the male head of
household is recognized as the main authority fig-
ure and principal owner of land assets, either by
customary or statutory practices or norms (Deere &
Doss, 2006; UN, 2015). The gender gap in land
ownership—sometimes described as part of the
gender asset gap—is a critical contributor to gender
equality worldwide (Agarwal, 1994; Deere & Doss,
2006). Nation-level indicators of this aspect of eco-
nomic gender equity are limited but include gender
ratios in the proportion of adults owning land.
Theoretical and empirical research demonstrate that
owning land empowers women and fosters improve-
ment in their psychological well-being, more egali-
tarian household decision-making, and reductions
in gender-based violence (e.g., Agarwal, 1997;
Deere & Doss, 2006; Grabe et al., 2015; Panda &
Agarwal, 2005). Gendered structural inequities like
land ownership are linked to women’s psychologi-
cal well-being, such that owning land is empower-
ing. For these reasons, macrolevel examinations of
land ownership—in terms of rates and inheritance
laws—are promising measures of gender equity for
psychologists.
Politics.  Women’s representation in the political
process is vital to political gender equity. Political
gender equity is often operationalized as women’s
share of parliamentary seats (i.e., the number of
seats held by female members in single or lower
chambers of national parliaments, expressed as a
percentage of all occupied seats), reflecting women’s
representation in the legislative branch of national
government. Women’s share of ministerial positions
(i.e., the proportion of women in ministerial posi-
tions out of the total of men and women in ministe-
rial positions) indicates women’s representation in
the executive branch of national government. The
logic in operationalizing political gender equity as
women’s parliamentary or ministerial representation
is that it assesses the representation of women (i.e.,
as a proportion of the constituency) and the repre-
sentation of their interests (i.e., in supporting poli-
cies that promote women’s well-being). Although
women’s political representation is a critical aspect
 Measurement and Analysis of Nation-Level Gender Equity in the Psychology of Women
of gender equity, with far-reaching implications for
other domains of gender equity, this logic is prob-
lematic for several reasons.
Electing women to parliament or ministerial
positions does not guarantee that women’s voices
are represented in public policy debates or legisla-
tion. Insofar as elected officials (of any gender) tend
to be highly connected to economically privileged
and politically powerful families and organiza-
tions, the election of women to parliament may
reflect those connections more than a shared belief
that women and men are equally qualified for such
positions (Else-Quest & Grabe, 2012). Similarly,
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
to the extent that members of national legislatures
represent the interests of financial sponsors, women
in parliament may not represent women’s voices
so much as they do the voices of those who fund
their campaigns. For example, women in public
office have voted against equal rights legislation
and policies that would improve women’s access to
health care and paid family leave, such as when U.S.
Senator Nancy Kassebaum of Kansas voted against
the Family and Medical Leave Act in 1993 (https://
www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/103-1993/s11).
And, nearly all national legislatures in the world are
male-dominated; female legislators may face sexism
within those institutions (e.g., Gillibrand, 2014),
which may influence their effectiveness.
Indicators of political gender equity that more
effectively capture women from diverse back-
grounds would index women’s involvement in
grassroots political efforts and representation in
local governments. Engagement in the political pro-
cess by diverse groups of women could be indexed
by voting behaviors, although the clarity of such a
measure may be complicated by voter identification
laws that disproportionately affect women of color
(Cobb, Greiner, & Quinn, 2012). Nonetheless, nei-
ther of these statistics is available for a large sample
of nations. These are areas for growth in the mea-
surement of nation-level gender equity.
Education.  Improved access to education is often
understood (particularly among academics) as a
liberating and transformative force in the lives of
citizens, in that education can improve financial
as well as psychological well-being. Historically
and cross-culturally, access to education has been
restricted on the basis of social categories (e.g.,
gender), with boys having greater educational
access relative to their female peers (Aikman &
Unterhalter, 2005). Gender equity in education is
understood as crucial to girls’ and women’s libera-
tion, in that it can expand opportunities for girls and
improve their overall well-being (UNESCO, 2012).
The education domain of gender equity reflects the
shared value of educating girls. Gender ratios in
school enrollments relative to population size pro-
vide estimates of gender equity in access to formal
education. Enrollment ratios refer to the number of
students enrolled in a particular level of education,
regardless of age, as a percentage of the population
of theoretical school age for that level. UNESCO
computes a gender parity index, which is the gen-
der ratio in enrollment ratios for levels of education
separately and combined. These data are available
for nearly all nations, and enrollment ratios for
primary, secondary, and tertiary levels—separately
and combined—demonstrate some nuance in edu-
cational gender equity. For example, Japan demon-
strates similar enrollment ratios for girls and boys
at primary and secondary levels of education but
displays gender inequity at the tertiary level, where
male enrollment ratios are greater than female
enrollment ratios (UNESCO Institute for Statistics,
http://data.uis.unesco.org/). Enrollment ratios are
frequently used in composite indicators of gender
equity, such as the gender gap index.
Educational gender equity also can be assessed
by gender ratios in literacy rates. Nearly two thirds
of the world’s illiterate adults are women (UNESCO
Institute for Statistics, http://data.uis.unesco.org/).
Although this disparity is greater in developing
nations, gender equality in literacy rates has been
achieved in nations with high or very high human
development; the worldwide distribution is highly
skewed. Given that most cross-national studies
within psychology rely on samples drawn, at least in
part, from developed nations (Henrich et al., 2010),
gender ratios in literacy rates often do not display
adequate cross-national variability to be useful with
such samples. However, gender ratios in literacy
rates may be sensitive indicators of educational gen-
der equity for samples of developing nations.
553
 Else-Quest and Hamilton
Health.  Many composite measures continue to
use gender ratios in population, at birth, and in life
expectancy because they are available for nearly
all nations. Although more boys than girls are con-
ceived and born, women typically have a greater life
expectancy than men in all nations. Yet, life expec-
tancy and some other health indicators may disguise
gender disparities in health and well-being because
they do not index morbidity or gendered health con-
cerns. Moreover, indicators like life expectancy are
historically stable and change very little from year
to year; they are less sensitive to changes in public
policy that may have long-term effects on women’s
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
and girls’ well-being. If the use of these indicators
is warranted, researchers will want to be mindful of
statistical assumptions because gender ratios at birth
and in life expectancy are not normally distributed
across nations.
The Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action
(1995) stated that “the explicit recognition and
reaffirmation of the right of all women to control
all aspects of their health, in particular their own
fertility, is basic to their empowerment” (p. 3), and
resolved to “ensure equal access to and equal treat-
ment of women and men in education and health
care and enhance women’s sexual and reproductive
health as well as education” (p. 4). Consistent with
this perspective and goal, we understand women’s
reproductive freedom and control over fertility as
fundamental to women’s empowerment. Indicators
such as access to safe and legal abortions, contracep-
tives, and condoms are potentially useful in psycho-
logical research and are increasingly available across
nations. In particular, data on contraceptive preva-
lence is widely available, although it is typically lim-
ited to prevalence among married women.
Globally, the second leading cause of death
among women of reproductive age (i.e., 15–49
years) are conditions related to pregnancy or child-
birth. Rates of maternal mortality (or dying during
pregnancy, childbirth, or up to 6 weeks postpartum)
vary cross-nationally (Hogan et al., 2010). Causes
of maternal mortality are numerous, but they can
reflect women’s age at pregnancy, nutrition, access
to clean water, and restricted access to health care
(including abortion; see Chapter 15, this volume),
as well as high rates of HIV infection. Nations with
554
restrictive abortion laws have dramatically higher
maternal mortality rates (UN, 2014a), and maternal
mortality rates are highest in developing nations
(Hogan et al., 2010; UN, 2015); a disproportion-
ate amount of maternal deaths occur in a very
small group of nations. It is important to note that
in countries in the Global North (e.g., the United
States), maternal mortality disproportionately
affects women of color. For example, in the United
States, Black women have three times higher rates of
maternal mortality than White women (Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for
Health Statistics, 2013). Maternal mortality rates are
not normally distributed across nations (which is a
concern for some statistical analyses) and may not
be appropriate indicators of gender equity, depend-
ing on the sample of nations and the analytic strat-
egy used.
Gender-based violence.  Across all nations, girls
and women experience gender-based violence, forms
of violence in which men are the predominant per-
petrators and women are the predominant victims.
Two thirds of homicides committed by intimate
partners or family members victimize women (UN,
2015). Rates vary considerably across nations and
regions, but generally, one third of women and girls
experience sexual abuse as children or adults (Heise,
Ellsberg, & Gottemoeller, 1999). Prevalence rates
vary from 16.30% to 65.64% across regions of the
world, but on average 30% of women over age 15
have experienced physical or sexual intimate partner
violence (Devries et al., 2013). Gender-based vio-
lence, in a variety of forms, has well demonstrated
psychological and physical health consequences for
victims (Heise et al., 1999; UN, 2015). More broadly,
gender-based violence controls girls and women,
limits their freedoms, and maintains their subor-
dinate status. Consistent with this perspective, the
Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action stated a
commitment to “Prevent and eliminate all forms of
violence against women and girls” (1995, p. 4). We
include measures of gender-based violence in our dis-
cussion of cross-national measures of gender equity.
Yet, gender-based violence is measured and
tracked unevenly and imperfectly, and it represents
an area of improvement for measures of gender
 Measurement and Analysis of Nation-Level Gender Equity in the Psychology of Women
equity (Devries et al., 2013). Some nations do not
include measures of gender-based violence in sur-
veys nor otherwise track such forms of violence.
Although recent international efforts led by the
World Health Organization and the UN to establish
documentation and assessment standards have dem-
onstrated real progress and improved our knowl-
edge about the prevalence of gender-based violence,
it is widely accepted that estimates of such violence
are likely conservative and “do not represent the full
extent and nature of the problem” (UN, 2014b, p. 2).
In light of the pressures and threats that women
experience to maintain silence about gender-based
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
violence, this is not surprising. Gender-based vio-
lence is underreported by girls and women, particu-
larly when the violence is committed by a family
member or intimate partner. However, when we
examine gender-based violence cross-nationally, it
is also critical to consider local and cultural varia-
tions in the meaning as well as prevalence of specific
acts of violence. That is, measures must take into
account culturally relevant forms of gender-based
violence, with attention to context and meaning
(Marecek, 2012). To assist with measurement while
attending to these issues, the UN has released a set
of guidelines for assessing gender-based violence
(UN, 2014b). Additional areas for development in
this domain include improving measures of violence
against children, which could be disaggregated by
gender. Currently, there are no international stan-
dards for the assessment and tracking of violence
against children, which is also underreported
(UN, 2015).
Another form of gender-based violence is
human trafficking, which involves the acquisition
of people by improper means such as force, fraud,
or deception, with the aim of exploiting them, most
often for sexual purposes and forced labor or slav-
ery (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime,
2014). Human trafficking is gendered: 70% of
human trafficking victims are women or girls, and
three quarters of those prosecuted for child traffick-
ing are men (United Nations Office on Drugs and
Crime, 2014). The study of human trafficking as a
form of gender inequity and a threat to well-being
and human development, on micro- and macrolev-
els, is ripe for research by feminist psychologists
(e.g., Meshkovska, Siegel, Stutterheim, & Bos,
2015). Nonetheless, current data are limited,
and our capacity to monitor and measure rates of
nation-level human trafficking is inadequate. In
sum, our nation-level measures of gender-based
violence are an area for growth as we seek to assess
gender equity more comprehensively.
What Have We Learned From
Using Nation-Level Gender Equity
Measures in Psychology?
Psychologists’ use of nation-level gender equity indi-
cators has expanded in recent years. Diverse lines of
empirical research have linked individuals’ scores
on psychological measures to gender stratification
within a culture or nation. Much of this work has
used nation-level gender equity measures to predict
or explain psychological gender differences. We
briefly describe several of these areas of research,
providing an overview of some of the types of
research questions and theoretical perspectives psy-
chologists have examined with measures of nation-
level gender equity. This review is not meant to be
comprehensive.
Consistent with the feminist dictum “the per-
sonal is political,” microlevel hostile sexism toward
women is reflected in macrolevel gender inequity.
Empirical evidence indicates that hostile sexism
toward women is negatively correlated with nation-
level gender equity (Glick et al., 2000; Napier,
Thorisdottir, & Jost, 2010), such that in nations
with lower GEM scores, individuals report more
hostile attitudes toward women. Moreover, sexist
ideologies and structural gender inequities perpetu-
ate one another and provide parameters for gender
development. Brandt (2011) analyzed endorsement
of sexist attitudes and gender inequality (measured
by the GEM) across 57 nations, finding that sexism
directly predicted increases in nation-level gender
inequality over time. Individual endorsement of
sexist ideologies legitimates and exacerbates gender
inequality at a structural level.
Sexual Behaviors and Attitudes
A great deal of psychological research employing
nation-level indicators of gender equity has focused
555
 Else-Quest and Hamilton
on mate preferences, including the extent to which
men and women express preferences for particular
traits in a heterosexual romantic partner (e.g., Eagly &
Wood, 1999; Eastwick et al., 2006; Zentner &
Mitura, 2012). We refer readers to Zentner and
Eagly (2015) for a thorough review of that work.
This line of research tends to position evolutionary
psychology (Buss, 1989) against social role theory
(Eagly & Wood, 1999) regarding the importance
of nation-level gender equity in the development of
psychological gender differences. Broadly, evolu-
tionary psychology argues that psychological gender
differences evolved as a result of sexual selection. In
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
contrast, the feminist perspective of social role the-
ory maintains that such differences developed out of
gendered social roles and the gendered division of
labor, which are rooted in women’s reproductive
capacity and men’s greater physical strength but
vary across cultures as a function of environmental
factors. Although gender differences in mate prefer-
ences are reliably found, the magnitude of these gen-
der differences varies considerably across nations.
Recent evidence indicates that gender differences in
mate preferences with presumed evolutionary bases
tend to be smaller in nations with greater gender
equity, even after controlling for factors such as
gross domestic product and geographical distance
from the equator (Zentner & Mitura, 2012).
Working from social role theory (Eagly & Wood,
1999), Petersen and Hyde (2010) used meta-analysis
to examine how nation-level gender equity was
reproduced in gender differences in sexual attitudes
and behaviors and proposed that gender differences
in sexuality stem from gender differences in power.
Using the GEM to index gender equity, they found
that nation-level gender equity predicted smaller
gender differences in attitudes toward gay marriage
and reported incidence of intercourse, oral sex, anal
sex, casual sex, and masturbation.
Cognitive Abilities
Researchers studying gender differences and
similarities in cognitive abilities have used cross-
national gender equity measures to test the gender
stratification hypothesis (Baker & Jones, 1993;
Else-Quest, Hyde, & Linn, 2010), which posits
that societal stratification on the basis of gender
556
produces gendered inequality of opportunity struc-
tures available within a nation. In more patriarchal
nations where there is greater stratification by
gender and gender inequity, opportunities avail-
able to boys and girls will differ, such that boys
will link their educational achievements to future
educational and economic outcomes to a greater
degree, and will thus work harder and achieve
more, relative to girls. Put another way, if girls live
in a culture or country in which girls’ education
is perceived as not important or useful for their
future roles, girls will not invest as much in their
own education as do their male peers. The gender
stratification hypothesis predicts that in nations
with less gender equity, gender gaps in math
achievement will be larger, favoring male students,
whereas gender equitable nations will display
smaller gender gaps in math achievement.
Baker and Jones (1993) tested the gender
stratification hypothesis using cross-national
math assessments with adolescents, and other
researchers—including Riegle-Crumb (2005); van
Langen, Bosker, and Dekkers (2006); Guiso, Monte,
Sapienza, and Zingales (2008); Else-Quest, Hyde,
and Linn (2010); and Reilly (2012)—have expanded
on that initial work conceptually and methodologi-
cally in the years since. Several trends have emerged
from these studies. For example, the GGI and
domain-specific indicators of gender equity, such as
educational enrollment ratios and women’s share of
research positions, have generally emerged as robust
predictors of gender differences in math achieve-
ment, with more gender-equitable nations tending
to have smaller gender gaps or even a female advan-
tage in mean math achievement (e.g., Else-Quest
et al., 2010; Guiso et al., 2008; Reilly, 2012). In
addition, some researchers have expanded the study
of the gender stratification hypothesis beyond mean
gender differences to gender differences in variance
ratios in math achievement (e.g., Hyde & Mertz,
2009; Machin & Pekkarinen, 2008; Penner, 2008),
arguing that gender inequity may foster greater male
variability and may suppress female variability. For
example, Hyde and Mertz (2009) found that nation-
level gender equity was negatively associated with
the ratio of males-to-females scoring above the 95th
percentile in math.
 Measurement and Analysis of Nation-Level Gender Equity in the Psychology of Women
This line of work has also expanded to attitudes
and anxiety about math (Else-Quest et al., 2010),
finding consistent links between educational and eco-
nomic gender equity (i.e., gendered enrollment ratios
and women’s share of research positions) and smaller
gender gaps in math attitudes and anxiety. Yet, politi-
cal gender equity (i.e., women’s share of parliamen-
tary seats) was consistently linked to larger gender
gaps in math attitudes and anxiety, in contrast to
the pattern found with achievement. These nuanced
and complex findings that are consistent with the
social psychological theorizing of Guimond et al.
(2007), who proposed that gender differences in self-
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
construals—which exist under conditions in which
individuals make intergroup but not intragroup social
comparisons—explain gender differences in values,
motivations, and emotions. In other words, students’
self-reports of math self-concept will tend to vary by
gender when students are comparing themselves with
students of another gender, a comparison that is more
likely in less gender-stratified nations (Guimond
et al., 2007). The effects of gender stratification and
inequity are complex. Highlighting the importance of
choosing theoretically relevant gender equity indica-
tors, these findings also demonstrate that although
gender stratification in some domains (e.g., educa-
tion, research jobs) may lead to poorer math achieve-
ment and more negative math attitudes by girls,
gender stratification in other domains (e.g., politics)
may also lead girls to compare themselves with other
girls, and thus report more positive math attitudes.
Gender differences and similarities in other cog-
nitive abilities also have been examined in relation
to nation-level gender equity (e.g., Miller & Halpern,
2014; Weber et al., 2014). For example, nation-
level gender equity has been linked to a female
advantage in reading achievement (e.g., Guiso
et al., 2008; Reilly, 2012). The gender stratification
hypothesis has received some support with regard
to science achievement, with greater gender equity
(on GGI scores, as well as women’s share of research
positions) being linked to smaller gender gaps or
even female advantage in science (Reilly, 2012).
Drawing on social role theory (Eagly & Wood,
1999), Miller, Eagly, and Linn (2015) expanded this
line of research to explicit and implicit stereotypes
about science and found that such gender-science
stereotypes are weaker in nations where women are
enrolled in tertiary or university science education
at higher rates.
Personality Traits
Attempts to link gender differences in Big Five per-
sonality traits also have drawn on evolutionary psy-
chology and social role theory (e.g., Costa,
Terracciano, & McCrae, 2001; Lippa, 2010; Schmitt,
Realo, Voracek, & Allik, 2008). For example, Costa
et al. (2001) found that although gender differences
in personality traits were widespread, they were “rela-
tively subtle compared with the range of individual
differences found within each gender” (p. 326), con-
sistent with feminist theorizing about psychological
gender differences and similarities (Hyde, 2005).
Whereas Costa et al. argued that these findings of
cultural variability contradict evolutionary psychol-
ogy, subsequent work by Schmitt et al. (2008) revised
the evolutionary psychology perspective to argue
that “heightened levels of sexual dimorphism result
from personality traits of men and women being less
constrained and more able to naturally diverge in
developed nations” (p. 168). Guimond et al.’s (2007)
theorizing is also applicable here, such that the
greater incidence of intergroup (i.e., between-gender)
social comparisons within nations with less gender
stratification may foster apparent gender differences
in personality traits. Costa et al. (2001) and Schmitt
et al. (2008) found that nation-level gender equity
(indexed by the GEM) was linked to larger gender
differences in personality traits. Nonetheless, the reli-
ance on the GEM in this line of work is problematic,
in part because the GEM inadequately construes gen-
der equity and because these findings do not point to
any specific causal mechanism.
Emotional Experience and Expression
Drawing on social role theory, Fischer, Rodri-
guez Mosquera, van Vianen, and Manstead (2004)
distinguished powerful emotions (i.e., emo-
tions displaying power—anger, contempt) from
powerless emotions (i.e., emotions suggesting
vulnerability—fear, shame) and examined cross-
cultural variability in men’s and women’s reports
of these emotions. They found that gender equity
(indexed by the GEM) was linked to women’s
557
 Else-Quest and Hamilton
expression of anger, such that women in more gen-
der-equitable nations reported more anger expres-
sions relative to women in less gender-equitable
nations. Others have explored how nation-level
gender equity may be linked to emotional intensity,
duration, and experience (Fischer & Manstead,
2000) and to crying (Becht & Vingerhoets, 2002),
although findings are complex and at times consis-
tent with the theorizing of Guimond et al. (2007).
It is noteworthy that these studies relied on the
older gender equity composite of the GEM; future
research might continue this line of work with
newer domain-specific indicators of gender equity.
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
In sum, although these studies demonstrate that
personal experiences can reflect political processes
and structural inequities, not all of these investiga-
tions have been grounded in feminist frameworks.
Moreover, some of these investigations have
engaged sexist ideologies or operated from anti-
feminist perspectives. Our goal here is to promote
the conscientious use of these measures as potential
tools in fostering gender equality without borders,
as was intended by the Beijing Declaration and Plat-
form for Action.
Challenges With Nation-Level
Gender Equity Measures in
Psychology
Earnest and appropriate use of nation-level gen-
der equity measures requires consideration of
several key questions or challenges. Traversing
the personal–political bridge means attending to
emergent issues within human development and
transnational feminism, as well as to classic issues
within research methods. We frame these issues as
questions for researchers to ask during the research
process.
Which Measures Are Best?
We clearly advocate for the use of domain-specific
measures because they are more meaningful indica-
tors that can point to specific mechanisms. As gen-
der equity is a multidimensional construct, which
is manifested or expressed in varied and sometimes
inconsistent ways locally and nationally, com-
posite measures may mask or suppress important
558
factors or processes. Composite indicators of gender
equity—which may be constructed from several
uncorrelated domain-specific measures—are not
equivalent to the internally consistent scales that
psychologists tend to develop and use. The assess-
ment of multiple domains and multiple indicators
within a single domain seems a good strategy, given
the multidimensionality of gender equity; in lieu
of using composite measures, a more meaningful
approach that maximizes construct validity would
be to analyze them with a multivariate technique.
Choosing the “right” measure of nation-level
gender equity depends on one’s theoretical orienta-
tion or causal model. Some domains or indicators
may be more germane to the topic than others. For
example, if a study grounded in the gender stratifi-
cation hypothesis (Else-Quest et al., 2010) is exam-
ining how nation-level gender equity might relate to
girls’ education and career goals, then indicators in
the education and economic domains are probably
more relevant than indicators in the health domain.
As developmental psychologists, we see many
theoretical perspectives that are compatible with
cross-national analysis, insofar as they maintain that
social, political, and historical contexts shape devel-
opmental processes and outcomes; these include
developmental intergroup theory (Bigler & Liben,
2007), ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner,
1989), cognitive social learning theory (Bussey &
Bandura, 1999), and expectancy-value theory
(Eccles, 1994), as well as many others. That is,
many theoretical perspectives posit that factors such
as gender equity are a part of the cultural milieu
in which we develop. In this way, gender equity
measures can be used to provide context and index
structural factors that shape or guide psychological
development.
Other issues to be considered in choosing a mea-
sure include statistical assumptions and limitations.
One such issue regards the sample size of nations
and the availability of indicators. Not all indicators
are available for all nations, and researchers may
want to prioritize maximizing statistical power.
Another issue regards the statistical assumption of
normality within many analytic techniques. Some
indicators are not normally distributed among
nations, and this will vary substantially with regard
 Measurement and Analysis of Nation-Level Gender Equity in the Psychology of Women
to the sample of nations included in a study. For
example, a sample of nations with highly educated
populations may see limited variability and non-
normal distributions in literacy rates and primary
educational enrollment ratios, and nonparametric
statistical techniques may be appropriate.
How Does Development Fit In?
Although it is not the case that high levels of human
development translate into high levels of gender
equity, human development (as a marker of wealth)
does confer an overall level of access to resources
that may be confused with gender equity. That is,
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
a nation with a higher HDI value may have greater
access to tertiary education relative to a nation with
a lower HDI value, despite less gender-equitable
accessibility of that education. Some gender equity
measures tap into wealth or human development
(Else-Quest & Grabe, 2012); it may be appropriate
to assess the contributions of those constructs. In
sum, although a nation’s wealth tells us little about
how girls and women will fare relative to boys and
men, it is important to recognize that resource scar-
city may affect women and men differently.
Where Am I?
Although transnational intersectionality is inher-
ently sensitive to power differentials linked to mul-
tiple social categories at the individual and nation
levels with the goal of empowering marginalized
and oppressed groups, cross-national investigations
are not. Situating oneself vis-à-vis one’s research and
acknowledging one’s own privilege and perspective
(i.e., engaging in reflexivity) are necessary to avoid
common challenges in cross-national and cross-
cultural research. Critiquing the work of Western
feminists engaged in such research, Mohanty (2003)
argued that
assumptions of privilege and ethnocen-
tric universality, on the one hand, and
inadequate self-consciousness about
the effect of Western scholarship on the
Third World in the context of a world
system dominated by the West, on the
other, characterize a sizable extent of
Western feminist work on women in the
Third World. (p. 19)
Our interpretation of results may be shaped by our
own location in an intersection; explicitly acknowl-
edging and reflecting on that possibility and how to
address it are essential to any intersectional work.
Related to this point, although psychologists enjoy
a certain amount of privilege related to their profes-
sional and educational status, they are not operat-
ing outside of a patriarchal societal structure. It is
important to remember that in no nation do women
and men enjoy comprehensive gender equity, and
gender inequity is manifested in myriad ways.
Acknowledging and reflecting on one’s intersec-
tional location invites a critical examination of our
values. Else-Quest and Grabe (2012) cautioned against
drawing ethical or moral conclusions about cultures
and nations when analyzing nation-level gender equity,
noting the long history of judgment and criticism
rooted in colonialism and imperialism. It can be chal-
lenging to find a middle ground between the extremes
of cultural relativism and jingoistic or nationalistic
absolutism, particularly when we are concerned about
social justice. Similarly, the goal of multiculturalism
to be inclusive and respectful of cultural diversity can
create conflicts for feminists: Some have argued that
multiculturalism or granting cultural accommodations
may serve to reinforce gender inequities within those
cultural groups (Song, 2005). We urge researchers to
be mindful of such complexities and also refer to the
Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action as a foun-
dation in these investigations for encouraging interna-
tional collaboration to address these concerns.
How Does My Research Support Girls’
and Women’s Development?
A cornerstone of feminist research is that it goes
beyond a reflection of the situation and the values
of the researcher to offer a prescription for change
(Grabe & Else-Quest, 2012). Likewise, transnational
intersectionality seeks to support the development
of girls’ and women’s freedom and well-being in
every nation. Inspired by the cross-cultural com-
monalities, as well as variations in sexism that limit
girls’ and women’s well-being around the world
and by a value of social justice, the Beijing Declara-
tion and Platform for Action (1995) called for the
development of gender equity indicators as tools to
gauge and advance the empowerment of women as
559
 Else-Quest and Hamilton
we progress toward gender equality. Many feminist
psychologists have used these indicators to identify
processes whereby gender-based inequities shape
girls’ and women’s well-being, connecting the politi-
cal to the personal. Yet, some have used these tools
to promote antifeminist agendas or to justify a status
quo in which structural gender-based inequities per-
sist. We hope that researchers who are using gender
equity indicators use them as a tool for achieving
gender equality, earnestly seeking to promote the
empowerment and well-being of girls and women.
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
Conclusion
In this chapter, we echo Else-Quest and Grabe’s
(2012) call for the expansion of the use of nation-
level gender equity measures in psychology and for
an explicitly feminist and emancipatory model in
which nation-level measures are (a) expanded in
breadth and utility, (b) used in a theoretically consis-
tent manner to index critical mechanisms, and
(c) applied in studying and fostering political change
to bring about the empowerment of women and girls
worldwide. Since that writing, the breadth and avail-
ability of nation-level measures has increased in terms
of constructs assessed and the sample of nations with
assessments. Yet, the cisgenderist and binary assump-
tions about gender continue to frame the measure-
ment of gender equity. Moreover, while the use of
nation-level gender equity measures is not as rare
as it once was, these measures are not consistently
used within feminist frameworks or toward feminist
goals. We are, nonetheless, grateful for the innovative
efforts of the UN to develop and improve nation-
level indicators of gender equity, which can inform
public policy and promote the well-being of girls and
women. We are hopeful that more psychologists will
integrate a transnational feminist perspective in their
work to achieve the goals described in the Beijing
Declaration and Platform for Action.
References
Agarwal, B. (1994). Field of one’s own: Property rights
in South Asia. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Agarwal, B. (1997). Editorial: Re-sounding the
alert—Gender, resources and community action.
560
World Development, 25, 1373–1380. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S0305-750X(97)00062-4
Aikman, S., & Unterhalter, E. (Eds.). (2005). Beyond access:
Transforming policy and practice for gender equality in
education. http://dx.doi.org/10.3362/9780855986605
Arnett, J. J. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why American
psychology needs to become less American. American
Psychologist, 63, 602–614. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0003-066X.63.7.602
Baker, D. P., & Jones, D. P. (1993). Creating gender
equality: Cross-national gender stratification and
mathematical performance. Sociology of Education,
66, 91–103. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2112795
Becht, M. C., & Vingerhoets, A. J. (2002). Crying and
mood change: A cross-cultural study. Cognition and
Emotion, 16, 87–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
02699930143000149
Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action. (1995).
New York, NY: United Nations Department of Public
Information.
Bigler, R. S., & Liben, L. S. (2007). Developmental
intergroup theory: Explaining and reducing
children’s social stereotypes and prejudice. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 162–166.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00496.x
Brandt, M. J. (2011). Sexism and gender inequality across
57 societies. Psychological Science, 22, 1413–1418.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797611420445
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory.
Annals of Child Development, 6, 187–249.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate
preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37
cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–14.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00023992
Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive
theory of gender development and differentiation.
Psychological Review, 106, 676–713. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.676
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National
Center for Health Statistics. (2013). Compressed
mortality file 1999–2010. Retrieved from http://
wonder.cdc.gov/cmf-icd10.html
Cobb, R. V., Greiner, D. J., & Quinn, K. M. (2012). Can
voter ID laws be administered in a race-neutral
manner? Evidence from the city of Boston in 2008.
Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 7, 1–33. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1561/100.00010098
Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in
psychology. American Psychologist, 64, 170–180.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014564
Costa, P. T., Jr., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001).
Gender differences in personality traits across
cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal
 Measurement and Analysis of Nation-Level Gender Equity in the Psychology of Women
of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 322–331.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322
Cueva Beteta, H. (2006). What is missing in measures
of women’s empowerment? Journal of Human
Development, 7, 221–241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
14649880600768553
Deere, C. D., & Doss, C. R. (2006). The gender asset gap:
What do we know and why does it matter? Feminist
Economics, 12, 1–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
13545700500508056
Devries, K. M., Mak, J. Y. T., García-Moreno, C., Petzold,
M., Child, J. C., & Falder, G., . . . Watts, C. H.
(2013). The global prevalence of intimate partner
violence against women. Science, 340, 1527–1528.
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex
differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions
versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54,
408–423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-
066X.54.6.408
Eastwick, P. W., Eagly, A. H., Glick, P., Johannesen-
Schmidt, M., Fiske, S. T., Blum, A., . . . Volpato, C.
(2006). Is traditional gender ideology associated with
sex-typed mate preferences? A test in nine nations.
Sex Roles, 54, 603–614. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s11199-006-9027-x
Eccles, J. S. (1994). Understanding women’s educational
and occupational choices: Applying the Eccles et al.
model of achievement-related choices. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 18, 585–609. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1471-6402.1994.tb01049.x
Else-Quest, N. M., & Grabe, S. (2012). The political is
personal: Measurement and application of nation-
level indicators of gender equity in psychological
research. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36,
131–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0361684312441592
Else-Quest, N. M., & Hyde, J. S. (2016a). Intersectionality
in quantitative psychological research: I. Theoretical
and epistemological issues. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 40, 155–170. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0361684316629797
Else-Quest, N. M., & Hyde, J. S. (2016b).
Intersectionality in quantitative psychological
research: II. Methods and techniques. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 40, 319–336. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0361684316647953
Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (2010).
Cross-national patterns of gender differences in
mathematics: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,
136, 103–127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018053
Fischer, A. H., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2000). The relation
between gender and emotion in different cultures.
In A. H. Fischer (Ed.), Gender and emotion: Social
psychological perspectives (pp. 71–94). http://
dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511628191.005
Fischer, A. H., Rodriguez Mosquera, P. M., van Vianen,
A. E. M., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2004). Gender and
culture differences in emotion. Emotion, 4, 87–94.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.4.1.87
Gillibrand, K. (2014). Off the sidelines: Speak up, be
fearless, and change your world. New York, NY:
Ballantine.
Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrams, D.,
Masser, B., . . . López, W. (2000). Beyond prejudice
as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism
across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 79, 763–775. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.763
Goetz, A. M., & Gupta, R. S. (1996). Who takes the
credit? Gender, power, and control over loan use
in rural credit programs in Bangladesh. World
Development, 24, 45–63. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/0305-750X(95)00124-U
Grabe, S. (2012). An empirical examination of women’s
empowerment and transformative change in the
context of international development. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 49, 233–245.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-011-9453-y
Grabe, S., & Else-Quest, N. M. (2012). The role of
transnational feminism in psychology: Complementary
visions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36, 158–161.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0361684312442164
Grabe, S., Grose, R. C., & Dutt, A. (2015). Women’s land
ownership and relationship power: A mixed methods
approach to understanding structural inequities
and violence against women. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 39, 7–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0361684314533485
Griscom, J. L. (1992). Women and power: Definition,
dualism, and difference. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 16, 389–414. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1471-6402.1992.tb00264.x
Guimond, S., Branscombe, N. R., Brunot, S., Buunk, A. P.,
Chatard, A., Désert, M., . . . Yzerbyt, V. (2007).
Culture, gender, and the self: Variations and impact
of social comparison processes. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 92, 1118–1134. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1118
Guiso, L., Monte, F., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L.
(2008). Diversity. Culture, gender, and math.
Science, 320, 1164–1165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/
science.1154094
Hausmann, R., Tyson, L. D., Bekhouche, Y., & Zahidi,
S. (2014). The global gender gap index 2014. Geneva,
Switzerland: World Economic Forum.
Heise, L., Ellsberg, M., & Gottemoeller, M. (1999). Ending
violence against women. Population Reports, 11(4), 2–38.
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The
weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain
561
 Else-Quest and Hamilton
Sciences, 33, 61–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
S0140525X0999152X
Hochschild, A. (1989). The second shift: Working parents
and the revolution at home. New York, NY: Viking.
Hogan, M. C., Foreman, K. J., Naghavi, M., Ahn, S. Y.,
Wang, M., Makela, S. M., . . . Murray, C. J. L. (2010).
Maternal mortality for 181 countries, 1980–2008: A
systematic analysis of progress towards Millennium
Development Goal 5. Lancet, 375, 1609–1623. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60518-1
Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis.
American Psychologist, 60, 581–592. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581
Hyde, J. S., & Else-Quest, N. M. (2013). Half the human
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
experience (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage.
Hyde, J. S., & Mertz, J. E. (2009). Gender, culture, and
mathematics performance. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, USA, 106, 8801–8807. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0901265106
Lippa, R. A. (2010). Sex differences in personality
traits and gender-related occupational preferences
across 53 nations: Testing evolutionary and social-
environmental theories. Archives of Sexual Behavior,
39, 619–636. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-
008-9380-7
Machin, S., & Pekkarinen, T. (2008). Assessment.
Global sex differences in test score variability.
Science, 322, 1331–1332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/
science.1162573
Marecek, J. (2012). The global is local: Adding culture,
ideology, and context to international psychology.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36, 149–153. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/0361684312441775
Martín-Baró, I. (1994). Writings for a liberation psychology.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality.
Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30,
1771–1800. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/426800
Meshkovska, B., Siegel, M., Stutterheim, S. E., & Bos, A. E.
(2015). Female sex trafficking: Conceptual issues,
current debates, and future directions. Journal of Sex
Research, 52, 380–395. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00224499.2014.1002126
Miller, D. I., Eagly, A. H., & Linn, M. C. (2015).
Women’s representation in science predicts national
gender-science stereotypes: Evidence from 66
nations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107,
631–644. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/edu0000005
Miller, D. I., & Halpern, D. F. (2014). The new science
of cognitive sex differences. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 18, 37–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.tics.2013.10.011
562
Millett, K. (1970). Sexual politics. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday.
Moane, G. (1999). Gender and colonialism: A psychological
analysis of oppression and liberation. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1057/9780230279377
Moane, G. (2010). Sociopolitical development and
political activism: Synergies between feminist
and liberation psychology. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 34, 521–529. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1471-6402.2010.01601.x
Mohanty, C. T. (2003). Feminism without borders:
Decolonizing theory, practicing solidarity. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1215/9780822384649
Napier, J. L., Thorisdottir, H., & Jost, J. T. (2010). The
joy of sexism? A multinational investigation of
hostile and benevolent justifications for gender
inequality and their relations to subjective well-
being. Sex Roles, 62, 405–419. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s11199-009-9712-7
Panda, P., & Agarwal, B. (2005). Marital violence, human
development, and women’s property status in India.
World Development, 33, 823–850. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.01.009
Penner, A. M. (2008). Gender differences in extreme
mathematical achievement: An international
perspective on biological and social factors. American
Journal of Sociology, 114(Suppl.), S138–S170. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1086/589252
Permanyer, I. (2013). A critical assessment of the UNDP’s
Gender Inequality Index. Feminist Economics, 19,
1–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2013.
769687
Petersen, J. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2010). A meta-analytic
review of research on gender differences in sexuality,
1993–2007. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 21–38. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017504
Pettigrew, T. F. (1991). Toward unity and bold theory:
Popperian suggestions for two persistent problems
of social psychology. In C. W. Stephan, W. G.
Stephan, & T. F. Pettigrew (Eds.), The future of social
psychology (pp. 13–27). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
978-1-4612-3120-2_2
Reilly, D. (2012). Gender, culture, and sex-typed
cognitive abilities. PLOS ONE, 7, e39904. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0039904
Riegle-Crumb, C. (2005). The cross-national context of
the gender gap in math and science. In L. Hedges &
B. Schneider (Eds.), The social organization of
schooling (pp. 227–243). New York, NY: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Riger, S. (1993). What’s wrong with empowerment.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 21,
279–292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00941504
 Measurement and Analysis of Nation-Level Gender Equity in the Psychology of Women
Rural Development Institute. (2010). Women and land.
Retrieved from http://www.rdiland.org/PDF/PDF_
Publications/Women_Land_Fact_Sheet_2009.pdf
Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. (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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.94.1.168
Schüler, D. (2006). The uses and misuses of the gender-
related development index and gender empowerment
measure: A review of the literature. Journal of Human
Development, 7, 161–181. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/14649880600768496
Song, S. (2005). Majority norms, multiculturalism, and gender
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
equality. American Political Science Review, 99, 473–489.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003055405051828
UNESCO. (2012). From access to equality: Empowering
girls and women through literacy and secondary
education. Paris, France: Author.
United Nations. (2014a). Abortion policies and
reproductive health around the world. New York, NY:
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social
Affairs, Population Division.
United Nations. (2014b). Guidelines for producing
statistics on violence against women. New York, NY:
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social
Affairs, Statistics Division.
United Nations. (2015). The world’s women 2015: Trends
and statistics. Retrieved from http://unstats.un.org/
unsd/gender/worldswomen.html
United Nations Development Programme. (2009). Human
development report 2009. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
United Nations Development Programme. (2010). Human
development report 2010. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
United Nations Development Programme. (2014). Human
development report 2014. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
United Nations Development Programme. (2015). Human
development report 2015. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2014).
Global report on trafficking in persons 2014. Vienna,
Austria: Author.
van Langen, A., Bosker, R., & Dekkers, H. (2006).
Exploring cross-national differences in gender gaps
in education. Educational Research and Evaluation,
12, 155–177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
13803610600587016
Walby, S. (2005). Measuring women’s progress in a
global era. International Social Science Journal,
57, 371–387. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
2451.2005.00556.x
Weber, D., Skirbekk, V., Freund, I., & Herlitz, A. (2014).
The changing face of cognitive gender differences
in Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, USA, 111, 11673–11678. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1073/pnas.1319538111
Yoder, J. D., & Kahn, A. S. (2003). Making gender
comparisons more meaningful: A call for more
attention to social context. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 27, 281–290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
1471-6402.00108
Zentner, M., & Eagly, A. (2015). A sociocultural
framework for understanding partner preferences
of women and men: Integration of concepts and
evidence. European Review of Social Psychology, 26,
328–373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2015.
1111599
Zentner, M., & Mitura, K. (2012). Stepping out of the
caveman’s shadow: Nations’ gender gap predicts
degree of sex differentiation in mate preferences.
Psychological Science, 23, 1176–1185. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797612441004
Zimmerman, M. A. (1995). Psychological empowerment:
Issues and illustrations. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 23, 581–599. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/BF02506983
563