How can we explain the variations in public attitudes towards gender equality across different countries? While many scholars have focused on the individual-level factors influencing public gender egalitarianism, there has been limited examination of national-level attributes. Based on world society theory and constructivist approaches, our study investigates how women’s empowerment at both the national and international levels interplays and impacts public perceptions of gender equality. Analysing data from 112 countries from 1980 to 2018, our findings from panel regression models indicate that women’s descriptive representation, regime durability, and the ratification of international women’s rights treaties positively influence public gender egalitarianism. Furthermore, interaction models reveal that democratic contexts amplify the positive effects of women’s descriptive representation, and a higher percentage of women in legislatures enhances the impact of INGOs on public attitudes towards gender equality.
AlexanderACParhizkariS (2018) A multilevel study of gender egalitarian values across Muslim-majority provinces: The role of women and urban spaces. International Review of Sociology28(3): 474–491.
2.
BanaszakLA (2006) The gendering state and citizens’ attitudes toward women’s roles: State policy, employment, and religion in Germany. Politics & Gender2(1): 29–55.
3.
Batista PereiraFPortoNF (2020) Gender attitudes and public opinion towards electoral gender quotas in Brazil. Political Psychology41(5): 887–899.
4.
BeamanLChattopadhyayRDufloE, et al. (2009) Powerful women: Does exposure reduce bias?The Quarterly Journal of Economics124(4): 1497–1540.
5.
BensteadLJ (2016) Explaining egalitarian attitudes: The role of interests and exposure. In: ShalabyMMoghadamV (eds) Empowering Women after the Arab Spring. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.119–146.
6.
BerghJ (2007) Gender attitudes and modernization processes. International Journal of Public Opinion Research19(1): 5–23.
7.
BiroliF (2018) Violence against women and reactions to gender equality in politics. Politics & Gender14(4): 681–685.
8.
BoserupETanSFToulminC (2013) Woman’s Role in Economic Development. New York: Routledge.
9.
BushSSZetterbergP (2021) Gender quotas and international reputation. American Journal of Political Science65(2): 326–341.
10.
ChoSY (2014) International women’s convention, democracy, and gender equality. Social Science Quarterly95(3): 719–739.
11.
CingranelliDLRichardsDL (2010) The Cingranelli and Richards (CIRI) human rights data project. Human Rights Quarterly32: 401–424.
12.
ColeWM (2013) Government respect for gendered rights: The effect of the convention on the elimination of discrimination against women on women’s rights outcomes, 1981–2004. International Studies Quarterly57(2): 233–249.
13.
ColeWM (2017) World polity or world society? Delineating the statist and societal dimensions of the global institutional system. International Sociology32(1): 86–104.
14.
CoppedgeMGerringJKnutsenCHLindbergSITeorellJ, et al. (2021) V-Dem Codebook v11. Available at SSRN:https://ssrn.com/abstract=3802627.
15.
CunninghamM (2007) Influences of women’s employment on the gendered division of household labor over the life course: Evidence from a 31-year panel study. Journal of Family Issues28(3): 422–444.
16.
DahlerupD (2013) Women, Quotas and Politics. New York: Routledge.
17.
DavisLSWilliamsonCR (2019) Does individualism promote gender equality?World Development123: 104627.
18.
DonnoDKreftA-K (2019) Authoritarian institutions and women’s rights. Comparative Political Studies52(5): 720–753.
19.
ElkinsZSimmonsB (2005) On waves, clusters, and diffusion: A conceptual framework. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science598(1): 33–51.
20.
El-MasriS (2012) Challenges facing CEDAW in the Middle East and North Africa. The International Journal of Human Rights16(7): 931–946.
21.
EnglehartNA (2009) State capacity, state failure, and human rights. Journal of Peace Research46(2): 163–180.
22.
EnglehartNAMillerMK (2014) The CEDAW effect: International law’s impact on women’s rights. Journal of Human Rights13(1): 22–47.
23.
ErikssonKBjörnstjernaMVartanovaI (2020) The relation between gender egalitarian values and gender differences in academic achievement. Frontiers in Psychology11: 236–250.
24.
FalkAHermleJ (2018) Relationship of gender differences in preferences to economic development and gender equality. Science362(6412): 1–6.
25.
FallonKMSwissLViternaJ (2012) Resolving the democracy paradox: Democratization and women’s legislative representation in developing nations, 1975 to 2009. American Sociological Review77(3): 380–408.
26.
FearonJDLaitinDD (2008) Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods. In: Box-SteffensmeierJMBradyHECollierD (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.756–778.
27.
FishMS (2002) Islam and authoritarianism. World Politics55(1): 4–37.
28.
FodorEHornD (2015) ‘Economic development’ and gender equality: Explaining variations in the gender poverty gap after socialism. Social Problems62(2): 286–308.
29.
Forman-RabinoviciASommerU (2018) Reproductive health policy-makers: Comparing the influences of international and domestic institutions on abortion policy. Public Administration96(1): 185–199.
30.
FortmannL (2006) Women and Gender Equity in Development Theory and Practice: Institutions, Resources, and Mobilization. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
31.
Garcia-RetameroRMüllerSMLópez-ZafraE (2011) The malleability of gender stereotypes: Influence of population size on perceptions of men and women in the past, present, and future. The Journal of Social Psychology151(5): 635–656.
32.
GornickJCMeyersMK (2008) Creating gender egalitarian societies: An agenda for reform. Politics & Society36(3): 313–349.
33.
GreenPMacLeodCJ (2016) SIMR: An R package for power analysis of generalized linear mixed models by simulation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution7(4): 493–498.
34.
HahnJHamJCMoonHR (2011) The Hausman test and weak instruments. Journal of Econometrics160(2): 289–299.
35.
HammondMDSibleyCG (2011) Why are benevolent sexists happier?Sex Roles65(5): 332–343.
36.
HannumEBuchmannC (2005) Global educational expansion and socio-economic development: An assessment of findings from the social sciences. World Development33(3): 333–354.
37.
HartleyJS (2021) Friedman’s plucking model: New international evidence from Maddison project data. Economics Letters199: 109724.
38.
HinojosaMKittilsonMC (2020) Seeing Women, Strengthening Democracy: How Women in Politics Foster Connected Citizens. New York: Oxford University Press.
39.
HtunMWeldonSL (2018) The Logics of Gender Justice: State Action on Women’s Rights around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40.
HuYSoltF (2024) Democracy, public support, and measurement uncertainty. American Political Science Review118: 512–518.
41.
HughesMM (2009) Armed conflict, international linkages, and women’s parliamentary representation in developing nations. Social Problems56(1): 174–204.
42.
HughesMMPaxtonPClaytonAB, et al. (2019) Global gender quota adoption, implementation, and reform. Comparative Politics51(2): 219–238.
43.
HuntingtonSP (1996) The west: Unique, not universal. Foreign Affairs75(6): 28–46.
44.
InglehartR (1997) Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic and Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
45.
InglehartRNorrisPRonaldI (2003) Rising Tide: Gender Equality and Cultural Change around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46.
KassaBESarikakisK (2022) Shrinking communicative space for media and gender equality civil society organizations. Feminist Media Studies22(7): 1745–1762.
47.
KeckMESikkinkK (1998) Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
48.
KimJ (2020) The diffusion of international Women’s rights norms to individual attitudes: The differential roles of world polity and world society. Sociology of Development6(4): 459–492.
49.
KimJFallonKM (2023) Making women visible: How gender quotas shape global attitudes toward women in politics. Politics & Gender19: 981–1006.
50.
KittilsonMC (2005) In support of gender quotas: Setting new standards, bringing visible gains. Politics & Gender1(4): 638–645.
51.
KostenkoVVKuzmuchevPAPonarinED (2016) Attitudes towards gender equality and perception of democracy in the Arab world. Democratization23(5): 862–891.
52.
KraussWR (1974) Political implications of gender roles: A review of the literature. American Political Science Review68(4): 1706–1723.
53.
LombardoEMeierP (2017) Capturing in words what a symbol symbolizes? Challenges for studying symbolic representation from a discursive approach. Politics, Groups, and Identities5(3): 482–487.
54.
LynessKSJudieschMK (2014) Gender egalitarianism and work–life balance for managers: Multisource perspectives in 36 countries. Applied Psychology63(1): 96–129.
55.
MansuriGRaoV (2013) Can participation be induced? Some evidence from developing countries. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy16(2): 284–304.
56.
MeyerJWBoliJThomasGM, et al. (1997) World society and the nation-state. American Journal of Sociology103(1): 144–181.
57.
MurdieAPeksenD (2015) Women’s rights INGO shaming and the government respect for women’s rights. The Review of International Organizations10: 1–22.
58.
NeumayerE (2005) Do international human rights treaties improve respect for human rights?Journal of Conflict Resolution49(6): 925–953.
59.
PampelF (2011) Cohort changes in the socio-demographic determinants of gender egalitarianism. Social Forces89(3): 961–982.
60.
PandianRK (2019) World society integration and gender attitudes in cross-national context. Social Forces97(3): 1095–1126.
61.
PaxtonPHughesMM (2015) The increasing effectiveness of national gender quotas, 1990–2010. Legislative Studies Quarterly40(3): 331–362.
62.
PaxtonPHughesMMBarnesTD (2020) Women, Politics, and Power: A Global Perspective. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
63.
PierottiRS (2013) Increasing rejection of intimate partner violence: Evidence of global cultural diffusion. American Sociological Review78(2): 240–265.
64.
PitkinHF (1967) The Concept of Representation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
65.
RamirezFOSoysalYShanahanS (1997) The changing logic of political citizenship: Cross-national acquisition of women’s suffrage rights, 1890 to 1990. American Sociological Review62: 735–745.
66.
RindfussRRBrewsterKLKaveeAL (1996) Women, work, and children: Behavioral and attitudinal change in the United States. Population and Development Review22: 457–482.
67.
RisseTRoppSCSikkinkK (1999) The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
68.
RöderAMühlauP (2014) Are they acculturating? Europe’s immigrants and gender egalitarianism. Social Forces92(3): 899–928.
69.
ScarboroughWJSinRRismanB (2019) Attitudes and the stalled gender revolution: Egalitarianism, traditionalism, and ambivalence from 1977 through 2016. Gender & Society33(2): 173–200.
70.
SinghMK (2018) Gender and women empowerment approaches: Interventions through PRIs and CSOs in Northern India. Women’s Studies International Forum71: 63–67.
71.
SowF (2020) Social change and the role of feminist movements, CSOs and networks in raising awareness on women in public and political life. In: Proceedings of the UN women expert group meeting, New York, 5–8 October, pp.5–8. New York: UN Women.
72.
StoffelsRA (2019) The role of the CEDAW Committee in the implementation of public policies on gender issues: Analysis through a study of the protection of girls’ rights in Spain. The International Journal of Human Rights23(8): 1317–1336.
73.
TeorellJDahlbergSHolmbergS, et al. (2018) The quality of government standard dataset. University of Gothenburg: The Quality of Government Institute. DOI:10.18157/QoGStdJan18
TrueJMintromM (2001) Transnational networks and policy diffusion: The case of gender mainstreaming. International Studies Quarterly45(1): 27–57.
76.
WängnerudL (2009) Women in parliaments: Descriptive and substantive representation. Annual Review of Political Science12: 51–69.
77.
WolbrechtCCampbellDE (2007) Leading by example: Female members of parliament as political role models. American Journal of Political Science51(4): 921–939.
78.
WooB-D (2021) Women’s descriptive representation facilitates the adoption and implementation of laws relating to violence against women: Evidence from Asian countries. Asian Women37(2): 1–33.
79.
WooB-D (2022) The impacts of gender-related factors on the adoption of anti-human trafficking laws in Sub-Saharan African countries. Sage Open12(2): 1–17.
80.
WooB-DAllemangLSoltF (2022) Public gender egalitarianism: A dataset of dynamic comparative public opinion toward egalitarian gender roles in the public sphere. British Journal of Political Science53(2): 766–775.
81.
WooB-DRyuKE (2022) The nonlinear impact of women’s descriptive representation: An empirical study on the ratification of women rights treaties. Contemporary Politics29(1): 114–140.
82.
YuWHLeePL (2013) Decomposing gender beliefs: Cross-national differences in attitudes toward maternal employment and gender equality at home. Sociological Inquiry83(4): 591–621.
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.
