Application of agent-based modeling to the study of gender stereotypes

Gender stereotypes are sets of characteristics that people believe to be typically true of a man or woman. We report an agent-based model (ABM) that simulates how stereotypes disseminate in a group through associative mechanisms. The model consists of agents that carry one of several different versions of a stereotype, which share part of their conceptual content. When an agent acts according to his/her stereotype, and that stereotype is shared by an observer, then the latter’s stereotype strengthens. Contrarily, if the agent does not act according to his/ her stereotype, then the observer’s stereotype weakens. In successive interactions, agents develop preferences, such that there will be a higher probability of interaction with agents that confirm their stereotypes. Depending on the proportion of shared conceptual content in the stereotype’s different versions, three dynamics emerge: all stereotypes in the population strengthen, all weaken, or a bifurcation occurs, i.e., some strengthen and some weaken. Additionally, we discuss the use of agent-based modeling to study social phenomena and the practical consequences that the model’s results might have on stereotype research and their effects on a community

Inequality of opportunity in educational achievement in Latin America: evidence from PISA 2006-2009

We assess inequality of opportunity in educational achievement in six Latin American countries, employing two waves of PISA data (2006 and 2009). By means of a non-parametric approach using a decomposable inequality index, GE(0), we rank countries according to their degree of inequality of opportunity. We work with alternative characterizations of types: school type (public or private), gender, parental education, and combinations of those variables. We calculate incremental contributions of each set of circumstances to inequality. We provide rankings of countries based on unconditional inequalities (using conventional indices) and on conditional inequalities (EOp indices), and the two sets of rankings do not always coincide. Inequality of opportunities range from less than 1% to up to 27%, with substantial heterogeneity according to the year, the country, the subject and the specificication of circumstances. Robustness checks based on bootstrap and the use of an alternative index confirm most of the initial results.