Cognitive Strategies and Social Attitudes That Perpetuate Gender Inequality in Secondary Education Students

Abstract

The research analyzed the cognitive styles, sexist attitudes and social competencies that hinder gender equality in secondary education students. It identified sexist attitudes, cognitive styles and social skills that hinder change towards gender equality; explored significant differences in sexist attitudes and cognitive strategies and social attitudes by age; studied the relationship between sexist attitudes and cognitive and social strategies that perpetuate gender inequality; and analyzed how age may predict the use of these strategies. A total of 1034 students aged 11 to 18 participated in a cross-sectional study. The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory for Adolescents and the Questionnaire of Attitudes and Cognitive Social Strategies were administered. The results indicate that young people exhibit moderate levels of cognitive and social strategies that hinder the change in sexist behaviors. At ages 12–14, the acceptance of ambivalent and benevolent attitudes such as paternalism and heterosexual intimacy increases. We found greater aggressiveness–stubbornness, apathy–withdrawal, impulsivity, and rigidity of thought at ages 15–17. Age explains a small proportion of the variance in sexist attitudes, cognitive styles, and social competencies that hinder gender equality. The study highlights the need for coeducational measures that ensure equal cognitive and socio-emotional development in women and men.

1. Introduction

Currently, several authors highlight patterns of thought and behavior that can predispose individuals to resisting change in their ideas, habits and social attitudes. This can make it difficult for them to adopt new behaviors and ways of thinking (Castro 1999; Chen et al. 2021; Kowalick 1999).

Despite social advances in gender studies, evidence indicates that sexist attitudes persist, along with cognitive styles and social strategies that hinder the change in discriminatory behavior towards women. In this respect, when it comes to clarifying the psychological barriers that contribute to the perpetuation of gender-based violence, there are studies that recognize the relevance of cognitive strategies and social attitudes in the consolidation of these patterns. Several studies have shown that gender traits, stereotypes and roles acquired through sociocultural influence have a significant impact on the formation of sexist attitudes and the manifestation of discriminatory behavior (Conopoima-Moreno 2019; Fernández et al. 2011; Martínez et al. 2019; Muñoz 2001). This is why the inequality and dominance–submissive behavior that underlies gender-based violence requires a multi-disciplinary approach. From a sociological perspective, it is essential to analyze the socio-cultural conditions that shape the individual’s environment, while from a psychological approach, cognitive, affective, and social processes that characterize the person must be considered (Lorente 2003; Rojas 2005; Urruzola 2003).

Castro et al. (2001) identified six factors that contribute to the maintenance of patterns of thinking and behavior that negatively predispose to change and hinder the adoption of more adaptive attitudes: influence, considered as the lack of personal confidence that leads to the subordination of one’s own ideas and emotions to those of others; passivity, as the lack of foresight that causes the individual to adopt a passive attitude and an inflexible resistance to change; self-determination, the absence of any social contribution as a consequence of extreme self-determination patterns that limit the self-regulation of behaviors and thoughts; change, the rigid and uncompromising attitude towards upcoming events; tendency to action, the propensity to develop imposing and authoritarian social interaction patterns; and, finally, innovation, as the lack of formation of new social structures and the ability to integrate into them.

Understanding cognitive strategies and social attitudes will allow us to more precisely define the resistance to change experienced by individuals throughout the life cycle and how gender equality is affected. This is one of the most widespread social issues today, starting from early childhood (Gao et al. 2020; Hernández-Flórez et al. 2024; Marugán 2022).

From an early age, individuals begin to form their gender identity according to cultural norms and social reinforcements linked to imposed traditional roles. In this way, boys and girls develop a conception of gender influenced by their environment. Once they acquire the ability to categorize individuals on the basis of gender, they begin a systematic process of associating that attribute with certain traits, attitudes and behaviors that culture has historically assigned to men and women (Brown and Stone 2016).

These ecosystemic influences are responsible for associations between authoritarian leadership, dominance, and action capacity with the male role and dependence, submission, and expressiveness with the female role (Larrañaga and Sánchez 2017; Venegas 2020).

These associations are internalized from an early age and integrated into cognitive schemas that guide social perception and behavior. In that way, gender stereotypes can operate at both the explicit and implicit levels.

Thus, while explicit stereotypes reflect deliberate beliefs that may be openly expressed, implicit stereotypes operate automatically and are often deeply ingrained, shaping attitudes.

In this sense, the results of Guizzo et al. (2019) provide empirical evidence to understand how implicit gender stereotypes operate as cognitive filters that influence the way in which individuals interpret and internalize social messages about feminine and masculine capabilities. This study demonstrates that these implicit stereotypes can generate internal conflicts when they are confronted with messages that challenge them. The research shows that even when people claim to believe in gender equality, the internalized implicit schemas may conflict with messages that contradict their deeply held beliefs, leading to resistance, anxiety or demotivation. This dissonance reveals that sexist attitudes are not always overt, but often operate below the surface, conditioning the way adolescents and adults deal with situations of evaluation, decision-making or social interaction. Therefore, addressing gender equality in adolescence requires not only educational interventions that address explicit beliefs, but also strategies to identify and transform implicit associations deeply rooted in gender socialization.

At the same time, sexist attitudes are not necessarily hostile but are often subtle and socially normalized, making them difficult to identify and challenge (Brown and Stone 2016). Glick and Fiske’s (2001) theory of ambivalent sexism supports this, positing the coexistence of discriminatory expressions towards women ranging from overt and coercive forms to more subtle manifestations, such as those presented under the guise of benevolence. Although the latter simulates positive affection, it conceals intentions of control and subordination based on a stereotyped and biased representation of the female figure.

Due to this structural inequality, social discrimination arises, maintaining and reinforcing sexist practices towards women, which perpetuate throughout the life cycle.

In this respect, as highlighted by González-Gijón et al. (2024), gender stereotypes are transmitted from generation to generation and tend to become naturalized, making it difficult to question and deconstruct them. This process is particularly intensified during pre-adolescence, a stage where there is greater pressure to conform to traditional gender roles, especially in men, who have more ingrained gender stereotypes than women. Nevertheless, both show high levels of internalization of these attitudes.

In this context of inequality, adolescence plays a crucial role, as it is a developmental stage where the social approval of the normative group is decisive in how the individual perceives and understands reality, shaping their behavior towards prosocial, antisocial, or asocial patterns (Donnelly and Twenge 2017; González-Rivera and Díaz-Loving 2019; Ortega and Lluna 2016; Ruiz-Palomino et al. 2010; Velasco and Hernández 2017). Similarly, during this stage, responsibility and autonomy in decision-making are built, while the rigidity characteristic of childhood tends to transform into greater flexibility (Carbonell and Mestre 2018; Lemus et al. 2008; Sagone et al. 2018).

Therefore, considering age in the analysis of sexist attitudes not only allows us to detect these patterns in their earliest stages but also to identify the critical moments in which educational intervention is most effective. As Pozo et al. (2010) point out, addressing these attitudes from childhood and adolescence is essential to prevent them from becoming consolidated in adulthood as normalized behaviors.

In this way, achieving gender-equal relationships requires a structural change in traditional socialization models, promoting gender identities free from stereotypes from childhood and youth (Delgado 2015; Martínez and Suberviola 2024). This challenge requires the development of emotional, cognitive, and behavioral skills that promote the transformation of models that perpetuate gender inequality, replacing them with more equitable coeducational approaches (Kuula et al. 2020).

Several studies suggest that improving skills that counteract the cognitive and social mechanisms hindering openness to change is key to preventing gender inequality and violence, as well as promoting the mental health and well-being of individuals (Berrios et al. 2020; Blázquez et al. 2009; Tajmirriyahi and Ickes 2022).

The objectives of this research are (1) to analyze the cognitive style, sexist attitudes, and social competencies that hinder the change in discriminatory behaviors towards women in secondary education students; (2) to determine if there are significant differences in cognitive style, social competencies, and sexist attitudes based on age; (3) to study the relationship between the cognitive and social strategies of young people and sexist attitudes; and (4) to determine if age significantly predicts the cognitive strategies and social attitudes that perpetuate gender inequality. Thus, (1) it is expected that there are cognitive styles, sexist attitudes and social competencies that make it difficult to change discriminatory behaviors towards women in secondary education students; (2) it is proposed that there are significant differences in cognitive style, social competencies and sexist attitudes as a function of age; (3) it is estimated that there is a significant relationship between young people’s cognitive and social strategies and their gender attitudes; finally, (4) age is expected to significantly predict the use of cognitive strategies and social attitudes that perpetuate gender inequality.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

The sample consisted of 1034 secondary education students. The participants were 518 females and 516 males, aged between 11 and 18 years. The study was conducted in the Autonomous Community of Extremadura (Spain).

Convenience sampling was used to select the students. Cluster sampling allowed us to determine the class groups of the different educational levels. Once the clusters were defined, the groups that would form the final sample were randomly selected to avoid random responses that could compromise the reliability and validity of the research.

All educational centers are publicly managed and depend on the competent Education Administration of the Autonomous Community. The educational centers where the research was conducted showed similarities in terms of the socioeconomic and educational level of the families.

2.2. Instruments

The instruments used to evaluate the research variables were as follows:

• Ambivalent Sexism Inventory for Adolescents (ISA) (Lemus et al. 2008). This is an adapted version for adolescents of the test by Glick and Fiske (1996). The inventory evaluates ambivalent sexism (AS) through two subscales: benevolent sexism (BS), which includes a set of sexist attitudes towards women, viewing them in a stereotypical manner and restricted to certain roles; and hostile sexism (HS), which fully corresponds to the traditional concept of sexism. This test consists of 20 items. The benevolent sexism (BS) subscale is further divided into 3 factors (heterosexual intimacy, gender complementarity, and paternalism). Adolescents must respond to the extent they agree with the content of the items on a Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Reliability has adequate indices. The Cronbach’s Alpha of the ambivalent sexism scale is α = 0.83, the benevolent sexism subscale is α = 0.77, and the hostile sexism subscale is α = 0.84.
• Social Cognitive Attitudes and Strategies Questionnaire (AECS) (Moraleda et al. 1998). This is an objective assessment tool aimed at determining the social cognitive attitudes and strategies that positively or negatively influence young people’s social adaptation to their environment. The test consists of 137 items that evaluate 10 thinking strategies and 9 attitudes. At the attitudinal or social competence level, it measures three factors: (1) prosocial factor (social sensitivity, conformity, security and firmness, help and collaboration, and leadership); (2) antisocial factor (dominance and aggressiveness–stubbornness); and (3) asocial factor (anxiety–shyness and apathy–withdrawal). Regarding social cognitive strategies, it measures two factors: (1) rigidity of thought and (2) impulsivity. The test uses a scale from 1 to 7 (1 = if what the statement says does not apply to you at all and 7 = if what the statement says applies to you very much). Reliability has adequate indices. The Cronbach’s Alpha for attitudes is as follows: social sensitivity α = 0.70; conformity α = 0.59; security and firmness α = 0.62; help and collaboration α = 0.70; leadership α = 0.61; dominance α = 0.54; aggressiveness–stubbornness α = 0.66; anxiety/shyness α = 0.62; and apathy–withdrawal α = 0.57. The Cronbach’s Alpha for strategies is as follows: rigidity of thought α = 0.35; impulsivity α = 0.66.

2.3. Procedure

Regarding the procedure, we first requested the necessary permissions to conduct the study from the Autonomous Community. Once the research was authorized, the instruments were administered in the educational centers. The evaluations were carried out through collective applications in a session lasting 50–60 min. To ensure the validity of the data collection, the four evaluators who administered the tests received prior training.

The participants’ responses to the instruments were treated with complete confidentiality. Each subject was assigned a numerical code so that the information obtained could not be linked to their identity.

2.4. Data Analysis

First, a descriptive analysis of the research variables was conducted: cognitive style, social strategies, and sexist attitudes that hinder gender equality. For the inferential analysis, we applied a one-way ANOVA to analyze significant differences in cognitive style, social strategies, and sexist attitudes based on age. Additionally, we performed a correlational analysis to determine the relationship between cognitive style, social strategies, and sexist attitudes. Finally, we conducted a linear regression analysis and an ordinal logistic regression analysis to determine if age significantly predicts sexist attitudes and cognitive style, social strategies that hinder gender equality.

To do this, we first checked if the variables met the validity conditions for applying a one-way ANOVA. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used to establish the normal distribution of the population, the Runs test to determine the randomness of the sample, and Levene’s test to determine homoscedasticity. Once confirmed, a one-way ANOVA was used to study the equality of means and whether it is the same for the levels of the factor variable, in this case, between cognitive and social strategies and sexist attitudes based on age. Additionally, Pearson’s correlation was carried out to analyze the relationship between sexist attitudes and cognitive style and social strategies of secondary education students according to age. Finally, a linear regression analysis and an ordinal logistic regression were performed to determine to what extent age significantly predicts sexist attitudes and cognitive style and social strategies that hinder the change in discriminatory behaviors towards women.

SPSS version 27 was used for statistical analyses.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Analysis

Regarding the descriptive analysis, the AECS results reveal that students do not exhibit a cognitive style and social strategies that hinder attitude change. In the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory for Adolescents (ISA), the results are moderate in hostile, benevolent, and ambivalent sexism, as well as in the three factors of benevolent sexism (heterosexual intimacy, gender complementarity, and paternalism).

The results show the scores in

Table 1. Descriptive statistics.

	M	SD
Prosocial Attitudes
Social Conformity	37.9	6.7
Social Sensitivity	39.2	6.9
Help and Collaboration	53.4	8.0
Security and Firmness	44.4	7.8
Prosocial Leadership	13.9	3.9
Antisocial Attitudes
Aggressiveness–Stubbornness	22.3	7.3
Dominance	11.6	4.9
Asocial Attitudes
Apathy–Withdrawal	19.1	8.4
Anxiety–Shyness	18.9	7.9
Cognitive Style
Impulsivity	19.5	7.0
Rigidity of Thought	15.4	5.5
Sexist Attitudes
Hostile Sexism	3.0	1.0
Benevolent Sexism	3.8	1.0
Paternalism	3.9	1.2
Gender Complementarity	3.8	1.4
Heterosexual Intimacy	3.6	1.3
Ambivalent Sexism	3.4	1.0

.

3.2. Inferential Analysis

Regarding cognitive style, social strategies, and sexist attitudes based on age, the data after performing a one-way ANOVA conclude significant differences between age groups with small effect sizes. In the antisocial scale, significant differences are observed according to age: aggressiveness–stubbornness (F = 2.839; p = 0.006; η² = 0.019). As for asocial attitudes, significant differences are found according to age in apathy–withdrawal (F = 2.387; p = 0.020; η² = 0.016). Similarly, significant differences are found in the cognitive style scales: impulsivity (F = 2.490; p = 0.015; η² = 0.017) and rigidity of thought (F = 2.373; p = 0.021; η² = 0.016).

Regarding sexist attitudes, there are significant differences in various manifestations according to age with small effect sizes: benevolent sexism (F = 3.144; p = 0.003; η² = 0.021) and its components paternalism (F = 2.140; p = 0.037; η² = 0.014) and heterosexual intimacy (F = 3.284; p = 0.002; η² = 0.022). Additionally, significant differences are found according to age in ambivalent sexism (F = 2.105; p = 0.041; η² = 0.014) (see

Table 2. One-way ANOVA related to social strategies, cognitive style, and sexist attitudes based on age.

				Age
				11		12		13		14		15		16		17		18
	F	Sig.	η2	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Prosocial Attitudes
Social Conformity	1.591	0.134	0.011	38.74	5.916	37.32	7.085	35.25	7.218	36.91	6.597	37.83	7.705	35.95	5.511	36.31	6.325	33.46	7.610
Social Sensitivity	0.866	0.533	0.006	39.94	4.899	39.72	6.210	38.41	5.960	35.84	7.133	36.91	5.751	36.94	6.791	35.23	6.422	32.25	7.001
Help and Collaboration	0.281	0.962	0.002	55.53	7.962	53.62	8.673	50.35	9.060	56.94	8.573	53.84	8.103	52.46	9.061	50.22	8.535	50.32	7.955
Security and Firmness	1.302	0.246	0.009	44.73	7.911	43.91	6.945	44.35	7.901	40.65	8.351	42.03	7.355	40.93	8.867	40.64	7.546	39.09	8.045
Prosocial Leadership	0.756	0.624	0.005	15.79	3.275	14.83	2.989	12.44	3.950	12.41	4.123	14.61	4.128	15.85	4.022	15.75	3.623	16.13	2.998
Antisocial Attitudes
Aggressiveness–Stubbornness	2.839	0.006 (*)	0.019	22.43	8.150	20.32	6.980	24.25	7.865	22.24	6.994	31.46	8.002	27.64	7.834	27.43	7.515	25.63	7.074
Dominance	2.014	0.050	0.014	13.83	4.426	11.09	5.231	11.23	4.856	10.84	5.617	13.94	4.159	12.46	5.351	12.08	5.239	13.13	4.897
Asocial Attitudes
Apathy–Withdrawal	2.387	0.020 (*)	0.016	19.32	8.323	19.43	7.422	18.99	8.523	20.53	8.463	25.96	8.050	19.56	7.133	20.34	7.513	20.50	8.129
Anxiety–Shyness	0.619	0.740	0.004	16.84	7.412	20.03	8.122	20.93	7.641	19.84	8.558	19.92	8.112	18.12	8.864	17.36	8.465	17.43	8.458
Cognitive Style
Impulsivity	2.490	0.015 (*)	0.017	19.24	7.153	19.42	8.567	20.15	8.322	17.41	7.362	20.54	8.124	30.32	8.581	21.42	7.351	22.43	7.424
Rigidity of Thought	2.373	0.021 (*)	0.016	15.64	5.363	15.42	4.742	13.43	5.734	14.43	4.678	21.83	5.834	14.58	4.519	21.32	5.575	12.01	5.855
Sexist Attitudes
Hostile Sexism	0.692	0.679	0.005	3.13	1.204	3.01	0.964	3.08	0.998	3.06	1.029	2.95	0.938	2.99	0.949	2.87	0.894	3.67	2.082
Benevolent Sexism	3.144	0.003 (*)	0.021	4.00	0.966	3.78	1.016	3.92	1.086	3.85	1.026	3.74	0.993	3.46	0.958	3.41	0.966	4.33	0.577
Paternalism	2.140	0.037 (*)	0.014	4.19	0.911	3.74	1.279	4.04	1.231	3.96	1.133	3.83	1.170	3.62	1.062	3.74	1.069	4.00	1.000
Gender Complementarity	1.547	0.148	0.010	4.25	1.291	3.86	1.325	3.86	1.396	3.79	1.348	3.73	1.400	3.52	1.233	3.36	1.513	3.67	0.577
Heterosexual Intimacy	3.284	0.002 (*)	0.022	3.75	1.483	3.69	1.231	3.73	1.303	3.69	1.332	3.43	1.272	3.15	1.238	3.26	1.446	4.33	0.577
Ambivalent Sexism	2.105	0.041 (*)	0.014	3.69	0.946	3.35	0.918	3.47	0.960	3.44	0.912	3.32	0.916	3.15	0.855	3.15	0.812	3.67	1.155

(*) p < 0.05.

).

To verify between which age groups these differences exist, we used Tukey’s method as a multiple comparisons procedure. Regarding age groups, the results show significant differences. In antisocial attitudes, we found differences in aggressiveness–stubbornness between 12 and 15 years old, with 15-year-olds showing the highest scores (p = 0.004). Regarding asocial attitudes, significant differences in apathy–withdrawal are observed between the age groups of 13 and 15 years old, with 15-year-olds showing the highest values (p = 0.045). In cognitive style, there are significant differences in impulsivity between subjects aged 14 and 16 years old, with 16-year-olds showing the highest scores (p = 0.006), while significant differences in rigidity of thought are found in students aged 13 and 15 years old, with 15-year-olds having the highest scores (p = 0.037), and in young people aged 17 and 18 years old, with 17-year-olds having the highest scores (p = 0.044).

Regarding sexist attitudes, there are significant differences in benevolent sexism between the age groups of 13 and 16, with 13-year-olds showing higher scores (p = 0.004), and between 14 and 16, with 14-year-olds showing higher scores (p = 0.034). In the subscales, significant differences are found in paternalism between the age groups of 13 and 16, with 13-year-olds showing higher scores (p = 0.041). Significant differences are found in heterosexual intimacy between the age groups of 12 and 16, with 12-year-olds showing higher scores (p = 0.019); between students aged 13 and 16, with 13-year-olds showing higher scores (p = 0.005); and between young people aged 14 and 16, with 14-year-olds showing higher scores (p = 0.016). In ambivalent sexism, significant differences are found between the age groups of 13 and 16, with 13-year-olds showing higher scores (p = 0.040).

Regarding the correlational analysis between social strategies, cognitive style, and sexist attitudes based on age, the data show the significant correlations in

Table 3. Correlational analysis between social strategies, cognitive style, and sexist attitudes of young people based on age.

			Prosocial Attitudes					Antisocial Attitudes		Asocial Attitudes		Cognitive Style
Age			Social Conformity	Social Sensitivity	Help and Collaboration	Security and Firmness	Prosocial Leadership	Aggressiveness–Stubbornness	Dominance	Apathy–Withdrawal	Anxiety–Shyness	Impulsivity	Rigidity of Thought
11	Hostile Sexism		−0.229	−0.100	0.210	0.221	−0.072	0.163	0.205	0.321	−0.003	0.160	0.279
	Benevolent Sexism	Paternalism	−0.386	−0.183	0.174	0.088	−0.143	0.444	0.306	0.495	0.449	0.470	0.623 (**)
		Gender Complementarity	−0.463	−0.229	−0.171	−0.367	0.113	−0.053	0.134	0.021	0.191	0.182	0.208
		Heterosexual Intimacy	−0.342	0.096	0.261	−0.001	−0.262	−0.053	−0.013	0.281	0.145	0.112	−0.003
	Ambivalent Sexism		−0.474	−0.297	0.198	0.132	−0.178	0.130	0.341	0.411	0.180	0.341	0.441
12	Hostile Sexism		−0.167 (*)	−0.106	−0.139	−0.009	−0.003	0.301 (**)	0.392 (**)	0.281 (**)	0.197 (**)	0.243 (**)	0.166 (*)
	Benevolent Sexism	Paternalism	−0.174 (*)	−0.059	−0.123	0.020	−0.055	0.212 (**)	0.255 (**)	0.142	0.171 (*)	0.123	0.029
		Gender Complementarity	0.016	0.122	0.080	0.107	0.141	0.233 (**)	0.239 (**)	0.135	0.036	0.109	0.112
		Heterosexual Intimacy	−0.089	0.005	0.002	0.029	0.124	0.178 (*)	0.267 (**)	0.080	0.134	0.232 (**)	0.028
	Ambivalent Sexism		−0.182 (*)	−0.054	−0.094	0.020	0.028	0.303 (**)	0.430 (**)	0.234 (**)	0.191 (**)	0.242 (**)	0.103
13	Hostile Sexism		−0.108	−0.088	−0.053	0.073	0.090	0.349 (**)	0.407 (**)	0.269 (**)	0.118	0.220 (**)	0.222 (**)
	Benevolent Sexism	Paternalism	−0.112	0.038	−0.019	0.066	0.126 (*)	0.308 (**)	0.339 (**)	0.213 (**)	0.062	0.281 (**)	0.145 (*)
		Gender Complementarity	0.010	−0.037	−0.003	0.044	0.147 (*)	0.129 (*)	0.160 (**)	0.100	0.028	0.126 (*)	0.004
		Heterosexual Intimacy	0.003	0.061	0.062	0.029	0.185 (**)	0.188 (**)	0.215 (**)	0.118	0.115	0.156 (*)	0.085
	Ambivalent Sexism		−0.100	−0.016	−0.016	0.113	0.191 (**)	0.375 (**)	0.423 (**)	0.272 (**)	0.151 (*)	0.298 (**)	0.177 (**)
14	Hostile Sexism		−0.156 (*)	−0.028	−0.076	−0.049	0.110	0.279 (**)	0.293 (**)	0.112	0.020	0.269 (**)	0.162 (*)
	Benevolent Sexism	Paternalism	−0.092	0.073	0.062	0.099	0.136 (*)	0.187 (**)	0.219 (**)	0.053	−0.027	0.216 (**)	0.180 (**)
		Gender Complementarity	−0.119	−0.004	−0.044	−0.047	0.111	0.203 (**)	0.153 (*)	0.077	0.043	0.142 (*)	0.085
		Heterosexual Intimacy	0.063	0.138 (*)	0.024	0.173 (**)	0.104	0.164 (*)	0.058	−0.054	−0.011	0.186 (**)	0.158 (*)
	Ambivalent Sexism		−0.114	0.027	−0.031	0.000	0.155 (*)	0.279 (**)	0.252 (**)	0.091	0.011	0.281 (**)	0.193 (**)
15	Hostile Sexism		0.065	0.002	0.027	0.034	0.064	0.293 (**)	0.343 (**)	0.354 (**)	0.129	0.259 (**)	0.260 (**)
	Benevolent Sexism	Paternalism	0.052	0.055	0.094	0.117	0.102	0.238 (**)	0.346 (**)	0.158 (*)	−0.047	0.229 (**)	0.082
		Gender Complementarity	−0.121	−0.162 (*)	−0.154 (*)	−0.073	−0.040	0.215 (**)	0.252 (**)	0.186 (**)	0.053	0.162 (*)	0.021
		Heterosexual Intimacy	−0.039	−0.107	−0.031	0.012	−0.012	0.266 (**)	0.367 (**)	0.184 (*)	0.075	0.266 (**)	0.165 (*)
	Ambivalent Sexism		0.003	−0.043	−0.004	0.037	0.056	0.339 (**)	0.427 (**)	0.296 (**)	0.059	0.288 (**)	0.208 (**)
16	Hostile Sexism		−0.110	0.005	0.075	−0.002	0.271 (**)	0.427 (**)	0.339 (**)	0.313 (**)	0.183	0.239 (*)	0.001
	Benevolent Sexism	Paternalism	−0.102	0.116	0.044	0.003	0.077	0.270 (**)	0.281 (**)	0.201	0.061	0.190	0.073
		Gender Complementarity	0.009	0.140	0.123	0.074	0.106	0.074	0.206 (*)	0.325 (**)	0.017	0.170	0.027
		Heterosexual Intimacy	−0.187	−0.014	0.030	0.029	0.163	0.143	0.179	0.159	0.126	0.241 (*)	−0.013
	Ambivalent Sexism		−0.109	0.061	0.107	0.006	0.191	0.378 (**)	0.368 (**)	0.311 (**)	0.149	0.275 (**)	0.042
17	Hostile Sexism		0.165	−0.119	−0.185	0.268	0.154	0.229	0.298	0.315	0.051	0.282	0.306
	Benevolent Sexism	Paternalism	0.130	0.015	0.018	0.007	0.274	−0.022	0.355 (*)	0.138	−0.016	0.123	−0.032
		Gender Complementarity	0.082	−0.230	−0.110	−0.047	0.080	0.097	0.189	0.063	−0.098	0.055	0.275
		Heterosexual Intimacy	0.004	−0.060	0.029	−0.096	0.211	0.221	0.398 (*)	0.111	0.044	0.192	0.107
	Ambivalent Sexism		0.262	−0.132	−0.060	0.170	0.277	0.105	0.373 (*)	0.110	−0.131	0.123	0.194
18	Hostile Sexism		−0.926	−0.968	−0.915	−0.099	−0.963	0.995	0.920	0.721	−0.277	0.675	0.693
	Benevolent Sexism	Paternalism	−0.404	−0.524	−0.379	0.619	−0.506	0.650	0.391	0.040	−0.866	0.998 (*)	0.000
		Gender Complementarity	−0.915	−0.852	−0.926	−0.786	−0.863	0.760	0.920	0.999 (*)	0.500	−0.064	1.000 (**)
		Heterosexual Intimacy	−0.107	0.027	−0.135	−0.929	0.006	−0.183	0.122	0.465	1.000 (**)	−0.896	0.500
	Ambivalent Sexism		−0.808	−0.879	−0.791	0.143	−0.869	0.943	0.799	0.534	−0.500	0.832	0.500

(*) p < 0.05; (**) p < 0.01.

.

Regarding prosocial attitudes, we observe that, at 12 years old, social conformity negatively correlates with ambivalent sexism (r = −0.182, p = 0.013), hostile sexism (r = −0.167, p = 0.022), and paternalism (r = −0.174, p = 0.017). At 13 years old, prosocial leadership positively correlates with ambivalent sexism (r = 0.191, p = 0.002), heterosexual intimacy (r = 0.185, p = 0.003), gender complementarity (r = 0.147, p = 0.017), and paternalism (r = 0.126, p = 0.041). At 14 years old, the negative correlation between hostile sexism and social conformity (r = −0.156, p = 0.016) found at 12 years old persists. Additionally, social sensitivity and security and firmness positively correlate with heterosexual intimacy (r = 0.138, p = 0.033; r = 0.173, p = 0.008, respectively). Prosocial leadership, as at 13 years old, positively correlates with paternalism (r = 0.136, p = 0.037) and ambivalent sexism (r = 0.155, p = 0.017). At 15 years old, social sensitivity and help and collaboration negatively correlate with gender complementarity (r = −0.162, p = 0.023; r = −0.154, p = 0.032, respectively). At 16 years old, prosocial leadership positively correlates with hostile sexism (r = 0.271, p = 0.009).

Regarding antisocial attitudes, we found that, at 12 years old, aggressiveness–stubbornness and dominance positively correlate with hostile sexism (r = 0.301, p < 0.0001; r = 0.392, p < 0.001, respectively), paternalism (r = 0.212, p = 0.004; r = 0.255, p < 0.001, respectively), gender complementarity (r = 0.233, p = 0.001; r = 0.239, p = 0.001, respectively), heterosexual intimacy (r = 0.178, p = 0.015; r = 0.267, p < 0.001, respectively), and ambivalent sexism (r = 0.303, p < 0.001; r = 0.430, p < 0.001, respectively). At age 13, aggressiveness–stubbornness and dominance positively correlate with hostile sexism (r = 0.349, p < 0.001; r = 0.407, p < 0.001, respectively), paternalism (r = 0.308, p < 0.001; r = 0.339, p < 0.001, respectively), gender complementarity (r = 0.129, p = 0.035; r = 0.160, p = 0.009, respectively), heterosexual intimacy (r = 0.188, p = 0.002; r = 0.215, p < 0.001, respectively), and ambivalent sexism (r = 0.375, p < 0.001; r = 0.423, p < 0.001, respectively). Similarly, at age 14, the association persists; specifically, aggressiveness–stubbornness and dominance positively correlate with hostile sexism (r = 0.279, p < 0.001; r = 0.293, p < 0.001, respectively), paternalism (r = 0.187, p = 0.004; r = 0.219, p = 0.001, respectively), gender complementarity (r = 0.203, p = 0.002; r = 0.153, p = 0.018, respectively), and ambivalent sexism (r = 0.279, p < 0.001; r = 0.252, p < 0.001, respectively). Meanwhile, aggressiveness–stubbornness positively correlates with heterosexual intimacy (r = 0.164, p = 0.011).

At age 15, both variables, aggressiveness–stubbornness and dominance, positively correlate with all analyzed sexist attitudes, hostile sexism (r = 0.293, p < 0.001; r = 0.343, p < 0.001, respectively), paternalism (r = 0.238, p = 0.001; r = 0.346, p < 0.001, respectively), gender complementarity (r = 0.215, p = 0.003; r = 0.252, p < 0.001, respectively), heterosexual intimacy (r = 0.266, p < 0.001; r = 0.367, p < 0.001, respectively), and ambivalent sexism (r = 0.339, p < 0.001; r = 0.427, p < 0.001, respectively). At age 16, the results show that aggressiveness–stubbornness positively correlates with hostile sexism (r = 0.427, p < 0.001), paternalism (r = 0.270, p = 0.010), and ambivalent sexism (r = 0.378, p < 0.001). Meanwhile, dominance positively correlates with hostile sexism (r = 0.339, p = 0.001), paternalism (r = 0.281, p = 0.007), gender complementarity (r = 0.206, p = 0.050), and ambivalent sexism (r = 0.368, p < 0.001). Finally, at age 17, the data show that dominance positively correlates with paternalism (r = 0.355, p = 0.026), heterosexual intimacy (r = 0.398, p = 0.012), and ambivalent sexism (r = 0.373, p = 0.020).

Regarding asocial attitudes, the results show that, at age 12, apathy–withdrawal positively correlates with hostile sexism (r = 0.281, p < 0.001) and ambivalent sexism (r = 0.234, p = 0.001), while anxiety–shyness positively correlates with hostile sexism (r = 0.197, p = 0.007), paternalism (r = 0.171, p = 0.019), and ambivalent sexism (r = 0.191, p = 0.009). In the age group of 13 years, apathy–withdrawal positively correlates with hostile sexism (r = 0.269, p < 0.001), paternalism (r = 0.213, p < 0.001), and ambivalent sexism (r = 0.272, p < 0.001), while anxiety–shyness positively correlates with ambivalent sexism (r = 0.151, p = 0.014). At age 15, apathy–withdrawal positively correlates with hostile sexism (r = 0.354, p < 0.001), paternalism (r = 0.158, p = 0.027), gender complementarity (r = 0.186, p = 0.009), heterosexual intimacy (r = 0.184, p = 0.010), and ambivalent sexism (r = 0.296, p < 0.001). At age 16, this variable positively correlates with hostile sexism (r = 0.313, p = 0.003), gender complementarity (r = 0.325, p = 0.002), and ambivalent sexism (r = 0.311, p = 0.003). Finally, in subjects aged 18, apathy–withdrawal positively correlates with gender complementarity (r = 0.999, p = 0.025), and anxiety–shyness positively correlates with heterosexual intimacy (r = 1.000, p < 0.001).

Regarding cognitive style, the results indicate that in the 11-year-old group, there is a positive correlation between rigidity of thought and paternalism (r = 0.623, p = 0.010). In the 12-year-old group, impulsivity positively correlates with hostile sexism (r = 0.243, p = 0.001), heterosexual intimacy (r = 0.232, p = 0.001), and ambivalent sexism (r = 0.242, p = 0.001), while rigidity of thought positively correlates with hostile sexism (r = 0.166, p = 0.023).

At age 13, impulsivity positively correlates with all sexist attitudes: hostile sexism (r = 0.220, p < 0.001), paternalism (r = 0.281, p < 0.001), gender complementarity (r = 0.126, p = 0.040), heterosexual intimacy (r = 0.156, p = 0.011), and ambivalent sexism (r = 0.298, p < 0.001). Meanwhile, rigidity of thought also positively correlates with hostile sexism (r = 0.222, p < 0.001), paternalism (r = 0.145, p = 0.018), and ambivalent sexism (r = 0.177, p = 0.004).

At age 14, the data show that impulsivity positively correlates with hostile sexism (r = 0.269, p < 0.001), paternalism (r = 0.216, p = 0.001), gender complementarity (r = 0.142, p = 0.029), heterosexual intimacy (r = 0.186, p = 0.004), and ambivalent sexism (r = 0.281, p < 0.001). In the case of rigidity of thought, it positively correlates with hostile sexism (r = 0.162, p = 0.013), paternalism (r = 0.180, p = 0.005), heterosexual intimacy (r = 0.158, p = 0.015), and ambivalent sexism (r = 0.193, p = 0.003).

At age 15, impulsivity positively correlates with all sexist attitudes: hostile sexism (r = 0.259, p < 0.001), paternalism (r = 0.229, p = 0.001), gender complementarity (r = 0.162, p = 0.024), heterosexual intimacy (r = 0.266, p < 0.001), and ambivalent sexism (r = 0.288, p < 0.001), while rigidity of thought positively correlates with hostile sexism (r = 0.260, p < 0.001), heterosexual intimacy (r = 0.165, p = 0.021), and ambivalent sexism (r = 0.208, p = 0.003).

In the 16-year-old group, impulsivity positively correlates with hostile sexism (r = 0.239, p = 0.022), heterosexual intimacy (r = 0.241, p = 0.021), and ambivalent sexism (r = 0.275, p = 0.008).

Finally, in the 18-year-old group, impulsivity positively correlates with paternalism (r = 0.998, p = 0.041), while rigidity of thought positively correlates with gender complementarity (r = 1.000, p < 0.001).

And finally, to determine to what extent age significantly predicts social strategies, cognitive style, and sexist attitudes of students, a regression analysis was conducted. Below, we show the results (see

Table 4. Regression analysis between age and social strategies and cognitive style of young people.

	R2	Standardized β	t	Sig.
Prosocial Attitudes
Social Conformity	0.003	−0.053	−1.704	0.089
Social Sensitivity	0.001	−0.039	−1.239	0.216
Help and Collaboration	0.000	−0.012	−0.397	0.692
Security and Firmness	0.004	−0.067	−2.155	0.031 (*)
Prosocial Leadership	0.001	0.028	0.913	0.362
Antisocial Attitudes
Aggressiveness–Stubbornness	0.010	0.101	3.254	0.001 (*)
Dominance	0.004	0.067	2.147	0.032 (*)
Asocial Attitudes
Apathy–Withdrawal	0.009	0.092	2.975	0.003 (*)
Anxiety–Shyness	0.003	0.059	1.901	0.058
Cognitive Style
Impulsivity	0.007	0.086	2.778	0.006 (*)
Rigidity of Thought	0.001	0.024	0.778	0.437

(*) p < 0.05.

and

Table 5. Regression analysis between age and sexist attitudes.

			Parameter Estimates
	R2	Sig.	B	Exp(B)	Sig.
Hostile Sexism
Age	0.001	0.352	−0.037	0.964	0.353
Benevolent Sexism
Age	0.002	0.010 (*)	−0.122	0.885	0.002 (*)
Paternalism
Age	0.003	0.077	−0.069	0.934	0.080
Gender Complementarity
Age	0.008	0.005 (*)	−0.109	0.897	0.005 (*)
Heterosexual Intimacy
Age	0.014	0.001 (*)	−0.146	0.864	0.001 (*)
Ambivalent Sexism
Age	0.006	0.016 (*)	−0.096	0.908	0.017 (*)

(*) p < 0.05.

).

The results suggest that, although only slightly, age is a significant predictor of the cognitive and social strategies employed by young people. Age explains only a small proportion of the variance in responses. Specifically, it explains 0.4% of the variance in security and assertiveness (β = −0.067; p = 0.031) within prosocial attitudes. Additionally, age predicts young people’s antisocial attitudes, explaining 1% of the variance for aggressiveness–torpidity (β = 0.101; p = 0.001) and 0.4% for dominance (β = 0.067; p = 0.032). Similarly, age predicts the antisocial attitude of apathy–withdrawal, explaining 0.9% of the variance in responses (β = 0.092; p = 0.003). Furthermore, age predicts cognitive style, explaining 0.7% of the variance in impulsivity (β = 0.086; p = 0.006).

In terms of sexist attitudes, we find that age explains a small proportion of the variance in the emergence of benevolent sexism, gender complementarity, heterosexual intimacy and ambivalent sexism. Specifically, the final model explains 0.2%, 0.8%, 1.4% and 0.6% of the variation in these forms of sexism, respectively, with low magnitude. Age significantly affects the probability of the occurrence of ambivalent sexism, benevolent sexism, heterosexual intimacy and gender complementarity categories. The predicted value results show that as age increases, the probability of ambivalent sexism (p = 0.017; B = −0.096; Exp(B) = 0.908), benevolent sexism (p = 0.002; B = −0.122; Exp(B) = 0.885), heterosexual intimacy (p = 0.001; B = −0.146; Exp(B) = 0.864) and gender complementarity (p = 0.005; B = −0.109; Exp(B) = 0.897) decreases.

4. Discussion

The data suggest that, on average, young people exhibit moderate levels of cognitive and social strategies associated with resistance to change in discriminatory behaviors towards women in secondary school students. These findings may reflect a transition in gender socialization, as they indicate that social movements for equality promote new gender models that distance themselves from patriarchal socio-cultural patterns (Galán et al. 2019; Rincón 2023).

The research shows that the least frequent manifestation among students is the tendency to exert dominance over others. These findings may reflect early signs of shifting gender norms, although further longitudinal research is necessary to confirm sustained change. The low presence of dominance linked to social incompetence suggests progress towards reducing prejudices and sexist behaviors, which implies an improvement in equal opportunities (Mingo 2020; Navas et al. 2022; Ortega et al. 2024; Tourné et al. 2024).

Students most frequently exhibit the attitude of willingness to share with others, cooperate, and engage in collective activities. These behaviors, as facilitators of social competence, have been considered by Jiménez and López-Zafra (2011) as expressions of prosocial behavior, essential for building healthy interpersonal relationships free from sexist discrimination and violence.

However, although the results show progress in reducing gender inequality and violence, it is essential to approach this reality with caution. Recent studies confirm that sexist attitudes still persist, as well as cognitive styles and social strategies that reinforce discriminatory behaviors towards women. In today’s society, sexist violence continues to have a high prevalence, although its manifestations can be so subtle that detection is particularly complex (Blázquez-Alonso et al. 2021; Carrascosa et al. 2019; Madrona-Bonastre et al. 2023).

In this regard, our research found that benevolent sexism is more frequent in the analyzed sample than hostile sexism, which coincides with Glick and Fiske’s (2001) theory of ambivalent sexism. According to this theory, both types of sexism often coexist. While hostile sexism manifests visibly and explicitly, benevolent sexism is shown covertly and with attitudes of apparent kindness (Alba et al. 2024; Cárdenas et al. 2010; González-Rivera and Díaz-Loving 2019; Leaper 2024).

Thus, benevolent sexism favors the acceptance of violence by reinforcing gender stereotypes, presenting itself under the guise of protection and affection towards women. This poses a challenge by making sexist attitudes more difficult to detect and confront due to their perceived legitimacy (Agadullina et al. 2022; Sánchez-Jiménez and Muñoz 2021).

On the other hand, there is the added difficulty that manifestations of sexism tend to evolve over the years (Carbonell and Mestre 2019; Lee et al. 2010). This idea is subtly reflected in the results of our study, where we found, albeit with small effect sizes, significant differences in sexist attitudes, as well as in cognitive and social strategies, according to age.

We found that among young people aged 12 to 14, ambivalent and benevolent attitudes, mainly paternalism and heterosexual intimacy, predominate, compared to older youth, who have lower scores.

Likewise, among students aged 15 to 17, there is a greater presence of antisocial and asocial beliefs and attitudes compared to younger students. Specifically, there is a higher incidence of beliefs that promote male supremacy, manifesting through aggressiveness, stubbornness, apathy, withdrawal, impulsivity, and rigidity of thought (García-Díaz et al. 2018; Hammond et al. 2018; Vaamonde 2011).

Regarding the correlation between cognitive style, social strategies, and sexist attitudes of young people based on age, we found that prosocial attitudes are linked to various types of sexism. Young people aged 12 to 14 who are less aligned with social norms and rules that promote coexistence and respect are more likely to adopt prejudiced and discriminatory attitudes. At the ages of 13 and 14, these young people exhibit leadership attitudes focused on social well-being, including an inclusive view on gender issues. However, these attitudes may be influenced by sociocultural patterns that foster the acceptance of male superiority and the protective role. Thus, although they appear to be positive and beneficial to women, they mask subtle forms of sexism. In this context, the relationship between social sensitivity and security and firmness in heterosexual intimacy at age 14 reflects an orientation towards seeking well-being in the couple within a traditional framework of gender roles. Under these conditions, the woman assumes the responsibility of providing support and admiration to the man, while he must offer help and care in return. In contrast, at age 15, the relationship between social sensitivity and help and collaboration shows a negative correlation with gender complementarity. This indicates that young people with greater sensitivity and a predisposition to cooperation tend to question or reject traditional beliefs about gender roles.

Regarding antisocial attitudes, a close relationship is observed between aggressiveness–stubbornness and dominance with ambivalent, benevolent, and hostile sexism between the ages of 12 and 16. Therefore, the tendency to adopt violent and hostile behaviors is related to sexist attitudes, whether explicit or covert under an apparent but biased benevolence. This finding suggests the presence of a pattern throughout development.

In this line, various studies point out that the combination of seemingly positive attitudes towards women with openly negative ones reinforces the dominance-submission dynamics that perpetuate gender inequality. Additionally, these attitudes influence young people’s perception of love and romantic relationships (Bradbury-Jones et al. 2019; Nava-Reyes et al. 2018; Shen et al. 2012; Taquette and Monteiro 2019; Wesche and Dickson-Gomez 2019). This is reflected in the close relationship between these sexist beliefs, based on gender stereotypes, and the idealization of romantic love, which can lead to unequal and unhealthy dynamics. This link is currently one of the main risk conditions for the perpetuation of gender violence (Carbonell et al. 2021).

Regarding asocial attitudes, the results show the relationship between apathy–withdrawal and different forms of sexism, especially at ages 12, 13, 15, and 16. Similarly, the link between anxiety–shyness and hostile sexism, benevolent paternalism, and ambivalent sexism, particularly at age 12. These findings suggest that the apparent prosocial behavior towards sexism coexists with behaviors of non-involvement or avoidance of change initiatives. Consequently, the increase in disinterest, indifference, and isolation can facilitate the formation of erroneous generalizations. In turn, it can reinforce hostile and discriminatory attitudes, thus consolidating the structures that perpetuate gender inequality.

Regarding cognitive style, the data indicate that both impulsivity and rigidity of thought are closely related to sexist attitudes. Thus, impulsivity favors both explicit and subtle sexist attitudes, especially between the ages of 12 and 16. Consequently, the inflexible thinking exhibited by young people, especially between the ages of 13 and 15, favors the perpetuation of traditional beliefs about gender roles. By perceiving these stereotypes as unchangeable principles, they tend to resist proposals that promote equality and diversity, making it difficult to question established norms and reinforcing the persistence of sexist attitudes in society (González-Almuiña and Carcedo 2023; Reyes and Castaños 2021).

Finally, we can conclude that subjects’ age may modestly predict the cognitive strategies and social attitudes that perpetuate gender inequality. More specifically, age showed a small but significant predictor effect on prosocial attitudes such as security and firmness, which favor self-confidence and one’s own abilities to achieve effective interaction and defend rights. The development of these attitudes would contribute to counteracting aggressive behaviors and antisocial behaviors. However, from the perspective of gender social learning, this prosocial attitude could be motivated by the need to find happiness in the couple. This, in turn, would reinforce the idea of female weakness and male protection. Therefore, paradoxically, self-confidence could feed sexist attitudes that hinder gender equality. As long as they perpetuate traditional gender schemes (León and Aizpurúa 2020; Ramiro-Sánchez et al. 2018).

These are beliefs that support the expectation that men assume a position of power over women in the social structure. From this premise, antisocial beliefs and attitudes arise that can manifest in the form of violence, threats, intimidation, and intolerance in order to achieve socially imposed goals. Consequently, there is evidence that age may be slightly associated with antisocial attitudes, such as aggressiveness–stubbornness and dominance, and with cognitive styles such as impulsivity, which points to a possible low-intensity predictor effect (Merma-Molina et al. 2021; Ramiro-Sánchez et al. 2018).

Therefore, the power inequality between men and women can lead to attitudes of indifference, apathy, and withdrawal. This study demonstrates that age could modestly predict these asocial attitudes, showing that insensitivity, coldness, and poor attention contribute to social incompetence. These behaviors could be related to sexist stereotypes linked to the male role (Lledó et al. 2024; Nielson et al. 2020; Rubio 2009).

Likewise, we can conclude that, albeit slightly, age predicts benevolent sexist attitudes, such as gender complementarity and heterosexual intimacy, and ambivalent sexism. In this sense, although studies show that discriminatory beliefs and behaviors tend to become more flexible over time, this evolution does not always lead to real equality, potentially manifesting in more subtle forms of discrimination (Glick et al. 2004; Gutiérrez et al. 2020; Lameiras et al. 2001; Lameiras and Rodríguez 2003; Ruiz-Palomino et al. 2010).

From this perspective, the decrease, albeit modest, of sexist attitudes in older adolescents could be related to the acquisition of more complex cognitive and social competences. This process may facilitate the reconfiguration of beliefs and attitudes, including those related to gender roles (Pozo et al. 2010).

In this way, the literature establishes that as they acquire greater cognitive flexibility, inhibitory functions, and behavioral self-regulation, they may show a greater capacity to question and rethink traditional beliefs about gender roles. All of this would form part of the basis of adult moral development, which guides behavior and decision-making. In this process, the ability for critical reflection is essential to recognize the injustice of patriarchal society and to question and transform the norms and structures that perpetuate gender inequality (Lledó et al. 2024). Therefore, during adolescence, it is crucial to promote equitable and critical education and implement interventions to prevent gender inequality, dismantle stereotypes and foster more egalitarian relationships (Ferragut et al. 2017; Rivas-Rivero et al. 2020).

The present research has allowed us to identify those cognitive styles and social strategies that, in conjunction with the sexist attitudes of young people, contribute to the perpetuation of gender discrimination. These findings highlight the need for education in equality and the importance of implementing preventive interventions to detect sexist attitudes from early stages.

In this sense, it is essential that educational programs aimed at promoting gender equality include strategies capable of identifying, challenging and reconfiguring the explicit and implicit cognitive schemas that reinforce traditional roles and thus inequality.

Several studies and initiatives have already started to apply these approaches. Such is the case of the ‘Guide of Good Practices in Equality Education in Europe’ of the Women’s Institute for Equal Opportunities in Spain, which proposes different ways of working on equality education at different educational levels, focusing on the elimination of sexist stereotypes and the fight against discrimination against women and girls in the school environment.

Along these lines, the work of Díaz de Greñu and Parejo-Llanos (2013) makes a significant contribution by proposing the basis for a guidance and tutoring program aimed at promoting equality, given the persistence of subtle forms of discrimination. This study proposes an intervention that involves students, teachers and families, addressing both the cognitive and the emotional and moral dimensions of adolescent development. It also emphasizes the creation of safe and respectful school contexts through a psycho-pedagogical intervention that favors moral development, empathy and critical reflection.

This study follows the direction of the review conducted by Aragonés-González et al. (2020), which analyzes a series of co-educational interventions implemented in schools internationally, with the aim of assessing their impact on students’ beliefs and attitudes. The authors conclude that, although these interventions contribute to generating greater critical awareness of gender inequalities, their scope is limited by the lack of teacher training in gender perspective, the lack of integration of this perspective in the official curriculum, and the persistence of the hidden curriculum, which continues to reinforce traditional stereotypes. From this approach, the study stresses that co-education should comprise a comprehensive pedagogical project aimed at personal development without gender restrictions and based on values such as equity, respect for diversity and social justice. It also reflects the need to promote legislative reform based on co-educational interventions, as well as the need to promote specific teacher training in gender and equality.

Overall, the studies and programs focusing on this subject point to the importance of equality education and, moreover, of practicing and incorporating it as a guiding principle at all levels of education. Therefore, it is essential to emphasize the role of schools and the promotion of prosocial patterns during adolescence. These factors can be crucial in reducing sexist attitudes in adulthood (Carbonell and Mestre 2018; Navas et al. 2022).

Finally, we must point out that our study is not without limitations. Although the sampling procedure used facilitates accessibility to the sample, it does not ensure its representativeness. For this reason, to improve the generalization of the results, it would be advisable to carry out probabilistic sampling based on a random procedure. Moreover, the use of a cross-sectional design prevents us from analyzing the temporal evolution of the results. Although it allows a descriptive and comparative approach between different ages, it does not make it possible to follow individual changes over time. In this sense, it would be of great interest for future research to adopt a longitudinal design.

Another limitation of this study is the absence of a gender-differentiated analysis. The research has focused specifically on age as the explanatory axis. Studying age is considered essential in order to prevent such attitudes and strategies from becoming gender-differentiated. This allows for the anticipation of possible inequalities and enables earlier and more effective interventions. Although the failure to consider the gender variable may limit the understanding of possible significant differences. For this reason, it is considered appropriate that future research should address the age and sex variables together, which would allow a more precise and complete characterization of the phenomenon. At the same time, we must highlight the low reliability observed in the subscales of rigidity of thought, dominance and apathy–withdrawal. Although this value suggests limited reliability, we chose to keep these subscales due to their relevance from a theoretical perspective and considering their practical implications in the design of educational and clinical interventions for the phenomenon studied.

In this sense, these dimensions represent key mechanisms that hinder change in discriminatory behavior towards women. Rigidity of thought implies a resistance to questioning previous patterns, which can make it difficult to recognize situations of inequality and limit openness to attitudinal change. Dominance is a central component in the reproduction of gender inequalities, which legitimizes control and hierarchization in social interactions. For its part, apathy–withdrawal is linked to disinterest, passivity and avoidance of social justice issues, which can be interpreted as a form of emotional and behavioral disengagement in the face of gender issues (Ennis 2018; Koç et al. 2021; Navas et al. 2022; Ortega et al. 2024; Pedraja-Rejas and Rodríguez-Cisterna 2023).

From this perspective, these subscales are especially valuable for the design of educational and clinical interventions, as they make it possible to identify differentiated profiles and adjust the intervention to the specific needs of each group. In this sense, their consideration makes it possible to guide actions aimed at promoting greater cognitive flexibility, questioning internalized patterns of dominance and encouraging greater affective and ethical involvement in situations of gender inequality.

Although these subscales have psychometric limitations, their inclusion makes it possible to address significant dimensions of the construct assessed. Not doing so would have implied a substantial loss in explanatory terms. Furthermore, this decision follows the direction of previous studies that have used the full version of the instrument, thus favoring the comparability of the results (Jara et al. 2020; Jiménez and López-Zafra 2011). In this regard, it is considered to keep these factors for analytical purposes, even with caution in the interpretation of the data, and it is suggested that future research should re-evaluate the factor structure.

In this way, we trust that this study will contribute to fostering critical thinking towards habits based on gender stereotypes that hinder the change in attitudes.

We emphasize the need to incorporate coeducational measures, both in the formal and hidden curriculum, to ensure equitable access to the development of egalitarian prosocial competencies in women and men. In the same way, we point out the relevance of training in cognitive and socio-emotional attitudes and strategies as a preventive intervention resource aimed at anticipating the onset of violence. This approach contributes to the well-being, quality of life and mental health of young people (Aragonés-González et al. 2020; Navarro et al. 2019; Sánchez-Torrejón and Márquez-Díaz 2024).