Skip to main content
PMC home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Genet Psychol. 2021 Jan 19;182(2):89–101. doi: 10.1080/00221325.2021.1873727

Gender Norms, Beliefs and Academic Achievement of Orphaned Adolescent Boys and Girls in Uganda

Proscovia Nabunya a, Jami Curley b, Fred M Ssewamala a
PMCID: PMC7906950  NIHMSID: NIHMS1664639  PMID: 33463408

Abstract

This study examined the traditional gender norms and beliefs held by orphaned adolescent boys and girls, and the role of such norms and beliefs on their academic performance. Data from a NIMH-funded study known as Suubi-Maka in Uganda were analyzed. Results indicate that overall, adolescents held strong gendered norms and beliefs that favor males over females. Compared to boys, girls were more likely to report more egalitarian gender norms and beliefs that give equal consideration to both girls and boys. In addition, more egalitarian gender norms and beliefs were associated with better school grades. Study findings point to the need to integrate targeted components that address harmful gender norms and beliefs in programs that support vulnerable adolescents, including education policy, if we are to address inequalities in education access and achievement, as well promote and strengthen education for all in sub-Saharan Africa.

Keywords: Academic achievement, gender beliefs, gender norms, orphaned adolescents, Uganda

Introduction

Following the establishment of the 2000 Dakar Framework for Action goals (UNESCO, 2000), and the development of the Millennium Development Goals (United Nations, 2000), progress has been made in realizing gender parity (i.e., the relative access to education of boys and girls) in primary and secondary school education worldwide. Globally, two thirds (66%) of countries have reached gender parity in primary school education, 45% in lower secondary and 25% in upper secondary (UNESCO, 2019a). Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and Southern Asia have the lowest proportion of countries with gender parity at 36% and 33% in primary school education, respectively; and with even lower rates in lower and upper secondary education (UNESCO, 2018).

Despite this progress in enrollment, school dropout is still a major problem. An estimated 59 million children of primary school-going age (between 6 and 15 years) worldwide were out of school in 2018; more than half of these (32 million) live in SSA (UNESCO, 2019b). Girls account for 56% (18 million) of all out of primary school-going children in SSA (UNESCO, 2019c). Unfortunately, out-of-school girls in SSA are more likely than out-of-school boys never to reenrolll in school, primarily due cultural gender norms and beliefs that favor boys’ education over girls’ education (Kågesten et al., 2016; UNESCO, 2019a). Yet, girls’ education is essential in the development of positive social, economic and health outcomes (Wodon, Montenegro, Nguyen, & Onagoruwa, 2018). Specifically, girls with higher levels of education are able to make better sexual and reproductive health decisions, including delaying marriage (Rihani, 2006); and educated young women are more likely to send their children to school and to protect themselves and their children against HIV/AIDS, and sexual exploitation (Osili & Long, 2008; Rihani, 2006). Economically, girls with access to and control over economic resources are more likely to invest in their families -breaking the intergenerational cycle of poverty (Wodon et al., 2018).

Because adolescence is a crucial stage of development, beliefs held and decisions made during this stage may have life-long consequences for adolescents’ economic, social and health wellbeing, especially for girls. In this paper, we examine the traditional gender norms and beliefs held by orphaned adolescent girls and boys, and how these beliefs and norms impact their academic performance. This is an important area of investigation, especially, as governments in SSA are trying to implement programming and policies promoting education for all and gender equality. Moreover, findings may inform the development of future targeted interventions addressing harmful gendered norms and beliefs that impact educational outcomes for girls in SSA.

Theoretical framework

This study is positioned within social role theory (Eagly, 1987; Eagly & Wood, 1999), which posits that individuals are members of social positions, and that they hold expectations for their own behaviors and those of other persons. More specifically, social role theorists argue that society’s social structures contribute to gender stereotypes, which are rooted in different social roles assigned to women and men (Eagly & Wood, 2016). For example, women are more frequently encountered in homemaker or domestic roles, whereas men tend to be breadwinners and are more often located at higher levels within the occupational hierarchy (Cejka & Eagly, 1999; Rudman & Glick, 2001). Through socialization, these gender roles may support and sustain gender stereotypes among boys and girls, which in turn may influence their behaviors, as well as educational outcomes.

Culturally gendered beliefs and norms among adolescents

Gender is often correlated with status and power. Gender beliefs are defined as universal stereotypes about gender that serve to exacerbate the difference between men and women (Ridgeway & Correll, 2004). On the other hand, gender norms are defined as a set of rules for what is masculine and feminine behavior in a given culture (Endepohls-Ulpe, 2012; Ryle, 2011). Specifically, in every cultural setting, children are socialized overtly and/or covertly to conform to rules of “how to be” a girl or a boy (Endepohls-Ulpe, 2012; Muhanguzi, 2011; Witt, 1997). Males and activities associated with men are considered more valuable and prestigious than females and activities associated with women (Endepohls-Ulpe, 2012).

Studies in SSA have documented that girls are negatively constructed as weak in their households and schools; and are often seen as less deserving of an education compared to boys (Abuya, Onsomu, & Moore, 2014; Abuya, Oketch, & Musyoka, 2013). Elsewhere, studies have documented that parents have estimated that their sons had significantly higher IQs than their daughters (Furnham, Reeves, & Budhani, 2002; Neto & Furnham, 2011). These beliefs - from a young age, may shape the way adolescents interact, form relationships, and engage in sexual and reproductive practices and social behaviors (Kågesten et al., 2016).

In SSA communities affected by HIV/AIDS, traditional gender norms and beliefs combine with economic and social demands in families dominated by orphans and vulnerable children to further disrupt the education opportunities for girls. Although orphaned girls and boys suffer negative consequences on several measurable outcomes (Cluver & Gardner, 2007; Kasirye & Hisali, 2010; Operario, Pettifor, Cluver, MacPhail, & Rees, 2007; Thurman, Brown, Richter, Maharaj, & Magnani, 2006), orphaned girls are more vulnerable to decline in schooling (Nabunya & Ssewamala, 2014). Specifically, orphaned girls are more likely to miss school as they are usually required to stay at home to take care of their young siblings, sick relatives, as well as household responsibilities - leading to declining school grades, and eventually dropping out of school (Evans, 2010; Nabunya & Ssewamala, 2014). Moreover, compared to boys, orphaned girls are more likely to initiate early sexual activity, exposing them to sexually transmitted infections including HIV (Birdthistle et al., 2008; Gregson et al., 2005). Therefore, it is crucial to develop and implement programs that have the potential to help alter the entrenched cultural gender beliefs and norms that tend to disadvantage girls, and help promote educational access, participation and achievement for girls.

Gender norms and education in Uganda

Although Uganda achieved gender parity at the primary level in 2014, girls’ enrollment at the secondary school level is lagging behind, and girls are more likely to drop out of school early compared to boys (The Republic of Uganda, 2016). Similar to other developing countries, girls’ education in Uganda is hindered by the male-dominated social and cultural norms that favor boys’ education, especially when a family has limited financial resources. Parents recognize that the cost of educating a girl is not just the cost of tuition, but also a loss of labor -because families need them to work or take care of household responsibilities. Moreover, families are more likely to view the education of a girl not as an investment, but as a loss or an investment in someone else’s family -in which the girl marries into (Bantebya, Muhanguzi, & Watson, 2014; Rihani, 2006). As such, the opportunity cost of educating a girl is often seen as higher compared to educating a boy.

In addition, adolescent girls face additional challenges due to gendered social norms that place high value on girls’ reproductive capabilities, while reinforcing harmful practices such as early marriages and in some communities, female genital mutilations. Girls are primarily seen as bearers of children and there is often very limited vision of what they can do and can achieve (Bantebya et al., 2014; UNICEF, 2014). Compared to boys, girls are more likely to marry early, have their first child at a very young age, have more children, and limited access to family planning services (UNICEF, 2014). The Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS, 2012) estimates that 35% of girls drop out of school due to early marriages and 23% due to pregnancy. Further, out-of-school girls, orphaned children and poor adolescents living in rural communities are at a high risk of human trafficking and sexual violence (Muhanguzi, 2011; Murphy, Stark, Wessells, Boothby, & Ager, 2011).

Although societal gendered norms are known, very few studies have examined the norms and beliefs held by adolescents in SSA (Blum, Mmari, & Moreau, 2017; Moreau et al., 2019). Moreover, none of these studies examined how gender norms and beliefs are associated with academic performance of poor adolescents orphaned as a result of HIV/AIDS. To address this gap, this study utilized secondary data from a National Institute of Mental Health-funded Suubi-Maka study, a randomized clinical trial for adolescents orphaned by HIV/AIDS in Uganda. The specific research questions are:

  1. What are the traditional gender norms and beliefs held by orphaned adolescent boys and girls in Uganda?

  2. Do these gender norms and beliefs vary by gender?

  3. How do these gender norms and beliefs impact academic performance of orphaned adolescents?

Given that gender norms reflect deeper social structures and are reinforced by various social institutions, change becomes complicated, especially, if some groups benefit from or perceive that they benefit from the status quo rooted in these gender norms (Kaufman et al., 2014; Radke, Hornsey, & Barlow, 2018). As such, we hypothesize that given the way boys and girls are socialized, gender norms and beliefs will vary by gender. Specifically, compared to girls, we expect that boys will exhibit strong traditional gendered norms and beliefs that favor males. In addition, more egalitarian gender norms and beliefs - resulting from exposure to new information challenging the established gender norms in schools, will be associated with better school grades among orphaned adolescents.

Methods

Sample and setting

Secondary data from the Suubi-Maka study (2008–2012), a randomized clinical trial funded by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) were analyzed. The study tested a family-based economic empowerment intervention among orphaned adolescents in Uganda. A total of 346 adolescents (10–17 years) and their caregivers (child-caregiver dyad) participated in the study. Adolescents were eligible to participate if: 1) they had lost one or both parents to HIV/AIDS, 2) they were enrolled in the last 2 years of primary schooling (equivalent of 6th and 7th grades in the US), and 3) they were living within a family, not an institution. Participants were recruited from 10 comparable, geographically separate, rural public primary schools in Masaka and Rakai political districts in Uganda - a region heavily affected by HIV/AIDS and poverty. As such, all participating schools were primarily serving children from poor households.

Intervention description

Each adolescent-caregiver dyad was randomly assigned to either the control condition (n=167 dyads) receiving usual support and care services offered to orphaned adolescents in Uganda, such as food aid in the form of school lunches, and scholastic materials (textbooks, notebooks and school uniforms), or the treatment condition (n=179 dyads), receiving usual care services (mentioned above) plus a matched child development account (CDA) intended for post-primary education or microenterprise/small family business development. In addition, adolescents and their caregivers received workshops on financial planning, management and microenterprise development intended to promote economic stability for the families in the study, and to enable the participating adolescent to continue in school with greater economic security. Finally, participants in both conditions received mentorship sessions throughout the intervention period, intended to help participants develop the ability to identify specific future goals and educational aspirations through building their self-esteem, encouraging hopefulness and building stronger communication skills with their caregivers.

While previous studies have examined the effect of the intervention on education related outcomes, including academic performance (Curley et al., 2010; Nabunya et al., 2019; Ssewamala, Karimli, Han, & Ismayilova, 2010; Ssewamala et al., 2016; Ssewamala & Ismayilova, 2009), the current study is only focused on gender norms and academic performance.

Ethical considerations

Participation in the study was voluntary. Informed consent and assent were obtained from participants’ caregivers and adolescents respectively. The study received approval from Columbia University (IRB-AAAD2525) and the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (SS-1540).

Data and measures

Data were collected using a 90-minute interviewer administered survey. We analyzed data collected at baseline (time 1), 12-months (time 2) and 24-months (time 3) follow-up.

Gender norms and beliefs were measured at baseline using 10-items adapted from the Attitudes Toward Women Scale for Adolescents (AWSA), used to measure adolescents’ attitudes toward women’s rights and roles (Galambos, Petersen, Richards, & Gitelson, 1985). The scale has been tested in previous studies, with high internal consistency and reliability (Daugherty & Dambrot, 1986; Galambos et al., 1985; Yoder, Rice, Adams, Priest, & Prince, 1982). Scale items are related to educational performance and future expectations of girls and boys, family support, encouragement and decision making, and involvement in intimate relationships and behaviors. Sample items include: “On average, girls are as smart as boys,” and “More encouragement in a family should be given to sons than daughters to go to college.” The Cronbach’s alpha was .78 for boys and .72 for girls, indicating a relatively high level of internal consistency. Scale items had binary responses (Agree=1 and Disagree=0). Items in the inverse direction were reverse coded to create a summary score, with high scores representing more egalitarian gender norms and beliefs i.e., giving equal consideration to both girls and boys.

Academic performance was measured using scores from national standardized examinations, known as Primary Leaving Examinations (PLE). All students intending to enroll in secondary education in Uganda are required to complete and pass PLE. PLE scores were collected at 12 and 24-months for participants -who at study initiation, were in primary 7 and 6, respectively. Scores are measured in aggregates, ranging from 4 (best) to 36 (worst). To illustrate, a total aggregate of 4 means that a student received Distinction 1 (also presented as D1, the best grade one could get in any given subject) for each of the four subjects on which each student is tested, i.e., English, Mathematics, Social Studies, and Science. Likewise, if a student gets a total aggregate of 36, it means that he/she got Failure 9 (also presented as F9, the worst grade one could get) for each of the four subjects outlined above. Aggregates are then categorized into four divisions as follows: Aggregates 4–12 (Division 1), 13–23 (Division 2), 24–29 (Division 3), 30–34 (Division 4), and 35–36 (Failure). Participants in the current study scored between 6 and 36. Official PLE scores were obtained from the Uganda Ministry of Education and Sports - the national governing body of education in Uganda.

Baseline participants’ characteristics, including age, gender, orphanhood status (whether single or double orphan), primary caregiver (surviving biological parent or other relative e.g., grandparent(s), aunt, uncle, sibling or in-law), and participating in the intervention were included in the model as control variables.

Analysis procedures

All analyses were conducted in SPSS version 25. Bivariate analyses (independent sample t-tests and cross tabulations) were conducted to examine baseline sample characteristics, gender differences on the total scores and individual items of the AWSA scale. Hierarchical regression models were conducted, with two models controlling for a block of predictors. Model 1 controlled for participants’ age, gender, primary caregiver, orphanhood status and the intervention, and model 2 controlled for gender norms. Adjusted R squares were compared to determine the strength of each model.

Results

Sample characteristics

Characteristics of the sample are summarized in Table 1. Sixty-five percent (65%) of participants were female, 52% were assigned to the treatment condition, receiving the intervention. The average age was 13.4 years, and boys were slightly older than girls (t=2.06, p≤.05). The majority of participants (69.9%) were single orphans, meaning they had lost one biological parent. About 35.5% of participants reported their surviving biological parent as their primary caregiver. In terms of school performance, the average score on PLE standardized examinations was 24 aggregates, indicating that the majority of the study participants passed in division two (with division one being the best).

Table 1.

Sample characteristics.

Variable Total (N=346) % Girls (n=225) % Boys (n=121) % χ2/t-test
Gender 65 35
Study condition
Control 48.3 48 48.8
Treatment 51.7 52 51.2
Age (Mean, SD) (min/max: 10–17) 13.4 (1.24) 13.3 (1.20) 13.6 (1.30) 2.06*
Orphanhood status 0.16
Double orphan 30.1 29.3 31.4
Single orphan 69.9 70.7 68.6
Primary Caregiver 5.57
Biological parent 35.5 34.2 38
Grandparent 28.3 16.5 11.8
Other caregiver (grandparents, aunt, uncle, siblings, etc.) 40.4 28.1 36.1
PLE Grades (Mean, SD) (min/max: 6–36) 24.1 (6.86) 24.59 (6.47) 23.09 (7.53) −1.69
Open in a new tab

Note:

*

p ≤ .05.

Baseline gender norms and beliefs between boys and girls

At baseline, we observe statistically significant gender differences on the overall ASWA scale (Table 2). Girls reported more egalitarian gender norms and beliefs that give equal considerations, compared to boys (t=−4.45, p<.000). We further examined these differences on specific individual items. As presented in Table 3, boys and girls did not differ significantly, except on two items related to education. More boys than girls believed that it is more important for boys than girls to do well in school (84.3% versus 45.3%, χ2=49.37, p≤.001), and that boys are better than girls in school (62% versus 35%, χ2=23.01, p≤.001). No other statistically significant differences were observed.

Table 2.

Bivariate analysis results: Gender norms and beliefs by gender.

Variable Total
(N=346)		 Girls (n=225) Boys (n=121) t-test
AWSA Scale (Mean, SD) (min/max = 0–8) 4.17 (1.58) 4.44 (1.56) 3.67 (1.51) −4.45***
Open in a new tab

Note:

***

p ≤ .001.

Table 3.

Individual item analysis of gender norms and beliefs by gender (%).

Gender norms and beliefs items Total (N=346) Girls (n=225) Boys (n=121) χ2
Swearing is worse for a girl than for a boy 63.3 62.2 65.3 0.32
On average, girls are as smart as boys 66.8 69.3 62 1.92
More encouragement in a family should be given to sons than daughters to go to college 57.8 54.2 64.5 3.38
In general, the father should have greater authority than the mother in making family decisions 91.3 92 90.1 0.37
It is more important for boys than girls to do well in school 59 45.3 84.3 49.37***
Boys are better in school than girls 44.5 35.1 62 23.01 ***
It is alright for a girl to propose to a boy 24 21.8 28.1 1.72
Girls should be more concerned with becoming good wives other than desiring a professional career 70.5 68.9 73.6 0.82
Girls should have the same freedom as boys 84.1 81.8 88.4 2.6
It’s alright for girls to carry condoms 28.3 28.4 28.1 0.01
Open in a new tab

Note:

***

p ≤ .001.

On items related to family support, encouragement and decision making (Table 3), while we observe difference between girls and boys, none of these were statistically significant. The majority of participants (91.3%) believed that the father should have greater authority in decision making than the mother, with more girls responding in affirmative (92% versus 90%). More than half of all participants (57.8%) believed that more encouragement in the family should be given to sons than daughters to go to college -with more boys answering in affirmative (64.5% versus54.2%). In addition, 70.5% of all participants believed that girls should be more conerned with becoming good wives rather than desiring a professional career, with more boys agreeing with the statement (73.6% versus 68.9%). Regarding relationships and behaviors, about 84% of all participants believed that girls should have the same freedom as boys (88.4% of boys and 81.8% of girls). However, 24% of participants believed that it is alright for a girl to propose marriage to a boy and 28% believed it’s alright for girls to carry condoms.

Gender norms, beliefs and academic performance

Results from hierarchical regression analysis are presented in Table 4. We conducted two models, with model 1 controlling for participants’ age, gender, primary caregiver, orphanhood status and the intervention, and adding gender norms in model 2. In model 1 age (β=0.90, 95% CI=0.26, 1.54, p≤0.01) was associated with lower PLE scores, while participating in the intervention was associated with better PLE scores (β=−4.78, 95% CI=−6.35, −3.21, p≤0.001) (the lower the better). In model 2, more egalitarian gender norms and beliefs were associated with better PLE school grades (β=−0.81, 95% CI=−1.29, −0.32, p≤.001). Female adolescents were less likely to perform as well as their male counterparts (β=2.23, 95% CI=−0.58, 0.33, p≤.01). Similarly, older adolescents were less likely to perform as well as young adolescents (β=0.92, 95% CI=0.29, 1.55, p≤.01) In addition, participation in the intervention remained a significant predictor of better PLE grades (β=−4.51, 95% CI=−6.05, −2.96, p≤.001). Model 1 accounted for 15% (R2=0.153) of the variance in PLE score, and 18.5% (R2=0.185) of the variance, when gender norms where added in model 2. The 3-percentage change between model 1 and model 2 was statistically significant (p≤.001).

Table 4.

Regression on PLE performance.

Variable Model: β (95% CI) Model 2: β (95% CI)
Constant 13.28 (4.14, 22.43)** 15.72 (6.61, 24.83)***
Gender (male) 1.59 (−0.04, 3.23) 2.23 (0.58, 3.88)**
Age 0.90 (0.26, 1.54)** 0.92 (0.29, 1.55)**
Primary caregiver (biological parent) 0.09 (−1.73, 1.91) 0.18 (−1.61, 1.97)
Orphanhood Status (double orphan) 0.68 (−1.24, 2.59) 0.75 (−1.14, 2.63)
Treatment condition −4.78 (−6.35, −3.21)*** −4.51 (−6.05, −2.96)***
Gender norms −0.81 (−1.29, −0.32)***
F-value (df) 9.65 (5)*** 10.09 (6)***
R2 0.153 0.185
Adjusted R2 0.137 0.167
Change in R2 0.032***
Open in a new tab

Note:

**

p ≤ .01,

***

p ≤ .001.

Discussion

The goal of this paper was to examine the traditional gender norms and beliefs held by orphaned adolescent boys and girls in Uganda, and whether such norms and beliefs are associated with adolescents’ academic performance. We find the following. First, overall, adolescents -both girls and boys -hold strong traditional gendered norms and beliefs that favor males (fathers and sons) in the family, in all aspects, including educational performance, expectations and future goals, family support, encouragement and decision making, and involvement in intimate relationships and behaviors. These findings are consistent with previous studies that reported similar findings (Bantebya et al., 2014; Rihani, 2006). Unfortunately, such beliefs might have long lasting implications on the social, economic and health wellbeing of girls beyond adolescence (Ridgeway, 2009; Ridgeway & Correll, 2004; Shakya et al., 2019). This is because, in poor communities impacted by HIV/AIDS, men often control family economic resources and therefore, are in charge of making financial-related decisions, including girls’ access to education and health care services.

Second, study findings support our hypothesis that gender norms and beliefs would vary by gender. Specifically, girls in our study reported more egalitarian gender norms and beliefs that give equal considerations to both boys and girls. Although adolescents are socialized to conform to specific gender rules (Endepohls-Ulpe, 2012; Muhanguzi, 2011; Witt, 1997), it is possible that attaining some education may help correct misconceptions associated with gender norms. Indeed, studies have documented that schools may expose girls to new information and ideas that challenge the established gender norms (Evans, 2014, Marcus, Harper, Brodbeck, & Page, 2015; Malhotra, Amin, & Nanda, 2019). In addition, education enhances self-esteem and self-confidence (Kneppers, 2015; Posti-Ahokas & Palojoki, 2014; Seeberg, 2011), and in return, girls may use this acquired self-confidence to challenge discriminatory norms and practices and overcome setbacks. (Evans, 2014; Harper & George, 2020; Harper & Marcus, 2018).

As previously stated, it is important to note that while both girls and boys may be exposed to information challenging the established gender norms, change becomes complicated if some groups -in this case boys, benefit from or perceive that they benefit from the status quo rooted in these gender norms (Kaufman et al., 2014, Radke et al., 2018). Alternatively, if the new information and or extra strategies targeting girls (e.g., girls school attendance) are implemented in the absence of similar provisions for boys, this may inversely reinforce gender stereotypes (Marcus et al., 2015). Overall, this finding points to the role of education in addressing harmful gender norms that tend to disadvantage girls, especially in developing countries.

Third, we find that more egalitarian norms and beliefs were associated with better PLE scores. It could be that participants whose families promote equal opportunities for both girls and boys, and encourage girls to pursue their academic goals, are more likely to concentrate and perform better. Moreover, the encouragement from family members may contribute to adolescents’ increased self-esteem, which in turn, may improve academic performance (Arshad, Zaidi, & Mahmood, 2015; Kwek, Bui, Rynne, & So, 2013; Maropamabi, 2014; Rosli et al., 2012). However, further investigation is needed to understand the mechanisms through which gender norms and beliefs impact academic achievement.

Fourth, participants’ gender and age were both associated with PLE grades. Girls were less likely to perform as well as boys. This is not uncommon in Uganda. Although the number of girls who sit for PLE is higher than that of boys over the years, boys tend to perform better than girls (The New Vision, 2020; 2017). Moreover, for orphaned adolescent girls, it could be a function of added family responsibilities and caregiving that interfere with adolescents’ school attendance and performance (Evans, 2010; Nabunya & Ssewamala, 2014).

In terms of age, orphaned adolescents are less likely to be at a proper grade level due to a number of factors, including late school enrollment -as some families tend to prioritize schooling for younger children as opposed to older adolescents (Guo, Li, & Sherr, 2012), irregular school attendance due to interruptions caused by prolonged parental illness and proceeding death, as well as relocations to other households willing and able to provide for them -all leading to declining school grades and grade repetition (Ainsworth, Beegle, & Koda, 2005; Bicego et al., 2003; Case, Paxson, & Ableidinger, 2004; Evan & Miguel, 2004; Kasirye & Hisali, 2010; Monasch & Boerma, 2004; Pufall et al., 2014; Ssengendo & Nambi, 1997). Indeed, although the average age for students in primary 7 is 13 years, participants in our study were between 10 and 17 years, meaning that older adolescents experienced irregular schooling, which impacted their school participation and PLE performance.

Finally, consistent with previous findings, participating in the intervention was associated with better PLE grades, pointing to the potential of a family-based economic strengthening interventions in promoting academic performance, especially for orphaned adolescents (Curley et al., 2010; Nabunya et al., 2019; Ssewamala et al., 2016, 2010; Ssewamala & Ismayilova, 2009).

Limitations

Study findings should be carefully interpreted in light of the following limitations. First, while we utilized the AWSA to assess adolescents’ gender norms and beliefs, it is not a direct measure of families’ attitudes or behaviors with respect to school participation or achievement for girls. Second, we utilized self-reports which tend to suffer from social desirability. However, participants did not have any incentive to inflate or downplay their beliefs and experiences. Third, data was collected from adolescents enrolled in school. Findings could be different among adolescents out-of-school.

Implications and conclusion

Our findings contribute to the limited literature examining gender norm and beliefs among adolescents in SSA, as well as the role of such norms and beliefs on adolescent’s academic performance. Findings point to the need for incorporating components that specifically target the negative gendered norms and beliefs that tend to disadvantage girls in favor of boys. One example could be through peer mentorship programs designed to help adolescents, especially girls, develop the ability to identify specific future goals and educational aspirations, build their self-esteem, encourage hopefulness, build stronger communication skills with their caregivers, while helping to alter the entrenched cultural gender beliefs and norms. Moreover, incorporating these components in programming, such as school policies, would be one step toward addressing inequalities in education access and achievement, as well promoting and strengthening education for all.

Acknowledgments

Financial support for the Suubi-Maka study came from the National Institute of Mental Health (Grant Number # RMH081763A, PI: Fred M. Ssewamala, PhD). We are grateful to the staff and the volunteer team at the International Center for Child Health and Development (ICHAD) in Uganda for monitoring the study implementation process. Our special thanks go to all children and their caregiving families who agreed to participate in the study.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health (Grant # RMH081763A).

Footnotes

Disclosure statement

The authors have no conflict of interest to report.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author (PN).

References

  1. Abuya B, Oketch M, & Musyoka P (2013). Why do pupils dropout when education is ‘free’? Explaining school dropout among the urban poor in Nairobi. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 43 (6), 740–762. doi: 10.1080/03057925.2012.707458 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Abuya BA, Onsomu EO, & Moore D (2014). Determinants of educational exclusion: Poor urban girls’ experiences in-and out-of-school in Kenya. PROSPECTS, 44 (3), 381–394. doi: 10.1007/s11125-014-9306-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ainsworth M, Beegle K, & Koda G (2005). The impact of adult mortality and parental deaths on primary schooling in North-Western Tanzania. Journal of Development Studies, 41 (3), 412–439. doi: 10.1080/0022038042000313318 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Arshad M, Zaidi SMIH, & Mahmood K (2015). Self-esteem & academic performance among university students. Journal of Education and Practice, 6 (1), 156–162. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bantebya GK, Muhanguzi FK, & Watson C (2014). Adolescent girls in the balance: Changes and continuity in social norms and practices around marriage and education in Uganda. Country Report. London: Overseas Development Institute. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bicego G, Rutstein S, & Johnson K (2003). Dimensions of the emerging orphan crisis in sub-Saharan Africa. Social Science & Medicine, 56 (6), 1235–1247. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00125-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Birdthistle IJ, Floyd S, Machingura A, Mudziwapasi N, Gregson S, & Glynn JR (2008). From affected to infected? Orphanhood and HIV risk among female adolescents in urban Zimbabwe. AIDS, 22 (6), 759–766. doi: 10.1097/QAD.0b013e3282f4cac7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Blum RW, Mmari K, & Moreau C (2017). It begins at 10: How gender expectations shape early adolescence around the world. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 61 (4 Suppl), S3–S4. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.07.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Case A, Paxson C, & Ableidinger J (2004). Orphans in Africa: Parental death, poverty, and school enrollment. Demography, 41 (3), 483–508. doi: 10.1353/dem.2004.0019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Cejka MA, & Eagly AH (1999). Gender-stereotypic images of occupations correspond to the sex segregation of employment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25 (4), 413–423. doi: 10.1177/0146167299025004002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Cluver L, & Gardner F (2007). The mental health of children orphaned by AIDS: A review of international and southern African research. Journal of Child & Adolescent Mental Health, 19 (1), 1–17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Curley J, Ssewamala F, & Han CK (2010). Assets and educational outcomes: Child Development Accounts (CDAs) for orphaned children in Uganda. Children and Youth Services Review, 32 (11), 1585–1590. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Daugherty CG, & Dambrot FH (1986). Reliability of the attitudes toward women scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 46 (2), 449–453. doi: 10.1177/001316448604600221 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Eagly AH (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. New York: Psychology Press. [Google Scholar]
  15. Eagly AH, & Wood W (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54 (6), 408–423. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.54.6.408 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Eagly AH, & Wood W (2016). Social role theory of sex differences. In Naples N, Hoogland RC, Wickramasinghe M, & Wong WCA (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell encyclopedia of gender and sexuality studies (pp. 1–3). New York: Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  17. Endepohls-Ulpe M (2012). Gender stereotypes and their gender-specific impact on academic achievement. Acta Universitatis Lodzensis. Folia Sociologic, 43, 3–16. [Google Scholar]
  18. Evans A (2014). Co-education and the erosion of gender stereotypes in the Zambian Copperbelt. Gender & Development, 22 (1), 75–90. [Google Scholar]
  19. Evans R (2010). Children’s caring roles and responsibilities within the family in Africa. Geography Compass,4 (10), 1477–1496. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-8198.2010.00386.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Evan D, & Miguel E (2004). Orphans and schooling in Africa: A longitudinal analysis. Demography, 44 (1),33–57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Furnham A, Reeves E, & Budhani S (2002). Parents think their sons are brighter than their daughters: Sex differences in parental self-estimations and estimations of their children’s multiple intelligences. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 163 (1), 24–39. doi: 10.1080/00221320209597966 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Galambos NL, Petersen AC, Richards M, & Gitelson IB (1985). The Attitudes Toward Women Scale for Adolescents (AWSA): A study of reliability and validity. Sex Roles, 13 (5–6), 343–356. doi: 10.1007/BF00288090 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Gregson S, Nyamukapa CA, Garnett GP, Wambe M, Lewis JJC, Mason PR, … Anderson RM (2005). HIV infection and reproductive health in teenage women orphaned and made vulnerable by AIDS in Zimbabwe. AIDS Care, 17 (7), 785–794. doi: 10.1080/09540120500258029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Guo Y, Li X, & Sherr L (2012). The impact of HIV/AIDS on children’s educational outcome: A critical review of global literature. AIDS Care, 24 (8), 993–1012. doi: 10.1080/09540121.2012.668170 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Harper C, & George R (2020). Historical lessons on gender norm change, with case studies from Uganda and Nepal. ALIGN think piece. London: ALIGN. Retrieved from https://www.alignplatform.org/resources/historical-lessons-gender-norm-change [Google Scholar]
  26. Harper C, & Marcus R (2018). What can a focus on gender norms contribute to girls’ empowerment? In Harper C, Jones N, Ghimire A, Marcus R and Bantebya GK (Eds.), Empowering adolescent girls in developing countries (pp. 22–40). London and New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  27. Kågesten A, Gibbs S, Blum RW, Moreau C, Chandra-Mouli V, Herbert A, & Amin A (2016). Understanding factors that shape gender attitudes in early adolescence globally: A mixed-methods systematic review. PloS One, 11 (6), e0157805. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0157805 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Kasirye I, & Hisali E (2010). The socioeconomic impact of HIV/AIDS on education outcomes in Uganda: School enrolment and the schooling gap in 2002/2003. International Journal of Educational Development, 30 (1), 12–22. doi: 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2009.07.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Kaufman M, Barker G, Peacock D, Vess J, Robles O, Sharafi L, & MenEngage Steering Committee. (2014). Engaging men, changing gender norms: Directions for gender-transformative action. MenEngage-UNFPA Advocacy Brief. New York, NY: UNFPA-MenEngage. [Google Scholar]
  30. Kneppers A (2015). Teenage girls’ perspectives on the value of education and school dropout in Northern Ghana. Trondheim: Norwegian Centre for Child Research [Google Scholar]
  31. Kwek A, Bui HT, Rynne J, & So KKF (2013). The impacts of self-esteem and resilience on academic performance: An investigation of domestic and international hospitality and tourism undergraduate students. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 25 (3), 110–122. [Google Scholar]
  32. Malhotra A, Amin A, & Nanda P (2019). Catalyzing gender norm change for adolescent sexual and reproductive health: Investing in interventions for structural Change. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 64 (4S), S13–S15. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.01.013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Maropamabi G (2014). Role of self-efficacy and self-esteem in academic performance. European Journal of Educational Sciences, 2 (2), 8–22. [Google Scholar]
  34. Monasch R, & Boerma JT (2004). Orphanhood and childcare patterns in sub-Saharan Africa: An analysis of national surveys from 40 countries. AIDS, 18 (Supplement 2), S55–S65. doi: 10.1097/00002030-200406002-00007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Moreau C, Li M, De Meyer S, Vu Manh L, Guiella G, Acharya R, … Mmari K (2019). Measuring gender norms about relationships in early adolescence: Results from the global early adolescent study. SSM - Population Health, 7, 100314. doi: 10.1016/j.ssmph.2018.10.014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Muhanguzi FK (2011). Gender and sexual vulnerability of young women in Africa: Experiences of young girls in secondary schools in Uganda. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 13 (6), 713–725. doi: 10.1080/13691058.2011.571290 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Marcus R, Harper C, Brodbeck S, & Page E (2015). How do gender norms change? Retrieved from https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/9817.pdf
  38. Murphy M, Stark L, Wessells M, Boothby N, & Ager A (2011). Fortifying barriers: Sexual violence as an obstacle to girls’ school participation in Northern Uganda. In Paulison J (Ed.), Education Conflict and Development (pp. 167–184). UK: Symposium Books. [Google Scholar]
  39. Nabunya P, Namatovu P, Damulira C, Kivumbi A, Byansi W, Mukasa M, … Ssewamala FM (2019). Assessing the impact of an economic empowerment interventions on educational outcomes of orphaned children and adolescents: Findings from a Randomized Experiment in Uganda. Asia Pacific Journal of Social Work Development, 29 (1), 59–69. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Nabunya P, & Ssewamala FM (2014). The Effects of parental loss on the psychosocial wellbeing of AIDS-orphaned children living in AIDS-impacted communities: Does gender matter? Children and Youth Services Review, 43, 131–137. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.05.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Neto F, & Furnham A (2011). Sex differences in parents’ estimations of their own and their children’s multiple intelligences: A Portuguese replication. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 14 (1), 99–110. doi: 10.5209/rev_SJOP.2011.v14.n1.8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Operario D, Pettifor A, Cluver L, MacPhail C, & Rees H (2007). Prevalence of parental death among young people in South Africa and risk for HIV infection. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, 44 (1), 93–98. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Osili UO, & Long BT (2008). Does female schooling reduce fertility? Evidence from Nigeria. Journal ofDevelopment Economics, 87 (1), 57–75. doi: 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2007.10.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Posti-Ahokas H, & Palojoki P (2014). Navigating transitions to adulthood through secondary education: Aspirations and the value of education for Tanzanian girls. Journal of Youth Studies, 17 (5), 664–681. doi: 10.1080/13676261.2013.853871 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Pufall EL, Nyamukapa C, Eaton JW, Campbell C, Skovdal M, Munyati S, … Gregson S (2014). The impact of HIV on children’s education in eastern Zimbabwe. AIDS Care, 26 (9), 1136–1143. doi: 10.1080/09540121.2014.892564 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Radke HR, Hornsey MJ, & Barlow FK (2018). Changing versus protecting the status quo: Why men and women engage in different types of action on behalf of women. Sex Roles, 79 (9–10), 505–518. doi: 10.1007/s11199-017-0884-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Ridgeway CL (2009). Framed before we know it: How gender shapes social relations. Gender & Society, 23 (2), 145–160. [Google Scholar]
  48. Ridgeway CL, & Correll SJ (2004). Unpacking the gender system: A theoretical perspective on gender beliefs and social relations. Gender & Society, 18 (4), 510–531. [Google Scholar]
  49. Rihani MA (2006). Keeping the promise: Five benefits of girls’ secondary education. Academy for EducationalDevelopment. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED500794.pdf [Google Scholar]
  50. Rosli Y, Othman H, Ishak I, Lubis SH, Saat NZM, & Omar B (2012). Self-esteem and academic performance relationship amongst the second-year undergraduate students of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur Campus. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 60, 582–589. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.426 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Rudman LA, & Glick P (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57 (4), 743–762. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00239 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Ryle R (2011). Questioning gender: A sociological exploration. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  53. Seeberg V (2011). Schooling, Jobbing, Marrying: What’s a girl to do to make life better? Empowerment capabilities of girls at the margins of globalization in China. Research in Comparative and International Education, 6 (1), 43–61. doi: 10.2304/rcie.2011.6.1.43 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Shakya HB, Domingue B, Nagata JM, Cislaghi B, Weber A, & Darmstadt GL (2019). Adolescent gender norms and adult health outcomes in the USA: A prospective cohort study. The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, 3 (8), 529–538. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Ssengendo J, & Nambi J (1997). The psychological effect of orphanhood: A study of orphans in Rakai district. Health Transitions Review, 7 (1), 105–124. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Ssewamala FM, & Ismayilova L (2009). Integrating children’s savings accounts in the care and support of orphaned adolescents in rural Uganda. Social Service Review, 83 (3), 453–472. doi: 10.1086/605941 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Ssewamala FM, Karimli L, Han CK, & Ismayilova L (2010). Social capital, savings, and educational performance of orphaned adolescents in Sub-Saharan Africa. Children and Youth Services Review, 32 (12), 1704–1710. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.07.013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Ssewamala FM, Karimli L, Neilands T, Wang JSH, Han CK, Ilic V, & Nabunya P (2016). Applying a family-level economic strengthening intervention to improve education and health-related outcomes of school- going AIDS-orphaned children: Lessons from a randomized experiment in Southern Uganda. Prevention Science, 17 (1), 134–143. doi: 10.1007/s11121-015-0580-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. The New Vision. (January 12, 2017). 2016 PLE: Boys beat girls, performance improves. Retrieved from https://www.newvision.co.ug/new_vision/news/1443897/ple-results-boys-beat-girls-english-improved
  60. The New Vision. (January 17, 2020). PLE: Boys beat girls, 1512 results withheld. Retrieved from https://www.newvision.co.ug/new_vision/news/1513574/2019-ple-boys-beat-girls-1512-results-withheld
  61. The Republic of Uganda. (2016). Gender in education sector policy. Ministry of Education and Sports. Retrieved from https://www.education.go.ug/files/downloads/GENDER%20IN%20EDUCATION%20SECTOR%20POLICY.pdf [Google Scholar]
  62. Thurman TR, Brown L, Richter L, Maharaj P, & Magnani R (2006). Sexual risk behavior among South African adolescents: Is orphan status a factor? AIDS and Behavior, 10 (6), 627–635. doi: 10.1007/s10461-006-9104-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Uganda Bureau of Statistics. (2012). Uganda Demographic and Health Survey 2011. Uganda Bureau of Statistics, Kampala, Uganda. Retrieved from https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR264/FR264.pdf [Google Scholar]
  64. UNESCO. (2019a). Global education monitoring report: Gender report: Building bridges for gender parity. Retrieved from https://en.unesco.org/gem-report/2019genderreport
  65. UNESCO. (2019b). Meeting commitment: Are countries on track to achieve SDG4? Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000369009
  66. UNESCO. (2019c). Out-of-school children, adolescents and youth: Global status and trends. Retrieved from https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/new-methodology-shows-258-million-children-adolescents-and-youth-are-out-school.pdf
  67. UNESCO. (2018). Global education monitoring report gender review 2018. Retrieved from https://en.unesco.org/gem-report/2018_gender_review
  68. UNESCO. (2000). The Dakar Framework for Action. World Education Forum. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001211/121147e.pdf [Google Scholar]
  69. UNICEF. (2014). Situational analysis of children and poverty in Uganda: Voices of children. Retrieved from https://www.unicef.org/esaro/2014-UNICEF-Uganda-Child-Poverty-and-Deprivation.pdf
  70. United Nations. (2000). United Nations Millennium Declaration. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/development/devagenda/millennium.shtml [Google Scholar]
  71. Witt SD (1997). Parental influence on children’s socialization to gender roles. Adolescence, 32 (126), 253. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Wodon Q, Montenegro C, Nguyen H, & Onagoruwa A (2018). Missed opportunities: The high cost of not educating girls. The Cost of Not Educating Girls Notes Series. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Retrieved from https://www.globalpartnership.org/sites/default/files/2018-07-gpe-high-cost-of-not-educating-girls.pdf [Google Scholar]
  73. Yoder JD, Rice RW, Adams J, Priest RF, & Prince HT (1982). Reliability of the attitudes toward women scale (AWS) and the personal attributes questionnaire (PAQ). Sex Roles, 8 (6), 651–657. doi: 10.1007/BF00289898 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES