The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/2046-469X.htm
JIEB
16,2
204
Received 15 June 2022
Revised 18 November 2022
Accepted 23 January 2023
Journal of International Education
in Business
Vol. 16 No. 2, 2023
pp. 204-225
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2046-469X
DOI 10.1108/JIEB-05-2022-0038
Closing the gender gap in the
business classroom: focus
on finance
Andres Ramirez
Department of Finance, Bryant University, Smithfield, Rhode Island, USA, and
Joan Lofgren
School of Business, Aalto University, Mikkeli, Finland
Abstract
Purpose – Finance is a male-dominated field of work. This study aims to understand if learning in finance
follows the same pattern. Furthermore, the authors want to understand if foreign female students are subject
to the same cultural norms and sorting mechanisms as their counterparts from the USA or Finland.
Design/methodology/approach – In the context of a capstone course, students of two well-known
international business programs (one in the USA, the other in Finland) participate in a business simulation.
The authors surveyed the students on their learning experience across different business functions. The
authors collected 440 responses over five years.
Findings – A gender gap exists in learning finance. Females surveyed reported learning less (9%–15%)
than males. However, foreign females reported learning more (11%–17%). Additionally, the authors find no
gender gap in learning of other business functions (i.e. marketing and strategy). Foreign females seem to
bypass traditional roles and sorting mechanisms.
Originality/value – To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to document the
moderating effect of foreignness on the gender gap in learning.
Keywords Simulations, Experiential learning, Self-efficacy, International business education,
Finance learning, Gender gap in finance
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The United Nations has set gender equality as a top priority on its international agenda, and
it is one of the sustainable development goals (United Nations, 2022). In addition to progress
sought by policymakers, educators are called to examine how teaching and learning might
better promote gender equality. Business educators can use the multicultural context in
which they teach to address gendered notions of learning and professional development. But
how much do we actually know about gender-related practices in business teaching?
Wagstaff et al. (2020) found in their review of gender-related content in the field of
international business (IB) a “complete absence of articles dedicated to teaching and learning
in relation to gender equality in international business education” (p. 612). We address this
gap by reporting the findings of a study on the use of simulations in two undergraduate
business programs, the results of which highlight gendered perceptions of learning.
New technologies have enabled business education to increasingly simulate managerial
decision-making in the classroom. The aim is to bolster the future employability of students
and provide active learning experiences (Blau et al., 2020). The research reported here grew
out of a comparative study of undergraduate student learning using a simulation, focusing
on experiences in two IB programs: Aalto University, at its Mikkeli campus in Finland and Gender gap in
Bryant University in Rhode Island, the USA. the business
The Aalto University Bachelor’s Program in IB at the Mikkeli campus is an English-
language degree program in which students take one course at a time, usually involving
classroom
three hours of classroom engagement each day for three weeks plus additional intensive
study each day. Cesim’s Global Challenge, an international strategy simulation, was chosen
as the basis of the program capstone course, which has been a required part of the
curriculum since 2015. Approximately 80 second-year students take the capstone each year
205
and are usually divided into two universes or markets of eight teams each. Three instructors
provide content (mainly review) on international finance, international strategy, critical
thinking and teamwork during the daily contact hours.
At Bryant University, all third-year students (typically between 60 and 80 second
semester juniors returning from a study abroad semester) take an integrative block of four
courses in the spring semester: International Marketing, International Finance, International
Accounting and International Management. The integrative block has used a simulation
since its inception in 2008 and, for the last 12 years, has been used business strategy
game (BSG). Professors of each course coordinate activities, lessons and class time that
further explain the role each functional area plays in the overall performance of the
simulated companies. The teams are the same for each course, creating a strong sense
of belonging, as students work together in simulation-related projects as well as other
course-specific ones. In both simulations, students are asked to apply corporate finance
tools alongside other functional knowledge to succeed in their simulated publicly
traded companies.
A broad survey was conducted annually from 2016 to 2020, resulting in 440 responses
from both universities. One of our key findings is that perceptions of learning in
functional areas in the simulations did not differ along gender lines with one important
exception. Female students across programs and over the years reported less learning
in/of finance.
The issue of reported learning is significant because student perception of own
performance may suggest future career choices and attitudes in the workplace. Research has
indicated that females have lower confidence in their knowledge and skills about
investments than their male counterparts (Cupak et al., 2020; Farrell et al., 2016). In addition,
a study by Smyth and Steinmetz (2008) indicates that educational segregation by gender
plays a significant role in shaping gender segregation within the labor market:
Those who have taken male fields of study are more likely to be found in typically male jobs,
while those who have taken typically female courses are more likely to be found in typically
female jobs. (Smyth and Steinmetz, 2008, p. 271)
The lack of confidence may be rooted in past socialization, such as in undergraduate studies
or earlier education and experiences.
As international educators, we need to understand the cultural backgrounds of our students
and how they affect their learning. While we hope that our programs would push students out
of their comfort zones, ongoing gender patterns in learning must also be acknowledged.
Our findings suggest important variations among students based on nationality; foreign
females report learning in finance more than other females as well as males. We identified no
such differences in reported learning in other areas, such as marketing, strategy or
production planning.
The remainder of the article is structured as follows. Section 2 provides a review of
the extant literature and introduces our hypotheses. Section 3 describes our data and
JIEB methodology. Section 4 presents our results. Section 5 provides a discussion and
16,2 recommendations, including ideas for the classroom as well as a conclusion.

Literature review
We define the term “gender gap” as the difference between women and men as reflected in
social, political, intellectual, cultural or economic attainments or attitudes (WEF, 2021). It
206 could also be called a “disproportionate difference between men and women and boys and
girls, particularly as reflected in attainment of development goals, access to resources and
levels of participation” (UNICEF, 2017). While discussions of the gender gap often focus on
inequality, our research emphasizes disproportionate differences that may or may not imply
inequality in terms of rights or opportunities.

Gender gap in finance

A gender gap in the field of finance has been well-documented in recent decades: males are
more likely than females not only to study but also to work in the field of finance. Only 12%
of chief financial officers in large publicly traded firms being female (Clempner et al., 2020).
These figures are even lower in some regions (IMF, 2018). Similarly, only 14% of financial
advisors are female (Dagher, 2019). In addition, studies conducted by the Harvard Business
School paint a tough picture for women in the USA and European private equity firms:
among senior roles in venture capital and private equity, women hold just 9% and 6% of the
positions, respectively (Lietz, 2012). Moreover, fund managers are very likely to be male
around the world; however, there are some cross-country differences. On the low end of the
spectrum, only 10% or less of mutual fund managers in the USA, Germany, Brazil, India
and Poland are female. In Nordic countries such as Norway, Finland, Sweden and Denmark,
the percentage of female fund managers is in the low teens. On the higher end, between 20%
and 30% of fund managers are female in countries like France, Portugal, Spain, Hong Kong
and Singapore (Sargis and Pavlenko, 2016). The gender gap in finance can be considered to
be costly for society; it has been argued by Barber and Odean (2001); and later by Stewart
(2018) that women perform better in finance.

Psychodynamic and self-efficacy theory

There are several frameworks available to analyze why the gender gap in finance occurs.
Systems psychodynamic theory addresses the interaction among collective structures,
norms and practices, as well as the cognitions, motivations and emotions of individuals in
those collectives (Petriglieri and Petriglieri, 2020). The theory focuses on the macrolevel of
society, which can explain cross-country differences in gender gaps in various fields. Self-
efficacy theory, in turn, complements psychodynamics and has been applied extensively to
educational contexts. Perceived self-efficacy refers to “beliefs in one’s capabilities to
organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (Bandura,
1997, p. 3). Four sources of self-efficacy are identified in the theory. First, mastery experience
is defined as the extent to which past performance in completing certain tasks shapes
expectations of future performance. Succeeding and a sense of achieving will increase self-
efficacy beliefs, whereas negative results in case of failing or underachieving will decrease
beliefs in one’s own capabilities. Second, vicarious experience refers to viewing the outcomes
achieved by another person (model) in the role of an observer. Witnessing the success of
others, particularly peers, encourages self-efficacy. Third, verbal or social persuasion refers
to the impact of others’ judgments. Family, teachers and peers can be the source of positive
and/or negative influences on a student’s belief in their ability to complete a task. The fourth
and final source of self-efficacy in the framework based on Bandura’s work is physiological
and emotional states, referring to the ways in which anxiety, stress and fatigue can color the Gender gap in
perceptions of a student of their potential for success (Gebauer et al., 2020). the business
Variations in self-efficacy have been studied across cultures, genders and fields of study.
In the following sections, we link notions of self-efficacy to gendered patterns of learning in
classroom
higher education, and then focus on finance and related fields. We draw particularly on the
first two sources of self-efficacy, mastery and vicarious experience and, to some extent, on
verbal and social persuasion in analyzing self-efficacy among students. The fourth source,
physiological and emotional states, lies outside the main focus of this study. 207

Higher education, gender and self-efficacy

The current gender gap in the field of finance is considered to have its roots, at least in part,
in higher education. However, this is puzzling because since the 1980s, the number of
females in business schools has been rising to reach an almost parity today. For example,
according to National Center for Education Statistics (2020), in the USA, roughly 182,000
(47%) females obtained a bachelor’s degree in business in the 2018–2019 academic year,
while 208,000 (53%) males did so in the same period. Women have made inroads in graduate
school as well; they represented 39% of MBA students in 2019, up from 32% in 2011, and
several notable MBA programs boast having more than 50% females (Ethier, 2019).
The Graduate Management Admissions Council describes similar findings in their
report (GMAC, 2019). Overall, females comprise 46% of graduate management admission
test-takers, and some specialized programs like master’s in accounting and master’s in
management have more than 50% female applicants. Moreover, female academics are
strongly underrepresented in the field of finance. Getmansky et al. (2021) show that only
16% of finance faculty members in the top 100 US universities are female. Furthermore,
females are less likely to be tenured/full professors in finance.
It is safe to assume that universities in Europe and the USA are trying to avoid any
discrimination in recruiting and admissions; however, gender differences remain. Despite
getting better grades in math (Hawash and Stephen, 2019), women are 2.5 times less likely to
choose finance majors (Skagerlund et al., 2018). Furthermore, females who take an
introductory course in finance are less likely to take an intermediate one (Ahlstrom, 2018).
Many factors have been studied, from the gender of the teacher (Jones and Merritt, 2020), to
the potential for higher earnings (Roach et al., 2012), to negative gender stereotypes (von
Hippel et al., 2015) and to gaining parents’ approval (Zafar, 2013). The problem, however, is
more pervasive. The biases and preconceived notions of what female college students
should major in influence the decisions of those whose job it is to guide them. In an
experimental setting with a national sample of college advisors, Thompson (2017) shows
that the gender of the advisor (not the student) is a predictor of the student major choice.
Female advisors are less likely to recommend that female students choose math as a
major [1]. Thus, tracking or sorting mechanisms seem to play a strong role in encouraging
female students to choose fields other than finance. Such “tracking” does not correlate with
performance. Even though female students are often tracked away from finance, they do not
seem to perform any worse than their male counterparts. In a meta-analysis of 242 studies
covering well over 1 million people, Lindberg et al. (2010) found that male and female
students perform similarly in mathematics.
Sorting in education has been widely studied since the seminal work of Spring (1976); its
mechanisms can be powerful. For example, Carlsson et al. (2021) examined the persistent
gender gap in academia in the Nordic region, focusing on recruitment to top-level academic
positions. They concluded that bias in recruitment was not the primary reason for the
underrepresentation of women in professor positions; rather, it resulted from other factors,
JIEB such as sorting mechanisms occurring at earlier stages in the academic career. Others, such
16,2 as Iannelli and Smyth (2008) and Smyth and Steinmetz (2008), add that it is plausible to
assume that education, i.e. the gender-typical choice of field of study, is a core factor in
explaining outcomes of the gender-specific occupation allocation process. Thus, a
background assumption in our research is that at least some of the gender gaps in the field
of finance can be attributed to educational sorting, which connects to both self-efficacy and
208 psychodynamic theory.
The relationship between gender and learning in higher education can be viewed through
a self-efficacy lens. In particular, self-efficacy relates to perceptions of learning, e.g. female
students who do not believe they can perform well may underestimate their success in
learning, i.e. “I cannot succeed therefore I must not have succeeded.” Extensive research has
been carried out in recent decades on gender differences in academic self-efficacy. Usher and
Pajares (2008) find that in school, girls tend to underestimate their ability in science,
technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) subjects, but boys overestimate it. Other
studies have noted differences in self-efficacy between males and females that emerge in
childhood and early adolescence regarding STEM subjects such as math and computer
science (Huang, 2013). Interestingly, the gender differences in mathematics have been
observed to increase as student age increases (ibid.). This suggests that by the time the
students reach university age, gender gaps in academic self-efficacy may become pronounced.
Stoet and Geary (2018) analyzed the gender sorting mechanism in STEM disciplines.
Using the most recent and largest international database on adolescent achievement, they
confirmed that girls performed similarly or better than boys on generic science literacy
tests in most nations. At the same time, women obtained fewer college degrees in STEM
disciplines than men in all assessed nations, although the magnitude of this gap varied
considerably. Their analysis suggests that “the percentage of girls who would likely be
successful and enjoy further STEM study was considerably higher than the propensity of
women to graduate in STEM fields, implying that there is a loss of female STEM capacity
between secondary and tertiary education” (Stoet and Geary, 2018, p. 591).
Using a simulation or other creative teaching methods, may, however, create new dynamics
for overcoming a lack of self-efficacy in STEM subjects and finance. The advent of e-platforms
for learning created a space in which the traditional roles and expected interactions among
students and between students and professors changed. There was hope that gender
differences would not be relevant. For example, Gonzalez-Gomez et al. (2012) found in a sample
of over 1,000 online students in Spain that women are more satisfied with the topics of their
classes and that females assign more importance to the planning of their learning. In a study by
Rovai and Baker (2005), female students in online education reported to learn more than their
male peers. With this finding in mind, one might expect similar results in the capstone courses
in focus here, which rely on an online simulation, but this called for deeper study.
Research has found gender differences in countries which rate higher on gender-equality
indexes (Stoet and Geary, 2018), the so-called gender-equality paradox. It is said to be rooted in
gender essentialist beliefs, i.e. that men and women are born psychologically very different, and
therefore, for example, fit different types of occupations, seem to persist (Knight and Brinton,
2017). For example, there is empirical support that the specific stereotype that women are less
technically skilled than men is very strong in Sweden (Tellhed et al., 2022).

Research methodology
Hypothesis development
The hypotheses outlined below are aligned with the notion of self-efficacy. Concerning
mastery experience: every student in the two programs has taken at least one course in
finance, marketing and management before participating in the courses in focus in this Gender gap in
study. One could then assume that all these students have some degree of mastery behind the business
them. However, a student may have gotten the basics in finance but perceived their mastery
classroom
as minimal. Previous negative experiences with quantitative courses may have colored
perceptions of recent or present positive learning experiences in finance. The literature on
sorting also suggests that some females have been steered away from finance and thus miss
opportunities for mastery experience. Concerning vicarious experience: the literature 209
reviewed suggests that female students look for role models in quantitative fields, i.e. among
peers, teachers and other professionals, and they find them lacking. So, it can be assumed
this was also true for the students surveyed. Concerning verbal/social persuasion: despite
the growing awareness of gender sorting and attempts to mitigate gender inequality around
the world, the persistence of gender essentialist beliefs would suggest that females continue
to receive negative messages about their chances of success in finance. This can be seen as
evidence of the gender paradox in developed countries.
Understanding that gender patterns in self-efficacy will affect reported learning, we
posit:

H1. Female students will report lower learning than male students.
In addition, we considered the internationality of the students in the capstone courses.
Foreign (also called international) students are part of a self-selecting group. They have
various motivations for studying outside their home countries. King and Sondhi (2018)
outline four types of motivation in their study of Indian and the UK students abroad: study
at a world-class university; access an international career; experience a unique adventure;
and family encouragement. They found similar patterns of cross-national response, also by
gender. This may suggest that while females might generally be sorted away from finance,
those studying abroad would be motivated to pursue an international career at a top
university, thus moving out of a comfort zone that might exclude finance. The “foreign”
factor may also accentuate the difference between foreign females and local ones in the
student cohorts studied, as the foreign females would be driven to succeed in various
subjects, whether motivated by a future career or family back home.
Foreign students may be different from domestic students in another way. Foreign
degree students (of both genders) tend to be good students in high school who have
purposely prepared for studying abroad by going above and beyond expectations in math,
languages, extracurricular activities, etc. Many of the international students studied here
were offered places at Bryant or Aalto with attractive funding packages. Thus, they
represented a select group of students (For more on this point, see (Wirawan and Bandu,
2016).
Differences between foreign females and their peers may emerge early. In their study of
computer coding among younger female students with a foreign background, Tellhed et al.
(2022) found that girls with a foreign background did not differ from boys in self-efficacy.
We speculate that foreign females, likely from an early age, experienced very positive verbal
and persuasion from teachers and family. Perhaps, their vicarious experiences are also
different from the rest of society. This would result in higher self-efficacy leading to
engagement and learning. For this reason, we posit that foreign female students will report
higher learning than other students:

H2a. Foreign female students will report learning more than other students.
JIEB H2b. Foreign female students from both programs will report learning more than other
16,2 students.
Finally, if, as we suggest in H1, reported learning is related to the participation rates in
different fields/industries, then similar results should appear in other fields with similar
gender imbalances. For example, the participation gap seen in finance is also observed in
manufacturing engineering with 79% male students and reversed in human resources and
210 personnel, where 75% of students are female (Data USA, 2020). From the same source, we
see that to a lesser degree, logistics and supply chain also exhibit an imbalance, with 64%
male participation. Other fields such as marketing, management and accounting can attract
both male and female students, i.e. 54% of marketing/management degree recipients are
female, accounting for 58% female. Further, students with low self-confidence, value and
enjoyment in mathematics tend to choose nonquantitative subjects such as marketing
organization and management, while students with high scores prefer finance subjects
(Opstad, 2019).
Given the gender participation rates in different fields and how students seem to move
away from quantitative fields, we posit:

H3a. There will be no difference between male and female reported learning in
marketing.
H3b. There will be no difference between male and female reported learning in
management (strategy).
H3c. Females will report learning less than males in production planning.

Data and methodology

Our data was gathered via a survey that was administered to Bryant IB and Aalto Mikkeli
students over a five-year period (2016–2020) after students had completed their respective
integrative, simulation-based courses. The survey was the same for both programs; it was
designed to provide instructors with a broad view of how students approached and learned
from the experience. It consisted of 20 multipart questions asking about specific functional
learning objectives as well as teamwork, stress management, critical thinking, dealing with
uncertainty, decision-making and more. Most answer options followed a five-point Likert
scale that asked students how much they agreed with statements assessing their learning
and/or the importance of the subject matter [2]. Participation in the survey was not
mandatory but encouraged by faculty. About 600 students were invited to participate and
440 answers were received. Overall, 38% of the answers are from Aalto University and 62%
from Bryant. Our sample is gender balanced, with 53% of responses being from female
students. Furthermore, 20% of our sample are females from Aalto University and 33% are
females from Bryant University. Most of our female students are domestic (from the USA or
Finland), and 14% of our sample identifies as foreign females.
Table 1 provides the definitions of the main variables. In both simulations, there are four
main finance areas/decisions students must consider in every round. Namely, dividend
policy, share repurchase, capital structure (debt policy) and foreign exchange. Our main
dependent variable is finance learning, fin_l, which is calculated as the average reported
learning on each of the four finance areas identified above. For each one, students were
asked: how much did you learn? and required to answer using a five-point scale where 1 is
the most and 5 is the least. In a similar fashion, we define our secondary dependent variables
Descriptive and control variables
Name Proxy Definition
Female Gender Dummy variable 1 = female 0 = otherwise
ff Nationality of female Dummy variable 1 = female foreigner 0 = otherwise
Aalto College Dummy variable 1 = Aalto 0 = Bryant
D_2020 Year Dummy variable 1 = 2020 0 = otherwise
D_2019 Year Dummy variable 1 = 2019 0 = otherwise
D_2018 Year Dummy variable 1 = 2018 0 = otherwise
D_2017 Year Dummy variable 1 = 2017 0 = otherwise
Like How did you like the experience of participating in 1 = very much 5 = not at all
the simulation?
Performance How do you rate your performance in the 1 = excellent 5 = did not do well at all
simulation?
Fin_i Importance of finance Average of how important dividend policy, share 1 = The most 5 = The least
repurchase, capital structure and foreign exchange
were for your team’s performance?
mktg_i Importance of How important was marketing for your team’s 1 = The most 5 = The least
marketing performance?
Strat_i Importance of Average of how important strategy selection and 1 = The most 5 = The least
strategy implementation for your team’s performance was?
Prod_i Importance of How important was production planning for your 1 = The most 5 = The least
production planning team’s performance
Main dependent variable
Fin_l Finance learning Average reported learning on dividend policy, share 1 = The most 5 = The least
repurchase, capital structure, foreign exchange
Secondary dependent variables
Mktg_l Marketing learning Average reported learning on marketing 1 = The most 5 = The least
Strat_l Strategy learning Average reported learning on strategy selection and 1 = The most 5 = The least
strategy implementation
Prod_l Production learning Average reported learning on production planning 1 = The most 5 = The least

Notes: Our sample consists of 440 answers to exit surveys administered to students from Aalto and Bryant Universities who participated on an integrated
capstone experience involving an online business simulation. Aalto students used Cesim. Bryant students used BSG. Participation was not mandatory. Surveys
were administered via Google forms at the end of the semester in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020

Table 1.
classroom
Gender gap in

211

Variable definition
the business
JIEB that capture the reported learning in other functional areas, strategy management,
16,2 production planning and marketing.
We define our main explanatory/independent variables as follows. First, to test if
perceived learning among females is different from that reported by males, we create
Female, a dummy variable identifying the gender of the student, 1 for females, 0 otherwise.
A positive and significant coefficient for this variable would provide evidence consistent
212 with our H1. Second, we identify foreign females with ff, another dummy that is 1 for
foreign females and 0 otherwise. For robustness, we later separate females from Aalto and
Bryant. A negative and significant coefficient for this variable would provide evidence
consistent with our H2.
We create several control variables; we realize that there are intrinsic differences in how
the two university programs prepare and present the material. We use a college dummy
variable to capture any program/country-level effect that we have not specified. Aalto is a
dummy that takes the value of 1 if respondent is from Aalto Mikkeli, 0 otherwise. Moreover,
we acknowledge that learning can be influenced by how much a student liked the experience
and/or by how well or badly her performance was. The variable Like shows how much the
respondent liked the simulation; 1 = very much, 5 = not at all. The variable Performance
shows the respondent’s assessment of how well they did in the simulation, 1 = very well, 5 =
not well at all. In our experience as educators, we believe students may pay more attention to
subjects they feel are important for their success. In this case, low reported learning in a
subject may simply be a function of its perceived low importance. We control for this
possibility by asking students how important they thought different functional areas were
for their success in the simulation. Fin_i is the respondent’s assessment of how important
finance was for her or his performance in the simulation, 1 = the most important, 5 = the
least. Finally, each iteration of the course brought its own unique set of circumstances that
could affect our results. For this reason, we control for fixed year effects using dummy
variables D_2020, D_2019, D_2018 and D_2017 that take the value of 1 in the said year and 0
otherwise.
Table 2 shows the means and standard deviations for our main and control variables
broken down by gender and program since we expected program-level differences to arise,
given that the Aalto Mikkeli course is run as a single course in three weeks whereas the
Bryant IB course is an integrated block of four courses over a traditional 15-week semester.
A few things are important to note. The overall mean value for fin_l is 2.57. The table shows
mean learning by different groupings such as program and gender. Males report higher
learning with a mean of 2.47 compared to 2.66 of females [3]. Additionally, students from
Bryant (mean 2.42) report learning more than those of Aalto (mean 2.81). This difference
across programs can be seen in other functional areas. Bryant students report higher
learning in marketing, strategy and production planning. Interestingly, in these areas, the
gender difference is not obvious. In marketing, males report a mean learning of 2.49, which
is only slightly different than the 2.53 reported by women. Similar results can be seen in the
reported learning on strategy (1.56 for males and 1.58 for females) and production planning
(2.06 for both).
Liking the experience, and/or performing well, can have a significant impact on the
learning the student achieves and reports. In general, male students report liking the
experience more (mean 2.13) than females (mean 2.57). In terms of performance, there is very
little difference between what male students report (mean 2.07) compared to female students
(mean 2.1). Regarding program differences, in both liking and performance, Aalto students
report performing better and liking the experience more than Bryant students. This may be
because the survey was an in-class activity at Bryant (part of the evaluation process) while it
 University Gender
Gender gap in
Business function Bryant Aalto Male Female All the business
classroom
Reported learning on the function
fin_l N 267 166 203 230 433
Mean 2.42 2.81 2.47 2.66 2.57
Std 0.77 0.85 0.76 0.88 0.83
Mktg_l N 270 168 206 232 438 213
Mean 2.17 3.06 2.49 2.53 2.51
Std 0.96 1.22 1.12 1.18 1.15
strat_l N 268 167 203 232 435
Mean 1.47 1.72 1.56 1.58 1.57
Std 0.74 0.81 0.79 0.77 0.78
Prod_l N 269 168 206 231 437
Mean 1.89 2.35 2.06 2.06 2.06
Std 0.91 0.93 0.93 0.96 0.94
Like
N 271 169 207 233 440
Mean 2.46 2.19 2.13 2.57 2.36
Std 1.23 1.24 1.24 1.21 1.24
Performance
N 271 169 207 233 440
Mean 2.2 1.91 2.07 2.1 2.09
Std 1.21 0.85 1.08 1.11 1.09
Importance of the function
Fin_imp N 270 168 205 233 438
Mean 2 2.54 2.31 2.12 2.21
Std 0.83 0.89 0.94 0.84 0.89
Mktg_imp N 269 168 204 233 437
Mean 1.89 2.4 2.03 2.14 2.09
Std 0.91 1.12 1.02 1.02 1.02
strat_imp N 270 168 205 233 438
Mean 1.44 1.59 1.47 1.52 1.5
Std 0.75 0.8 0.76 0.77 0.77
Prod_imp N 270 168 206 232 438
Mean 1.7 1.87 1.77 1.75 1.76
Std 0.86 0.77 0.79 0.87 0.83

Notes: Our sample consists of 440 answers to exit surveys administered to students from Aalto and Bryant
Universities who participated on an integrated capstone experience involving an online business Table 2.
simulation. Aalto students used Cesim. Bryant students used BSG. Participation was not mandatory. Means by university
Surveys were administered via Google forms at the end of the semester in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 and gender

was out of class in the Aalto Mikkeli program, which could have led to a self-selection bias
(students that liked the experience were more likely to answer the survey).
We also recognize that the (perceived) importance of a subject can play an important role
in how much effort/interest a student puts in learning a subject. We can see that female
students in our sample give finance a higher importance (mean 2.12) than male students
(mean 2.31). On the other hand, male students in our sample consider marketing and
strategy as more important than female students do. There is virtually no gender difference
in the perceived importance of production planning. From a program point of view, we
JIEB observe that students from Bryant University assign higher importance to every functional
16,2 area compared to those from Aalto. This may be since the Bryant integrative block
comprises four disciplinary-based courses, whereas at Aalto, the subject areas are integrated
into a single course co-taught by three faculties.
Table 3 reports the pairwise Pearson correlation coefficients (and their significance) for
our main variables. As predicted, liking the experience, and performing well in it have a
214 positive correlation with the self-reported learning [4]. The same is true for the importance of
the field and the degree of learning students report. For example, in finance, the correlation
between the importance students in both programs give to the field, and the learning they
report is 25%. The correlation between the importance of marketing and learning marketing
is 58%. For strategy and production planning, the figures are 62% and 58%, respectively.
This suggests that despite students thinking that finance is important, the correlation with
learning is lower than other fields areas of study. Students, in general, understand that
finance is important, but after the simulation, they perceive to have learned less about this
subject than others.
To test our hypotheses, we estimate regressions of the following forms:

H1: fin_lict ¼ a þ b1 Femaleict þ b5 Controlsict þ eict

H2a: fin_lict ¼ a þ b1 Femaleict þ b2 ffict þ b5 Controlsict þ eict

H2b: fin_lict ¼ a þ b2 ffict þ b3 fait þ b4 fbit þ b5 Controlsict þ eict

Variables Like Performance fin_l Fin_imp Mktg_l Mktg_i strat_l strat_i Prod_l

Performance 0.28278
<0.0001
fin_l 0.22427 0.14845
<0.0001 0.0019
Fin_imp 0.01817 0.03514 0.25328
0.7042 0.4627 <0.0001
Mktg_l 0.0788 0.02307 0.28566 0.18834
0.0992 0.6298 <0.0001 <0.0001
Mktg_i 0.06043 0.03495 0.18545 0.08305 0.58358
0.2068 0.4657 0.0001 0.0829 <0.0001
Strat_l 0.21191 0.09747 0.29253 0.06973 0.32411 0.3086
<0.0001 0.0419 <0.0001 0.1465 <0.0001 <0.0001
Strat_i 0.13663 0.03397 0.1926 0.0037 0.19984 0.3052 0.61811
0.0041 0.4777 <0.0001 0.9388 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
Prod_l 0.1538 0.14966 0.3943 0.18774 0.4223 0.3318 0.43814 0.29146
0.0012 0.0017 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
Prod_i 0.14996 0.1758 0.30101 0.17014 0.25679 0.3893 0.32266 0.33916 0.57868
0.0016 0.0002 <0.0001 0.0003 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
Table 3.
Notes: Our sample consists of 440 answers to exit surveys administered to students from Aalto and Bryant
Pairwise Pearson Universities who participated on an integrated capstone experience involving an online business
correlation simulation. Aalto students used Cesim. Bryant students used BSG. Participation was not mandatory.
coefficients Surveys were administered via Google forms at the end of the semester in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020
 H3a : Marketing_lict ¼ a þ b2 ffict þ b3 fait þ b4 fbit þ b5 Controlsict þ eict Gender gap in
the business
H3b : Management_lict ¼ a þ b2 ffict þ b3 fait þ b4 fbit þ b5 Controlsict þ eict classroom

H3c : Production_lict ¼ a þ b2 ffict þ b3 fait þ b4 fbit þ b5 Controlsict þ eict

where the subscript ict refers to i = individual, c = college and t = year. Female, ff, fa, fb are
215
dummy variables. They take the value of 1 when the individual is female, female and
foreigner, female from Aalto University and female from Bryant University, respectively.
Controls included in every regression estimation are dummy variables for every year, and
the program in which the student participated. Other controls introduced later are the
importance the student gives to each function, the student’s assessment of how much he or
she liked the experience and how well the student reports he or she did in the experience.

Results
If the gender gap reported in the literature review in an earlier section of this article is
present in our sample, we would expect the coefficient for Female to be positive [5]. Table 4
Panel A presents the results of running our equation (1) with different specifications. The
results confirm what we saw with simple means and correlations. The first column includes
the university (program) the student is attending, as well as a year dummy variable as
controls. We can see that the coefficient for Female is indeed positive and significant,
indicating the female students in our sample report learning less finance than male students.
We can also see those students from Aalto University report lower learning in finance than
those of Bryant University. In the next three columns, we control for the possibility that
reported learning in finance could be a function of how much a student liked or disliked the
experience and/or how well they think they did in it. Students who enjoyed the simulation
and/or performed well, are likely to spend more time studying and preparing and thus
should report learning more. In fact, our results show exactly that. These factors play a role
in the reported learning; however, even after controlling for them, the gender gap persists.
Interestingly, when explaining perceived learning, liking the experience seems to be more
important than the performance of the student. In Column 5, we explore another control;
students who believe a subject is important may spend more time preparing for it and thus
learn more. Results show that this is indeed a predictor for learning. Despite adding this
control, the gap persists. These findings are not due to school differences, nor to
performance on the simulation, nor to how much the student liked the experience and nor to
the year when the student took the class.
Table 4 Panel B shows the results of estimating our equation (2). In this specification, we
test if the gender gap in learning finance is true for all females or only for those native to the
domestic country. If foreign students, as reported in our literature review, have higher levels
of self-efficacy, the coefficient for ff should be negative and significant. Regression results
are presented in the same order as in Panel A. In the first column, we only include college as
control, the next three columns include Like and Performance, and finally, we include the
perceived importance of finance. Results support our H2a, the coefficient for ff is negative
and significant. With the inclusion of this additional variable, the gender gap persists;
females report lower learning, but we learn that the subset of foreign females report learning
more. All controls remain important determinants of learning, but they can’t explain the
gender gap.
JIEB
Specification 1 2 3 4 5
16,2
Panel A – gender gap – H1
Intercept 2.13602 *** 1.80073 *** 1.80454 *** 1.62383 *** 0.59385
23.6 16.42 15.02 12.9 4.75
Female 0.20432 *** 0.13526 * 0.19528 *** 0.14031 * 0.1381 **
2.66 1.78 2.59 1.86 2.24
216 Aalto 0.36875 *** 0.40905 *** 0.40858 *** 0.43031 *** 0.22433 ***
4.6 5.22 5.15 5.51 3.41
Like 0.15918 *** 0.13296 *** 0.08721 ***
5.12 4.12 3.28
Performance 0.14342 *** 0.10044 *** 0.01421
4.1 2.8 0.47
Fin_i 0.59627 ***
14.09
D_2020 0.29875 * 0.3117 * 0.3123 * 0.31906 ** 0.08422
1.78 1.91 1.9 1.97 0.63
D_2019 0.29172 *** 0.23402 ** 0.30418 *** 0.25225 ** 0.11272
2.61 2.14 2.77 2.32 1.26
D_2018 0.17881 * 0.14055 0.22448 ** 0.17884 * 0.01959
1.66 1.34 2.12 1.71 0.23
D_2017 0.25267 ** 0.26866 ** 0.28561 ** 0.28909 ** 0.17047 *
2.17 2.37 2.49 2.57 1.83
N 433 433 433 433 429
Adj. R^2 0.0738 0.1255 0.1069 0.1393 0.4229
Panel B – gender and foreignness – H1 and H2
Intercept 2.13115 *** 1.8089 *** 1.78488 *** 1.61354 *** 0.63421
24.03 16.84 15.16 13.07 5.04
Female 0.34055 *** 0.26376 *** 0.32492 *** 0.26625 *** 0.20268 ***
4.18 3.27 4.07 3.33 3.02
ff 0.51112 *** 0.48387 *** 0.49475 *** 0.47682 *** 0.25837 ***
4.33 4.21 4.28 4.19 2.69
Aalto 0.35001 *** 0.38927 *** 0.38944 *** 0.41105 *** 0.22478 ***
4.44 5.05 5.01 5.37 3.42
Like 0.15392 *** 0.12592 *** 0.08629 ***
5.03 3.99 3.25
Performance 0.15069 *** 0.11053 *** 0.02299
4.36 3.12 0.76
Fin_i 0.56941 ***
13.08
D_2020 0.32387 * 0.33294 ** 0.34846 ** 0.34933 ** 0.10179
1.92 2.03 2.11 2.15 0.74
D_2019 0.31768 *** 0.26441 ** 0.33608 *** 0.2876 *** 0.14214
2.89 2.46 3.12 2.7 1.58
D_2018 0.19739 * 0.15955 0.24494 ** 0.20131 ** 0.03969
1.88 1.56 2.36 1.97 0.46
D_2017 0.27894 ** 0.29128 *** 0.31186 *** 0.31318 *** 0.18708 **
2.44 2.62 2.78 2.84 2.01
Table 4. N 428 428 428 428 424
Finance learning Adj. R^2 0.1108 0.1595 0.1473 0.1766 0.4261
regressions (continued)
 Gender gap in
Specification 1 2 3 4 5
the business
Panel C – Gender, nationality and university H1 and H2 classroom
Intercept 2.17431 *** 1.84732 *** 1.82806 *** 1.65281 *** 0.66883
23.31 16.44 15.15 13.01 5.22
fa 0.48361 *** 0.37466 *** 0.47407 *** 0.38824 *** 0.31194 ***
3.82 3 3.83 3.14 3
fb 0.25125 ** 0.19659 ** 0.23167 ** 0.19245 * 0.13713 * 217
2.48 1.98 2.33 1.96 1.67
ff 0.50937 *** 0.48298 *** 0.49284 *** 0.47574 *** 0.25734 ***
4.32 4.21 4.27 4.19 2.69
Aalto 0.22608 ** 0.29364 *** 0.26037 ** 0.30624 *** 0.13008
1.97 2.6 2.31 2.74 1.37
Like 0.15136 *** 0.12268 *** 0.08317 ***
4.94 3.87 3.13
Performance 0.1515 *** 0.11221 *** 0.02453
4.39 3.17 0.81
Fin_i 0.56972 ***
13.1
D_2020 0.36732 ** 0.36609 ** 0.39392 ** 0.38602 ** 0.13497
2.15 2.2 2.35 2.34 0.97
D_2019 0.32253 *** 0.26901 ** 0.34125 *** 0.29301 *** 0.14738
2.94 2.5 3.17 2.75 1.64
D_2018 0.20065 * 0.16267 0.24859 ** 0.20538 ** 0.04394
1.91 1.59 2.4 2.01 0.51
D_2017 0.28078 ** 0.29249 *** 0.31396 *** 0.31484 *** 0.18835 **
2.46 2.63 2.8 2.85 2.02
N 428 428 428 428 424
Adj. R^2 0.1133 0.1602 0.1503 0.1779 0.4273

Notes: Dependent variable is respondents’ assessment of how much finance they learned by participating
in the simulation, 1 = the most learning, 5 = the least learning. Female is a dummy variable = 1 if
respondent is female, 0 otherwise. ff is a dummy variable = 1 if respondent is female and foreigner. fa is a
dummy variable = 1 if respondent is female from Aalto University. fb is a dummy = 1 if respondent is
female from Bryant University. Aalto is a dummy = 1 if respondent is from Aalto University. Like is how
much the respondent liked the simulation, 1 = very much, 5 = not at all. Performance is the respondent’s
assessment of how well he/she did in the simulation; 1 = very well, 5 = not well at all. Fin_i is the
respondent’s assessment of how important finance was for the performance on the simulation; 1 = the most
important, 5 = the least. D_2020, D_2019, D_2018 and D_2017 are dummies that take the value of 1 in said
year and 0 otherwise; *** indicates significant at the 99% level, ** indicates significant at the 95% level,
* indicates significant at the 90% level Table 4.

We note that these results are not only statistically significant but also economically
relevant. From Panel B, we see that the coefficient for Female ranges from 0.2 to 0.34. Given
that the mean reported learning for all students is 2.57, this implies that female students
learn between 9% and 15% less than male students. Foreign females are not subject to this;
in fact, the coefficient for ff ranges from 0.25 to 0.51, which means that foreign female
students report learning between 9% and 17% more than other students.
As we saw in Panels A and B, students surveyed from Aalto University report lower
learning in finance than those from Bryant University. This could be due to the fast pace of
the Aalto capstone course, i.e. the lack of time available to review and absorb the material.
For robustness, we want to understand if there are some unexplained gender differences
between female students at Bryant and female students at Aalto. For this reason, we
JIEB estimate our models using foreign females in Aalto (fa) and foreign females in Bryant (fb).
16,2 The results are presented in Panel C of Table 4. We follow the same order as in the previous
panels. The results confirm what we have presented so far. Female students from both
universities report lower learning, while at the same time, foreign females report higher
learning. Results are stronger for Aalto University than for Bryant, and we speculate that
this is related to the gender paradox described in Stoet and Geary (2018).
218 Our H3 states that other functional areas that do not exhibit large participation gaps or
where the proportion of male/female students is close to even would not exhibit the learning
gender gap we have shown in finance. We estimate equation (4) using marketing, and
strategy/management, which are close to even and production planning which, like finance,
is also a traditionally male-dominated area. We present our results in Table 5. First, we
explore student reports on learning marketing. The first column reports estimates using
only college as a control variable; Column 2 includes ff and Column 3 includes fa and fb. We
proceed in a similar fashion with the other functional areas. The results are consistent with
our hypotheses. The coefficient for Female is not significantly different from zero in every
specification. The same is true for ff and for fa and fb. We interpret this as an indication that
there are no gender or nationality differences in the reported learning of these functional
areas. As was the case for finance learning, liking the experience and believing the subject is
important are good predictors of learning. We find that performance in the simulation is not
a relevant predictor.

Alternative specification
In this section, we explore the possibility that our gender gap results may be driven by
performance in the simulation [6]. There may be a systematic difference in the way females
performed compared to males in this simulation and this gap led to them reporting lower
learning. The simulations are integrated learning tools. Students must apply knowledge on
every business field to succeed, and they compete against other students. So, our
performance metric is an overall metric, not a function specific metric. We, thus, estimate
performance regressions using our gender proxies as explanatory variables. Results are
presented in Table 6. We begin in the first two columns by estimating performance using
Female and ff as explanatory variables as well as controlling for the year the class was taken
and the university the student attended. We find, in both cases, that gender is not a factor in
their performance. This is consistent with the literature that suggests that females perform
at the same level as males. Additionally, we find that the coefficient for Aalto is negative and
significant. This indicates that Aalto university students report better performance than
those from Bryant students. In the third column, we add Like to control for the probability
that students that like the simulation perform better in it. The coefficient is positive and
significant, which is consistent with this idea. More importantly, the coefficients for Female
and ff remain insignificant. Finally, we test if student performance could be driven by their
assessment of the importance of each field. In other words, students that believe that finance
is important for overall performance may perform better. Results, in the fourth column,
show that indeed, production planning and finance play a role. The higher the importance
assigned by the students to these fields, the higher their performance. Marketing and
strategy do not appear to be significant determinants of performance in our sample. These
results may suggest a student bias toward quantitative fields in these simulations. This
could be a major drawback for them. If students believe and behave as if simulations are a
quantitative exercise, the “integrative” nature of the experience may be missing. The
coefficients for Female and ff remain not different from zero. We interpret these results as an
indication that while performance is gender neutral, learning perceptions are not.
Specification Learning about marketing Learning about strategy Learning about production planning

Intercept 0.985 *** 0.987 *** 1.029 *** 0.279 *** 0.271 ** 0.267 ** 0.638 *** 0.648 *** 0.641 ***
6.03 6.01 6.12 2.6 2.51 2.41 4.72 4.77 4.61
Female 0.061 0.069 0.057 0.050 0.022 0.026
0.7 0.72 0.98 0.78 0.3 0.33
fa 0.061 0.064 0.004
0.41 0.64 0.03
fb 0.147 0.042 0.040
1.26 0.53 0.4
ff 0.066 0.067 0.017 0.017 0.173 0.173
0.49 0.5 0.19 0.19 1.52 1.52
Aalto 0.657 *** 0.648 *** 0.536 *** 0.212 *** 0.212 *** 0.224 ** 0.377 *** 0.383 *** 0.402 ***
7.01 6.86 3.96 3.47 3.43 2.47 4.91 4.96 3.58
Like 0.061 * 0.058 0.055 0.075 *** 0.075 *** 0.075 *** 0.070 ** 0.070 ** 0.071 **
1.65 1.57 1.47 2.98 2.94 2.94 2.24 2.23 2.24
Performance 0.027 0.025 0.027 0.049 * 0.054 * 0.053 * 0.044 0.045 0.045
0.66 0.6 0.65 1.77 1.9 1.89 1.25 1.26 1.25
Function_i 0.570 *** 0.574 *** 0.574 *** 0.590 *** 0.588 *** 0.587 *** 0.617 *** 0.608 *** 0.607 ***
12.97 12.89 12.91 15.53 15.34 15.3 13.71 13.35 13.33
D_2020 0.362 * 0.324 * 0.285 0.059 0.090 0.086 0.042 0.051 0.045
1.91 1.66 1.44 0.47 0.69 0.65 0.27 0.31 0.27
D_2019 0.093 0.087 0.081 0.101 0.105 0.105 0.080 0.073 0.074
0.74 0.68 0.64 1.2 1.23 1.22 0.75 0.69 0.7
D_2018 0.029 0.032 0.028 0.167 ** 0.169 ** 0.169 ** 0.136 0.129 0.130
0.24 0.26 0.23 2.05 2.07 2.06 1.32 1.26 1.26
D_2017 0.160 0.143 0.143 0.024 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.020 0.020
1.23 1.09 1.09 0.27 0.29 0.29 0.23 0.18 0.18
N 436 431 431 434 429 429 436 431 431
Adj. R^2 0.4006 0.3987 0.3992 0.4131 0.4096 0.4083 0.3701 0.3709 0.3695

Notes: Other business function learning regressions. For each function (marketing, strategy and production planning), 1 = the most learning and 5 = the least learning.
Female is a dummy =1 if respondent is female, 0 otherwise. fa is dummy = 1 if respondent is female from Aalto University. fb is a dummy = 1 if respondent is female from
Bryant University. ff is a dummy = 1 if respondent is female and foreigner. Aalto is a dummy = 1 if respondent is from Aalto University. Like is how much the respondent
liked the simulation, 1 = very much. Performance is the respondent’s assessment of how well he/she did in the simulation, 1 = very well. “Function_i” is the respondent’s
assessment of the function (finance, marketing, strategy, production planning, GSCM, inventory management), which is the most important in the simulation, 1 = strongly
agree. D_2020, D_2019, D_2018 and D_2017 are dummies that take the value of 1 in said year and 0 otherwise; *** indicates significant at the 99% level, ** indicates
significant at the 95% level, * indicates significant at the 90% level
classroom

regressions H3
Other business
Table 5.
Gender gap in

219

function learning
the business
JIEB Specification 1 2 3 4
16,2
Intercept 2.320 *** 2.307 *** 1.795 *** 1.046 ***
18.92 18.89 12.32 4.92
Female 0.046 0.091 0.031 0.070
0.45 0.82 0.28 0.65
ff 0.126 0.097 0.069
220 0.79 0.63 0.45
Like 0.246 *** 0.199 ***
5.94 4.8
Fin_Imp 0.298 ***
4.22
Strat_Imp 0.038
0.54
Mkt_Imp 0.029
0.53
Prod_Imp 0.180 ***
2.66
Aalto 0.2771 ** 0.262 ** 0.204 * 0.299 ***
2.56 2.42 1.95 2.79
D_2020 0.0955 0.165 0.150 0.255
0.42 0.71 0.67 1.14
D_2019 0.0624 0.094 0.180 0.297 **
0.41 0.63 1.24 2.04
D_2018 0.309 ** 0.305 ** 0.364 *** 0.444 ***
2.12 2.11 2.61 3.22
D_2017 0.250 0.238 0.219 0.280 *
1.59 1.52 1.45 1.88
N 440 435 435 426
Adj. R^2 0.02 0.02 0.09 0.14

Notes: Student self-reported performance regressions. Performance is the respondent’s assessment of how
well he/she did in the simulation; 1 = excellent, 5 = did not do well at all. Female is a dummy = 1 if respondent
is female, 0 otherwise. ff is a dummy = 1 if respondent is female and foreigner. Like is how much the
respondent liked the simulation, 1 = very much. Importance controls, for each function (finance, strategy,
marketing and production), student’s assessment of how important each area is for the team’s performance,
1 = the most important, 5 = the least important. Aalto is a dummy = 1 if respondent is from Aalto University.
Table 6. D_2020, D_2019, D_2018 and D_2017 are dummies that take the value of 1 in said year and 0 otherwise;
Performance *** indicates significant at the 99% level, ** indicates significant at the 95% level, * indicates significant at
regressions the 90% level

Discussion and conclusion

The research reported here contributes to the field of teaching business by expanding on the
tracking/sorting and gender gap literature using a simulated corporate finance setting. We
present a large sample from IB programs at two well-known institutions collected over
several years. We show that gender gaps exist not only in the USA but also in Finland, a
country with low levels of gender inequality [7].
This study revealed significant underreporting of learning finance among female
students in both programs. We interpret this underreporting as consistent with a lack of
academic self-efficacy, which has been demonstrated to differ between males and females.
Regression results also suggest that in the context of a business simulation, there is a gender
gap in self-reported learning in finance but not for other business functions. This implies
that finance can be considered to follow patterns found among students of STEM subjects.
Moreover, we show that this effect is not present among the foreign females in our sample. Gender gap in
We also show that self-reported performance in the simulation is gender neutral. the business
The findings lead us to reflect on several key factors influencing the lack of academic self-
efficacy in finance among female students. First, female students are sorted away from finance
classroom
courses and careers, which results in fewer opportunities for mastery experiences that build
self-confidence. Second, that pattern reinforces a lack of vicarious experience since there are few
female role models in finance to inspire young women. Third, verbal and social persuasion may 221
also be lacking, in the form of family or teacher incentive to move into “suitable” fields. In
developed countries, that phenomenon may be rooted in the gender-equality paradox.
Considering motivations to study at a foreign university, females from less gender-equal
countries may be driven to succeed and therefore are sorted into fields such as finance,
which are known to provide a secure income. Stoet and Geary (2018), in their related study,
refer to “life-quality pressures in less gender-equal countries promote girls’ and women’s
engagement with STEM subjects” (p. 581). Thus, we assume that some of the self-efficacy of
the foreign females in our study has been driven by these life-quality pressures.
There are limitations to this study, including the fact that it only used survey data.
Exploring the reasons for female students reporting lower learning in finance calls for
further analysis using qualitative methods or deep description to better understand the
influences on self-efficacy. Second, it is limited to only two programs in two developed
countries where the gender paradox may bias our sample. Third, the data is not
longitudinal, e.g. measuring changes in perceptions of learning among the females in the
courses over time. This might prove difficult, as Bryant students go to work and Aalto
students mainly continue straight to master’s programs. An additional challenge in
applying the Bandura framework to an international group of students is that the formation
of self-efficacy can vary so much by culture (Gebauer et al., 2020).
The implications of our study include the following:
 Offering a better understanding of gender differences in student self-efficacy can
help educators to address hindrances to students entering fields such as finance.
 Closing the gender gap in finance will benefit the society since talent is currently
being wasted – some talented females are not choosing finance, and the field is
poorer for it.
 Public policy implications: our findings suggest that more needs to be done regarding
self-efficacy of females in earlier stages of development regarding quantitative
subjects such as math, as these are correlated with attitudes toward learning in
finance.
 Reflecting on self-efficacy among business students based on a large data set can
suggest useful updates in the theory, which dates to the 1990s and, to some extent,
as early as the 1970s.

Recommendations for practitioners

In this section, we outline five objectives that can help guide business educators to improve
gender equality in the classroom, particularly in finance learning:
 Increase opportunities for mastery experiences in finance and related fields. This
should occur not only in finance courses but also in previous courses to build
confidence that can benefit learning in finance.
JIEB  Strengthen the visibility of female role models, especially in finance. This can be done
16,2 via guest speaker stints by alumni, and other female practitioner input to the
programs.
 Encourage reflection among students on their gender roles and career expectations. The
gender-equality paradox may come as a surprise to some students who may be
complacent about the seemingly progressive approach to gender roles of their generation.
222  Encourage domestic female students to learn from foreign female students why they
feel more confident about their learning potential in finance. Peer learning is at times
challenging in multicultural courses and programs and needs to be introduced early
in the studies.
 Promote personal finance education to increase motivation among female students.
Relevant empirical studies on the level of financial knowledge reveal considerable
deficits, which are bigger for women than for men. Mittelstaedt and Wiepcke (2014)
suggest that the current gender differences observed in financial knowledge should be
addressed with gender-sensitive standardized education in schools.

Finally, the simulations used by both our case programs may help to break gender role
patterns. They rely heavily on online asynchronous content, which supplements
contact teaching in classroom. In preparation for team meetings, students review
content and previous results on an interactive online platform. Every team is presented
with their own set of circumstances that appear round after round depending on what
other teams do. In a sense, the simulation experience resides outside the traditional
classroom experience. The research of Gonzalez-Gomez et al. (2012) and Rovai and
Baker (2005) suggests that this is an environment where females could do well. If the
above is true, it could help reduce the gender gap in perceptions of learning. The use of
the simulations can be reconsidered to better encourage self-efficacy, particularly
among female students.
One area we plan to cover in future research is to contact the alumni of both
programs to see if these gender differences had an impact on the career paths they have
taken.

Notes
1. According to Ross and Wright (2020), math is central to finance education. Several studies have
established the link between statistics and mathematics knowledge and performance in finance,
for example, Fields (2013), Grover et al. (2009), Marcal and Roberts (2001), Ross and Wright (2020)
and Tularam (2013).
2. Our survey is available upon request.
3. Lower values indicate higher learning. Our survey assigned a 1 to the most learning and a 5 to
the lowest level of learning.
4. Lower values for both like and performance indicate that students liked the experience and
performed better.
5. We remind the reader that we used a scale where lower values represent more learning; 1 = the
most, 5 = the least.
6. We thank an anonymous reviewer for this recommendation.
7. Finland was ranked second out of 156 countries for gender equality, compared to the USA at 30
(World Economic Forum 2021).
References Gender gap in
Ahlstrom, L.J. (2018), Where Are the Women? The Gender Gap in Undergraduate Economics and the business
Finance Degree Selection, University of DE.
classroom
Bandura, A. (1997), Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, 1st ed., Worth Publishers, New York, NY.
Barber, B.M. and Odean, T. (2001), “Boys will be boys: gender, overconfidence, and common stock
investment”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 116 No. 1, pp. 261-292.
Blau, I., Shamir-Inbal, T. and Avdiel, O. (2020), “How does the pedagogical design of a technology- 223
enhanced collaborative academic course promote digital literacies, self-regulation, and perceived
learning of students?”, The Internet and Higher Education, Vol. 45, p. 100722.
Carlsson, M., Finseraas, H., Midtbøen, A.H. and Rafnsdottir, G.L. (2021), “Gender bias in academic
recruitment? Evidence from a survey experiment in the Nordic region”, European Sociological
Review, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 399-410.
Clempner, J., Daisley, M. and Jaekel, A. (2020), Women in Financial Services 2020, Oliver Wyman,
p. 55.
Cupak, A., Fessler, P. and Schneebaum, A. (2020), “Gender differences in risky asset behavior: the
importance of self-confidence and financial literacy”, Finance Research Letters, Vol. 42, p. 101880.
Dagher, V. (2019), “Clients want to work with female advisers, and firms are taking notice”, Wall Street
Journal, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 43-61. 24 August, available at: www.wsj.com/articles/clients-want-to-
work-with-female-advisers-and-firms-are-taking-notice-11566639000 (accessed 7 June 2021).
Data USA (2020), “Data USA”, available at: https://datausa.io/profile/cip/general-marketing-marketing-
management#demographics (accessed 7 June 2021).
Ethier, M. (2019), “Poets&quants j even as apps slump, women’s MBA enrollment steadily grows”,
Poets&Quants, 6 November, available at: https://poetsandquants.com/2019/11/06/even-as-apps-
slump-womens-mba-enrollment-steadily-grows/ (accessed 8 June 2021).
Farrell, L., Fry, T.R.L. and Risse, L. (2016), “The significance of financial self-efficacy in explaining
women’s personal finance behaviour”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 54, pp. 85-99.
Fields, L.P. (2013), “Mandatory prerequisite testing and performance in intermediate corporate
finance”, Journal of Financial Education, Financial Education Association, Vol. 39 Nos 1/2,
pp. 29-42.
Gebauer, M., McElvany, N., Bos, W., Köller, O. and Schöber, C. (2020), “Determinants of academic self-
efficacy in different socialization contexts: investigating the relationship between students’
academic self-efficacy and its sources in different contexts”, Social Psychology of Education,
Vol. 23 No. 2, doi: 10.1007/s11218-019-09535-0.
Getmansky, Sherman, M. and Tookes, H. (2021), Female Representation in the Academic Finance
Profession, SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 3438653, Social Science Research Network, Rochester,
New York, NY, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3438653.
GMAC (2019), Women and the Full Time MBA: Continuing the Push for Progress, Graduate
Management Admissions Council, p. 16.
Gonzalez-Gomez, F., Guardiola, J., Martín Rodríguez, Ó. and Montero Alonso, M.Á. (2012),
“Gender differences in e-learning satisfaction”, Computers and Education, Vol. 58 No. 1,
pp. 283-290.
Grover, G., Heck, J. and Heck, N. (2009), “Pretest in an introductory finance course: value added?”,
Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 85 No. 2, pp. 64-67.
Hawash, R. and Stephen, S.-A.K. (2019), “Where are all the female finance majors? An examination of
gender and performance in undergraduate corporate finance”, Journal of Higher Education
Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 8, doi: 10.33423/jhetp.v19i8.2674.
Huang, C. (2013), “Gender differences in academic self-efficacy: a meta-analysis”, European Journal of
Psychology of Education, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 1-35.
JIEB Iannelli, C. and Smyth, E. (2008), “Mapping gender and social background differences in education
and youth transitions across Europe”, Journal of Youth Studies, Routledge, Vol. 11 No. 2,
16,2 pp. 213-232.
IMF (2018), “Women in finance: an economic case for gender equality”, International Monetary Fund,
available at: https://blogs.imf.org/2018/09/19/women-in-finance-an-economic-case-for-gender-
equality/ (accessed 7 June 2021).
Jones, J. and Merritt, K. (2020), “Women in finance: an investigation of factors impacting career choice”,
224 The Journal of Business Diversity, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 85-93.
King, R. and Sondhi, G. (2018), “International student migration: a comparison of UK and Indian
students’ motivations for studying abroad”, Globalisation, Societies and Education, Vol. 16 No. 2,
pp. 176-191.
Knight, C.R. and Brinton, M.C. (2017), “One egalitarianism or several? Two decades of gender-role
attitude change in Europe”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 122 No. 5, pp. 1485-1532.
Lietz, N.G. (2012), “In the hot finance jobs, women are still shut out”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 90
Nos 7/8, pp. 30-30.
Lindberg, S.M., Hyde, J.S., Petersen, J.L. and Linn, M.C. (2010), “New trends in gender and mathematics
performance: a meta-analysis”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 136 No. 6, pp. 1123-1135.
Marcal, L. and Roberts, W.W. (2001), “Business statistics requirements and student performance in
financial management”, Journal of Financial Education, Vol. 27, pp. 29-35.
Mittelstaedt, E. and Wiepcke, C. (2014), “Gender differences in financial knowledge and behavior -
design of standard oriented personal finance education”, International Journal of Educational
Studies, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 53-61.
National Center for Education Statistics (2020), “Digest of education statistics, 2020”, National Center
for Education Statistics, available at: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d20/tables/
dt20_322.40.asp (accessed 8 June 2021).
Opstad, L. (2019), “Different attitudes towards mathematics among economic and business students and
choice of business course major in Norway”, Social Sciences and Education Research Review, Vol. 6.
Petriglieri, G. and Petriglieri, J.L. (2020), “The return of the oppressed: a systems psychodynamic
approach to organization studies”, Academy of Management Annals, Academy of Management,
Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 411-449.
Roach, D., McGaughey, R. and Downey, J. (2012), “Selecting a business major within the college of
business”, Administrative Issues Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1, doi: 10.5929/2011.2.1.7.
Ross, M.M. and Wright, A.M. (2020), “Know math or take a bath on a finance final exam”, Journal of
Economics and Finance Education, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 51-69.
Rovai, A.P. and Baker, J.D. (2005), “Gender differences in online learning. sense of community,
perceived learning, and interpersonal interactions”, Vol. 6 No. 1, p. 15.
Sargis, M. and Pavlenko, L. (2016), Fund Managers by Gender, Morningstar, p. 39.
Skagerlund, K., Lind, T., Strömbäck, C., Tinghög, G. and Västfjäll, D. (2018), “Financial literacy and the
role of numeracy–how individuals’ attitude and affinity with numbers influence financial
literacy”, Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, Vol. 74, pp. 18-25.
Smyth, E. and Steinmetz, S. (2008), “Field of study and gender segregation in European labour
markets”, International Journal of Comparative Sociology, Vol. 49 Nos 4/5, pp. 257-281.
Spring, J. (1976), The Sorting Machine: National Educational Policy since 1945, David McKay Company,
New York, NY.
Stewart, N. (2018), “Are women better investors than men?”, Warwick Business School, available at:
www.wbs.ac.uk/news/are-women-better-investors-than-men/ (accessed 8 June 2021).
Stoet, G. and Geary, D.C. (2018), “The gender-equality paradox in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics education”, Psychological Science, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 581-593.
Tellhed, U., Björklund, F. and Kallio Strand, K. (2022), “Sure I can code (but do I want to?). why boys’ Gender gap in
and girls’ programming beliefs differ and the effects of mandatory programming education”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 135, p. 107370. the business
Thompson, S. (2017), “College advising and gender”, Economic Inquiry, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 1007-1016. classroom
Tularam, G.A. (2013), “Mathematics in finance and economics: Importance of teaching higher order
mathematical thinking skills in finance”, E-Journal of Business Education and Scholarship of
Teaching, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 43-73.
Unicef (2017), Gender Equality: Glossary of Terms and Concepts, United Nations International
225
Children’s Emergency Fund, p. 17.
United Nations, U (2022), “Gender equality”, United Nations, United Nations, available at: www.un.org/
en/global-issues/gender-equality (accessed 13 November 2022).
Usher, E.L. and Pajares, F. (2008), “Sources of self-efficacy in school: critical review of the literature and
future directions”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 78 No. 4, pp. 751-796.
von Hippel, C., Sekaquaptewa, D. and McFarlane, M. (2015), “Stereotype threat among women in
finance: negative effects on identity, workplace well-being, and recruiting”, Psychology of
Women Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 405-414.
Wagstaff, M.F., Hadjimarcou, J. and Chanoi, C. (2020), “Gender equality in international business
education”, Journal of Management Education, Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 605-621.
WEF (2021), “Global gender gap report 2021”, World Economic Forum, available at: www3.weforum.
org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2021.pdf (accessed 10 November 2021).
Wirawan, H. and Bandu, M.T. (2016), “A review of self-efficacy training for international student”, The
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 115-128.
Zafar, B. (2013), “College major choice and the gender gap”, Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 48 No. 3,
pp. 545-595.

Corresponding author
Andres Ramirez can be contacted at: aramirez@bryant.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.