Quota Women Are Threatening to Men
Unveiling the (Counter)Stereotypization of Beneficiaries of Affirmative Action Policies
Abstract
Abstract. Two studies carried out among Albanian public-sector employees examined the impact of different types of affirmative action policies (AAPs) on (counter)stereotypical perceptions of women in decision-making positions. Study 1 (N = 178) revealed that participants – especially women – perceived women in decision-making positions as more masculine (i.e., agentic) than feminine (i.e., communal). Study 2 (N = 239) showed that different types of AA had different effects on the attribution of gender stereotypes to AAP beneficiaries: Women benefiting from a quota policy were perceived as being more communal than agentic, while those benefiting from weak preferential treatment were perceived as being more agentic than communal. Furthermore, we examined how the belief that AAPs threaten men’s access to decision-making positions influenced the attribution of these traits to AAP beneficiaries. The results showed that men who reported high levels of perceived threat, as compared to men who reported low levels of perceived threat, attributed more communal than agentic traits to the beneficiaries of quotas. These findings suggest that AAPs may have created a backlash against its beneficiaries by emphasizing gender-stereotypical or counterstereotypical traits. Thus, the framing of AAPs, for instance, as a matter of enhancing organizational performance, in the process of policy making and implementation, may be a crucial tool to countering potential backlash.
References
1986).
(Gender stereotypes . In R. D. AshmoreF. Del BocaEds., The social psychology of female-male relations: A critical analysis of central concepts (pp. 69–119). New York: Academic Press.2000). Masculinity and femininity in contemporary American society: A reevaluation using the Bem Sex-Role Inventory. Sex Roles, 43, 499–528. doi 10.1023/ A:1007119516728
(2009). The glass ceiling in the 21st century: Understanding barriers to gender equality. doi 10.1037/11863-000
(1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162. doi 10.1037/h0036215
(2012).
(Feminism without gender? Arguments for gender quotas on corporate boards in Norway . In F. EngelstadM. TeigenEds., Firms, boards and gender quotas: Comparative perspectives (pp. 185–209). doi 10.1108/S0195-6310(2012)00000290102001). Foucault, politics and organizations: (Re)-constructing sexual harassment. Gender, Work, and Organization, 8, 37–60. doi 10.1111/1468-0432.00121
(2009). The short form BSRI: Instrumentality, expressiveness and gender associations among a United Kingdom sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 384–387. doi 10.1016/j.paid.2008.11.005
(2013).
(Affirmative action and gender equality . In M. K. RyanN. R. BranscombeEds., The SAGE handbook of gender and psychology (pp. 484–499). London, UK: Sage.2014).
(From women’s emancipation model to fetishism of the law: Gender equality in Communist and post-Communist Albania . In S. AboimP. VasconcelosEds., Gender, sexuality and the body: Critical perspectives (pp. 48–58). Lissabon, Portugal: Instituto de Ciências Sociais da Universidade de Lisboa.1998). Perceptions of female and male managers in the 1990s: Plus ça change ...Sex Roles, 38, 287–300. doi 10.1023/A:1018741318216
(1996). Evaluation of leadership in preferential and merit-based leader selection situations. The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 41–62. doi 10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90034-X
(2011). Do sexist organizational cultures create the Queen Bee? British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 519–535. doi 10.1348/014466610X525280
(2016). The queen bee phenomenon: Why women leaders distance themselves from junior women. The Leadership Quarterly, 27, 456–469. doi 10.1016/j. leaqua.2015.12.007
(1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
(2003). The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 807–834. doi 10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.09.004
(2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598. doi 10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573
(2014). Women at work: How organizational features impact career development. Policy Insights from Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1, 46–54. doi 10.1177/2372732214549327
(2012). Women in high places: When and why promoting women into top positions can harm them individually or as a group (and how to prevent this). Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 163–187. doi 10.1016/j.riob.2012.10.003
(2004). The underrepresentation of women in science: Differential commitment or the queen bee syndrome?. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 315–338. doi 10.1348/0144666042037999
(1998). Intergroup competition and attitudes toward immigrants and immigration: An experimental model of intergroup conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 54, 699–724. doi 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1998.tb01244.x
(2015). She figures 2015. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_gender_equality/she_figures_2015-final.pdf
(2014). Boosting equality between women and men in the EU: Key actions and figures. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/documents/140303_factsheet_progress_en.pdf
(2015). Genre d’accord, mérite d’abord? Une analyse des opinions envers les mesures de discrimination positive [
(Gender OK, but merit first? An analysis of opinions toward affirmative action plans ]. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.2016). Queen bees and alpha males: Are successful women more competitive than successful men? European Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 903–913. doi 10.1002/ejsp.2198
(2017). Nothing changes, really: Why women who break through the glass ceiling end up reinforcing it. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 638–651. doi 10.1177/0146167217695551
(2012). The influence of education on attitudes toward affirmative action: The role of the policy’s strength. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 387–413. doi 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00892.x
(1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 429–456. doi 10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.429
(1999). (Dis)respecting versus (dis)liking: Status and interdependence predict ambivalent stereotypes of competence and warmth. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 473–489. doi 10.1111/0022-4537.00128
(2000). The Bem Sex-Role inventory: Validation of a short version for French teenagers. European Review of Applied Psychology, 50, 405–416.
(1989). Essentially speaking: Feminism, nature and difference. New York: Routledge.
(2009). Status and the gender stereotyped personality traits: Toward an integration. Sex Roles, 61, 297–316. doi 10.1007/s11199-008-9529-9
(2012).
(Kuotat gjinore dhe zbatimi i tyre [Gender quota and its implementation] . In E. GjermeniM. DautiEds., Studime Gjnore (pp. 247–265). Tirana, Albania: MediaPrint.1984). Nonverbal sex differences: Communication accuracy and expressive style. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
(2006). Understanding attitudes toward affirmative action programs in employment: Summary and meta-analysis of 35 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1013–1036. doi 10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1013
(2012).
(Why gender quotas in company boards in Norway – and not in Sweden? In F. EngelstadM. TeigenEds., Firms, boards and gender quotas: Comparative perspectives (pp. 147–183). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.1983). Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. Research in Organizational Behavior, 5, 269–298.
(1998). Type of affirmative action policy: A determinant of reactions to sex-based preferential selection? Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 190–205. doi 10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.190
(1992). Presumed incompetent? Stigmatization and affirmative action efforts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 536–544. doi 10.1037/0021-9010.77.4.536
(1997). The affirmative action stigma of incompetence: Effects of performance information ambiguity. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 603–625. doi 10.2307/257055
(2009).
(Increasing the representation and status of women in employment: The effectiveness of affirmative action . In M. BarretoM. K. RyanM.T. SchmittEds., The glass ceiling in the 21st century: Understanding barriers to gender equality (pp. 257–280). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.2005). In genes we trust: The biological component of psychological essentialism and its relationship to mechanisms of motivated social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 686–702. doi 10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.686
(2014). Strategic and regulatory approaches to increasing women in leadership: Multilevel targets and mandatory quotas as levers for cultural change. Journal of Business Ethics, 133, 395–419. doi 10.1007/s10551-014-2069-z
(2004). Gender stereotypes and negotiation performance: An examination of theory and research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 26, 103–182. doi 10.1016/ S0191-3085(04)26004-X
(Law on gender equality in society. Tirana (Albania) Labor Code §9970 (2008).
2013). The stigma of affirmative action: A stereotyping-based theory and meta-analytic test for the consequences for performance. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 964–989. doi 10.5465/amj.2011.0940
(2002). Les représentations des groupes dominants et dominés: Collections et agrégats [
(Social representations of dominant and dominated groups: Collections and aggregates ]. Grenoble, France: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.2009). Shifting ground: The variable use of essentialism in contexts of inclusion and exclusion. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 35–59. doi 10.1348/014466607X270287
(in press). Affirmative action policies in job advertisements for leadership positions: How they affect women’s and men’s inclination to apply. European Journal of Social Psychology.
(2016). Is gender diversity profitable? Evidence from a global survey. Working Paper for the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Retrieved from https://piie.com/publications/wp/wp16-3.pdf
(2016). OECD Employment Outlook 2016. doi 10.1787/empl_outlook-2016-en
(2014). Women in politics and media: Perspectives from nations in transition. London, UK: Bloomsbury.
(2006). The role of threat in attitudes toward affirmative action and its beneficiaries. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 41–74. doi 10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00003.x
(2002). The stigmatization effects of affirmative action: An examination of moderating variables. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 185–206. doi 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb01426.x
(2012). A meta-analysis of gender group differences for measures of job performance in field studies. Journal of Management, 38, 719–739. doi 10.1177/ 0149206310374774
(1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 629–645. doi 10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.629
(1999). Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: The hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1004–1010. doi 10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.1004
(2001). A global look at psychological barriers to women’s progress in management. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 675–688. doi 10.1111/0022-4537.00235
(1992). Sex role stereotyping and requisite management characteristics: A cross cultural look. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 439–447. doi 10.1002/job. 4030130502
(1996). Think manager – think male: A global phenomenon? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 33–41. doi 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199601) 17:1<33::AID-JOB778>3.0.CO;2-F
(2003). A closer look beneath the surface: Various facets of the think-manager-think-male stereotype. Sex Roles, 49, 353–363. doi 10.1023/A:1025112204526
(2016). Reporting requirements, targets, and quotas for women in leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 27, 519–536. doi 10.1016/j.leaqua. 2015.12.003
(2000). When situations call for instrumentality and expressiveness: Resource appraisal, coping strategy choice, and adjustment. Sex Roles, 42, 865–885. doi 10.1023/A:1007098400593
(1999). Prejudice toward immigrants. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2221– 2237. doi 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00107.x
(1979).
(An integrative theory of intergroup conflict . In S. WorchelW. AustinEds., The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–48). Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.1997). Changes in masculine and feminine traits over time: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 36, 305–325. doi 10.1007/BF02766650
(2001). Changes in women’s assertiveness in response to status and roles: A cross-temporal meta-analysis, 1931–1993. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 133–145. doi 10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.133
(2014). Albania gender equality factsheet. Retrieved from http://www.al.undp.org/content/albania/en/home/library/poverty/publication_1/fact-sheet-gender-equality-in-albania/
(1982). Measuring sex stereotypes: A thirty-nation study. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
(2015). The paradox of diversity initiatives: When organizational needs differ from employee preferences. Journal of Business Ethics, 4, 1–16. doi 10.1007/s10551-015-2864-1
(