Into Special Issue Addressing Gender Inequality Submitted Version
Into Special Issue Addressing Gender Inequality Submitted Version
Into Special Issue Addressing Gender Inequality Submitted Version
TITLE
Addressing gender inequality: Stumbling blocks and roads ahead
AUTHORS
Morgenroth, T; Ryan, M
JOURNAL
Group Processes and Intergroup Relations
DEPOSITED IN ORE
19 July 2018
http://hdl.handle.net/10871/33496
A NOTE ON VERSIONS
The version presented here may differ from the published version. If citing, you are advised to consult the published version for pagination, volume/issue and date of
publication
Running head: ADDRESSING GENDER INEQUALITY 1
Author Note
The authors would like to thank all reviewers for their valuable and insightful comments, and to
thank Craig McGarty and Cynthia Picket for handling submissions where there was a conflict of
Washington Singer Laboratories, University of Exeter, Perry Road, Exeter, EX4 4QG, UK.
Contact: T.Morgenroth@exeter.ac.uk
ADDRESSING GENDER INEQUALITY 2
Abstract
Despite many positive changes in terms of gender equality in recent decades, women
disproportionate amounts of unpaid domestic labor. This special issue brings together an
examination of the different ways in which gender inequality can be addressed, the efficacy of
such approaches, and the consequences these approaches can have. In this introduction to the
special issue, we discuss the focus of past and present gender research and outline issues which
have received less attention. We further give an overview over the papers in this special issue,
which focus on a diverse range of ways in which gender inequality can be addressed, such as
collective action, workplace diversity initiatives and parental leave policies, gender-fair
language, and government policies. Taken together, these papers illustrate (a) the importance of
ensuring that initiatives are evidence based, (b) the ways in which we can maximize the
effectiveness of interventions, and (c) the need to understand when these initiatives may
inadvertently backfire.
The last decades have seen many positive changes in terms of gender equality.
Approximately half of all higher education students and half of the workforce are women in most
Western countries (European Commission, 2013; Kena et al., 2015; United States Department of
Labor, 2015). Moreover, the number of women in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM fields) has increased substantially over the years. For example, the number
of women among scientists and engineers has increased more than 20% since 2007 and women
now make up about 40% of scientists and engineers in the EU-28 countries (Catalyst, 2018b),
although these gains are not equally distributed across STEM fields. Similarly, the number of
women in national parliaments worldwide has increased from 14% in 2000 to 24% in 2017 (The
as executive leadership (Sealy, Doldor, Vinnicombe 2016); surgery (ACS Health Policy Research
Institute, 2010); professorial academics (Catalyst, 2018a); and, despite the gains, in STEM (NSF,
2017) and politics (Bergh, 2009). Moreover, men’s involvement in traditionally female domains
has changed much less. For example, the number of male registered nurses in the US, while
increasing, was still only 10% in 2011 (Landivar, 2013) and men continue to contribute a
Thus, while big gains have been made in terms of gender inequality, many issues remain
and need to be addressed. The goal of this special issue is not to describe the nature and
magnitude of gender inequality, but rather to bring together an examination of the different ways
ADDRESSING GENDER INEQUALITY 4
in which gender inequality can be addressed, the efficacy of such approaches, and the
Gender inequality has been a prominent theme in psychology since the second wave of
feminism in the 1960. To illustrate, Eagly, Eaton, Rose, Riger, and McHugh (2012) analyze the
number of publications per year on sex differences, gender, and women from 1960 to 2009 in a
paper about the history of feminism and psychology. They find a marked rise in popularity in
gender articles in the last 50 years when looking at publications about gender as a proportion of
all psychology articles, and, relevant to the issue gender inequality, the largest part of these
This research has produced a wealth of fascinating findings (a summary of which is, alas,
beyond what we can offer in this introductory article), but has predominantly focused on why and
when gender inequality occurs. For example, there has been much theorizing and empirical
research on the formation and negative consequences of gender stereotypes (see for example
Eagly, 1987; Eagly, Wood, & Diekman, 2000; Heilman, 2001; Koenig, Eagly, Mitchell, Ristikari,
2011; Rudman & Glick, 2001; Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999) as well as different ways in
which sexism is expressed, such as ambivalent sexism (Glick & Fiske, 1996, 1999, 2001) and
More recently, psychological research has taken greater interest in understanding how
gender inequality can be overcome, focusing, for example, on women’s collective action (e.g.,
Becker & Wright, 2011; Liss, Crawford, & Popp, 2004; Zaal, van Laar, Ståhl, Ellemers, &
Derks, 2011), the effects of female role models (e.g., Cheryan, Siy, Vichayapai, Drury, & Kim,
2011; Dasgupta, 2011; Stout, Dasgupta, Hunsinger, & McManus, 2011), and gender-fair
ADDRESSING GENDER INEQUALITY 5
language (e.g., Gustafsson Sendén, Bäck, & Lindqvist, 2015; Sczesny, Formanowicz, & Moser,
2016; Vervecken, Hannover, & Wolter, 2013). Less work has focused on men’s role in the quest
for gender equality, such as their involvement in collective action to achieve gender equality or
their role in childcare and domestic work (but see, for example, Deutsch, Lussier, & Servis,
It is also important to note that research has, for the most part, focused on white,
identities such as women from ethnic minority backgrounds, lesbians, women from lower SES
backgrounds, and transwomen receiving far less attention (but see for example Ghavami &
Peplau, 2012; Niedlich, Steffens, Krause, Settke, & Ebert, 2015; Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach,
2008, for notable exceptions). The same invisibility in the literature is true for those with non-
binary identities, including genderqueer or intersex individuals. Almost all discussions of gender
inequality in psychology is based on what we would see as overly simplistic, binary definitions
of gender in terms of women and men. We argue that this is problematic as it reproduces the
invisibility and stigma these groups face in everyday life. As social psychological researchers,
we should do better.
While this special issue can in no way address all of the points above, we have selected
ten papers that we feel present a range of novel findings that relate to the gaps in the literature
outlined above. Below, we give a brief summary of the papers in this special issue and the
The first three papers in this special issue focus on the different strategies that can be
used to bring attention to societal gender inequality in general, examining their effectiveness and
ADDRESSING GENDER INEQUALITY 6
downstream consequences for women and men. In their paper on the effects of exposure to the
2017 Women’s March, Saguy and Szekeres (2018) investigate the gender-related system-
justification beliefs of men and women, and how these differ before and after the Women’s
March. In doing so, the authors demonstrate that collective action on behalf of women can be an
effective tool to reduce these beliefs. However, the authors also show that this effect is not
ubiquitous. Men who highly identified with their gender showed stronger gender system
justification beliefs with greater exposure to the Women’s March. Similarly, Anisman-Razin,
Kark, and Saguy (2018) examine how bringing attention to gender inequality can backfire. They
find that women who “put gender on the table” are disliked by both men and non-feminist
women. Moreover, bringing attention to gender inequality also resulted in more negative
Focusing on ways to overcome these barriers, Subašić and colleagues (2018) examine the
ways in which men can be encouraged to engage in collective action to achieve gender equality.
More specifically, the authors investigate whether framing men as agents of change can have
positive effects and find that this indeed increases men’s intentions to engage in collective action.
Similarly, messages framing gender equality as an issue for both men and women increase men’s
collective action intentions, although this may only be the case when the the message comes
from a male source. In sum, these three papers provide evidence that bringing attention to issues
of gender inequality does not unilaterally lead to positive effects. While there are indeed some
positive consequences, negative outcomes are also prevalent, particularly among (highly
identified) men and when the source of attempted mobilization is female. However, framing
these messages in ways that are inclusive towards men may alleviate some of these
consequences.
ADDRESSING GENDER INEQUALITY 7
Five papers in this special issue focus on achievement domains such as the workplace and
education. In their theoretical paper, Heilman and Caleo (2018) highlight the importance of
More specifically, the authors build on the lack of fit framework to propose two sets of strategies
to increase gender equality in the workplace. The first set aims to change perceptions that women
are not suited for male-typed positions, for example, by changing perceptions of male-typed jobs
and fields. The second set focuses on reducing the influence that lack-of-fit perceptions can have
by setting explicit criteria. The authors also discuss potential unintentional consequences
different diversity initiatives can have. The unintended negative consequences of programs that
aim to increase gender equality are also the focus of the paper by Cundiff, Sohee, and Cech
(2018). They demonstrate that diversity initiatives that clearly target women rather than all
employees lead to feelings of discomfort and concerns about being treated negatively and
unfairly. Interestingly, this was the case for both men and women. We have also included two
mathematics (STEM) domains. Casad and colleagues (2018) provide a review six “wise” (i.e.
STEM education. More specifically, they describe (a) interventions promoting a growth mindset,
interventions, (e) belonging interventions, and (f) role model interventions. They discuss the
effectiveness of these interventions and the processes through which they work. They conclude
that wise interventions are a promising tool in addressing gender and racial inequalities in STEM
education. Hennes and colleagues (2018) also focus on STEM fields and argue that interventions
ADDRESSING GENDER INEQUALITY 8
that focus on the pervasiveness of bias may backfire and decrease motivation to confront sexism
by creating the perception that bias cannot be changed. They therefore investigate the
effectiveness of a newly developed intervention which aims at promoting the mindset that bias is
malleable and can be addressed. They find that their module, when used together with a of a
successful bias literacy program, decreases beliefs that bias is immutable and increases self-
efficacy to address bias. Lastly, in this section, Gloor, Xinxin, and Puhl (2018) focus on an
intervention in a domain in which men are under-represented, namely parental leave. In a series
of studies, the authors investigate whether co-workers are less supportive of men’s, compared to
women’s, parental leave intentions, and whether obesity (of the person taking parental leave)
exacerbates these effects. They find that obesity does indeed decrease coworkers’ parental leave
support for men, but increases coworkers’ parental leave support for women. Gloor and
colleagues further show that a simple policy change in which parental leave is made the default
Policy change – albeit on a larger scale – is also the topic of a paper by Maitner and
Henry (2018), who investigate men’s and women’s levels of ambivalent sexism in United Arab
Emirates. They find that, unlike in other cultures with high levels of gender inequality, Arab
women display lower levels of benevolent sexism than men. The authors interpret these findings
in light of unusual legal policies that advance gender equality in the public domain while
The last paper in this special issue looks at ways in which language can be used to change
perceptions of gender and advance gender equality. In their review, Gabriel, Gygax, and Kuhn
(2018) discuss the effects of the two main strategies that have been suggested as ways to address
androcentric language use, that is, feminization, which makes the female gender visible, and
ADDRESSING GENDER INEQUALITY 9
neutralization, which eliminates gender cues from language. The authors review evidence
regarding the effect of both strategies on mental representations of gender and associated
language.
In this special issue we have brought together papers that cover a variety of approaches to
address gender inequality. Saguy and Szekeres, Anisman-Razin and colleagues, and Subašić and
colleagues focus on collective action and the factors that can facilitate, or hinder this ground
level calls for social change. Heilman and Caleo, Hennes and colleagues, Casad and colleagues,
and Cundiff and colleagues each examine and discuss specific diversity interventions, and the
effectiveness (and unintended consequences) of such initiatives. Maitner and Henry as well as
Gloor and colleagues investigate the effects that broader level legal and policy changes can have.
Gabriel and colleagues discuss gender-fair language, which could potentially be used in
collective action efforts, as part of diversity initiatives, and be implemented through policy
It is worth noting that when choosing to address gender inequality, there are a range of
different desired outcomes that can be pursued – and the papers in this special issue focus on
very different ones. The papers by Maitner and Henry, Saguy and Szekeres, and Anisman-Razin
and colleagues examine attitudes towards gender and gender relations very broadly, in terms of
levels of ambivalent sexism, gender system justification beliefs, and attitudes towards gender
inequality respectively. Relatedly, Subašić and colleagues and Anisman-Razin and colleagues
discuss men’s intentions to engage in collective action and their views of women who endorse
gender equality. Heilman and Caleo, Gloor and colleagues, Hennes and colleagues, and
Anisman-Razin and colleagues focus ways to address gender equality from the point of view of
ADDRESSING GENDER INEQUALITY 10
the decision maker or evaluator (or perpetrator), for example in terms of those who make hiring
and promotion decisions, those that are in a position to judge others as competent , and those
who can provide support for parental leave support. In contrast, Cundiff and colleagues and
Casad and colleagues focus on the target’s perspective (that is, on women themselves) and
discuss variables such as feelings of belonging, concerns about how others will treat them, and
confidence. Lastly, three of the papers in this special issue (Heilman and Caleo, Gabriel et al.,
and Casad et al.) focus on the gendered perceptions of jobs or domains and the visibility of
women in them.
While the focus of this special issue is gender inequality, we are delighted that two of the
papers additionally focus on other stigmatized identities, as gender is only one out of many social
categories to which one belongs and the intersection of different (stigmatized) identities needs to
receive more attention. While Casad and colleagues’ paper does not focus on intersectional
identities per se, the authors do discuss both gender and race. Gloor and colleagues examine the
Conclusions
gender inequality in particular, has always been an important focus of what we do. More
recently, we have risen to the challenge of not just describing the nature of the problem at hand,
but also to contributing to addressing that problem. The ten papers we have brought together in
this special issue show the importance of applying our knowledge to understanding and
evaluating the ways in which gender equality can be addressed. Whether this is through calls for
social change, workplace or education interventions, or legal or social policy change, these
papers illustrate (a) the importance of ensuring that initiatives are evidence based, (b) the ways in
ADDRESSING GENDER INEQUALITY 11
which we can maximize the effectiveness of interventions, and (c) the need to understand when
these initiatives may inadvertently backfire. Taken together, we are excited that the breadth and
diversity of the papers in this special issue reflect the myriad of ways in which gender inequality
can be addressed.
ADDRESSING GENDER INEQUALITY 12
References
Anisman-Razin, M., Kark, R. & Saguy, T. (2018). ‘Putting gender on the table’: Understanding
reactions to women who discuss gender inequality. Group Processes and Intergroup
Relations, X, x-x.
ACS Health Policy Research Institute (2010). The surgery workforce in the United States: Profile
http://www.acshpri.org/documents/ACSHPRI_Surgical_Workforce_in_US_apr2010.pdf
Becker, J. C., & Wright, S. C. (2011). Yet another dark side of chivalry: Benevolent sexism
undermines and hostile sexism motivates collective action for social change. Journal of
Blom, N., Kraaykamp, G., & Verbakel, E. (2017). Couples’ division of employment and
household chores and relationship satisfaction: A test of the specialization and equity
Casad, B. J., Oyler, D. L., Sullivan, E. T., McClellan, E. M., Tierney, D. N., Anderson, D. A., …
http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-academia
Catalyst (2018b, January 3). Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
engineering-and-mathematics-stem#footnote25_xje6ltt
ADDRESSING GENDER INEQUALITY 13
Cheryan, S., Siy, J. O., Vichayapai, M., Drury, B. J., & Kim, S. (2011). Do female and male role
models who embody STEM stereotypes hinder women’s anticipated success in STEM?
Craig, L., & Mullan, K. (2010). Parenthood, gender and work-family time in the United States,
Australia, Italy, France and Denmark. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 1344-1361
Cundiff, J., Sohee, R., & Cech, K. (2018). Identity-safe or threatening? Perceptions of women-
Dasgupta, N. (2011). In-group experts and peers as social vaccines who inoculate the self-
Journal for the Advancement of Psychological Theory, 224, 231-246. Spencer, S. J.,
Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women's math performance.
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in Social Behavior: A Social Role Interpretation. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Eagly, A. H., Eaton, A., Rose, S., Riger, S., & McHugh, M. (2012). Feminism and psychology:
211–230.
Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and
Gabriel, U., Gygax, P., & Kuhn, E. (2018). Neutralizing linguistic sexism: Promising, but
Ghavami, N., & Peplau, L. A. (2012). An Intersectional analysis of gender and ethnic
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1999). The Ambivalence toward Men Inventory: Differentiating hostile
and benevolent beliefs about men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 519–536
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as
Gloor, J. L., Xinxin, L., & Puhl, R. (2018). Predictors of parental leave support: Bad news for
(big) dads and a policy plan for equality. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, X,
x-x.
Gustafsson Sendén, M., Bäck, E. A., & Lindqvist, A. (2015). Introducing a gender-neutral
pronoun in a natural gender language: the influence of time on attitudes and behavior.
Heilman, M.E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s
Heilman, M. E., & Caleo, S. (2018). Combatting gender discrimination: A lack of fit framework.
Hennes, E. P., Pietri, E. S., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Mason, K. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll,
ADDRESSING GENDER INEQUALITY 15
V. L., … Handelsman, J. (2018). Increasing the perceived malleability of gender bias using a
modified video intervention for diversity. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, X,
x-x.
Kena, G., Musu-Gillette, L., Robinson, J., Wang, X., Rathbun, A., Zhang, J., Wilkinson-Flicker,
S., Barmer, A., & Dunlop Velez, E. (2015). The Condition of Education 2015 (NCES
Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., Ristikari, T. (2011). Are leader stereotypes
616-42.
http://www.census.gov/people/io/files/Men_in_Nursing_Occupations.pdf
Liss, M., Crawford, M., & Popp, D. (2004). Predictors and correlates of collective action. Sex
Maitner, A., & Henry, P. J. (2018). Ambivalent sexism in the United Arab Emirates: Quantifying
Relations, X, x-x.
National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2017).
Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2017.
Niedlich, C., Steffens, M. C., Krause, J., Settke, E., & Ebert, I. D. (2015). Ironic effects of sexual
minority group membership: Are lesbians less susceptible to invoking negative female
377–391
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic
Rudman, L. A., & Mescher, K. (2013). Penalizing men who request a family leave: Is flexibility
Saguy, T., & Szekeres, H. (2018). Exposure to the 2017 women's march predicts over-time
decrease in (some) men's gender system justification. Group Processes and Intergroup
Relations, X, x-x.
Sczesny, S., Formanowicz, M., & Moser, F. (2016). Can gender-fair language reduce gender
Sealy R., Doldor E., & Vinnicombe, S. (2016). Female FTSE Report 2016 - Women on Boards:
Taking stock of where we are. KPMG; Government Equalities Office, London, Cranfield
School of Management
Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women's math
Stout, J. G., Dasgupta, N., Hunsinger, M., & McManus, M. A. (2011). STEMing the tide: Using
and mathematics (STEM). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 255–270.
ADDRESSING GENDER INEQUALITY 17
Subašić, E., Hardacre, S. L., Elton, B., Branscombe, N. R., Ryan, M. K. & Reynolds, K. J.
(2018). “We for she”: Mobilising men and women to act in solidarity for gender equality.
Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned
and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 199-214.
The World Bank (2017). Proportion of seats held by women in national parliaments (%).
United States Department of Labor (2015). Facts over time. Retrieved from:
https://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/facts_over_time.htm
Vervecken, D., Hannover, B., & Wolter, I. (2013). Changing (S)expectations: How gender fair
job descriptions impact children's perceptions and interest regarding traditionally male
Zaal, M. P., Laar, C. V., Ståhl, T., Ellemers, N., & Derks, B. (2011). By any means necessary:
The effects of regulatory focus and moral conviction on hostile and benevolent forms of