Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

Into Special Issue Addressing Gender Inequality Submitted Version

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 18

ORE Open Research Exeter

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

This version available at

http://hdl.handle.net/10871/33496

COPYRIGHT AND REUSE


Open Research Exeter makes this work available in accordance with publisher policies.

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

Addressing gender inequality: Stumbling blocks and roads ahead

Thekla Morgenroth1 and Michelle K. Ryan1,2


1University of Exeter, 2University of Groningen

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

interest. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Thekla Morgenroth,

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

remain under-represented in positions of power and prestige, and continue to shoulder

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.

Keywords: gender, gender equality, gender inequality, sexism, diversity


ADDRESSING GENDER INEQUALITY 3

Addressing gender inequality: Stumbling blocks and roads ahead

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

World Bank, 2017).

Nevertheless, women remain under-represented in positions of power and prestige such

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

disproportionately small amount to household and childcare responsibilities (Blom, Kraaykamp,

& Verbakel, 2017; Craig & Mullan, 2010).

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

consequences these approaches can have.

Gender Inequality: Past and Future Research

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

articles are on the topic of “social processes and social issues”.

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

modern sexism (Swim, Aikin, Hall, & Hunter, 1995).

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,

1993; Rudman & Mescher, 2013; for notable exceptions).

It is also important to note that research has, for the most part, focused on white,

heterosexual, middle-class, cis-women; with the experiences of women with intersecting

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

different problems they address.

Overview of the Papers in this Special Issue

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

attitudes towards gender equality itself among these groups.

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

psychological theory when developing interventions to combat workplace gender inequality.

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

on evaluative judgments, for example, by eliminating any ambiguity in performance evaluations

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

papers that specifically focus on interventions in science, technology, engineering, and

mathematics (STEM) domains. Casad and colleagues (2018) provide a review six “wise” (i.e.

low-cost, easy-to-implement) psychological interventions that aim to address inequality in

STEM education. More specifically, they describe (a) interventions promoting a growth mindset,

(b) communal goal interventions, (c) utility-value interventions, (d) values-affirmation

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

option can reduce these inequalities.

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

maintaining the oppression of women in the private domain.

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

behaviors as well as which factors facilitate or hinder the implementation of gender-fair

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

change, thus spanning all three of these areas.

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

intersection of gender and weight.

Conclusions

As social scientists, our understanding of the nature of inequality in general, and of

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

and recent trends. Retrieved from:

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

personality and social psychology, 101, 62-77.

Bergh, J. (2009). Public opinion and representation of women in national legislatures: An

analysis of cause and effect. Journal of Legislative Studies, 15, 53-70.

Blom, N., Kraaykamp, G., & Verbakel, E. (2017). Couples’ division of employment and

household chores and relationship satisfaction: A test of the specialization and equity

hypotheses. European Sociological Review, 33, 195–208.

Casad, B. J., Oyler, D. L., Sullivan, E. T., McClellan, E. M., Tierney, D. N., Anderson, D. A., …

Flammang, B. J. (2018). Wise Psychological Interventions to Improve Gender and Race

Equality in STEM. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, X, x-x.

Catalyst (2018a, February 21). Women Academia. Retrieved from

http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-academia

Catalyst (2018b, January 3). Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics

(STEM). Retrieved from http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-science-technology-

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?

Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 656-664.

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-

targeted diversity initiatives. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, X, x-x.

Dasgupta, N. (2011). In-group experts and peers as social vaccines who inoculate the self-

concept: The stereotype inoculation model, Psychological Inquiry: An International

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.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4-28.

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:

Analysis of a half-century of research on women and gender. American Psychologist, 67,

211–230.

Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and

similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The Developmental

Social Psychology of Gender (pp. 123-174). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

European Commission (2013). European social statistics: 2013 edition. Luxembourg:

Publications Office of the European Union.


ADDRESSING GENDER INEQUALITY 14

Gabriel, U., Gygax, P., & Kuhn, E. (2018). Neutralizing linguistic sexism: Promising, but

cumbersome? Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, X, x-x.

Ghavami, N., & Peplau, L. A. (2012). An Intersectional analysis of gender and ethnic

stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37(1), 113–127.

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and

benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.

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

complementary justifications of gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109–118.

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.

Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 893.

Heilman, M.E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s

ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 657-674.

Heilman, M. E., & Caleo, S. (2018). Combatting gender discrimination: A lack of fit framework.

Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, X, x-x.

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

2015-144). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for

Education Statistics. Retrieved https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015144.pdf

Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., Ristikari, T. (2011). Are leader stereotypes

masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 137,

616-42.

Landivar L. C. (2013). Men in nursing occupations: American community survey highlight

report. Retrieved from U.S. Census Bureau website:

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

Roles, 50, 771-779.

Maitner, A., & Henry, P. J. (2018). Ambivalent sexism in the United Arab Emirates: Quantifying

gender attitudes in a rapidly modernizing society. Group Processes and Intergroup

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.

Special Report NSF 17-310. Retrieved from www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd.


ADDRESSING GENDER INEQUALITY 16

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

stereotypes than heterosexual women? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 1439-1447.

Purdie-Vaughns, V., & Eibach, R. P. (2008). Intersectional Invisibility: The distinctive

advantages and disadvantages of multiple subordinate-group identities. Sex Roles, 59,

377–391

Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic

women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743–762.

Rudman, L. A., & Mescher, K. (2013). Penalizing men who request a family leave: Is flexibility

stigma a femininity stigma? Journal of Social Issues, 69, 322-340.

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

stereotyping and discrimination? Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 25.

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

performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4-28.

Stout, J. G., Dasgupta, N., Hunsinger, M., & McManus, M. A. (2011). STEMing the tide: Using

in-group experts to inoculate women’s self-concept in science, technology, engineering,

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.

Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, X, x-x.

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 (%).

Retrieved from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SG.GEN.PARL.ZS

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

occupations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 82, 208-220

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

collective action. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 670-689.

You might also like