# data[].attributes.body
Adds on to reasons why this gap is not being closed. Points to the large wage gap that haas created a divide between the genders.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Gender Wage Gap: 2015; Annual Earnings Differences by Gender, Race, and Ethnicity | Institute for Women's Policy Research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The ratio of women's and men's median annual earnings was 79.6 percent for full-time/year-round workers in 2015. This means the gender wage gap for full-time/year-round workers is 20.4 percent. The ratio of women's and men's median annual earnings did not improve significantly during the last year, and has not seen a statistically significant annual increase ...

# data[].attributes.body
Demonstrates techniques schools can utilize to make their culture inclusive to all and also goes more in depth than the Sage Journals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Log in for access to all SPSSI content if you are a SPSSI member.
Note: you will be redirected to www.spssi.org for access.
Login

Tweets by SPSSI

Cookies are disabled for this browser. Wiley Online Library requires cookies for authentication and use of other site features; therefore, cookies must be enabled to browse the site. Detailed information on how Wiley uses cookies can be found in our Privacy Policy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Log in for access to all SPSSI content if you are a SPSSI member. Note: you will be redirected to www.spssi.org for access. Login Tweets by SPSSI Cookies are disabled for this browser. Wiley Online Library requires cookies for authentication and use of other site features; therefore, cookies must be enabled to browse the site.

# data[].attributes.body
Provides reasoning on why several women do not pursue a major in the STEM field, especially due to its atmosphere and culture.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We examined associations of perceived ambivalent sexism with women's outcomes in university Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) courses as a function of their STEM identity. Women ( N = 592) who varied in STEM identification reported on their personal experiences with benevolent and hostile sexism and indicated their STEM major intentions, STEM self-efficacy, and STEM grade point average (GPA). Women perceived more benevolent sexism (i.e., protective paternalism and complementary gender differentiation) than hostile sexism in STEM courses, and their STEM identity moderated the associations between sexism and STEM outcomes. Among weakly-identified (but not strongly-identified) women, protective paternalism predicted lower STEM major intentions, STEM self-efficacy, and STEM GPA; hostile sexism predicted lower STEM GPA. Male STEM students ( N = 163) reported more protective paternalism attitudes than hostile sexism attitudes, suggesting that women's perceptions were not without warrant. We discuss implications of these results for understanding women's underrepresentation in STEM and advise STEM educators to avoid well-intended, but paternalistic, messages that convey negative stereotypes about women's STEM competence.

References

Baron, A. S., Schmader, T., Cvencek, D., Meltzoff, A. (2014). The gendered self-concept: How implicit gender stereotypes and attitudes shape self-definition. In Leman, P. J., Tenenbaum, H. R. (Eds.), Gender and development (pp. 109-132). New York, NY: Psychology Press. doi:10.4324/9781315870878
Google Scholar

Bernstein, B. L., Russo, N. F. (2008). Explaining too few women in STEM careers: A psychosocial perspective. In Paludi, M. (Ed.), The psychology of women at work: Challenges and solutions for our female workforce: Vol. 2. Obstacles and the identity juggle (pp. 1-33). Westport, CT: Praeger. doi:10.5860/choice.46-3941
Google Scholar

Brehm, J. W., Self, E. A. (1989). The intensity of motivation. Annual Reviews, 40, 109-131. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.40.1.109
Google Scholar

Ceci, S. J., Williams, W. M. (Eds.). (2007). Why aren't more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence. Washington, DC: APA Books. doi:10.1037/11546-000
Google Scholar

Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L. (1998). On the nature of contemporary prejudice: The causes, consequences, and challenges of aversive racism. In Eberhardt, J., Fiske, S. T. (Eds.), Confronting racism: The problem and the response (pp. 3-32). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Google Scholar

Gendolla, G. H., Richter, M. (2010). Effort mobilization when the self is involved: Some lessons from the cardiovascular system. Review of General Psychology, 14, 212. doi:10.1037/a0019742
Google Scholar

Hayes, A. F . (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press. doi:10.1111/jedm.12050
Google Scholar

Hill, C., Corbett, C., St. Rose, A (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women. doi:10.5195/jyd.2014.44
Google Scholar

Major, B., McCoy, S., Kaiser, C., Quinton, W. (2003). Prejudice and self-esteem: A transactional model. European Review of Social Psychology, 14, 77-104. doi:10.1080/10463280340000027
Google Scholar

Pettigrew, T. F., Meertens, R. W. (2006). Subtle and blatant prejudice in Western Europe. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 7-75. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420250106
Google Scholar

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell. doi:10.2307/2073157
Google Scholar

Walton, G. M., Cohen, G. L. (2003). Stereotype lift. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 456-467. doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00019-2
Google Scholar

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hostile and Benevolent Sexism and College Women's STEM Outcomes - Sophie L. Kuchynka, Kristen Salomon, Jennifer K. Bosson, Mona El-Hout, Elizabeth Kiebel, Claudia Cooperman, Ryan Toomey, 2018

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We examined associations of perceived ambivalent sexism with women's outcomes in university Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) courses as a function of their STEM identity. Women ( N = 592) who varied in STEM identification reported on their personal experiences with benevolent and hostile sexism and indicated their STEM major intentions, STEM self-efficacy, and STEM grade point average (GPA).

# data[].attributes.body
Explains how this can be found in the number of women in boards and leadership in Fortune 500 companies.

# data[].attributes.body
This peer reviewed journal explains how toxic masculinity and gender biases have impacted the number of women in the tech community.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract: Gender‐based zero‐sum thinking reflects beliefs that women's status gains correspond directly with men's status losses. These beliefs may help explain people's resistance to gender equity. Here, two studies examined the association between men's zero‐sum thinking and gender biases. In Study 1, men (N = 235) employed in workplaces with stronger masculinity contest norms reported observing stronger bias against women in the , and this effect was mediated by an increase in their own zero‐sum thinking. In Study 2, college students (N = 269) read information that either threatened or affirmed the gender status hierarchy and then reported their zero‐sum thinking and their support for gender fair workplace policies that undermine the masculinity contest. Men, but not women, reduced support for gender fair policies following a gender hierarchy threat, and this effect was mediated by an increase in their zero‐sum thinking. Discussion considers the workplace policy implications of these findings.

If businesses are forced to pay women the same as male earnings, that means they will have to reduce the pay for the men they employ.... And as even more women thus enter the workforce, that creates more competition for jobs (even men's jobs) and puts further downward pressure on the pay for all jobs.

James Green, Vice Chair of Wasatch County Republican Party, UT, February 15, 2017

Although women now compose 47% of the U.S. workforce, up from 30% in 1950 (Toossi, [ 36] ; U.S. Department of Labor, [ 37] ), the world of work is still seen as a male domain in many ways. For instance, stereotypes of managers are still primarily masculine (Koenig, Eagly, Mitchell, & Risitikari, [ 27] ), and women hold only 17.9% of board seats on Fortune 1,000 companies (2020 Women on Boards, [ 1] ). Following years of narrowing the gender pay gap, convergence stalled in recent years (Blau & Kahn, [ 8] ; Institute for Women's Policy Research, [ 25] ). And, as many of the articles in this issue demonstrate, workplace norms often reinforce the outdated male‐breadwinner/female‐homemaker dichotomy by encouraging full‐time work devotion (Blair‐Loy, [ 7] ) and ignoring the need for flexible work arrangements that could ease the strains of home and family obligations that disproportionately fall to women (Williams, Berdahl, & Vandello, [ 39] ). In short, masculine workplace norms and organizational climates continue to impede workplace gender parity (Glick, Berdahl, & Alonso, [ 20] ).

Here, we examine a social cognitive factor-zero‐sum thinking (ZST)-that may help to maintain masculine workplace cultures that suppress women's workplace progress. As illustrated in the opening quote, gender‐based ZST reflects a mindset in which " women's gains equal men's losses," effectively linking any workplace progress made by women to reductions in the status of men. Relying on the logic of system justification theory (Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, [ 23] ), we examine here whether gender‐based ZST among men fuels bias against women in the workplace, especially in contexts that position women as interlopers in masculine domains. If so, this would suggest that men resist workplace gender equity in part because they-like Republican Party Vice Chair James Green-view women's workplace advances as a loss of jobs and earnings for men. We begin with overviews of system justification theory and ZST.

According to system justification theory, people are motivated to view the social systems that govern their lives as fair and legitimate, because changing or leaving the system is not feasible for most individuals (Jost et al., [ 23] ). However, low‐ and high‐status group members presumably have different motivations for justifying the status quo. High‐status group members rationalize the status quo to protect their group‐based interests, since the existing social arrangements place their group in a position of privilege (Sidanius, Pratto, & Bobo, [ 35] ). In contrast, low‐status group members are motivated to avoid feeling trapped in an oppressive system, and to achieve this, they must rationalize their unequal treatment within the system when they view upward mobility as unlikely (Jost, Pelham, Sheldon, & Sullivan, [ 24] ). Given that men as a group are cross‐culturally and historically higher in status than women, men should be threatened by information suggesting that women are gaining social status, as this information implies that the gender status hierarchy is unstable. Thus, when men encounter information that the gender hierarchy is in flux, their motivation to defend the status quo should increase.

Moreover, we propose that men's defensive responses to an unstable gender hierarchy are fueled by ZST, or a tendency to perceive low‐status groups as competitors. ZST represents beliefs about intergroup relations that position social groups in direct competition with each other for access to status, rights, and resources. This thinking is theorized as an evolved cognitive adaptation that arises when group members perceive threats to their resources and motivates efforts to protect these resources (Meegan, [ 29] ). Thus, ZST may serve as a cognitive heuristic that facilitates defensive responses on behalf of the group. Moreover, higher status compared to lower status group members may default more readily to ZST when system threats arise, as a means of protecting their upper hand. That is, having more to lose during intergroup competitions may predispose higher status groups to engage in ZST at a lower threshold of perceived threat. Consistent with this logic, high‐status groups respond competitively to attempts made by lower status groups to improve their status (Branscombe, Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, [ 10] ). More relevant to the current project, members of high‐status groups (e.g., men, White people) strengthen their ZST when they believe that their in‐group is losing its advantaged position (Wilkins, Wellman, Babbitt, Toosi, & Schad, [ 38] ). Similarly, White but not Black people perceive racial discrimination in zero‐sum terms, with anti‐White bias increasing as anti‐Black bias decreases in the United States (Norton & Sommers, [ 31] ). Thus, ZST motivates high‐status group members to preserve their group‐based privilege when they perceive lower status groups as gaining status.

Specifically, ZST should activate a set of defensive responses that either restore psychological stability by legitimizing unequal distributions of status, or maintain the hierarchy by sabotaging the efforts of low‐status groups to gain status. To illustrate, one study found that ZST mediated the link between people's support for group inequalities that privilege the in‐group and their attitudes of egalitarianism toward a salient out‐group (Esses, Jackson, & Armstrong, [ 17] ). Thus, reminders of group competition combined with the presence of a salient out‐group should activate ZST, which then fuels defensive responses that maintain the hierarchy. In the current project, we examine multiple forms of workplace gender bias as defensive responses fueled by men's ZST.

When men view women as a competitive out‐group, they may respond defensively in ways that devalue women and female gender role norms in the workplace. While gender bias in the workplace can take several forms, we focus here on hostile and benevolent sexism toward women and opposition to gender fair workplace policies.

Hostile and benevolent work norms reflect ambivalent sexism (Glick & Fiske, [ 21] ). Hostile work norms include antagonizing behaviors that devalue women's abilities such as talking over women in meetings or giving men credit for women's work (Cikara, Lee, Fiske, & Glick, [ 12] ). Benevolent work norms involve paternalistic behaviors such as offering women extra help on challenging assignments or treating women as if they are sweeter and friendlier than men (Kuchynka et al., [ 28] ). Importantly, both types of norms can undermine women's job performance and feelings of belonging. Women exposed to hostilely sexist treatment in the workplace experience lower job satisfaction and increased absenteeism, depression, and physical illness symptoms (Fitzgerald, [ 18] ). Exposure to benevolently sexist treatment increases women's rumination, reduces their working memory capacity (Dardenne et al., [ 14] ; Dardenne, Dumont, & Bollier, [ 13] ), and negatively predicts their grade‐point average and self‐efficacy in college science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) classes (Kuchynka et al., [ 28] ).

Thus, hostile and benevolent sexism norms both legitimize men's higher workplace status, but for different reasons: Hostile work norms directly convey disrespect for women's contributions, and benevolent work norms imply that women need to be treated more gently than men. These norms cast women as less‐than‐ideal workers, thereby reinforcing the notion that men's higher workplace status is fair and just. Further, these norms can hurt women's ability to gain workplace status, such as when men take credit for women's work, or when women receive less challenging work assignments out of a desire to protect them (Bernstein & Russo, [ 5] ; King et al., [ 26] ). In extreme cases, hostile and benevolent work norms may create an unfriendly environment that pushes women to exit the workplace altogether. These work norms may thus reflect defensive responses to women's encroachment in traditionally masculine domains.

While hostile and benevolent sexism norms sustain the unequal gender hierarchy, gender fair workplace norms combat it. These norms-such as gender inclusion and work‐life balance-are key factors that promote women's workplace progress by attenuating gender bias (Bailyn, [ 2] ; Dutton, Ashford, Lawrence, & Miner‐Rubino, [ 15] ). Gender inclusion consists of organizational awareness of, and support for, equal gender representation at senior organization levels and intolerance for "old boys' clubs" in which small groups of men control the workplace. These norms directly undercut the dog eat dog norm of masculinity contest cultures (MCCs), which fosters ruthless competition among cliques of insiders (Glick et al., [ 20] ). Work‐life balance norms allow and encourage workers to control when and where they work, and promote creative work‐life balance solutions. These norms counteract the put work first norm of MCCs, which encourages devotion to work above family or other outside obligations (Glick et al., [ 20] ). Women, who assume the majority of housework and childrearing responsibilities, stand to benefit from workplace norms that support and encourage flexible work arrangements (Bianchi, Sayer, Milkie, & Robinson, [ 6] ). Thus, withdrawing support for gender fair workplace norms may reflect a defensive attempt on the part of men to maintain their workplace advantage by rejecting organizational factors that promote gender egalitarianism.

As detailed in several articles in this volume, many workplace environments are characterized by masculinity contest norms of dog eat dog (a hypercompetitive and socially ruthless dynamic), put work first (an expectation of total devotion to work over family or other outside obligations), strength and stamina (equating athleticism and size with status), and show no weakness (pressure to avoid vulnerable emotions or uncertainty). These norms privilege men and male‐typed traits over women and female‐typed traits in several ways. For instance, women's smaller physical stature and lower body strength disadvantage them in contexts in which "strength equals status," and the norm of show no weakness proscribes stereotypically female emotions such as sadness and doubt, while allowing stereotypically male emotions such as anger and pride (Plant, Hyde, Keltner, & Devine, [ 34] ). Women are also disadvantaged relative to men by the put work first norm, because women are typically the primary household and childcare providers (Bianchi et al., [ 6] ), even among dual earner parent couples who now constitute 60% of U.S. families (Parker, [ 32] ). The put work first norm disadvantages women and primary caregivers by increasing the difficulty of balancing competing work and home responsibilities, and promoting the perception that those with family responsibilities are not fit for high‐status roles. Thus, MCC norms thwart gender egalitarianism.

In two studies, we examine support for a model in which ZST mediates the link between women's status gains and gender bias in the workplace. Study 1, a cross‐sectional correlational study, uses an archival sample of full‐time employed men (Glick et al., [ 20] ). This study examines whether MCC norms and women's representation at higher organizational levels jointly predict hostile and benevolent work norms, mediated by men's ZST. Study 2 is an experiment using a college‐aged sample in which we manipulate exposure to information that women are either gaining status relative to men, or remaining stable in status. In Study 2, we examine whether information about women's status gains reduces men's (but not women's) support for gender inclusion and work‐life balance norms, mediated by men's ZST.

In establishing the validity of the MCC scale, Glick and colleagues found a modest correlation (r = .34, p < .05) between the full MCC and hostile and benevolent work norms (what they termed heterosexist culture; Glick et al., [ 20] ). The goal of Study 1 was to expand on this finding by examining whether the link between MCC norms and sexist work norms was mediated by men's ZST, and especially in organizations characterized by women's successes (i.e., those with higher proportions of high‐status women). To do this, we reanalyzed Glick et al.'s ([ 20] ) data set (which contained an abbreviated measure of ZST) to test a model in which the link between MCC and hostile and benevolent work norms is mediated by ZST (H1), and moderated by the proportion of high‐status women in the workplace (H2).

Men (N = 235; Age M = 35.03, SD = 9.19; 78% White, 6% Hispanic, 4% Black, 2% Native American, 2% other) were recruited form Amazon's Mechanical Turk. MTurk account holders had to be currently employed to be eligible to complete the survey. All study scales were completed in the order listed below; order of item administration within each scale was randomized.

Participants rated the masculinity contest norms in their current workplace by completing the MCC (Glick et al., [ 20] ), which assesses norms of dog eat dog (e.g., "You've got to watch your back"), put work first (e.g., "Taking days off is frowned upon"), strength and stamina (e.g., "Physical stamina is admired"), and show no weakness (e.g., "Seeking other's advice is seen as weak"). All items were answered on scales ranging from 1 (not at all true of my work environment) to 5 (entirely true of my work environment), and they were averaged to create a composite (α = .93).

Participants responded to three items (modified from Wilkins et al., [ 38] ) that measured ZST (e.g., "As women have gained status in the workplace, men have lost status in the workplace"; " Women in the work force take jobs away from men"; "The more money that women earn in the workplace, the less money men earn"). The items were answered on scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), and they were averaged to form a ZST composite (α = .87).

Perceptions of hostile and benevolent sexism norms were measured with a 16‐item scale (Bradley‐Geist, Glick, Hebl, & King, [ 9] ). Eight items measured hostile sexism in the workplace (e.g., "Men will sometimes take over tasks from women and cut them out"; " Women who express strong opinions are looked down upon and criticized"), and eight items measured benevolent sexism in the workplace (e.g., "Female employees tend to receive extra help on challenging assignments"; "People in my workplace look to the female employees to add a warm, nurturing presence to the work environment"). All items were rated on scales ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very true), and they were averaged to create a composite of sexist work norms (α = .90).

Participants indicated their age, race, and ethnicity.

See Table for zero‐order correlations among, and descriptive statistics for, all study variables. Note that MCC norms correlated positively with men's ZSTs (r = .24, p < .001).

Correlations and Descriptive Statistics for Study 1 Variables

2 Note. **p < .01, ***p < .001. MCC = masculinity contest culture scale; ZST = zero‐sum thinking.

Hypotheses 1 and 2 state that the indirect effect of MCC norms on perceptions of sexist work norms via men's ZST (H1) will be moderated by the proportion of high‐status women in the workplace (H2). Thus, we anticipated a moderated mediation pattern. To test these hypotheses, we used Hayes' ([ 22] ) PROCESS macro (Model 7) with 10,000 bootstrap samples. We treated MCC norms as the predictor, proportion of high‐status women as the moderator, ZST as the mediator, and perceived sexist work norms as the outcome variable. Figure depicts the effects associated with each path in the model. As shown in Figure , MCC norms significantly predicted men's ZST, as well as their perceived sexist work norms. However, the proportion of high‐status women in the workplace was not a significant moderator (b = −.04, SE = .11, p > .74, 95% CI [−.26, .18]), and the index of moderated mediation was not significant (b = −.003, SE = .01, 95% CI [−.03, .02]), indicating a lack of support for Hypothesis 2. Instead, in support of Hypothesis 1, the conditional indirect effects of MCC norms on sexist work norms through ZST were significant at each level of the moderator. That is, MCC norms predicted sexist work norms via ZST when there were relatively few women in high‐status positions (b = .04, SE = .02, 95% CI [.01, .08]), and also when there were relatively many women in high‐status positions (b = .03, SE = .02, 95% CI [.002, .09]).

Participants were 269 college students who completed all study measures in exchange for partial course credit. Of these, 27 failed an attention check (see below) and were deleted from analyses. This left a final sample of 167 women and 73 men who ranged in age from 18 to 49 (Age M = 21.24, SD = 4.17; 48% White, 9% Hispanic, 16% Black, 10% Asian, 3% Arabic, 5% Bi‐racial, 9% other). Approximately half of the student sample (49.6%) indicated that they were currently employed.

Participants completed the study at the time and location of their choosing via a secure online platform ( http://Qualtrics.com). After giving their informed consent, participants were introduced to a study about "Economic and Political Trends in the U.S." To obscure our primary focus on women's status gains, we first presented participants with a bogus, 264‐word filler article that described "Recent Trends in Urbanization." Next, based on random assignment, participants read one of two versions of a bogus Guardian Unlimited article that served as the system threat manipulation. This article, modified from one used by Morton, Postmes, Haslam, and Hornsey ([ 30] ), emphasized either the substantial gains that women have made in workplace, educational, and political domains over the past century (system threat condition), or the inequality that women still face relative to men (system stability condition). For instance, the system threat article was titled " Women May Win the War in the Battle of the Sexes," and it stated " women are catching up to their male counterparts .... [i]n the areas of employment, salary, education, politics, the courtroom, and at home." In contrast, the system stability article was titled " Women Still Losing the War in the Battle of the Sexes," and it stated that " women's inequality remains as real as it was 100 years ago .... [i]n the areas of employment, salary, education, politics, the courtroom, and at home" (see the Appendix for the full text of both articles). After reading the target article, participants completed the following measures in the order presented below, and then received a full debriefing.

Participants responded to the same measure of ZST from Study 1, with the addition of one extra item (e.g., "When women work they are taking jobs away from men"; α = .85). (This additional item was excluded from Study 1 due to space limitations.)

We wrote 13 items measuring support for gender fair workplace norms. Seven items measured support for gender inclusion (e.g., "Organizations should strive to promote general cultural awareness of issues concerning women at work"), and six items measured support for work‐life balance (e.g., "Any employee should be allowed to take advantage of flexible work‐family arrangements as long as the work gets done"). All statements were rated on scales of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). In a pilot study, we submitted the items to a principal axis factor analysis with varimax rotation, which yielded two factors that accounted for 62% of the total variance. With the exception of one work‐life balance item that loaded below .40 on both factors, all items loaded above .45 on their target factor (see Table for the full text and factor loadings of all items). Demonstrating the validity of these measures, the pilot study revealed that ZST negatively predicted support for both gender inclusion and work‐life balance norms, controlling for GRAs. We therefore averaged items to create a gender inclusion composite (α = .87) and a work‐life balance composite (α = .75). Note that the correlation between these norms (r = .67, p < .001) indicates that they are strongly associated but nonetheless conceptually distinct.[ 6]

Items Assessing Support for Gender Fair Workplace Norms and Their Factor Loadings (Pilot Study)

3 Note. Bolded values indicate factor loadings on the target factor.

GRAs were assessed using Chang's ([ 11] ) measure, which asks respondents about the importance of women versus men achieving goals in five traditionally male domains (e.g., "Be a leader," "Receive the highest education possible") and five traditionally female domains (e.g., "Take care of children," "Do housework"). Each goal is rated on a scale of 1 (much more important for women) to 7 (much more important for men), with a midpoint labeled equally important for women and men. After reverse‐coding items assessing female‐typed goals, we averaged the 10 items (α = .89); higher scores indicate more traditional GRAs.

At the end of the study, participants were asked to select which of two statements best reflected the main conclusion of the article they read earlier: "Things have changed a lot because women are catching up to men in power and status," or "Things haven't really changed very much because women still lag far behind men in power and status." Those (n = 27) who answered incorrectly were deleted from analyses. People were slightly more likely to fail the attention check in the system stability condition (n = 18; 13.7%) than they were in the system threat condition (n = 9; 6.6%), χ ² ( 1, N = 267) = 3.72, p = .054, but manipulation check failure did not differ by participants' sex, age, or race, ps > .27.[ 7]

Participants indicated their sex, age, race, and ethnicity.

See Table for correlations among, and descriptive statistics for, Study 2 outcome variables. Hypotheses 3-5 state that men, but not women, will increase in ZST (H3), and withdraw support for gender inclusion norms (H4a) and work‐life balance norms (H5a), following system‐threatening information about women's status gains. To test these hypotheses, we submitted ZST, gender inclusion norms, and work‐life balance norms to separate 2 (participant gender: women vs. men) × 2 (system threat vs. system stability) Analyses of Variance (ANOVAs). Means associated with interaction effects appear in Table .

Correlations and Descriptive Statistics for Study 2 Variables

4 Note. **p < .01.

Study 2 Means and Standard Errors as a Function of Condition and Participant Gender

5 Note. Means within the same row or column whose subscripts differ are significantly different at p < .05.

The ANOVA on ZST produced the predicted gender‐by‐threat interaction, F( 1, 235) = 4.98, p < .03, η p ² = 0.02, which qualified a main effect of participant gender, F( 1, 235) = 6.18, p < .02, η p ² = 0.03, and a marginally significant main effect of threat condition, F( 1, 235) = 2.77, p < .10, η p ² = 0.01. As shown in Table , men had higher ZST in the system threat condition than they did in the system stability condition, F( 1, 235) = 5.47, p = .02, η p ² = 0.02, while women's ZST did not differ by condition, F < 1. Moreover, men had higher ZST than women did under system threat, F( 1, 235) = 11.32, p < .01, η p ² = 0.05, while men's and women's ZST did not differ in the system stability condition, F < 1. Thus, Hypothesis 3 was supported.

The ANOVA on work‐life balance norms produced a marginally significant interaction of gender‐by‐threat, F( 1, 235) = 3.46, p < .07, η p ² = 0.01, that qualified a main effect of threat condition, F( 1, 235) = 4.49, p < .04, η p ² = 0.02. No effect of participant gender emerged, F < 1. Consistent with the prior two analyses, the means in Table demonstrate that men showed less support for work‐life balance norms in the system threat versus the system stability condition, F( 1, 235) = 5.71, p < .02, η p ² = 0.02, while women's support for work‐life balance norms was unaffected by the threat manipulation, F < 1. Moreover, in the system threat condition, men showed marginally significantly less support for work‐life balance norms than women did, F( 1, 235) = 2.74, p < .10, η p ² = 0.01, but men and women did not differ in the system stability condition, F < 1. Thus, Hypothesis 5a was supported.

Hypotheses 4b and 5b state that the indirect effects of system threat on support for gender inclusion norms (H4b) and work‐life balance norms (H5b) via ZST will be significant among men, but not women. Thus, we anticipated moderated mediation patterns. To test these hypotheses, we used Hayes' ([ 22] ) PROCESS macro (Model 8) with 10,000 bootstrap samples. We treated system threat as the independent variable, participant gender as the moderator, ZST as the mediator, and gender inclusion and work‐life balance norms as outcome variables.

Because men hold disproportionate power and influence in organizations, changing workplace cultures will likely require their buy‐in. The findings presented here suggest one barrier to men's cooperation in making workplaces more equitable for women. Specifically, men may be inclined to view the workplace as a zero‐sum game in which any gains made by women must come at men's expense. This ZST should be exacerbated under conditions of perceived change to the gender status hierarchy and should, in turn, motivate defensive responses including sexism toward women and opposition to workplace norms that could level the playing field. Moreover, these dynamics should be particularly strong in workplaces characterized by MCCs, because successful women in such environments are viewed as interlopers who seek men's resources.

Note, however, that we expected Study 1's findings to be especially strong in workplaces with larger proportions of high‐status women, because successful women should threaten the status quo and activate men's protective, ZST. Instead, we found no evidence that the proportion of high‐status women moderates the indirect effect of MCC norms on workplace sexism via ZST. It is possible that organizations with more high‐status women are less inclined to foster MCCs in the first place. It is also possible that it is women's perceived movement into high‐status positions, and not their preexisting occupation of such positions, that is especially likely to heighten men's ZST. Either way, it must be emphasized that MCCs and men's ZST predict increases in workplace sexism against women regardless of how many women occupy positions of organizational power.

Notably, Study 2 established causal links between women's dynamic encroachment into traditionally male domains and men's competitive ZST. Thus, reminders of women's ongoing status gains may activate in men an increased (if erroneous) perception that social status and its spoils-such as wages, prestige, and power-are limited resources over which gender groups must compete. Indeed, the quote by Utah Republican James Green that opened this article-in which he expressed ZST about jobs and wages-was issued in response to a bill being considered by the Utah legislature that would require a study on the gender wage gap (Phillips, [ 33] ). If mere discussions of the gender wage gap trigger ZST among men, then it is feasible that women's workplace successes also activate such thinking. Consequently, competitive zero‐sum mindsets activate defensive responses aimed at sustaining the unequal gender hierarchy by fostering workplace gender bias. Thus, the links among women's workplace status gains, men's ZST, and organization‐level gender bias may reflect a dynamic and self‐perpetuating cycle that stalls women's workplace progress.

Because Study 1 employed a correlational design, we could not determine causal relationships between MCC norms, ZST, and sexist work norms. Indeed, it is important to use caution when interpreting mediation models that use cross‐sectional data. In addition, our measure of sexist work norms in Study 1 assessed men's perceptions of hostile and benevolent treatment of women, and not their personal perpetration of sexist treatment. We do not know how accurately men's reports of sexist work norms reflect the actual experiences of women in those organizations. Future research should use experimental or longitudinal designs to allow for more confident causal conclusions, as well as additional methods for assessing workplace sexism such as third‐party ratings or women's reports of their personal experiences.

Subsequent research should also replicate the present findings with larger, more diverse samples. For instance, Study 2's reliance on a college student sample may limit its generalizability to the world of work and employed workers. Although college students are often poised to enter the workforce, we do not know whether reminders of women's workplace status gains pose the same threat to college students as they would to employed adults.

If competitive, us/them mindsets lie at the root of men's defensive responses to women's workplace success, then one key to creating more inclusive and gender equitable workplaces may involve directly defusing ZST. This insight has implications for organizational policies. Specifically, we envision two ways in which organizational policies can defuse the likelihood of ZST. First, organizations can purposefully avoid practices and wordings that appear to privilege or benefit women at men's expense. As Ely and Meyerson ([ 16] ) note, one popular-though largely ineffective-organizational strategy for combatting gender bias involves valorizing that which is feminine. This approach may involve adopting affirmative action policies that are perceived as primarily benefiting women; educating about and celebrating "feminine" over "masculine" leadership styles; diversity trainings that focus primarily on improving conditions for women; and offering employees maternity (but not paternity or parental) leave. Although intuitively appealing as strategies for undercutting the masculinity contest, such organizational practices often have the unintended consequence of increasing men's resentment. From our perspective, this makes sense: policies and practices that seek explicitly to benefit women -logical as they may seem-very likely activate a competitive, protective mindset among high‐status group members. Thus, organizations seeking to reduce ZST may benefit from careful framing of gender fair policies in ways that avoid "celebrating the feminine" and instead support all workers. Even subtle changes in policy wordings-such as replacing "maternity leave" with "parental leave"-can send the message that organizations recognize and respect all of their employees' family obligations, regardless of employee gender.

A recent case in point is found in cultural conversations about sexual assault, such as those inspired by the #MeToo movement. This movement seeks to create a space for women to share their all‐too‐common sexual assault experiences, and its power is felt in the ousting of numerous high‐status male perpetrators from their positions of privilege. Energized by the #MeToo movement, organizations can adopt stricter and more effective policies against sex‐based workplace harassment. However, men are victims of sexual assault and sex‐based workplace harassment as well, although their experiences may often go unlabeled because they do not fit the common "male‐harasser/female‐victim" schema (Berdahl, [ 3] ). Thus, organizations responding to the #MeToo movement with policy changes should educate employees about the various forms that sex‐based harassment can take, and avoid language that casts women as the sole targets, and men as the sole perpetrators, of such harassment. As our findings suggest, this language can inadvertently foster us/them, zero‐sum mindsets that lie at the roots of backlash to social change.

Second, organizations can defuse the likelihood of ZST by promoting powerful "win‐win" messages that highlight the ways in which men's and women's gains are intertwined. In direct contrast to ZST, the win-win approach focuses on how men gain when women are more equal. As one vivid example of the win-win effect, both women and men win more Olympic medals in countries that are higher in gender equality (Berdahl, Uhlmann, & Bai, 2015). This suggests that gender equality at the structural level can foster the conditions that allow talented individuals to reach peak performance-a message that will likely hold appeal for ambitious employees who seek to excel. Another example of the win-win effect is found in research on the benefits of diversity. Specifically, organizations that have more gender diversity also reap a number of concrete rewards including improved decision‐making and innovation (Galinsky et al., [ 19] ). Thus, messages or policies that emphasize win-win outcomes may serve as effective counters to ZST. Organizations wishing to reduce zero‐sum mindsets may therefore build awareness of win‐win outcomes through communications, public service announcements, and educational campaigns that offer concrete evidence of the win-win effect. Such practices may even have benefits that extend beyond improving gender equity: By purposefully promoting win-win mindsets, organizations may focus attention away from intergroup boundaries altogether, thereby developing cultures that are more welcoming of diversity in general.
1 This article is part of the Special Issue "Work as a Masculinity Contest," Jennifer L. Berdahl, Marianne Cooper, and Peter Glick (Special Issue Editors). For a full listing of Special Issue papers, see: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/josi.2018.74.issue-3/issuetoc. References 2020 Women on Boards. (2015). Gender diversity index. Jamaica Plains, MA: 2020 Women on Boards. Retrieved from https://www.2020wob.com/sites/default/files/2020GDI-2015Report.pdf Bianchi, S. M., Sayer, L. C., Milkie, M. A., & Robinson, J. P. (2012). Housework: Who did, does or will do it, and how much does it matter? Social Forces, 91, 55-63. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sos120 Blair‐Loy, M. (2003). Competing devotions: Career and family among women executives. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 12 Cikara, M., Lee, T. L., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2009). Ambivalent sexism at home and at work: How attitudes toward women in relationships foster exclusion in the public sphere. In J. T. Jost, A. C. Kay, & H. Thorisdottir (Eds.), Social and psychological bases of ideology and system justification (pp. 444-462). New York: Oxford University Press. 13 Dardenne, B., Dumont, M., & Bollier, T. (2007). Insidious dangers of benevolent sexism: Consequences for women's performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 764-779. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.764 25 Institute for Women's Policy Research. (2016, September). The gender wage gap: 2015: Annual earnings difference by gender, race, and ethnicity. Washington, DC: IWPR. Retrieved from http://www.iwpr.org/publications 32 Parker, K. (2015, June 18). 5 facts about today's fathers. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/12/5-facts-about-todays-fathers/ 33 Phillips, K. (February 19, 2017). Utah Republican argues against equal pay for women: It's 'bad for families' and society. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/02/19/utah-republican-argues-against-equal-pay-for-women-its-bad-for-families-and-society/?utm%5fterm=.528327c04ffe 34 Plant, E. A., Hyde, J. S., Keltner, D., & Devine, P. G. (2000). The gender stereotyping of emotions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 81-92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb01024.x 37 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2011). Employment and Earnings. 2010 Annual Averages, Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/opub/ee/empearn201101.pdf
PHOTO (COLOR): Indirect effect of masculinity contest culture norms on sexist work norms via zero‐sum thinking, moderated by the proportion of high‐status women in the workplace. Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. MCC = masculinity contest culture norms; ZST = zero‐sum thinking.

PHOTO (COLOR): Indirect effects of system threat on support for gender inclusion norms via zero‐sum thinking, moderated by participant gender. Note. †p < .10, *p < .05, ***p < .001. ZST = zero‐sum thinking.

PHOTO (COLOR): Indirect effects of system threat on support for work‐life balance norms via zero‐sum thinking, moderated by participant gender. Note. *p < .05, ***p < .001. ZST = zero‐sum thinking.

~~~~~~~~

By Sophie L. Kuchynka; Jennifer K. Bosson; Joseph A. Vandello and Curtis Puryear

SOPHIE L. KUCHYNKA is a graduate student at the University of South Florida. She is in the Cognitive, Neuroscience, and Social Psychology PhD program. Her research area is social psychology, and she has research interests in sexism, gender roles, social hierarchies, and intergroup power dynamics.

JENNIFER K. BOSSON is a Professor of psychology at the University of South Florida (USF). She earned her PhD in social‐personality psychology from The University of Texas at Austin in 2000 and joined the faculty at USF in 2006. Dr. Bosson has research interests in gender roles, masculinity, sexual prejudice, sexism, and interpersonal attraction. Along with her collaborators Joseph Vandello and Camille Buckner, she recently wrote a textbook on The Psychology of Sex and Gender.

JOSEPH A. VANDELLO (PhD, University of Illinois at Urbana‐Champaign, 2000) is a Professor of psychology at the University of South Florida. He studies gender and cultural influences on a wide range of behaviors, including aggression, work and family, health, sexuality, morality, and prejudice.

CURTIS PURYEAR is a graduate student at the University of South Florida in the Cognitive, Neuroscience, and Social Psychology PhD program. His research interests include moral judgments and evaluations, ideology, the antecedents and outcomes of felt disadvantage, and the impact of the Internet upon moral cognition.

Copyright of Journal of Social Issues is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Zero‐Sum Thinking and the Masculinity Contest: Perceived Intergroup Competi...: EBSCOhost

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Abstract: Gender‐based zero‐sum thinking reflects beliefs that women's status gains correspond directly with men's status losses. These beliefs may help explain people's resistance to gender equity. Here, two studies examined the association between men's zero‐sum thinking and gender biases.

# data[].attributes.headline
What is perpetuating the gender gap in the workforce?

# data[].attributes.subject
What is perpetuating the gender gap in the workforce?