Search results

This chapter focuses on the implications of both the descriptive and prescriptive aspects of gender stereotypes for women in the workplace. Using the Lack of Fit model, we review how performance expectations deriving from descriptive gender stereotypes (i.e., what women are like) can impede women's career progress. We then identify organizational conditions that may weaken the influence of these expectations. In addition, we discuss how prescriptive gender stereotypes (i.e., what women should be like) promote sex bias by creating norms that, when not followed, induce disapproval and social penalties for women. We then review recent research exploring the conditions under which women experience penalties for direct, or inferred, prescriptive norm violations.

Early research on sexism presumed the traditional model of prejudice as an antipathy. This research focused on negative stereotypes of women as less competent than men and hostility toward gender equality. More recently, sexism has been revealed to have a “benevolent” component; although it reflects positive beliefs about women, it also supports gender inequality by implying that women are weaker than men. In addition, although disconfirming stereotypes should provide women with a means of thwarting sex discrimination, recent research shows that even ambitious and successful women are punished for violating prescriptive stereotypes that assign them to subordinate roles.

Purpose – This study examines the relationship between endorsement of positive stereotypes of women and support for women's rights to shed light on the role that endorsement of positive stereotypes may play in maintaining social stratification.

Design/methodology/approach – The study uses data collected from a web-based survey of 181 male undergraduate students in six different universities and colleges to examine the relationship between the endorsement of positive stereotypes of women and support for women's rights. The paper examines four ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models to determine the relationship and utilizes the statistical software Stata 9.2.

Findings – Rather than a simple direct relationship, the findings suggest that the relationship between the endorsement of positive stereotypes and support for women's rights varies based on the level of hostile sexism. Increased endorsement of positive stereotypes of women was associated with decreased support for women's rights among males with the lowest level of hostile sexism, but the opposite relationship was found for males at the mean and the highest level of hostile sexism.

Research limitations/implications – The findings suggest that endorsement of positive stereotypes plays a unique role for males who do not endorse traditional sexist attitudes. Although data are not available to clarify what processes might be undergirding the relationship, the author suggests directions for future research.

Practical implications – Given the relationship found, prejudice reduction interventions that rely on the promotion of positive stereotypes of various social groups should be closely examined to determine if they actually foster attitudes that are detrimental for the eradication of social stratification.

Originality/value – This study is one of the first to examine the possible negative impacts of endorsement of positive stereotypes of women on gender stratification through a moderated relationship with levels of hostile sexism.

This chapter investigates the effects of gender stereotypes on expectations about expertise and task assignments. We present a theoretical model that predicts and explains the pervasive and self-reinforcing effects of gender-based stereotypes on expected knowledge and task assignments in groups. In the model, stereotypes influence expertise recognition, which influences tasks assignments. Task assignments provide group members with task experience and expertise. Expertise influences expertise recognition, making the model cyclical. Expertise gained from task experience also affects stereotypes, creating a cycle that reinforces stereotypes. We describe findings from a program of research designed to examine ways of breaking this self-reinforcing cycle, which investigates the effectiveness of various types of expertise claims made by people with expertise, that is inconsistent with stereotypical expectations. We consider the implications of our theory and data for effects of status on evaluation of expertise claims in work groups.

The goal of this chapter is to both provide a sociological explanation for gender differences in risk-taking behavior and to explain how such gender differences in behavior may contribute to women’s underrepresentation at the top of hierarchies.

I synthesize relevant research findings from the fields of social psychology, economics, psychology, decisions science, and sociology.

I argue that risk-taking is a gendered action due to both prescriptive and descriptive gender stereotypes. The fact that risk-taking is a gendered action offers sociological insights as to why women take fewer risks than men. First, women may rationally choose to take fewer risks, given that risk-taking is less rewarding for them. Second, the aforementioned gender stereotypes may cause institutional gatekeepers to give women fewer opportunities to take risks.

Sociologists should care about this phenomenon because large rewards are attached to successful risk-taking behavior. Thus, if men as a group take more successful risks than women as a group – simply because they take more risks, and thus by chance experience more successful risks – then more men than women will experience upward mobility caused by risk-taking.

Gender differences in risk-taking behavior likely depress the upward mobility of women and are a contributing factor to the dearth of women in top positions. In this era of falling formal barriers and women’s educational gains, gender differences in risk-taking behavior are likely of increasing importance for understanding the inequalities in hierarchies in U.S. society.

There exist a number of approaches that attempt to explain the occupational choices of youth from different perspectives. The social cognitive theory and the self-efficacy approach, to name the most influential, emphasize the centrality of cognitive abilities of individuals in making a career choice, and look at professional orientation primarily through the lenses of micro factors. This chapter extends existing approaches by accentuating the importance of cultural traditions and stereotypes for occupational choices.

This chapter uses official statistical data ranging from the rise of the USSR to the present day. These have been collected by the Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat) and were partly retrieved from archives.

After a review of extant theoretical frames pertinent to career choices, this chapter suggests a theory of occupational choices through the lenses of gender, thus deploying Sandra L. Bem’s (1973, 1981) framework on gender schema. Proposing a theoretical model that links micro and macro factors, the chapter then demonstrates how the approach functions in the Russian post-socialist context.

The novelty consists of incorporation of sociocultural aspects of occupational choices, thus allowing a scope for comparative research. Additionally, the proposed model of gendered career choices can be employed for explaining differences within sexes. Besides, the model argues that not primarily intelligence but often external factors shape career choices.

Gender is at core a group process because people use it as a primary frame for coordinating behavior in interpersonal relations. The everyday use of sex/gender as cultural tool for organizing social relations spreads gendered meanings beyond sex and reproduction to all spheres of social life that are carried out through social relationships and constitutes gender as a distinct and obdurate system of inequality. Through gender's role in organizing social relations, gender inequality is rewritten into new economic and social arrangements as they emerge, contributing to the persistence of that inequality in modified form in the face of potentially leveling economic and political changes in contemporary society.

In this paper, we examine the effects of legitimation and delegitimation of female leaders in male- and female-dominated organizations on leader behavior toward their subordinates. Drawing upon status and legitimacy theories, we argue that delegitimation represents one event that makes gender stereotypes salient in different organizational contexts, and by this means affects leader–subordinate interaction. Gender stereotypes will be more salient in male- than in female-dominated organizations, but only when female leaders are delegitimated. Specifically, we hypothesize that deauthorized female leaders will exhibit more deferential and less directive behavior than authorized female leaders, and this effect will be stronger in male- than in female-dominated organizations. Authorized female leaders, however, will express a similar amount of deferential and directive behavior, regardless of organizational sex composition. To test these hypotheses, we created a laboratory experiment with simulated organizations. Results are mixed. Deauthorized leaders are marginally more deferential than authorized leaders, and this effect is stronger in male-dominated organizations; authorized leaders express similar amounts of deferential behavior in both types of organizations. Yet, leaders are more directive in male- than in female-dominated organizations, whether they are deauthorized or authorized. We discuss the implications of these results and future directions for this research.

Some countries prohibit the imposition of life imprisonment on women but allow it for men for the same offence (e.g. Albania, Azerbaijan, Russia and Belarus). In Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia (2017) the European Court of Human Rights rejected the claim that it was discriminatory to punish two Russian men convicted of murder to life imprisonment. Other than a handful of legal commentaries there have been no in-depth analyses of the case, in particular on the dangers of using gender stereotyping to limit life imprisonment. To address this gap, this chapter draws on criminological works on the gendered experience of life imprisonment, legal analyses of perpetual incarceration under human rights law and ECHR case law on gender stereotyping and on life imprisonment. This study critically discusses the Court’s assessment of gender stereotypes in the context of life imprisonment and considers whether its approach constitutes any improvement for women. In so doing, it illuminates how well-intended efforts to curtail some extreme forms of penal practices such as perpetual incarceration may have unintended and perverse consequences for women specifically and the landscape of punishment more generally.

This chapter examines the tension between interdependence and dominance. First, we briefly review prominent social psychological theories regarding the development and maintenance of status systems. Next we briefly describe how these structures help distribute social power in modern society. We then examine how prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination stem from status systems and interdependence, using the Stereotype Content Model (Fiske, Xu, Cuddy & Glick, 1999; Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002). Next, we consider the unique circumstances of gender relations and how they give way to complementary justifications of gender inequality, using Ambivalent Sexism Theory (Glick & Fiske, 1996, 1999, 2001a, 2001b). Last, we review evidence to support our argument that women do not necessarily acquiesce joyfully to the present hierarchical arrangement, but rather guide their choices by their pragmatic alternatives, as dictated by benevolent and hostile ideologies.