Literature DB >> 26392533

Compared to men, women view professional advancement as equally attainable, but less desirable.

Francesca Gino1, Caroline Ashley Wilmuth2, Alison Wood Brooks2.   

Abstract

Women are underrepresented in most high-level positions in organizations. Though a great deal of research has provided evidence that bias and discrimination give rise to and perpetuate this gender disparity, in the current research we explore another explanation: men and women view professional advancement differently, and their views affect their decisions to climb the corporate ladder (or not). In studies 1 and 2, when asked to list their core goals in life, women listed more life goals overall than men, and a smaller proportion of their goals related to achieving power at work. In studies 3 and 4, compared to men, women viewed high-level positions as less desirable yet equally attainable. In studies 5-7, when faced with the possibility of receiving a promotion at their current place of employment or obtaining a high-power position after graduating from college, women and men anticipated similar levels of positive outcomes (e.g., prestige and money), but women anticipated more negative outcomes (e.g., conflict and tradeoffs). In these studies, women associated high-level positions with conflict, which explained the relationship between gender and the desirability of professional advancement. Finally, in studies 8 and 9, men and women alike rated power as one of the main consequences of professional advancement. Our findings reveal that men and women have different perceptions of what the experience of holding a high-level position will be like, with meaningful implications for the perpetuation of the gender disparity that exists at the top of organizational hierarchies.

Entities:  

Keywords:  achievement; gender; goals; power; professional advancement

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26392533      PMCID: PMC4603465          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1502567112

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  15 in total

1.  National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track.

Authors:  Wendy M Williams; Stephen J Ceci
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-04-13       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Life paths and accomplishments of mathematically precocious males and females four decades later.

Authors:  David Lubinski; Camilla P Benbow; Harrison J Kell
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2014-11-10

3.  Investors prefer entrepreneurial ventures pitched by attractive men.

Authors:  Alison Wood Brooks; Laura Huang; Sarah Wood Kearney; Fiona E Murray
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2014-03-10       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Gender and aggressive behavior: a meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature.

Authors:  A H Eagly; V J Steffen
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1986-11       Impact factor: 17.737

5.  Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: the hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle managers.

Authors:  L A Rudman; P Glick
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  1999-11

6.  The relationship of social power to visual displays of dominance between men and women.

Authors:  J F Dovidio; S L Ellyson; C F Keating; K Heltman; C E Brown
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  1988-02

7.  Resources, personal strivings, and subjective well-being: a nomothetic and idiographic approach.

Authors:  E Diener; F Fujita
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  1995-05

8.  Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  A H Eagly; S J Karau; M G Makhijani
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 17.737

9.  The contingent smile: a meta-analysis of sex differences in smiling.

Authors:  Marianne LaFrance; Marvin A Hecht; Elizabeth Levy Paluck
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 17.737

Review 10.  Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.

Authors:  Alice H Eagly; Steven J Karau
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 8.934

View more
  15 in total

1.  Solutions to Gender Balance in STEM Fields Through Support, Training, Education and Mentoring: Report of the International Women in Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering Task Group.

Authors:  Gilda Barabino; Monique Frize; Fatimah Ibrahim; Eleni Kaldoudi; Lenka Lhotska; Loredana Marcu; Magdalena Stoeva; Virginia Tsapaki; Eva Bezak
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2019-02-26       Impact factor: 3.525

2.  Psychological Constellations Assessed at Age 13 Predict Distinct Forms of Eminence 35 Years Later.

Authors:  Brian O Bernstein; David Lubinski; Camilla P Benbow
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2019-01-29

3.  The Future of Women in Psychological Science.

Authors:  June Gruber; Jane Mendle; Kristen A Lindquist; Toni Schmader; Lee Anna Clark; Eliza Bliss-Moreau; Modupe Akinola; Lauren Atlas; Deanna M Barch; Lisa Feldman Barrett; Jessica L Borelli; Tiffany N Brannon; Silvia A Bunge; Belinda Campos; Jessica Cantlon; Rona Carter; Adrienne R Carter-Sowell; Serena Chen; Michelle G Craske; Amy J C Cuddy; Alia Crum; Lila Davachi; Angela L Duckworth; Sunny J Dutra; Naomi I Eisenberger; Melissa Ferguson; Brett Q Ford; Barbara L Fredrickson; Sherryl H Goodman; Alison Gopnik; Valerie Purdie Greenaway; Kate L Harkness; Mikki Hebl; Wendy Heller; Jill Hooley; Lily Jampol; Sheri L Johnson; Jutta Joormann; Katherine D Kinzler; Hedy Kober; Ann M Kring; Elizabeth Levy Paluck; Tania Lombrozo; Stella F Lourenco; Kateri McRae; Joan K Monin; Judith T Moskowitz; Misaki N Natsuaki; Gabriele Oettingen; Jennifer H Pfeifer; Nicole Prause; Darby Saxbe; Pamela K Smith; Barbara A Spellman; Virginia Sturm; Bethany A Teachman; Renee J Thompson; Lauren M Weinstock; Lisa A Williams
Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci       Date:  2020-09-09

4.  Who shines most among the brightest?: A 25-year longitudinal study of elite STEM graduate students.

Authors:  Kira O McCabe; David Lubinski; Camilla P Benbow
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  2019-03-14

5.  Understanding educational, occupational, and creative outcomes requires assessing intraindividual differences in abilities and interests.

Authors:  David Lubinski
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2020-07-13       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  From the Editor-in-Chief: Questions of Gender Equity in the Undergraduate Biology Classroom.

Authors:  Samantha L Elliott
Journal:  J Microbiol Biol Educ       Date:  2016-05-04

7.  Gender disparities in high-quality research revealed by Nature Index journals.

Authors:  Michael H K Bendels; Ruth Müller; Doerthe Brueggmann; David A Groneberg
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-01-02       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Digit ratio (2D:4D) and academic success as measured by achievement in the academic degree "Habilitation".

Authors:  Ozan Yüksel Tektas; Lorenz Kapsner; Miriam Lemmer; Polyxeni Bouna-Pyrrou; Piotr Lewczuk; Bernd Lenz; Johannes Kornhuber
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-02-25       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Are Sexist Attitudes and Gender Stereotypes Linked? A Critical Feminist Approach With a Spanish Sample.

Authors:  Rubén García-Sánchez; Carmen Almendros; Begoña Aramayona; María Jesús Martín; María Soria-Oliver; Jorge S López; José Manuel Martínez
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2019-10-24

10.  Gender underlies the formation of STEM research groups.

Authors:  Denon Start; Shannon McCauley
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2020-04-01       Impact factor: 2.912

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.