We analyzed 1415 newspaper obituaries of female and male leaders published in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland from 1974 to 2016, covering a time-span of 42 years, to investigate change in descriptive and prescriptive gender stereotypes. The obituaries’ content was condensed to four categories: agency, competence, and communion were used to investigate changes in descriptive stereotypes. The category likability was used to infer changes in prescriptive stereotypes. Consistent with theories claiming changeability of stereotypes, our results indicate changes in descriptive stereotypes. Female leaders were described as increasingly agentic over time, but not as increasingly competent. Descriptions regarding communion remained unchanged. In contrast, the description of male leaders remained relatively stable at first, followed by changes in recent years, where men were described as decreasingly competent and increasingly communal. Simultaneously, our results support theories suggesting stability of stereotypes over time indicating unchanged prescriptive stereotypes. Accordingly, increases in female leaders’ agency were associated with decreases in likability. In male leaders, increases in communion were associated with decreases in likability. Overall, our results reconcile divided theories regarding the changeability of gender stereotypes. Furthermore, our results emphasize that research and praxis need to enhance attention on prescriptive stereotypes to facilitate female leadership.
The belief that the target of sexism has shifted from women to men is gaining popularity. Yet despite its potential theoretical and practical importance, the belief that men are now the primary target of sexism has not been systematically defined nor has it been reliably measured. In this paper, we define the belief in sexism shift (BSS) and introduce a scale to measure it. We contend that BSS constitutes a new form of contemporary sexism characterized by the perception that anti-male discrimination is pervasive, that it now exceeds anti-female discrimination, and that it is caused by women’s societal advancement. In four studies (N = 666), we develop and test a concise, one-dimensional, 15-item measure of BSS: the BSS scale. Our findings demonstrate that BSS is related to, yet distinct from other forms of sexism (traditional, modern, and ambivalent sexism). Moreover, our results show that the BSS scale is a stable and reliable measure of BSS across different samples, time, and participant gender. The BSS scale is also less susceptible to social desirability concerns than other sexism measures. In sum, the BSS scale can be a valuable tool to help understand a new and potentially growing type of sexism that may hinder women in unprecedented ways.
In this study, we analyze the free verbal associations to the stimuli women quotas and men quotas of 327 medical students. Women and men quotas are characterized by the same modus operandi (i.e., preferential treatment based on sex/gender). However, women quotas help a low-status group, whereas men quotas help a high-status group. In line with a support paradox, that is, the perception that support for women is less fair and less legitimate than support for men, we expected that students would reject women quotas in academia more vehemently than men quotas. Specifically, we hypothesized that students would have more negative and more emotional associations with women quotas than men quotas. As predicted, students had more negative associations with women quotas than with men quotas. However, students did not have more emotional associations with women quotas than with men quotas. In addition, we explored the semantic content of the free associations to identify specific concerns over each quota. Students perceived women quotas as counterproductive, derogatory, and unfair, whereas they perceived men quotas as beneficial and fair. Concerns over the negative perceptions of quota beneficiaries were associated more frequently with women quotas than men quotas. Potential factors underlying students' perceptions of both quotas are discussed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.