Perceived to be incompetent, but not a risk: Why men are evaluated as less suitable for childcare work than women

Abstract

Men are widely underrepresented in early childhood education and care worldwide. Professional childcare is often believed to require communal qualities typically associated with the female gender role, like being sensitive to others' needs. Men's underrepresentation in childcare work likely occurs as a result of the perceived incongruity between communal qualities required for childcare work and agentic qualities associated with men and the male gender role. Using a between‐subjects design, this research examined how personality traits (communal vs. agentic) of people interested in early childcare and their gender (woman vs. man) affect evaluations of their suitability for childcare work. This online experiment further investigated the potential underlying mechanisms—ascribed childcare competence and perceived risk of perpetrating child abuse—and tested whether these explanations contribute to men's less favorable evaluations. Results showed that participants (N = 242) evaluated the communal candidate as more suitable for childcare work than the agentic candidate, and the male candidate as less suitable than the female candidate. Structural equation modeling showed that lower ascribed childcare competence, but not greater perceived risk of perpetrating sexual or physical child abuse, contributed to men's lower perceived suitability. This research provides support for the reasoning that persisting gender stereotypes can hinder men's entry into childcare work, as people discount men's competence and ability to care for children. Moreover, this research suggests that incongruity theories are also valid in the context of men pursuing traditionally female‐dominated communal roles. Practical implications are discussed in relation to strategies for increasing gender diversity in childcare work.

Editorial to Part I “Revisioning, Rethinking, Restructuring Gender at Work: Quo Vadis Gender Stereotypes?”

“…Second, gender has primarily been studied and perceived as a binary concept, which does not accurately reflect gender in today's world. Third, an increasingly diverse workforce highlights the importance of taking the intersections of various marginalized identities into account when In Part I, we present studies showing that differences in gender stereotypes still exist (Gartzia, 2022), confirm disadvantages for women in male-dominated roles and sectors (Henningsen et al, 2022) and when the employment sector is not specified (Gloor et al, 2022;Hernandez Bark et al, 2022), but also disadvantages for men in female-dominated roles and sectors (Sczesny et al, 2022). In contrast to this general trend, one paper in Part II of this Special Issue found a preference for women over men as job candidates in their study (Niedlich et al, 2022; Study 1).…”

“…The current study may suggest that, at least in the French culture, there may be less tolerance in our days for men leaders' anger displays. Sczesny et al (2022) examined why men are underrepresented in childcare work. They proposed the perceived incongruence between the communal qualities needed in such a role and the male gender role as one explanation for this underrepresentation.…”

Editorial to Part II: Revisioning, Rethinking, Restructuring Gender at Work: Contributors to Gender‐Role Stereotyping

“…The study of the consequences of gender stereotypes for men is still underrepresented. However, the studies in Part I of this Special Issue (Hernandez Bark, Seliverstova, et al, 2022; Sczesny et al, 2022) and recent research (e.g., Moss‐Racusin & Johnson, 2016; Moss‐Racusin, 2014) show that gender stereotypes affect not only women, but the perceived (in)congruity of the male stereotype to certain behaviors and occupations can also affect men. Thus, gender stereotypes represent a corset for all genders as traditional gender stereotypes are still used as a basis for evaluation—of oneself and by others—and, consequently, determine behavior, career choices, career advancement, and so forth.…”

“…Additionally, we see it as a strength that the majority of studies included in both parts of this Special Issue used experimental study designs (Baldner et al, 2022;Gloor et al, 2022;Hernandez Bark, Seliverstova, et al, 2022;Kahalon et al, 2022;Klysing et al, 2022;Nett et al, 2022;Niedlich et al, 2022;Obioma, Hentschel, et al, 2022;Raymondie & Steiner, 2022;Sczesny et al, 2022;Süssenbach & Carvacho, 2022) which allows drawing causal inferences. Nevertheless, we see the need for future research on this topic.…”

“…As Special Issue Editors, we strongly believe in the importance of publishing such null findings instead of contributing to the so‐called “file drawer problem.” Only if we gain a complete picture of when gender stereotypes are found and when they are not can we advance theory and practice and contribute to policy development. Additionally, we see it as a strength that the majority of studies included in both parts of this Special Issue used experimental study designs (Baldner et al, 2022; Gloor et al, 2022; Hernandez Bark, Seliverstova, et al, 2022; Kahalon et al, 2022; Klysing et al, 2022; Nett et al, 2022; Niedlich et al, 2022; Obioma, Hentschel, et al, 2022; Raymondie & Steiner, 2022; Sczesny et al, 2022; Süssenbach & Carvacho, 2022) which allows drawing causal inferences. Nevertheless, we see the need for future research on this topic.…”