Download Women and Men in Conflicting Social Roles: Implications from

Social Issues and Policy Review, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2011, pp. 191--226
Women and Men in Conflicting Social Roles:
Implications from Social Psychological Research
Kimberley A. Clow∗
University of Ontario Institute of Technology
Rosemary Ricciardelli
York University
Despite legislation for gender equality in many nations, gender discrimination
continues to be a problem. Psychological research from social role theory, the
stereotype content model, and ambivalent sexism provide insights into the motivations behind gender inequality. This article reviews key research findings from
these theoretical perspectives in the realm of gendered occupational inequalities
and segregation. The emphasis of the article is on individuals fulfilling social
roles that are perceived as conflicting and the consequences of those perceptions.
Parents in the workforce, female leaders, and male nurses are used as specific
examples of social role conflict. The policy implications from this research—and
the issues facing parents in the workforce, female leaders, and male nurses in
particular—are discussed.
Women and men who attempt to enter fields typically dominated by the other
gender frequently encounter stereotypes, prejudice, or discrimination (Eagly &
Koenig, 2008; Evans & Frank, 2003; Heilman, Wallen, Fuchs, & Tamkins, 2004;
Rudyk, 2010). A consistent theme underlying these negative reactions appears to
be perceived conflict regarding conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Agentic attributes (e.g., assertive, ambitious, dominant, independent, self-confident,
and competitive) focus on self-attainment and are central to perceptions of masculinity, whereas communal attributes (e.g., affectionate, helpful, kind, nurturing,
sympathetic, and sensitive) are other focused and central to perceptions of femininity (Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt; 2001; Kasen, Chen, Sneed, Crawford, &
∗ Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kimberley A. Clow, Faculty of
Social Science & Humanities, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, 55 Bond St. East, Oshawa,
ON, L1G 0A5 [e-mail: [email protected]].
191
C 2011 The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues
192
Clow and Ricciardelli
Cohen, 2006). Occupations that are numerically dominated by one gender tend to
be stereotyped as masculine (if dominated by men) or as feminine (if dominated
by women), possibly deriving from a need to rationalize the existing distribution
of men and women into these occupations (Cejka & Eagly, 1999; Hoffman &
Hurst, 1990). Thus, when a woman enters a male-dominated field or a man enters a female-dominated field, the assumed masculinity or femininity of the job
and the person is perceived to conflict. This perceived incongruity can result in
stereotypes that masculinize women or feminize men in these occupations or to
perceptions that an individual’s behavior is not consistent—and often viewed as
inappropriate—for his or her gender (Harding, 2007; Rudyk, 2010).
Consider the case of Ann Hopkins. In 1982, after working at Price Waterhouse
(one of the United States’ largest nationwide professional accounting firms) for
five years, partners in her local office submitted her name as a candidate for partnership. Her supporters highlighted her successful acquisition of a $25 million
contract with the Department of State and her record of securing major contracts
that surpassed those of any other partnership candidates that year. Hopkins herself, as well as her accomplishments, was praised by the partners in her office.
Her clients also spoke very positively about her, describing her as “extremely
competent, intelligent,” and “strong and forthright, very productive, energetic and
creative” (Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 1989, Tr. 150).
Thirty-two partners chose to submit comments on Ann Hopkins regarding her
bid for partnership. Of these 32 statements, 13 supported Hopkins, eight stated
that they did not have sufficient information to comment, three recommended
that her candidacy be placed on hold to be considered the following year, and
eight recommended that she be denied partnership. One of the partners providing
input on her candidacy mentioned, multiple times, that he did not feel that a
woman could be a competent senior manager, let alone a partner. Another partner
complained about her use of profanity “because it’s a lady using foul language”
(Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 1989, Tr. 321). Despite the fact that the majority of
statements supported Ann Hopkins, that Hopkins had a better record of securing
contracts than the other candidates, and that Price Waterhouse did not have a limit
on the number of individuals who could earn partnership each year, the Policy
Board chose to put Ann Hopkins’ candidacy on hold. She was told that her chances
for partner would improve if she made efforts to “walk more femininely, talk more
femininely, dress more femininely, wear make-up, have her hair styled, and wear
jewellery” (Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 1989, 618 F. Supp. at 1117). She was not
considered for partner the following year and sued Price Waterhouse for gender
discrimination.
Although the Hopkins case is a blatant example, more subtle forms of gender
discrimination still persist (e.g., Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2004; Eagly & Karau,
2002; Rudyk, 2010). Existing policies that attempt to prevent gender discrimination, and outline possible legal recourse should discrimination occur nonetheless,
may not be eliminating the issues as intended. First of all, these policies almost
Women and Men in Conflicting
193
exclusively focus on women as the targets of gender discrimination and do not
consider the issues that men face in occupations traditionally numerically dominated by women. Second, although progress has been made in addressing gender
discrimination directed at women in traditionally male-dominated occupations,
gender discrimination still persists in these fields. As Hazel L. Sive, Associate
Dean of the School of Science at M.I.T. claimed, “because things are so much
better now, we can see an entirely new set of issues” (Zernike, 2011, p. 1).
Policies Lack a Focus on Gender Discrimination Targeting Men
Consider the following examples of gender discrimination targeting men. In
the case of Blair v. Colonial Plaza (2009), a nursing home instituted a new policy
barring male caregivers from working nightshifts. This new policy was established
because the nursing home felt its patients would be most susceptible to sexual
assault during these shifts. Blair, who had previously worked nightshifts for this
nursing home as he worked a second job during the day, was suddenly denied
the shifts he needed and had previously worked—not because of any behavior
on his part, but because he was a man and men were no longer allowed to work
those shifts. The United States District Court of Oklahoma ruled that Blair “has
a legitimate right to sue for being cast in the role of a potential sexual predator
simply on the basis of his male gender” (Legal Eagle Eye Newsletter for the
Nursing Profession, 2008, p. 8).
In England, Andrew Moyhing won a sex discrimination case against National
Health Service (NHS) hospitals, where he was prohibited from completing personal procedures on female patients (e.g., cervical smears, electrocardiogram tests
on breasts) without a female chaperone present (Carvel, 2006). Moyhing, as a male
nurse, was required to have a chaperone in these intimate health care situations
with female patients, whereas male doctors were not. In addition, women (nurses
or doctors) were not required to have chaperones when conducting sensitive tests
on male patients. Furthermore, this stipulation was not at the request of patients—a
situation that did not bother Moyhing—but as a standard requirement for all (and
only) male nurses.
Unfortunately, these are not isolated cases. Men who enter nursing, a femaledominated profession, are generally stereotyped as sexually deviant, homosexual,
feminine or “weird,” as if it were impossible to consider that a “normal” man
would engage in what is currently considered “women’s work” (Evans & Frank,
2003; Harding, 2007). They are often disqualified from labor and delivery wards,
gynecology procedures, and sometimes even access to their patients (Bartfay &
Bartfay, 2007; Johnson, 2004). Men in female-dominated professions report that
their sexuality and their ability to fulfill their jobs are often questioned (Harding,
2007; Lupton, 2006; Yang, Gau, Shiau, Hu, & Shih, 2004), whereas women
in these fields (and men in comparable occupations that are more compatible
with traditional gender roles) do not experience these reactions. There are few
194
Clow and Ricciardelli
role models and mentors for men in these areas, men are not actively recruited
(whereas the perception is that women are actively recruited), and people often
react to their gender rather than their qualifications and abilities (Lupton, 2006;
O’Lynn, 2004; Sherrod, Sherrod, & Rasch, 2006).
Rather than valuing men as an important part of these professions, rules and
regulations seem to work toward excluding men rather than including them. These
sanctions do not occur simply because of gender—as male doctors, for example,
are exempt from these concerns. These sanctions arise as a reaction to men in
occupations that are not congruent with traditional masculine gender roles. Men in
these fields are calling for changes that specifically work toward reducing gender
discrimination for men in traditionally female occupations, similar to policies
already in place for women in traditionally male occupations that have succeeded
in increasing the number of qualified women in those fields (Meadus, 2000; Roth
& Coleman, 2008; Sherrod et al., 2006).
Existing Policies Targeting Women May Not Be Sufficient
Existing policies, however, may not be sufficient. Research suggests that biases against women still exist (Cuddy et al., 2004; Eagly & Karau, 2002; Rudyk,
2010). To illustrate, consider M.I.T., an institution that acknowledged past gender
discrimination targeting women in traditionally male-dominated fields (e.g., science, engineering) and attempted to proactively address the issue. Despite these
efforts, gender equality has not been achieved (Zernike, 2011). For example, female professors at M.I.T. report that they feel their successes are interpreted by
others as occurring because they are women (in light of policies that are attempting
to reduce gender bias), rather than because they are competent. In addition, female faculty feel that current gender policies—although increasing the number of
qualified women at M.I.T.—have unexpectedly placed a greater burden on them.
For instance, at least one woman is required to sit on every university committee,
but when there are fewer female faculty than male faculty at an institution or
in a department, this rule leads to the average female professor sitting on more
committees than her average male colleague—which is time taken away from her
research program and her teaching.
In addition, despite many improvements, a gender wage gap still exists. For example, in Canada women earn $0.83 for every dollar men earn (Statistics Canada,
2010). In the United States, female lawyers earn 68% of the salary earned by
male lawyers (Hersch, 2003), whereas men in female-dominated professions,
such as nursing, elementary school teaching, and library studies, are overrepresented in the higher paying and higher status positions within their fields (Evans,
1997; Williams, 1992). Participants even assign significantly higher salaries to
the same occupations when they are described more masculine (e.g., industrial
arts teacher, automotive magazine editor) than feminine (e.g., home economics
Women and Men in Conflicting
195
teacher, gourmet food magazine editor) (Alksnis, Desmarais, & Curtis, 2008).
Thus, it is important to have policies addressing gender discrimination, but it may
be time to revisit these policies and ensure they are working as intended.
Examples of Gender Discrimination Policies and Legislation
Different countries have broached gender discrimination in slightly different
ways. The United States Supreme Court ruled in 1986 that an employer could
use gender as a factor to determine employment if it was used to correct for an
existing gender imbalance (American Association for Affirmative Action, 2010a).
Current American affirmative action policies are not based on quotas or preferential
treatment, but instead focus on increasing the inclusion of groups that, historically,
have been excluded from employment (American Association for Affirmative
Action, 2010b). In Australia, the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace
Act of 1999 was developed. The Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace
Agency administers the Act through education while working with employers to
improve opportunities for women (Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace
Agency, 2010).
Similarly, in Canada, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was established in 1982 (Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, 2010a). This
provided all Canadians with the constitutional right to equality in employment.
Later, in 1986, the Employment Equity Act was developed to ensure that federally regulated employers provided equal opportunities for employment to women,
Aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities, and members of visible minorities.
The purpose of the Employment Equity Act was to ensure that individuals were not
denied employment for reasons other than ability and to correct for existing disadvantages in the workplace that were experienced by the aforementioned groups
(Canadian Human Rights Commission, 2010). However, the act did not include
federal public service or procedures for enforcing employment equity. Thus, in
1991, the Canadian Human Rights Commission became responsible for ensuring
compliance with the Employment Equity Act.
It is important that such legislation exists. We believe policy makers should
now question whether or not the current legislation is functioning as expected
and whether or not further legislation (or modifications to existing legislation)
might be necessary. In particular, we would like to draw attention to the obstacles
men and women continue to face while working in occupations outside of their
traditional gender roles.
Applying Psychological Theory
Three popular theories have emerged in the social psychological literature
that have addressed issues of gender stereotypes and gender inequality in differing
196
Clow and Ricciardelli
ways: social role theory, the stereotype content model, and ambivalent sexism.
Although these theories were developed to address differing aspects of gender
bias, we feel that these theories actually work together to contribute unique insights
into the problem. Thus, this article will briefly review theory and research that
lends insight into societal reactions to women and men fulfilling social roles that
are perceived to conflict with traditional gender roles. We begin with social role
theory because it explicitly addresses the importance of social roles and its impact
on perceptions of gender roles. Theorizing derived from social role theory—such
as role congruity theory of prejudice—specifically examines the consequences of
individuals fulfilling social roles that are perceived to conflict with gender roles
(e.g., women in leadership positions). Explanations of the stereotype content model
and ambivalent sexism will follow. Although the stereotype content model and
ambivalent sexism were not developed to specifically address perceptions of men
and women in conflicting social roles, research findings derived from these theories
are applicable. In addition, the contributions of these theories in the areas of gender
stereotypes and individual differences in gender prejudice are particularly relevant.
We feel that interpreting gender research findings through the lens of these three
theories combined has the potential to advance our understanding of gender bias
and societal reactions to men and women fulfilling incongruent social roles. The
case of employees as parents, women in positions of leadership, and men in the
nursing profession are used as specific examples to demonstrate how psychological
theories and research can impact policy and practice.
Three Theories Pertaining to Gender Inequality
Despite their differences, there is convergence in the findings from social
role theory, the stereotype content model, and ambivalent sexism. In this section,
each theory will be briefly reviewed (see Figure 1), followed by a discussion of
how the three theories might be integrated together and how they contribute to
our understanding of societal reactions to women and men occupying social roles
that are perceived to conflict. This section ends with an examination of gender
research in three areas of perceived role conflict: employees as parents, women in
positions of leadership, and men in nursing.
Social Role Theory
Social role theory takes a functionalist perspective to explain why societies
come to develop gender stereotypes that generally bestow differing personalities
on women and men that conveniently would assist them in completing the labor
roles where men and women are typically employed (Eagly, 1987; Eagly, Wood, &
Diekman, 2000). The main proposition of social role theory is that observed gender
differences in behavior and personality actually arise from the gendered division
Women and Men in Conflicting
197
Fig. 1. A visual summary of the main components of social role theory, the stereotype content model,
and the model of ambivalent sexism.
of labor in a society—especially family and occupational social roles (Eagly &
Diekman, 2006; Eagly & Mitchell, 2004; Eagly et al., 2000). For example, labor
is generally divided according to gender across cultures, suggesting a universality
of dividing labor by gender, but there is variability across cultures and societies
as to what specific activities are distributed to men and women (Wood & Eagly,
2002). Once labor is stratified by gender, the differential roles that men and
women fulfill within a society encourage the development of gender roles—the
normative expectations of what is considered appropriate masculine and feminine
behavior (Eagly et al., 2000; Wood & Eagly, 2002). Gender roles, in turn, lead to
the expectancy that individuals will occupy gender-specific roles and possess the
characteristics that increase their success in those roles (Eagly et al., 2000; Wood
& Eagly, 2002).
Research does suggest that physical biological differences between women
and men (primarily women’s ability to reproduce and breast feed and men’s greater
size and strength)—combined with existing economic, technological, and ecological pressures—influence the tasks distributed to each gender (Eagly et al., 2000;
Eagly & Mitchell, 2004; Wood & Eagly, 2002). For instance, sudden economic
needs during World War II thrust a large number of women into the paid workforce
for the first time. When World War II ended, labor roles were redistributed (for a
discussion of other social consequences of women’s entry into the workforce, see
Putnam, 2000).
The labor roles that men and women currently fulfill in a society lead to the
development of gender stereotypes. In other words, if “people observe women
engaging in communal, nurturing behaviors such as child care . . . [they will] infer
from these behaviors that women possess communal characteristics . . . Similarly,
[if] people observe men engaging in assertive, task-oriented activities such as
those involved in being a foreman or business executive . . . [they will] infer from
these behaviours that men possess agentic characteristics” (Eagly & Mitchell,
2004, p. 190). Thus, gender stereotypes result from the different tasks that men
and women engage in as they fulfill their differing roles, as opposed to deriving
from biological driven personality differences between men and women (Bosak,
Sczesny, & Eagly, 2008; Eagly et al., 2000).
198
Clow and Ricciardelli
In addition to gender roles, the existing gendered division of labor forces
most men and women into different experiences that reinforce different sets of
skills and beliefs (Eagly & Mitchell, 2004; Eagly et al., 2000). These differential
experiences could arise due to a variety of factors, such as motivations for engaging in role-congruent behavior, the gender stereotypic expectancies of others,
or internalization of gender roles and self-stereotyping (Diekman & Eagly, 2008;
Eagly et al., 2000). Thus, most individuals have greater opportunities to participate in activities that are deemed appropriate for their gender—as opposed to
inappropriate for their gender. In other words, gender-segregated roles lead men
and women to participate in different activities, providing men and women with
differential training and expertise at different tasks. These differential experiences
also affect beliefs about what is appropriate for men and women and the consequences of social behaviors. As children and youths are incorporated into these
role expectations, they are acquiring the skills that society deems appropriate and
useful for the majority of adults of their gender.
Conforming to gender role expectations is presumed to assist individuals in
becoming successful and productive members of society, as successful and productive members of communal (for women) or agentic (for men) social roles.
Consider aggressive behavior as an example. As boys and young men are more
likely than girls and young women to be encouraged to engage in activities that
involve socially desirable displays of aggression, such as contact sports and military service, males end up engaging in more aggressive behavior than females
and are more rewarded (or more tolerated) for doing so. Similarly, if more girls
in comparison to boys are encouraged to (or employed to) babysit in their teenage
years, then women would enter adulthood with more experience and knowledge
related to the tending of children than do men, confirming stereotypic beliefs that
women are better caregivers than men. These acquired skills and beliefs can be
indirect manifestations of social roles.
Research does suggest that particular personalities are associated with particular occupations (Clow & Esses, 2005; Holroyd, Bond, & Chan, 2002). More
importantly, Hoffman and Hurst (1990) used fictional groups of individuals to
experimentally demonstrate that stereotypes could develop solely from the distribution of groups of people into particular social roles—even when the personalities
of those individuals did not actually differ. In addition, the tendency to stereotype
based on the distribution of labor was greater when group differences were explained in biological terms or participants were asked to explain the unequal
distribution of the groups in each role. Moreover, Cejka and Eagly (1999) found
that participants rate feminine personalities as most important for success when
considering female-dominated occupations (e.g., bank teller and dental hygienist) and male cognitive abilities as most important for success when considering
male-dominated occupations (e.g., construction worker and civil engineer). Thus,
seeing one gender primarily engaged in a particular social role seems to lead
Women and Men in Conflicting
199
perceivers to assume that men or women generally have personality characteristics that make them especially suited to perform that given role.
When people assume that there is something intrinsic to being a woman or a
man that makes them inherently suited to perform a certain social role (e.g., women
are naturally better caregivers, men are naturally better leaders), it implies that
men and women in roles that are numerically dominated by the other gender are
deviant, less qualified, and lacking the “natural” gift possessed by the normative
gender. In addition, gender stereotypes suggest that men and women are born
with personalities that would be counterproductive to fulfilling the social roles
traditionally assumed by the opposite gender. Thus, men are seen as inadequate in
fulfilling tasks associated with social roles traditionally fulfilled by women (e.g.,
men in communal professions such as nursing or day care) and women are seen as
incapable of fulfilling tasks associated with the social roles traditionally fulfilled
by men (e.g., women in agentic professions such as policing or politics). Moreover,
gender stereotypes that arise may serve to rationalize and justify existing gender
inequalities (Cejka & Eagly, 1999; Hoffman & Hurst, 1990; Jost & Banaji, 1994).
Stereotype Content Model
Whereas social role theory focuses on agency and communion and how the
gendered division of labor gives rise to gender roles and the content of gender
stereotypes, the stereotype content model (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002)
proposed that the content of most social group stereotypes—including gender
stereotypes—could be accounted for by perceptions of competence (similar to
agency) and warmth (similar to communion), and that differing combinations
of competence and warmth, based on the relative status and perceived interdependence of the social groups in question, led to the expression of qualitatively
different forms of prejudice (for a review, see Clow & Ricciardelli, 2011). The differing combinations of competence (high; low) and warmth (high; low) correspond
to four different forms of prejudice: paternalistic prejudice (low competence; high
warmth), envious prejudice (high competence; low warmth), contemptuous prejudice (low competence; low warmth), and admiration (high competence; high
warmth)—with this final form of prejudice being one of preference. Relative status and perceived interdependence lead to perceptions of competence and warmth,
emotional reactions to groups, and behavioral intentions (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick,
2007; Fiske et al., 2002).
Groups that are perceived as low in status and are not competing for resources,
power, or status with our own group memberships result in paternalistic prejudice
(Caprariello, Cuddy, & Fiske, 2009). These groups are stereotyped as low in competence but high in warmth and people react to these groups with emotions of pity
and sympathy. Research has found gender subtypes, such as housewives, secretaries, typical women, male softies, male senior citizens, male radicals, and male
200
Clow and Ricciardelli
hippies, to be stereotyped according to paternalistic prejudices (Eckes, 2002; Fiske
et al., 2002). Research in other nations (e.g., Germany, Japan, and South Korea)
has found that women, more generally, fall into the paternalistic prejudice category
(Asbrock, 2010; Cuddy et al., 2009). In Germany, gay men were clustered into the
same stereotypes of high warmth and low competence as women and housewives
(Asbrock, 2010), suggesting that gay men are perceived as nontraditional men
who are low in status and not competing for resources. Thus, traditional women
(e.g., housewives, secretaries) and nontraditional men (e.g., male softies, male
hippies) tend to be stereotyped as high in warmth but low in competence. Cuddy
et al. (2004) describe perceptions of these groups as the harmless and pathetic.
Groups that are perceived as high in status and in competition with our own
group memberships for resources, power, or status are subjected to envious prejudice (Caprariello et al., 2009). These groups are stereotyped as high in competence
but low in warmth while eliciting feelings of envy and jealousy from perceivers.
Research has found that some gender subtypes are stereotyped according to envious prejudice, such as feminists, business women, vamps, intellectual women,
female hippies, career women, typical men, male managers, male yuppies, and
career men (Eckes, 2002; Fiske et al., 2002). In particular, women in nontraditional
roles and men in traditional roles seem to be the focus of this form of prejudice.
Cuddy et al. (2004) describe perceptions of these groups as the “uppity outgroups”
(p. 704), the social groups that are grudgingly respected (as they are high in status
and competence) yet not liked (as they are competitive and low in warmth).
Groups that are perceived as low in status and in competition for resources,
power, or status are met with contemptuous prejudice (Caprariello et al., 2009).
These groups are stereotyped as low in both competence and warmth (e.g., welfare
recipients, the poor) and theorized to elicit feelings of contempt, disgust, anger, and
resentment (Fiske et al., 2002). This form of prejudice is most similar to traditional,
negative antipathy conceptualizations of prejudice (Allport, 1954; Dion, 2003)
and does not adequately capture stereotypes or prejudice toward men and women
(Eagly, 2004).
Finally, groups that are perceived as high in status, but are not viewed as
competing for resources, power, or status, are favored with admiration (Caprariello
et al., 2009). These groups are stereotyped as high in both competence and warmth
and elicit feelings of pride and admiration (Fiske et al., 2002). Admired social
groups are often the in-groups (i.e., our own social groups) to which we belong,
although they may also include mainstream social groups. Examples of admired
social groups include full members of society in Japan, college graduates and
married couples in Hong Kong, and middle class, White, Christians in the United
States (Cuddy et al., 2004).
Overall, paternalistic prejudice and envious prejudice seem most relevant to
perceptions of men and women. Women in traditional gender roles (e.g., housewife, secretary) are targeted with paternalistic prejudice and women in roles that
Women and Men in Conflicting
201
are incongruent with traditional gender roles (e.g., feminist, career woman) encounter envious prejudice. In contrast, men in traditional gender roles (e.g., career
men, male managers) are targeted with envious prejudice, whereas men in roles
that are incongruent with traditional gender roles (e.g., male hippies, male softies)
seem to encounter paternalistic prejudice. Thus, whether or not a person fulfills a
traditional or nontraditional role for one’s gender seems to determine whether that
individual is perceived as high or low in status, in competition for resources and,
consequently, whether or not the person is perceived as competent (but not liked)
or liked (but not competent).
Ambivalent Sexism
Similar to social role theory, ambivalent sexism (Glick & Fiske, 1996, 1999)
was developed to explain gendered attitudes. Whereas social role theory focused
on the development of gender stereotypes, ambivalent sexism concerned itself
with gender prejudice. It was argued that gender prejudice was a unique type of
prejudice: one characterized by ambivalence (consisting of negative and positive
components simultaneously) rather than uniform negativity (Glick & Fiske, 1996;
Glick, Lameiras, & Castro, 2002; Glick et al., 2004; Viki, Abrams, & Hutchison,
2003). In the context of heterosexual relationships, one cannot afford to hate
and isolate members of the opposite sex. In addition, the roles men and women
occupy in many societies lead to frequent interaction and interdependence. Thus,
instead of antipathy for the opposite sex, gender prejudices are a complicated
balance of hostile and benevolent sexist ideologies. Hostile sexism refers to the
negative aspect of gender attitudes involving domination, hostility, and resentment,
whereas benevolent sexism is defined as the subjectively positive attitudes—from
the perspective of the individual holding the attitude—of protection, benevolence,
and idealization. Importantly, both hostile and benevolent sexism feed into existing
power structures that serve to maintain the status quo, keeping men in a position
of power and women subordinate to men (Glick & Fiske, 2001).
Ambivalent sexism can target women (Ambivalent Sexism Inventory; ASI) or
men (Ambivalence toward Men Inventory; AMI). Either form of sexism (targeting
women or men) is derived from paternalism (relating to others as a father to
his children), gender differentiation (gender stereotypes and gender roles), and
heterosexual relationships (the interdependence of the genders for intimacy), and
leads to the development of both hostile and benevolent sexist attitudes (Glick
& Fiske, 1996; Glick et al., 2004). To give a brief example of ambivalent sexism
targeting women, a heterosexual man is dependent upon women for love, affection,
and intimacy. That dependency can lead to protective paternalism, where women
are perceived as fragile or naı̈ve and in need of men’s protection (benevolent
sexism), or to dominative paternalism, where feelings of superiority suggest a
man is deserving of love, affection, and intimacy—whether a particular woman
202
Clow and Ricciardelli
is willing to provide it or not (hostile sexism). Competitive gender differentiation
can be used to justify men’s current and continued power, as men are perceived as
possessing the characteristics (such as agentic traits) necessary to be leaders and to
govern (hostile sexism), whereas complementary gender differentiation ascribes
to women the idealized characteristics (such as communion traits) for motherhood
and marriage (benevolent sexism), justifying their lack of power and feeding into
protective and dominative paternalism. Desire for heterosexual intimacy may lead
to similar idealizations of women (benevolent sexism), while resentment over this
need for the “weaker” sex can lead to heterosexual hostility (hostile sexism).
Ambivalent sexism targeting men is argued to stem from these same sources
(paternalism, gender differentiation, and heterosexual relationships) (Glick &
Fiske, 1999; Glick et al., 2004). For instance, women may resent men’s paternalism and sexual aggressiveness (hostile heterosexuality), yet they are bound to
men through heterosexual attraction and daily living (heterosexual intimacy). In
most societies, women hold a subordinate position to men, such that they are
awarded less power and status than men. This subordination may lead women
to respond with compensatory gender differentiation, where women distinguish
themselves from men by self-stereotyping in a manner where women can be portrayed as superior (e.g., communal characteristics). Such compensatory gender
differentiation may tie into maternalism, for which women show protective tendencies toward men, but with an air of superiority and condescension similar to
paternalism, such as women needing to nurture men as they are incapable of caring
for themselves. As women are drawn to men through heterosexual attraction, they
may also experience complementary gender differentiation, where they respect
and admire men’s higher status and power. Thus, resentment of paternalism, resentment of hostile heterosexuality, and compensatory gender differentiation constitute women’s hostile sexism toward men, whereas maternalism, heterosexual
intimacy, and complementary gender differentiation create women’s benevolent
sexism toward men.
Hostile and benevolent sexism scores tend to be positively correlated, indicating that individuals who score higher in one form of sexism (hostile or benevolent)
tend to score higher in the other form of sexism as well (Glick & Fiske, 2001).
Research has established that hostile and benevolent sexist attitudes exist across
cultures (e.g., Australia, Botswana, Chile, Cuba, Germany, Japan, Nigeria, Spain,
South Korea, and the United States), and that a positive correlation between these
sexist attitudes is consistent across cultures (Glick & Fiske, 2001; Glick et al.,
2000, 2002, 2004). In addition, sexist attitudes toward men positively correlate
with sexist attitudes toward women (Clow, Ricciardelli, & Bartfay, 2011; Glick
et al., 2002, 2004).
Despite these correlations, hostile and benevolent sexism do uniquely relate to
particular attitudes and behaviors (for a review, see Clow & Ricciardelli, 2011). For
example, hostile sexism toward women predicts attributing negative characteristics
Women and Men in Conflicting
203
to women, whereas benevolent sexism toward women predicts attributing positive
characteristics to women (Glick & Fiske, 1996; Glick et al., 2000). Hostile sexism
toward women has been found to uniquely predict positive attitudes toward wife
abuse in men and women from Turkey and Brazil (Glick, Sakalli-Ugurlu, Ferreira,
& de Souza, 2002), whereas in both China and the United States, benevolent sexism
generally predicted initial mate selection (especially among women), but hostile
sexism generally predicted marriage norms (especially among men) (Chen, Fiske,
& Lee, 2009). Together, hostile and benevolent sexism toward men and women
predict gender inequality across nations (Glick et al., 2000, 2004).
Research has found that benevolent sexism is related to positive evaluations
of women in traditional roles (e.g., homemakers, chaste women), whereas hostile sexism is related to negative evaluations of women in nontraditional roles
(e.g., career women, promiscuous women) (Sibley & Wilson, 2004; Takabayshi,
2007). Thus, benevolent sexism promotes women (and presumably men) fulfilling traditional gender roles while hostile sexism attempts to inhibit women (and
presumably men) from engaging in social roles that are not traditionally in the
domain of their gender. In this way, ambivalent sexism maintains current gender
hierarchies and perpetuates gender inequality.
Integrating the Theories
These three theories are not in competition; rather they are complementary, each contributing different insight into the puzzle of gendered attitudes and
stereotypes (see Figure 2). For example, although the stereotype content model
was developed to explain stereotype content across differing social groups (e.g.,
social groups based on ethnicity, gender, nationalities, and disabilities), it has
been used to explain differing gender subtype stereotypes and prejudices toward
men and women in different roles (Cuddy et al., 2004; Eckes, 2002). In contrast, social role theory was developed specifically to explain the development
of gender stereotypes, although it has been used to explain the development
and use of other social categorizations and stereotypes as well (Clow & Esses,
2010; Eagly, Eastwick, & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2009). Both theories emphasize
characteristics that have stereotypically been associated with men and women.
Of the two theories, social role theory uses the more general variables of communion and agency, which incorporate the stereotype content model’s concepts
of warmth and competence, but include aspects beyond these concepts as well.
In trying to understand gender stereotyping and discrimination, social role theory uniquely contributes by focusing on the consequences of dividing a labor
force according to gender and the influence of social roles on perceptions (see
Figure 1). The stereotype content model adds to this understanding by focusing attention onto differing subtypes and subgroups of men and women, delineating the nature of differing forms of stereotypes and prejudices, as well as
204
Clow and Ricciardelli
Fig. 2. A visual summary of how social role theory, the stereotype content model, and the model of
ambivalent sexism work together to further our understanding of societal reactions to men and women.
proposing factors that can lead to these differing stereotypes and prejudices (see
Figure 1).
Relating ambivalent sexism to the stereotype content model and social role
theory, ambivalent sexism adds the individual difference component to gendered
attitudes (see Figure 2) by seeking to explain why some people exhibit these
stereotypes and prejudices more than others. There also appear to be certain
parallels between ambivalent sexism and the other two theories. For example,
gender differentiation seems to capture certain elements of social role theory,
with its emphasis on gender roles and stereotypes, and the ambivalence of hostile
and benevolent attitudes seems to parallel the ambivalence of respecting someone
but not liking them (envious prejudice) or liking them but not respecting them
(paternalistic prejudice) from the stereotype content model.
Examples. Consider the following illustration of how these three theories
can be used together to explain perceptions of women and men. Starting with
social role theory, the influences of physical differences between men and women
(e.g., reproduction, strength, and size), combined with the economic, technological, and ecological needs of the time, serve to distribute men and women into
different labor roles (see Figure 1). Differing labor roles for men and women
give rise to gender roles and stereotypes that suggest men and women are particularly suited to fulfill the labor roles that many men or women are currently
engaged in. Existing gender roles and stereotypes enable gender differentiation
Women and Men in Conflicting
205
to occur, both the competitive and complementary gender differentiation as discussed in ambivalent sexism (see Figure 1). Gender differentiation, and the
gender roles and stereotypes themselves, lead to a variety of processes that essentially keep men and women in their existing labor roles—and possibly exacerbate and further divide conceptions of “men’s work” and “women’s work” (see
Figure 2).
Once a society feels there are different types of work, these tasks and labor
roles can be evaluated differently and attributed more or less status (see Figure 1).
As men’s work is generally held higher in status than women’s work, the stereotype content model’s perceived status and interdependence factors and ambivalent
sexism’s paternalism seem particularly relevant. Women, who maintain their assigned labor roles generally involving communal tasks and activities (social role
theory), are perceived as relatively low in status and nonthreatening to those higher
in power (stereotype content model), resulting in communal stereotypes of warmth
but not competence (stereotype content model), paternalistic prejudice (stereotype
content model), and protective paternalism (ambivalent sexism). Men who maintain their assigned labor roles involving agentic tasks and activities (social role
theory) are perceived as relatively high in status, which results in stereotypes of
competence and agency (stereotype content model). If these men are perceived as
a threat to those in power (e.g., competing for resources), they will be stereotyped
as low in warmth (but high in competence) and targeted with envious prejudice
(stereotype content model); if they are not perceived as a threat, they will be stereotyped as high in warmth (and high in competence) and admired (stereotype content
model). As ambivalent sexism is an individual difference variable, some women
may react to these men with resentment of paternalism, resentment of hostile
heterosexuality, and compensatory gender differentiation, whereas other women
may respond with maternalism, heterosexual intimacy, and complementary gender
differentiation.
Consider the situation, however, of a woman who does not want to engage
in the low status and communal tasks that are generally allocated to women.
For example, a woman who wants to be a lawyer or a partner in a competitive
accounting firm (e.g., Ann Hopkins). This woman, trying to move out of the
typical social role for her gender and into the labor tasks that are generally attributed to men (social role theory), could be perceived as a threat to existing
power structures and possibly as competition for resources generally reserved for
men (e.g., well-paying jobs), resulting in stereotypes of competence and agency
but not liking, envious prejudice (stereotype content model), as well as hostile paternalism and compensatory gender differentiation (ambivalent sexism).
In the Ann Hopkins case described at the beginning of the article, it was clear
that some partners at the firm perceived her gender and the position of a firm
partner as incompatible social roles (e.g., one partner commented that women
were not competent enough to be senior managers or partners). Others did not
206
Clow and Ricciardelli
like that she was displaying masculine gender role behavior (e.g., a lady using
foul language) and wanted her to engage in more feminine gender role behavior instead (e.g., wear makeup). As swearing and wearing makeup are not requirements for the job of accountant, it is clear that gender stereotyping rather
than performance issues were at the heart of the decision to not make Ann
Hopkins a partner at Price Waterhouse (Fiske, Bersoff, Borgida, Deaux, &
Heilman, 1991).
Similarly, men who wish to engage in the labor tasks traditionally allocated
to women (social role theory), such as men entering caregiver roles like nursing,
can also be perceived as threatening to those in power—not because they compete for resources but because they challenge the legitimacy of existing power
structures, gender roles and stereotypes, and gender hierarchies. These men are
probably not liked by other men and—as they are attempting to enter communal
occupations—not respected either, resulting in contemptuous prejudice (stereotype content model). In addition, other men may react toward these men as they
respond to women in those same roles, with paternalism and gender differentiation (ambivalent sexism). In addition, society may feminize men in communal
occupations or otherwise perceive them as different from “normal men” (i.e.,
as deviant in some way: sexual predators, homosexual, sissies) to justify their
subordinate position with women. This would explain the issues experienced by
the men in health care examples discussed earlier in the article (concerns about
leaving male nurses alone with patients at night or allowing them to perform
certain procedures unsupervised), where the men in these roles were perceived
as a potential threat and danger—not due to any behavior they themselves exhibited, but merely from the fact that they were men in communal roles. Women
may respond to these men with resentment, as they are entering the few fields
that are dominated by women and reducing opportunities for maternalism and
complementary gender differentiation (ambivalent sexism). Alternatively, they
may welcome these men, seeing them as indicators of change and greater gender
equality to come. Thus, as these examples have begun to demonstrate, these three
theories can be synthesized to illuminate how men and women are often perceived
when they occupy social roles that conflict with traditional gender roles (see
Figure 2).
Applying Theories to Individuals in Conflicting Social Roles
Gender stereotypes that men are agentic and competent complement role
stereotypes for the workforce (Eagly & Koenig, 2008; Eckes, 2002). Thus, people expect men to perform well in these social roles. Women, however, face
more difficulty in the workplace—not because they are devalued, as women
are often evaluated positively (and often more positively than men)—but because gender stereotypes of women as communal and warm conflicts with the
Women and Men in Conflicting
207
role stereotypes of the business world (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Eagly & Koenig,
2008; Eckes, 2002). Similarly, men entering professions that society has stereotyped as caring or nurturing professions, such as nursing and teaching, encounter
the same conflict between their gender role stereotype (masculine and agentic)
and the stereotype of that occupational social role (feminine and communal).
It is the conflicting roles and stereotypes, rather than negative feelings toward
women or men per se, that lead to preferences for one gender over the other
in these social roles (see role congruity theory of prejudice; Eagly & Koenig,
2008).
Glick, Diebold, Bailey-Werner, and Zhu (1997) found that men higher in
hostile sexism reported less favorable stereotypes toward career women than
participants lower in hostile sexism, whereas men higher in benevolent sexism
reported more favorable stereotypes of homemakers than men lower in benevolent
sexism. Thus, one way ambivalent sexists may manage their conflicting beliefs
about women is by targeting different types of women—women in different social
roles—for their hostile and benevolent feelings. Homemakers fulfill a social role
that is consistent with gender stereotypes, one that is stereotyped as high in communion and warmth but low in agency and competence, and targeted by paternalistic
prejudice, whereas career women fulfill a social role that is less consistent with gender stereotypes, one that is stereotyped as high in agency and competence but low
in communion and warmth, and targeted by envious prejudice (Eckes, 2002; Fiske
et al., 2002). Thus, the match or mismatch of the gender role and social role is consistent with whether ambivalent sexists stereotype women in those roles more positively or more negatively. In addition, Sibley and Wilson (2004) reported similar
findings among men reacting to a vignette of a promiscuous versus a chaste woman.
These findings reveal how sexist individuals respond to women in roles that conflict with traditional gender stereotypes: with negative stereotypes and negative
affect.
There are a number of different conflicting social roles that men or women
may find themselves encompassing. The remainder of this article will focus on
three specific role conflicts: (1) employee versus married with children, (2) woman
versus leader, and (3) man versus nurse. These three examples were selected for
illustrative purposes because they are perceived role conflicts rather than actual
conflicts (i.e., there is no ethical or legal conflict with individuals fulfilling both
roles) and because research involving one or more of the psychological theories of
interest has been done in the area. For employee versus married with children, we
discuss the consequences for both male and female employees who simultaneously
fulfill the social role of parent. We then chose to focus on a role conflict example
for each gender separately (woman vs. leader; man vs. nurse). General social
issues and policy implications that follow from these role conflicts, as well as
specific concerns for each example, will be discussed in the “Policy Implications”
section.
208
Clow and Ricciardelli
Employee vs. Married with Children
The social roles of marriage (being a husband or a wife) and parenting (having
children) are perceived as significantly higher in communion for both employed
men and employed women in comparison to the social roles of being single
or childless (Eagly & Steffen, 1984). In addition, research has found that firsttime parents (in comparison to experienced parents) and women (in comparison to
men) are more likely to exhibit greater gender role and gender stereotypic behavior
following the birth of a child (Katz-Wise, Priess, & Hyde, 2010).
Cuddy et al. (2004) found that the social role of parent was associated
with greater warmth (communion) without impacting perceptions of competence
(agency) when men and women were analyzed together. When men and women
were analyzed separately, however, different findings emerged. Participants were
asked to rate a male or female employee who was or was not expecting their first
baby (target individuals who were expecting a child were indicated as married as
well, whereas marriage and baby information was omitted for target individuals
in the childless condition). Participants ascribed greater warmth to new parents
regardless of gender, but new mothers were rated as more warm than competent,
whereas new fathers were rated as equally warm and competent. Working women
gained warmth but lost competence when they became mothers, whereas working
men maintained their high competence and simply gained in warmth as well when
they became fathers.
In addition, participants were more willing to hire, promote, and train the
female childless employee than the female employee expecting a child, but fatherhood did not significantly impact willingness to hire, promote, or train men.
Competence ratings were also found to mediate willingness to hire, promote, and
train employees, suggesting that working mothers are particularly at risk for workplace discrimination as motherhood itself lowers perceptions of competence—
something which does not occur with the social role of parent for men. For men,
the role of parent seems to shift perceptions from the envious prejudice (high competence, low warmth) that is generally ascribed to men to the admiration category
that is usually reserved for select in-groups (high competence, high warmth). For
women, the role of parent seems to shift perceptions from the envious prejudice
of career women (high competence, low warmth) to the paternalistic prejudice for
housewives (low competence, high warmth).
These findings suggest that when men take on the social role of father, they
are perceived as higher in communion than childless men but perceptions of their
agency does not change, whereas when women take on the social role of mother,
they are perceived higher in communion than childless women but at the cost of
being perceived as lower in agency. Thus, women trade agency for communion
when they become mothers—and occupational benefits are related to agency, not
communion. Perceptions of men simply gain the benefits of communion from the
Women and Men in Conflicting
209
parental social role without any trade-offs or perceived weaknesses from becoming
fathers.
Woman vs. Leader
Considerable research has investigated differing perceptions of men and
women in leadership roles, as well as actual differences in leadership behavior (for reviews, see Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & van Engen, 2003; Eagly &
Karau, 2002). Research has found that women engage in more interpersonally
oriented work while in groups, whereas men engage in more task-oriented work
(e.g., Eagly & Karau, 1991). As Carli and Eagly (1999) explained:
[T]he tendency for men to emerge as leaders should not be interpreted as a biased tendency
to choose men over women, despite behavioral equivalence of the sexes. Instead, the
preference for men may primarily reflect a tendency to define leadership in terms of strictly
task-oriented contributions, which men deliver somewhat more than women do, at least
in part because of resistance to high levels of task-oriented contributions from women.
(p. 219)
Possibly, through gender role stereotyping, women have more experience and
expertise in social skills such as facilitating collaborative processes, which in
turn lead them to more democratic leadership styles. Alternatively, resistance to
women’s leadership (Heilman et al., 2004) may deter women from autocratic
leadership styles, where their ability and authority may be questioned.
Eagly and Karau (2002) put forward role congruity theory to explain perceptions of—and reactions to—female leaders (see also Eagly & Koenig, 2008).
This theory builds upon social role theory, specifically emphasizing the impact
of individuals fulfilling social roles that are perceived to be incongruent. They
argued that women are evaluated less favorably than men in regards to leadership
ability because, in most societies, men are more likely to hold leadership positions
in comparison to women. Moreover, this gendered division of labor has led to
gender role stereotypes suggesting that men have personalities that make them
inherently better suited for leadership tasks in comparison to woman. In other
words, descriptive gender norms lead to prejudice against female leaders.
In addition, women who do exhibit the personality characteristics that would
be considered successful for a male leader are evaluated less favorably than their
male colleagues (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Eagly & Koenig, 2008; Heilman et al.,
2004; Rudman & Glick, 1999). One factor seems to be because leadership ability
is perceived as less desirable in women than men (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Eagly
& Koenig, 2008). In this case, injunctive gender roles—beliefs and expectations
about how men and women ought to behave—lead to prejudice against female
leaders. Agentic leadership styles among women, in particular, were proposed to
elicit greater prejudice, as agentic leadership styles would be viewed as even less
appropriate for women. Alternatively, female leaders may be victims of backlash,
210
Clow and Ricciardelli
perceived as competent but interpersonally deficient and a threat to traditional
gender stereotypes (Rudman & Fairchild, 2004; Rudman & Glick, 1999).
Normative and injunctive gender roles and gender stereotype backlash result
in subtle discrimination against women in leadership positions. Qualified women
are disadvantaged, because if they have personalities consistent with leadership,
then they are perceived as unfeminine and their personalities are used against
them, whereas if they have personalities consistent with their gender role, then
they are perceived as incapable of leading (Eagly & Koenig, 2008; Rudman &
Fairchild, 2004; Rudman & Glick, 1999). Consequently, women have less access
to leadership roles in comparison to men and, even if women manage to obtain
leadership roles, they will have greater difficulty succeeding in those roles—
especially in contexts or situations where the incongruity of the female gender
role and leadership roles are stressed.
Although it may be more difficult for women to obtain leadership positions,
empirical evidence suggests that female managers may be more effective than male
managers (Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001). Female managers scored higher
than male managers on transformational measures (e.g., motivating respect, expressing optimism and excitement about future goals, and focusing on mentoring
subordinates), whereas men scored higher than women on more transactional measures, such as laissez-faire leadership (general absence and lack of involvement).
These gender differences in leadership were confirmed by a meta-analysis of 45
studies (Eagly et al., 2003). Thus, although it may be more difficult for women to
obtain leadership roles, research suggests that they are at least as effective as men
once these roles are obtained.
Man vs. Nurse
Nursing is a female-dominated field in many nations (Meadus, 2000; O’Lynn
& Tranbarger, 2007). To say that a randomly selected nurse was likely a woman
would be a statement of fact, yet perceivers move beyond the factual gendered
division of labor to gender stereotyping. For example, Bartfay and Bartfay (2007)
found that 93% of their female nursing student sample agreed that nursing was
more appropriate for women than men because women tend to be more caring
and compassionate by their inborn nature. This corresponds to the finding that
female-dominated professions are perceived as needing female personalities for
success (Cejka & Eagly, 1999). In this way, the current gendered division of labor
and resulting gender stereotypes function as a system of justification for current
gender roles and gender inequality (Cejka & Eagly, 1999; Hoffman & Hurst, 1990;
Jost & Banaji, 1994).
Cunningham (1999) reported that the stereotype of a nurse is a White woman
who is a mother-like figure. Bartfay, Bartfay, Clow, and Wu (2010) found that
the majority of their nonnursing student sample agreed that society perceives
Women and Men in Conflicting
211
female nurses as more caring and nurturing than male nurses and that nursing
is not perceived as a very masculine career for men to pursue. Approximately
30% of nonnursing students (both men and women) and 60% of female nursing
students sampled (although none of the male nursing students) agreed that nursing is more appropriate for women because they are naturally more caring and
compassionate (Bartfay et al., 2010). As social role theory would predict, people
move from the observation that many nurses are female to the assumption that
there is something about being female that makes a person a better nurse (Eagly
et al., 2000). For example, male nursing students in Taiwan routinely encounter
individuals who question their ability to be nurses (Yang et al., 2004). One male
nurse reported that he is frequently asked by patients and visitors if he is a real
nurse, suggesting that being male and being a nurse are incompatible social roles.
Interviews with men in nursing across a number of nations have revealed that
the masculinity, sexuality, or competence of these men is often questioned (Burtt,
1998; Harding, 2007; Whittock & Leonard, 2003; Yang et al., 2004), which is perhaps indicative of society’s reaction to individuals in perceived incompatible social
roles.
Research suggests that many participants do find men and women in nontraditional occupations for their gender to occupy incompatible social roles (Oakhill,
Granham, & Reynolds, 2005). Across a series of experiments, Oakhill et al. (2005)
asked participants to respond whether or not two social roles (an occupation and a
kinship role) could be fulfilled by the same person. For example, participants were
presented with the occupation nurse and the kinship role brother and had to decide
whether or not a brother could also be a nurse. Results indicated that participants
were more likely to reject pairings that were gender role mismatched (e.g., nursebrother, engineer-mother) and even when participants did realize that the gender
role mismatched pairings were possible, they tended to respond to gender role
mismatched pairs slower than to gender role matched pairs (e.g., nurse-mother,
engineer-brother). In addition, Cann (1993) found that participants remembered
successful or positive behavior better when it was gender role consistent (e.g., John
is a good engineer) and they remembered unsuccessful or negative information
better when it was gender role inconsistent (e.g., John is a bad nurse).
Clow et al. (2011) found that attitudes and stereotypes of male and female
nurses were also related to ambivalent sexism. Specifically, benevolent sexism toward women predicted positive attitudes and stereotypes of female nurses, whereas
hostile sexism toward women predicted negative attitudes and stereotypes of female nurses. Hostile sexism toward men predicted negative stereotypes of male
nurses. In addition, nursing students reported more positive attitudes and stereotypes of nurses (regardless of the gender of the nurse) than did nonnursing students.
Thus, participants’ social role (whether they were a nursing student or not) and
ambivalent sexism scores appeared to influence attitudes and stereotypes about
men and women in the field of nursing.
212
Clow and Ricciardelli
Policy Implications
The research findings from social role theory, the stereotype content model,
and ambivalent sexism suggest that society (1) resists and negatively stereotypes
men and women in social roles that conflict with traditional gender roles and
(2) promotes and positively stereotypes men and women who fulfill social roles
compatible with traditional gender roles (see Figure 2). This implies that current
policies designed to prevent gender discrimination against women may not be as
effective as desired, as subtle discrimination targeting women in nontraditional
gender roles still persists. In addition, these findings insinuate that current policies do not typically consider gender discrimination targeting men and that men
in communal occupations, in particular, appear to be targets of stereotypes and
discrimination because they are perceived to be fulfilling incongruent roles.
This section of the article will revisit the three perceived role conflicts examined earlier: employee versus married with children, woman versus leader, and
man versus nurse. Particular relevant research findings will be highlighted and
possible policy implications will be discussed for each perceived role conflict.
Following the three perceived role conflict examples, more general policy implications from social role theory, the stereotype content model, and ambivalent
sexism for men and women in conflicting social roles are suggested.
Employee vs. Married with Children
Research has found that parenthood affects perceptions of employees (Cuddy
et al., 2004). Employed men and women who have children are perceived as more
communal and warm than their childless peers, but mothers gain in warmth at the
expense of their perceived competence, whereas fathers gain warmth without any
cost. More worrisome, participants were less willing to hire, promote, or train a
woman who was expecting her first child than a woman who did not have children.
It appears that people have difficulty reconciling the role of mother with the role
of employee, whereas people do not have difficulty seeing a man fulfill both the
roles of father and worker. Cuddy et al. (2004) commented that men appear to
be praised for their desire to be involved parents as well as dedicated employees,
whereas women appear to be questioned as to their ability to manage both child
care and work.
Although policies do exist in multiple nations that allow parents (mothers or
fathers) to take leave from work to handle child care, this approach appears to
promote women taking leave (gender-congruent role) more than men taking leave
(gender-incongruent role). For example, the specifics of the policies regarding
parental leave influence the number of men who participate but not the number
of women (Marshall, 2008). In countries where more men take parental leave,
policies include high wage replacement and nontransferable leave for each parent
Women and Men in Conflicting
213
(and additional leave that can be used by either parent), such as Sweden, Norway,
and Iceland (84–90% of fathers taking leave), whereas countries with low wage
replacement have low levels of men using parental leave, such as Austria and
France (1–2% of fathers taking leave). As child care has traditionally been a
role subsumed by women and, as such, a role that is underpaid and undervalued,
increasing the number of men engaged in this role may help reduce this gendered
division of labor, as well as increase the status and pay for people (both men and
women) engaged in child care activities.
In addition, as more men take advantage of caregiving policies, such as
parental leave, society will become more accustomed to viewing both men and
women taking time out of their careers for their children. It would follow from
social role theory (see Figure 1) that reducing gender disparities in roles at work
and at home should move toward changing gender stereotypes and, subsequently,
reduce the perceived conflict of the role of parent and the role of employee.
Seeing more men and women engaged in both child care and employed work may
combine perceptions of child care [from the realm of paternalistic prejudice (high
warmth, low competence)] with perceptions of career men and women [in the
realm of envious prejudice (low warmth, high competence)], resulting in greater
admiration for both male and female employees with children (high warmth and
high competence).
Ambivalent sexists, however, would resist such policies, as they would challenge existing gender hierarchies, reduce opportunities for paternalism, and promote men (via child care) and women (via workforce) into nontraditional gender
roles. Historical cases, such as the Hopkins case, would suggest that legislation works toward countering blatant resistance by ambivalent sexists. However,
research has found that when blatant prejudices are countered, more subtle prejudices tend to emerge in their stead (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2004; Goff, Eberhardt,
Williams, & Jackson, 2008). As was suggested in interviews with female faculty at
M.I.T., existing gender policies that were working toward greater gender equality
in the university were also unintentionally creating new gender barriers (Zernike,
2011). Thus, even when blatant prejudice appears to be averted, policies and work
places should be periodically examined to investigate whether current policies are
functioning as intended or if new, more subtle prejudices have emerged that are not
addressed by current legislation, suggesting a need for new or modified policies.
In addition, existing gender divisions in household labor may continue to feed
into gender stereotypes and resistance to working mothers. Employed women
still engage in more household duties than employed men (Connell, 2009). In
Sweden, for example, women who worked as many hours in the labor market as men devoted nearly four times as many additional hours to household
chores (Boye, 2010). Findings from the European Social Survey (ESS), which includes Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway,
214
Clow and Ricciardelli
Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukrain,
and the United Kingdom, suggests that these additional demands on women may
affect their psychological well-being. Although men’s well-being was not related
to the number of hours they spent engaged in paid work or housework, women’s
well-being was positively related to hours engaged in paid work and was negatively related to hours engaged in housework (Boye, 2009). Unfortunately, this
extra burden faced by many employed women (but fewer employed men) is rarely
realized or acknowledged by others. For instance, when estimating the number of
hours per day employed individuals spent doing household chores, participants
only perceived target individuals with children to be engaged in more housework
than target individuals without children; gender was not perceived as a factor
(Eagly & Steffen, 1984).
These perceptions put women at a disadvantage. Acknowledging the extra
burden on career women (whether they have children or not) and finding ways
to reward the extra work that women provide—or at the very least, to stop disadvantaging women for it—should improve women’s psychological well-being
and move toward greater gender equality overall. Observing gender inequality in
the distribution of labor in the home feeds into existing gender stereotypes and
further disadvantages women in the workplace, as both men and women become
accustomed to women doing more work for less reward. Thus, greater gender
equality in the household may lead to greater gender equality in the workplace as
well.
Woman vs. Leader
A woman has yet to become secretary general of the United Nations or head
of the World Bank (Connell, 2009). Women typically constitute a very small
proportion of national cabinets and few countries have voted a woman into the top
role of their governments. For example, in 2007, women held 14% of cabinet seats
in the United States and Ecuador, 8% of cabinet seats in Italy and Argentina—
only in Sweden and Spain were women nearly equally represented. Women lack
representation in the business world as well. Only 5 of the top 200 businesses
listed on the Australian stock exchange had a female CEO and there were only
10 female CEOs in the Fortune 500 (Connell, 2009).
Research has found that people interpret the behavior of men and women differently (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Heilman et al., 2004). Autocratic and other agentic
leadership styles have been argued to be particularly likely to elicit unfavorable
evaluations of female leaders due to role incongruity, injunctive gender role stereotypes that woman should be communal and concerned with others instead, and
backlash mechanisms to sabotage deviant targets to maintain traditional gender
stereotypes (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Rudman & Fairchild, 2004). Thus, women
may choose leadership styles that are less likely to evoke negative reactions.
Women and Men in Conflicting
215
Social role theory would suggest that greater exposure to women in leadership roles, and agentic leadership roles in particular, may reduce these negative
reactions. Guiding and Scouting organizations (e.g., Girl Guides and Girl Scouts)
do foster leadership skills in girls and young women. These organizations provide
girls with the opportunity to engage in skills that are not normative for their gender
(e.g., camping, technology, and public speaking). As the genders are segregated in
Guides and Scouts, this helps women to learn how to become leaders—but only
among other women (i.e., not among men). Leadership opportunities for women
in coeducational settings appear to be lacking.
If greater leadership opportunities were provided for young girls, then men
and women would become more accustomed to seeing women in these roles
and social role theory would suggest that resistance toward female leaders would
diminish if the leadership role came to be perceived as normative for women (see
Figure 1). For instance, if mandatory units were added to English classes—from
grade school on through high school—where students needed to engage in debates
and public speaking, then boys and girls would become more accustomed to seeing
women in these roles. Group work is common in the classroom. If existing group
work was modified to include team leaders and all students had to take turns being
the leader of their group, then this would also provide more leadership experiences
for women and make it appear more normative for women to be in leadership roles.
Allowing leaders to emerge in group work or allowing students to volunteer to
participate in public speaking will likely work toward greater gender segregation,
as the role of leader is stereotypically associated with the male gender role and
boys would be more encouraged to fulfill this role than girls. Thus, to overcome
these stereotypic associations, policies need to be put in place that force society
to become accustomed to viewing males and females in these roles. Not only
would this increase exposure to women in leadership roles, it would also provide
girls with greater leadership opportunities, allowing girls to further develop their
leadership skills and to become more confident and comfortable in leadership
roles.
School curriculum seems an ideal setting for such work. Group work and
potential for leadership is already prevalent in existing curriculum. Thus, simple
modifications to current practices and procedures could easily increase women’s
participation in leadership activities. This exposure to women in leadership roles
from a young age may also work against the development of ambivalent sexist
ideologies, preventing more boys and girls from becoming ambivalent sexists.
Man vs. Nurse
In 2007, there were 242,959 female registered nurses (RNs) in Canada, but
only 15,002 male RNs (Canadian Nurses Association, 2009). Low percentages
of men in the field of nursing are reported in a number of countries, such as
216
Clow and Ricciardelli
the United States, Australia, England, Hungary, Mexico, and Thailand (Meadus,
2000; O’Lynn & Tranbarger, 2007). Although men have historically played a large
role in the nursing field, this has not been the case in many countries since the
influence of Florence Nightingale (Bartfay, Bartfay, Clow, & d’Astolfo, 2008;
Meadus, 2000; O’Lynn, 2004). Nightingale herself wrote that “the whole reform
in nursing at home and abroad has consisted of this: to take all power over the
nursing out of the hands of men, and put it into the hands of one female trained
head and make her responsible for everything” (quoted in Dossey, 1996, p. 291).
Thus, a field that once enjoyed male participation evolved into a career dominated
by women.
The history of men in nursing is generally lacking from nursing courses and
textbooks (Roth & Coleman, 2008; Sherrord et al., 2006). Nursing students are not
typically taught about the history of military men in nursing, such as the Knights
Hospitallers and the Teutonic Knights. Canadian nursing students are rarely told
that the first nurses in Canada were actually Jesuit Catholic priests. The omission
of this information is compounded by a lack of male role models in the classroom
and in the field, the use of sexist language (e.g., text authors and faculty who
exclusively use feminine pronouns to refer to nurses), no promotion of gender
differences of care and communication, lack of mentorship for men, and failure to
actively recruit men into nursing (O’Lynn, 2004; Roth & Coleman, 2008; Sherrod
et al., 2006; Whittock & Leonard, 2003). These issues contribute to severe barriers
for men in the nursing profession.
Although these barriers may not be direct consequences of gender role stereotyping, stereotypes arising from the gendered division of labor may be influencing
or exacerbating these issues. For instance, the perceived conflict between man and
nurse may have influenced many textbook authors to omit the various contributions of men to the field of nursing, as those contributions are incompatible with
current stereotypes. Social role stereotypes of women as nurses may contribute to
the use of sexist language and the failure to consider gender differences in care
or communication. Moreover, the female dominance and focus on “feminine” approaches to care in the field may further alienate men (Sherrod et al., 2006). The
fewer men applying to nursing, or that stay enrolled in programs, further confirms
the social role stereotyping of nursing as a feminine profession. Thus, although
social role stereotypes alone do not bar men from the nursing profession, these
stereotypes may impact, reinforce, and further exacerbate other barriers as well.
Policies need to be developed to recruit more men into communal occupations,
such as nursing. Scholarships and reserved seats for qualified male students in
nursing programs, along with educating high school guidance counselors about
promoting nursing as an appropriate career choice for men (Meadus, 2000), would
help to reduce barriers for men who wish to enter the profession. Such incentives
send the message that men are valued in nursing and that it is appropriate for men
to fulfill this role. As more men enroll in nursing programs, the relevance of men’s
Women and Men in Conflicting
217
historical contributions to the field may be more apparent and, thus, more likely to
be included in textbooks and curriculum. Moreover, as society learns that nursing
is a valid and rewarding career for men, more men may choose to pursue careers
in nursing. Increasing the number of men in nursing will work toward changing
social role stereotypes and may increase awareness and recognition of men’s ability
to care. There are multiple reasons why society should accept men in communal
occupations. One, research seems to suggest that men find nursing to be a fulfilling
occupation that is in demand, with a stable income, where they can become leaders
(Yang et al., 2004; Zysberg & Berry, 2005). Two, gender segregation leads to the
devaluing of female-dominated occupations (e.g., Petersen & Morgan, 2005),
whereas gender equality may encourage greater respect for these fields. Three,
the aging of the world’s population is creating a greater need for individuals in
communal occupations and actively recruiting greater numbers of men into these
fields may assist in meeting these growing demands (Newell-Withrow & Slusher,
2001; Meadus, 2000; O’Lynn, 2004).
Moreover, there is talk of a global nursing shortage (e.g., American Association of Colleges of Nursing, 2010; Canadian Nurses Association, 2010; Center
for Nursing Advocacy, 2003). In Canada, for example, the ratio of RNs to the
general population is one nurse for every 128 citizens and if no new policies are
implemented, Canada is predicting a shortage of 60,000 RNs by 2022 (Canadian
Nurses Association, 2010). Japan was already facing nursing shortages as early as
2008 (American Society of Registered Nurses, 2007). One proposal for addressing
this serious nursing shortage is to make a concerted effort to actively recruit and
retain nurses from current underrepresented subpopulations, such as increasing
the number of men in the field (Meadus, 2000; Newell-Withrow & Slusher, 2001;
O’Lynn, 2004).
Not only would more men in nursing assist with nursing shortages, but greater
diversity among practitioners may increase the quality of care provided. Jordan,
for example, is one of the few countries where nursing is not currently femaledominated. By 2005, approximately 65% of enrolled nursing students were male
(Ahmad & Alasad, 2007). Ahmad and Alasad (2007) reported that one-third of
male patients in Jordan expressed a preference for male nurses over female nurses,
whereas only 10% of the male patients preferred female nurses (the remaining men
did not express a preference). Although the nursing profession in many countries
has taken action to increase the ethnic diversity of the profession, similar attention
has not been paid to gender diversity (Sherrod et al., 2006; Sullivan, 2000). For
example, in the United States men constitute about 5.7% of the nursing field
and 49.1% of the population (Sherrod et al., 2006). Patients may benefit from
gender diversity in nursing staff, as embarrassment may be reduced and comfort
in health care situations increased. As the number of men in communal occupations
increases, resistance against men fulfilling these roles should similarly decrease
(see Figure 1).
218
Clow and Ricciardelli
Provisional Policy Implementation
Research has found that conceptualizing social group differences as biologically determined, rather than as a product of social factors, leads to greater
role stereotyping and prejudice (Hoffman & Hurst, 1990; Wiliams & Eberhardt,
2008). If mandatory curriculum in elementary schools included units on the social,
economical, and environmental factors that contribute to perceived differences in
social group behavior, perhaps this would reduce the reliance on biological theories
of race and gender, consequently reducing prejudice and stereotypes. Furthermore,
students could be educated about the consequences of the gendered division of
labor on attitudes and stereotypes.
In addition to educating students, policies need to be implemented to reduce
the gendering of occupations and the gender division of occupational social roles.
Although it is common for societies to divide labor according to gender (Wood,
& Eagly, 2002), policies are needed that work toward ensuring greater gender
equality. For example, high school guidance counselors actively attempt—and
usually succeed—to dissuade interested young men from pursuing careers in
nursing (Hart, 2005; Meadus, 2000). If new procedures were introduced where
guidance counselors needed to promote the benefits of all careers, regardless of the
gender of the interested student, this would be an important step toward removing
barriers for students interested in careers that are not dominated by their gender
and would work toward reducing the socially perceived gendering of occupations.
Communal occupations, in particular, are undervalued in society. For example,
being a full-time parent or taking care of elderly family members is unpaid work
(Connell, 2009). With the aging of the world’s population, there is going to be
an increasing demand upon, and for, caregivers (United Nations, 2009). Societies
need to hold caregiving in higher esteem and value communal roles as equal to
agentic roles to meet these growing demands.
Even when communal roles are incorporated into paid occupations, they
tend to be underpaid. For instance, in Canada, the wages of live-in caregivers
vary by province, ranging from $8 per hour in British Columbia to $10.25 in
Ontario (Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, 2010b). Based on
the maximum hours for which a live-in caregiver can be paid (40–48 hours
a week, depending upon the province), these employees—most of whom are
women and many of whom are non-Canadians on work VISAs—gross a maximum of $16,640 in British Columbia (from which $4,500 is deducted annually
for room and board), which places their earnings, prior to any deductions, below
the poverty line in British Columbia for a single employable person (Canadian
Council on Social Development, 2001). The situation in Ontario is not much
better, as live-in caregivers gross a maximum of $25,584 (from which $2,340 is
deducted annually for room and board), putting them below the poverty line in
Ontario, prior to any deductions, for a couple with two children (Canadian Council
Women and Men in Conflicting
219
on Social Development, 2001). Increasing the pay in these communal roles may
increase the status of these occupations, the respect employees in these social
roles receive, and may attract more men into traditionally “feminine” occupations. Greater gender equality in communal roles, to complement growing gender
equality in agentic roles, should reduce gender stereotyping and provide benefits
for all.
There are other policies and practices that could increase the numbers of men
entering communal roles. For example, schools and governments could create
scholarships, awards, or other financial incentives to help encourage men to enroll
in communal-based programs. Financial incentives do exist for women entering
agentic and male-dominated programs and professions (for an example, see Society for Canadian Women in Science and Technology, 2011). Creating similar
financial rewards for men in female-dominated areas will convey the message that
men are valued in these fields and that it is acceptable for them to enter these occupations and programs. Also, advertising that men are desired in communal-based
occupations may increase the likelihood that men will consider these occupations
as a viable option, not only recruiting them into the field, but increasing the retention of men in these areas. For instance, the Oregon Center for Nursing (2010)
released an advertisement portraying a number of very masculine men (including
masculine props, such as a football and a snowboard) and ran the slogan, in large
bold font, “Are you man enough . . . To be a nurse?”
Another possibility is to reserve seats in programs that prepare students for careers that are numerically dominated by one gender or the other. A medical school
in the United States reserves 16 out of 100 seats for qualified minority group members (American Association for Affirmative Action, 2010a). Similarly reserving a
number of positions for qualified male students entering female stereotyped professions (and for qualified female students entering male stereotyped professions)
could assist in recruiting more men into careers that are more communal in nature.
Reserving seats for a particular group of students is not a new concept for many
postsecondary institutions. For instance, many courses reserve a set number of
seats for students majoring in that discipline and only after student majors have
registered are any unused seats opened for students seeking electives. As such,
programs that are numerically dominated by a particular gender could implement
a similar policy, setting aside a certain number of seats for students in the underrepresented gender. This would force individuals responsible for admissions
to actively consider members of the underrepresented gender. This alone should
mean that qualified candidates would have a better chance of being recognized
and accepted into programs that were nonnormative for their gender. In addition,
if insufficient numbers of qualified candidates from the underrepresented gender
applied, the formerly reserved seats would then become open to any qualified
candidates from the dominant gender, in addition to the other nonreserved seats
that they could already have obtained.
220
Clow and Ricciardelli
Another concern is that the gender wage gap continues to exist across all
levels of education (Statistics Canada, 2009). Women typically earn less than
men and the higher the income, the greater the gender wage gap. In 2007, more
women than men were working part-time and this gender difference was largest
among college graduates. The average salary for male university professors in
Canada is at times up to $20,000 more than their female colleagues (Cross, 2010).
This does not necessarily reflect that men and women in the same faculty at the
same university receive differential pay. Within a university, different disciplines
offer different salaries. The disciplines that offer higher salaries, such as business
and engineering, are typically male-dominated, whereas the disciplines that offer
lower salaries, such as the social sciences and humanities, tend to have a greater
proportion of women. Thus, what appears to be a gender wage gap may in fact
be a discipline wage gap—although the discipline wage gap may be influenced
by the nonequal distribution of men and women in these positions. Moreover, due
to historical gender discrimination in hiring practices, gender and seniority are
often confounded, such that there is a larger proportion of senior male professors
than senior female professors and a larger proportion of junior female professors
than junior male professors. As seniority is positively correlated with salary, the
reported gender wage gap may also be a seniority wage gap—one that was created
due to gender discrimination and is slowly being overcome.
In addition to affirmative action (e.g., in the United States) and employment
equity (e.g., in Canada) legislation, policies could be created to further standardize
salaries within a field. Employees with the same responsibilities should earn equal
pay, regardless of their gender. What seems to be lacking is a process of verifying
and enforcing salary standardization across genders—ensuring that men are not
being paid more than women for equal work. If employers needed to submit a
document that outlined each employee’s responsibilities, salary, and gender, these
documents could be used to investigate whether gender equality in wages was
being practiced. Employers who failed to establish gender equality could be given
recommendations and a timeline to rectify the situation and, failing that, could be
penalized or prosecuted.
Conclusions
The unequal distribution of men and women in particular occupations leads to
the development of stereotypes that assume men and women possess personality
characteristics that would make them successful in those occupations (Eagly &
Diekman, 2006; Eagly & Mitchell, 2004; Eagly et al., 2000). Furthermore, these
stereotypes function as both descriptive norms, as well as injunctive pressures as
to how men and women ought to behave (Eagly & Karau, 2002). In addition,
paternalistic prejudice toward traditional women and nontraditional men, envious
prejudice toward nontraditional women and traditional men, and ambivalent sexist
Women and Men in Conflicting
221
attitudes work toward maintaining current gender inequalities (Fiske et al., 2002;
Glick & Fiske, 1996, 1999). Not only do these forces justify current systems
and power hierarchies (Jost & Banaji, 1994; Hoffman & Hurst, 1990), they also
create barriers for men and women who attempt to fulfill social roles that society
perceives as conflicting.
Currently, the employee social role and the social role of parent are viewed
as incongruous—especially for women. The role of leader is perceived as a better
fit with the male gender role in comparison to the female gender role, whereas
the role of nurse is perceived as a better fit with the female gender role than the
male gender role. Greater exposure to parents who are also successful in their
occupations, to women who are effective leaders, and to men who are effective
caregivers should work toward reducing these stereotypes for future generations.
Measures that are taken to lessen the impact of stereotypes may also serve to
increase gender equality across professions.
References
Ahmad, M. M., & Alasad, J. A. (2007). Patients’ preferences for nurses’ gender in Jordan. International
Journal of Nursing Practice, 13(4), 237–242. doi:10.1111/j.1440–172X.2007.00633.x.
Alksnis, C., Desmarais, S., & Curtis, J. (2008). Workforce segregation and the gender wage gap: Is
“women’s” work valued as highly as “men’s”? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(6),
1416–1441. doi:10.1111/j.1559–1816.2008.00354.x.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books.
American Association for Affirmative Action. (2010a). Access, equity and diversity. Retrieved August 30, 2010 from: http://www.affirmativeaction.org/media/AAAA_Generic_
Affirmative_Action_Presentation_20090908.pdf.
American Association for Affirmative Action. (2010b). About affirmative action. Retrieved August
30, 2010 from: http://www.affirmativeaction.org/about-affirmative-action.html.
American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2010). Nursing shortage. Retrieved August 30, 2010
from: http://www.aacn.nche.edu/media/FactSheets/NursingShortage.htm.
American Society of Registered Nurses. (2007). Nursing shortage update: Japan survey
warns of serious nurse shortage. Retrieved August 30, 2010 from: http://www.asrn.
org/newsletter_article.php?journal = shortage&issue_id = 26&article_id = 146.
Asbrock, F. (2010). Stereotypes of social groups in Germany in terms of warmth and competence.
Social Psychology, 41(2), 76–81. doi: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000011
Bartfay, W. J., & Bartfay, E. (2007). Canadian view of men in nursing explored. Men in Nursing, 2,
32–37.
Bartfay, W. J., Bartfay, E., Clow, K. A., & d’Astolfo, J. (2008). Issues facing men in nursing in
Canada: A discussion and five year strategic planning. Report prepared for the Canadian Men
in Nursing Group (CMNG). Oshawa, Ontario: CMNG.
Bartfay, W. J., Bartfay, E., Clow, K. A., & Wu, T. (2010). Attitudes and perceptions towards men in
nursing education. The Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice, 8(2). Retrieved
August 30, 2010 from: http://ijahsp.nova.edu/articles/Vol8Num2/pdf/Bartfay.pdf.
Blair v. Colonial Plaza. (2009). WL 3806778. W.D. Oklahoma.
Bosak, J., Sczesny, S., & Eagly, A. H. (2008). Communion and agency judgments of women and men
as a function of role information and response format. European Journal of Social Psychology,
38, 1148–1155. doi:10.1002/ejsp.538.
Boye, K. (2009). Relatively different? How do gender differences in well-being depend on paid and
unpaid work in Europe? Social Indicators Research, 93(3), 509–525. doi:10.1007/s11205–
008-9434–1.
222
Clow and Ricciardelli
Boye, K. (2010). Time spent working: Paid work, housework and the gender difference in psychological
distress. European Societies, 12(3), 419–442. doi:10.1080/14616691003716928.
Burtt, K. (1998). Male nurses still face bias. The American Journal of Nursing, 98(9), 64–65.
doi:10.2307/3471876.
Canadian Council on Social Development. (2001). Canadian welfare incomes as a percentage of the
poverty line by family type and province. Retrieved August 30, 2010 from: http://www.ccsd.ca/
factsheets/fs_ncwpl01.htm.
Canadian Human Rights Commission. (2010). Frequently asked questions about employment equity.
Retrieved August 30, 2010 from: http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/publications/ee_faq_ee-en.asp.
Canadian Nurses Association. (2009). 2007 workforce profile of registered nurses
in Canada. Retrieved August 30, 2010 from: http://www.cna-aiic.ca/CNA/
documents/pdf/publications/2007_RN_Snapshot_e.pdf.
Canadian Nurses Association. (2010). The nursing shortage: The nursing workforce. Retrieved August
30, 2010 from: http://www.cna-aiic.ca/CNA/issues/hhr/default_e.aspx.
Cann, A. (1993). Evaluative expectations and the gender schema: Is failed inconsistency better? Sex
Roles, 28(11/12), 667–678. doi:10.1007/BF00289986.
Caprariello, P. A., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Fiske, S. T. (2009). Social structure shapes cultural stereotypes
and emotions: A causal test of the stereotype content model. Group Processes & Intergroup
Relations, 12(2), 147–155. doi:10.1177/1368430208101053.
Carli, L. L., & Eagly, A. H. (1999). Gender effects on social influence and emergent leadership. In
G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work (pp. 203–222). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Carvel, J. (2006, June 10). Former male nurse wins sex discrimination case. The Guardian. Retrieved
August 30, 2010 from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/jun/10/equality.health.
Cejka, M. A., & Eagly, A. H. (1999). Gender-stereotypic images of occupations correspond to the
sex segregation of employment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(4), 413–423.
doi:10.1177/0146167299025004002.
Center for Nursing Advocacy, The (2003). Global shortage leads to exodus of experienced
nurses from Philippines. Retrieved August 30, 2010 from: http://nursingadvocacy.org/news/
2003may15_philippines.html.
Chen, Z., Fiske, S. T., & Lee, T. L. (2009). Ambivalent sexism and power-related gender-role ideology
in marriage. Sex Roles, 60(11–12), 765–778. doi:10.1007/s11199–009-9585–9.
Clow, K. A., & Esses, V. M. (2005). The development of group stereotypes from descriptions of group
members: An individual difference approach. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 8(4),
429–445. doi:10.1177/1368430205056469.
Clow, K. A., & Esses, V. M. (2010). Mental representation of familiar others: The impact
of occupation, sex, and race. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 32(2), 144–154.
doi:10.1080/01973531003738718.
Clow, K. A., & Ricciardelli, R. (2011). Ambivalence in stereotypes and attitudes: The implications of
possessing positive and negative perceptions. In E. L. Simon (Ed.), Psychology of stereotypes
(pp. 243–264). New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Clow, K. A., Ricciardelli, R., & Bartfay, W. J. (2011). Perceptions of male and female nurses from the
social role theory and ambivalent sexism perspective. Manuscript under review.
Connell, R. (2009). Gender: Short introductions. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Cross, A. (2010). Male faculty out-earn females at universities. Vancouver Sun. August 11, 2010,
p. B2.
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2004). When professionals become mothers, warmth doesn’t
cut the ice. Journal of Social Issues, 60(4), 701–718. doi:10.1111/j.0022–4537.2004.00381.x.
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and
stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(4), 631–648. doi:10.1037/0022–
3514.92.4.631.
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., Kwan, V. S. Y., Glick, P., Demoulin, S., Leyens, J. -P., et al. (2009).
Stereotype content model across cultures: Towards universal similarities and some differences.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 48(1), 1–33. doi:10.1348/014466608X314935.
Cunningham, A. (1999). Nursing stereotypes. Nursing Standard, 13(45), 46–47.
Diekman, A. B., & Eagly, A. H. (2008). Of men, women, and motivation: A role congruity account. In
J. Y. Shah & W. L. Gardner (Eds.), Handbook of motivation science (pp. 434–447). New York:
Guilford.
Women and Men in Conflicting
223
Dion, K. L. (2003). Prejudice, racism, and discrimination. In T. Millon & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Personality and social psychology: Vol. 5 of the Comprehensive handbook of psychology (pp. 507–536).
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Dossey, B. M. (1996). Florence Nightingale: Mystic, visionary, healer. Springhouse, PA: Springhouse.
Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2004). Aversive racism. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental
social psychology (Vol. 36, pp. 1–51). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Eagly, A. H. (2004). Prejudice: Toward a more inclusive understanding. In A. Eagly, R. M. Baron,
& V. L. Hamilton (Eds.), The social psychology of group identity and social conflict: Theory,
application, and practice (pp. 45–64). Washington, DC: APA Books.
Eagly, A. H., & Diekman, A. B. (2006). Examining gender gaps in sociopolitical attitudes: It’s not
Mars and Venus. Feminism & Psychology, 16(1), 26–34. doi:10.1177/0959–353506060817.
Eagly, A. H., Eastwick, P. W., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. (2009). Possible selves in marital roles: The
implications of the anticipated division of labor on the mate preferences of women and men.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(4), 403–414. doi:10.1177/0146167208329696.
Eagly, A. H., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C. (2001). The leadership styles of women and men. Journal
of Social Issues, 57(4), 781–797. doi:10.1111/0022–4537.00241.
Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L. (2003). Tranformational, transactional,
and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological
Bulletin, 129(4), 569–591. doi:10.1037/0033–2909.129.4.569.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (1991). Gender and the emergence of leaders: A meta-analysis. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 685–710.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.
Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598. doi:10.1037/0033–295X.109.3.573.
Eagly, A. H., & Koenig, A. M. (2008). Gender prejudice: On the risks of occupying incongruent
roles. In E. Borgida & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Beyond common sense: Psychological science in the
courtroom (pp. 63–81). MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Eagly, A. H., & Mitchell, A. A. (2004). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: Implications for the sociopolitical attitudes of women and men. In M. Paludi (Ed.), Praeger guide to
the psychology of gender (pp. 183–206). CT: Praeger.
Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women
and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(4), 735–754.
doi:10.1037/0022–3514.46.4.735.
Eagly, A. H., Wood, W. & Diekman, A. B. (2000) Social role theory of sex differences and similarities:
A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Taunter (Eds.), The developmental social psychology
of gender (pp. 123–74). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Eckes, T. (2002). Paternalistic and envious gender stereotypes: Testing predictions from the stereotype
content model. Sex Roles, 47(3–4), 99–114. doi:10.1023/A:1021020920715.
Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency. (2010). About EOWA. Retrieved August 30,
2010 from: http://www.eowa.gov.au/About_EOWA.asp.
Evans, J. (1997). Men in nursing: Issues of gender segregation and hidden advantage. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 26(2), 226–231. doi:10.1046/j.1365–2648.1997.1997026226.x.
Evans, J., & Frank, B. (2003). Contradictions and tensions: Exploring relations of masculinities in
the numerically female-dominated nursing profession. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 11(3),
277–292.
Fiske, S. T., Bersoff, D. N., Borgida, E., Deaux, K., & Heilman, M. E. (1991). Social science research on
trial: Use of sex stereotyping research in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. American Psychologist,
46(10), 1049–1060. doi:10.1037/0003–066X.46.10.1049.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype
content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878–902. doi:10.1037/0022–
3514.82.6.878.
Glick, P., Diebold, J., Bailey-Werner, B., & Zhu, L. (1997). The two faces of Adam: Ambivalent
sexism and polarized attitudes toward women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
23(12), 1323–1334. doi:10.1177/01461672972312009.
224
Clow and Ricciardelli
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent
sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512. doi:10.1037/0022–3514
.70.3.491.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1999). The ambivalence toward men inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent beliefs about men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23(3), 519–536.
doi:10.1111/j.1471–6402.1999.tb00379.x.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complement
justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109–118. doi:10.1037/0003–
066X.56.2.109.
Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrams, D., Masser, B., et al. (2000). Beyond prejudice
as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 79(5), 763–775. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.79.5.763.
Glick, P., Lameiras, M., & Castro, Y. R. (2002). Education and Caholic religiousity as predictors
of hostile and benevolent sexism toward women and men. Sex Roles, 47(9–10), 433–441.
doi:10.1023/A:1021696209949.
Glick, P., Lameiras, M., Fiske, S. T., Eckes, T., Masser, B., Volpato, C., et al. (2004). Bad but bold:
Ambivalent attitudes toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 86(5), 713–728. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.86.5.713.
Glick, P., Sakalli-Ugurly, N., Ferreira, M. C., & de Souza, M. A. (2002). Ambivalent sexism and
attitudes toward wife abuse in Turkey and Brazil. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4),
292–297. doi:10.1111/1471–6402.t01–1-00068.
Goff, P. A., Eberhardt, J. L., Williams, M., & Jackson, M. C. (2008). Not yet human: Implicit knowledge,
historical dehumanization, and contemporary consequences. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 94(2), 292–306. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.94.2.292.
Harding, T. (2007). The construction of men who are nurses as gay. Journal of Advanced Nursing,
60(6), 636–644. doi:10.1111/j.1365–2648.2007.04447.x.
Hart, K.A. (2005). Breakthrough to nursing national survey results: Student comments focus on passion
for nursing, diversity, and challenges. Imprint, 52(2), 30–32, 34.
Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tamkins, M. M. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions
to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3),
416–427. doi:10.1037/0021–9010.89.3.416.
Hersch, J. (2003). The new labor market for lawyers: Will female lawyers still earn less? Cardozo
Women’s Law Journal, 10(1), 1–72.
Hoffman, C., & Hurst, N. (1990). Gender stereotypes: Perception or rationalization? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(2), 197–208. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.58.2.197.
Holroyd, E. A., Bond, M. H., & Chan, H. Y. (2002). Perceptions of sex-role stereotypes, self-concept,
and nursing role ideal in Chinese nursing students. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 37, 294–303.
doi:10.1046/j.1365–2648.2002.02091.x.
Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. (2010a). History of employment equity. Retrieved
August 30, 2010 from http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/lp/lo/lswe/we/information/history.shtml.
Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. (2010b). Regional wages, working conditions
and advertisement requirements for the Live-In Caregiver Program (LCP). Retrieved August
30, 2010 from http://www.rhdcc-hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/workplaceskills/foreign_workers/advertReq/
wageadreq.shtml.
Johnson, C. (2004). Male caregiver wins sex discrimination case. Vancouver Sun. June 15, 2004.
Retrieved August 30, 2010 from http://rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/learn/resources/male-caregiverwins-sex-discrimination-case.
Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production
of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1–27.
Kasen, S., Chen, H., Sneed, J., Crawford, T., & Cohen, P. (2006). Social role and birth cohort influences on gender-linked personality traits in women: A 20-year longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(5), 944–958. doi:10.1037/0022–
3514.91.5.944.
Katz-Wise, S. L., Priess, H. A., & Hyde, J. S. (2010). Gender-role attitudes and behaviour across the
transition to parenthood. Developmental Psychology, 46(1), 18–28. doi:10.1037/a0017820.
Women and Men in Conflicting
225
Legal Eagle Eye Newsletter for the Nursing Profession. (2008, September). Gender-based shift assignments: Federal court upholds male CNA’s sex-discrimination lawsuit. Retrieved April 30,
2011 from http://www.nursinglaw.com/firesafety2.pdf.
Lupton, B. (2006). Explaining men’s entry into female-concentrated occupations: Issues of masculinity
and social class. Gender, Work and Organization, 13(2), 103–128.
Marshall, K. (2008). Fathers’ use of paid parental leave. Perspectives. Statistics Canada, 75–001-X.
Retrieved April 30, 2011 from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75–001-x/2008106/pdf/10639eng.pdf.
Meadus, R. J. (2000). Men in nursing: Barriers to recruitment. Nursing Forum, 35(3), 5–12.
doi:10.1111/j.1744–6198.2000.tb00998.x.
Newell-Withrow, C., & Slusher, I.L. (2001). Diversity: An answer to the nursing shortage. Nursing
Outlook, 49(6), 270–271.
O’Lynn, C. E. (2004). Gender-based barriers for male students in nursing education programs: Prevalence and perceived importance. Journal of Nursing Education, 43, 229–237.
O’Lynn, C. E. & Tranbarger, R. E. (2007). Men in nursing: History, challenges, and opportunities.
New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.
Oakhill, J., Garnham, A., & Reynolds, D. (2005). Immediate activation of stereotypical gender information. Memory & Cognition, 33(6), 972–983.
Oregon Center for Nursing. (2010). Posters & more. Retrieved August 30, 2010 from
http://www.oregoncenterfornursing. org/index.php?mode = cms&pageId = postersandmore.
Petersen, T., & Morgan, L. (2005). Separate and unequal: Occupational-establishment sex segregation and the gendered wage gap. American Journal of Sociology, 101(2), 329–365.
doi:10.1086/230727.
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. (1989). 490 U.S. 228. Retrieved from Cornell University Law School
at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0490_0228_ZS.html.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American Community. NY: Touchstone Books.
Roth, J. E., & Coleman, C. L. (2008). Perceived and real barriers for men entering nursing: Implications
for gender diversity. Journal of Cultural Diversity, 15(3), 148–152.
Rudman, L. A., & Fairchild, K. (2004). Reactions to counterstereotypic behavior: The role of backlash in cultural stereotype maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87,
157–176.
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (1999). Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: The
hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle-managers. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 77, 1004–1010.
Rudyk, A. (2010). A rising tide: The transformation of sex discrimination into gender discrimination
and its impact on law enforcement. The International Journal of Human Rights, 14(2), 189–214.
doi:10.1080/13642980802535625.
Sherrod, B., Sherrod, D., & Rasch, R. (2006). From the bedside to the boardroom, nursing needs to
increase the number of men in its ranks. Men in Nursing, 1, 34–39.
Sibley, C. G., & Wilson, M. S. (2004). Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexist attitudes toward positive and negative sexual female subtypes. Sex Roles, 51(11–12), 687–696. doi:10.1007/s11199–
004-0718-x.
Society for Canadian Women in Science and Technology. (2011). Scholarship links. Retrieved October
18, 2011 from http://www.scwist.ca/index.php/main/scholarship-links/.
Statistics Canada. (2009). Culture, tourism and the centre for education statistics. 81–595-M,
number 74. Retrieved August 30, 2010 from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81–595-m/81–595m2009074-eng.htm.
Statistics Canada. (2010). The Daily. Retrieved August 30, 2010 from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/dailyquotidien/101220/ dq101220b-eng.htm.
Sullivan, E. J. (2000). Men in nursing: The importance of gender diversity. Journal of Professional
Nursing, 16(5), 253–254. doi:10.1053/jpnu.2000.9455.
Takabayashi, K. (2007). The effect of threat to self on prejudice toward women: An examination
from the perspective of ambivalent sexism theory. The Journal of Social Psychology, 23(2),
119–129.
226
Clow and Ricciardelli
United Nations. (2009). World population ageing. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Retrieved August 30, 2010 from http://www.un.org/esa/population/
publications/WPA2009/WPA2009_ WorkingPaper.pdf.
Viki, G. T., Abrams, D., & Hutchison, P. (2003). The “true” romantic: Benevolent sexism and paternalistic chivalry. Sex Roles, 49(9–10), 533–537.
Whittock, M., & Leonard, L. (2003). Stepping outside the stereotype. A pilot study of the motivations
and experiences of males in the nursing profession. Journal of Nursing Management, 11(4),
242–249. doi:10.1046/j.1365–2834.2003.00379.x.
Williams, C. L. (1992). The glass escalator: Hidden advantages for men in the “female” professions.
Social Problems, 39(3), 253–267. doi:10.1525/sp.1992.39.3.03×0034h.
Williams, M. J., & Eberhardt, J. L. (2008). Biological conceptions of race and the motivation to
cross racial boundaries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(6), 1033–1047.
doi:10.1037/0022–3514.94.6.1033.
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men:
Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128(5), 699–727.
doi:10.1037//0033–2909.128.5.699.
Yang, C. -I., Gau, M. -L., Shiau, S. -J., Hu, W. -H., & Shih, F. -J. (2004). Professional career development for male nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48(6), 642–650. doi:10.1111/j.1365–
2648.2004.03252.x.
Zernike, K. (2011). Gains, and drawbacks, for female professors. New York Times, March
21, 2011, pp. 1–2. Retrieved April 30, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/
03/21/us/21mit.html?_r=1&src= me&ref=homepage.
Zysberg, L., & Berry, D. M. (2005). Gender and students’ vocational choices in entering the field of
nursing. Nursing Outlook, 53(4), 193–198. doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2005.05.001.
KIMBERLEY A. CLOW is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Social Science
and Humanities at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology. She received
her PhD in Psychology from the University of Western Ontario. Her research
focuses on stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination. Current research projects
investigate stigma and wrongful conviction, stereotypes of minority defendants
within the context of pre-trial publicity, as well as the stigma encountered by men
and women in social roles that conflict with traditional gender roles.
ROSEMARY RICCIARDELLI is an Assistant Professor in the Department of
Sociology, Faculty of Liberal Arts and Professional Studies at York University.
She received her Ph.D. in Sociology from McMaster University. Her research looks
at wrongful conviction, as well as conceptualizations of masculinity and risk in
the criminal justice system. Her other research interests include gender, identity
construction, and male corporeality. She is particularly interested in research
combining qualitative and quantitative methodologies.