Overworked and underpaid: on the nature of gender differences in personal entitlement

This research investigated gender differences in feelings of personal entitlement with respect to monetary payment for work performed. Two experiments were conducted to test the hypothesis that women's internal standards of fair pay for their work are lower than men's and to examine possible causes of this difference. In Experiment 1, men and women were asked to pay themselves in a private situation what they thought was fair pay for a fixed amount of work. Social comparison information was varied. As predicted, women paid themselves less money than men in the absence, but not the presence, of social comparison information. In Experiment 2, men and women were asked to do as much work as they thought was fair for a fixed, prepaid, amount of money. Subjects believed that their work was either monitored or unmonitored. Women worked significantly longer, did more work, and did more correct work than men in both public and private work settings. Furthermore, women, but not men, worked longer when they believed their work was monitored than when they believed it was unmonitored. Possible explanations for these gender differences are discussed.     

SOCIAL COMPARISONS AND CONTENTMENT Exploring the Psychological Costs of the Gender Wage Gapi

This study explored the role of social comparison processes in fostering contentment among those who are objectively disadvantaged. We focus on how comparisons can produce gender differences in personal entitlement, perceptions of one's own performance, and pay satisfaction. We hypothesized that individuals would base judgments of entitlement, performance, and pay satisfaction more on comparisons with ingroup (same-sex) than outgroup (cross-sex) others, even when both types of comparison information were equally available, unavoidable, and made clear the disadvantaged status of the ingroup. As predicted, the amount students felt they were entitled to be paid, how well they thought they had performed (women only), and how satisfied they were with their pay were all influenced more by same-sex than cross-sex comparison information. The implications of these results for the tolerance of injustice among disadvantaged groups are discussed.     

The Gender Wage Gap: An Explanation of Men’s Elevated Wage Entitlement

Perceptions of wage entitlement differ between women and men such that men are more likely to feel worthy of higher pay. Based on a combination of status-related theories and evidence from two studies of 120 undergraduate men, we examined men’s reactions to gendered threats to their task abilities. When told that women typically outperform men, men responded with elevated projections of their own competence without reducing their self-pay. These effects were not related to endorsements of masculinity ideology. Instead, exaggerated competence was related to individual men’s heightened legitimate entitlement, and resistant high self-pay was linked to narcissistic entitlement. These patterns demonstrate that what appears to be a gender-based phenomenon is explained more accurately by men’s internalized status beliefs.     

Effects of Pay Expected on Pay Received: The Confirmatory Nature of Initial Expectations1

Previous research suggests that women have lower pay expectations and a lower sense of personal entitlement with respect to pay than similarly qualified men (cf. Major & Konar, in press; Major, McFarlin, & Gagnon, 1984). The present research examined, in two liking simulation experiments, the impact of a job applicant's pay expectations and gender on starting salary offers, hiring recommendations, and evaluations made by management students. Results of both experiments indicated that, given identical applicant qualifications, the higher the salary requested by an applicant, the higher the salary he or she was offered, regardless of the applicant's gender. However, women with moderate pay expectations were offered significantly more money (Experiment 1) and were significantly more likely to be hired (Experiment 2) than were men with moderate expectations. Amount of pay expected had no impact on other evaluations of the applicant. The role that gender differences in pay expectations may play in perpetuating nonperformance-related pay differences between women and men is discussed.     

The Role of Status in Producing Depressed Entitlement in Women's and Men's Pay Allocations

Extensive empirical evidence confirms a depressed entitlement effect wherein women pay themselves less than men for comparable work and believe the allocation fair. The present study tests the hypothesis that status subordination linked to being female underlies at least some of this effect. A 2 × 3 design crossed 180 undergraduates' gender with a control condition, which successfully established the depressed entitlement effect, and two experimental conditions. In one, women's status was enhanced through legitimation of women's task abilities; in the other, both women's and men's status was enhanced by adding educational credentials relevant to task ability. Follow-up analyses of the significant interaction revealed that the gap in self-pay demonstrated in the control condition disappeared when women's status was enhanced such that higher-status women's self-pay equaled that of men and exceeded that of control women. Although these findings confirm that status plays a role in producing depressed entitlement in self-pay, ancillary analyses of participants' perceptions point to the persistence of shifting standards and men's resistance to status threats.     

Same‐gender supervisors protect women's leadership aspirations after negative performance feedback

Two studies examined how the gender of a workplace supervisor can affect a woman's response to performance evaluations and also her professional advancement aspirations. In Study 1, employed women reviewed a performance evaluation in which feedback was manipulated to reflect one of two stereotypes of women (high in warmth or low in competence). Findings showed that participants were more likely to attribute negative (i.e., low competence) feedback from men supervisors to gender biases than the same feedback from women supervisors. There was no effect of supervisor gender when the feedback was positive (i.e., high warmth) or neutral. In Study 2, negative feedback from men supervisors, regardless of evaluative dimension (competence or warmth) resulted in women reporting decreased professional aspirations. This relationship was mediated by women's attribution of supervisor feedback to gender biases. Together, these findings suggest that same‐gender supervisors can potentially buffer women's long term professional aspirations after a discouraging performance review.     

Psychological Entitlement and Ambivalent Sexism: Understanding the Role of Entitlement in Predicting Two Forms of Sexism

Recent research has shown that narcissistic men in the United States express more ambivalent sexism than their non-narcissistic counterparts. The present study sought to extend these findings by hypothesizing that psychological entitlement would be a predictor of ambivalent sexism but that that this relationship may vary by gender. Given entitlement’s associations with hostility and aggression and the previously established link between narcissism and sexism in men, we hypothesized that entitlement would predict hostile sexism in men. Given that entitlement is characterized by a pervasive sense of deservingness for special treatment and goods, we expected that entitled women would endorse attitudes of benevolent sexism. These hypotheses were tested using two cross-sectional samples in the U.S.—a sample of undergraduates from a private university in the Midwest (N?=?333) and a web-based sample of adults across the U.S. (N?=?437). Results from regression analyses confirmed that psychological entitlement is a robust predictor of ambivalent sexism, above and beyond known predictors of sexism such as low openness and relevant covariates such as impression management. In addition, entitlement was a consistent predictor of benevolent sexism in women, but not in men, and a consistent predictor of hostile sexism in men, but not in women. These relationships were largely robust, persisting even when relevant covariates (e.g., socially desirable responding, trait openness) were controlled statistically, although in one sample the link between entitlement and hostile sexism in men was reduced to non-significance when benevolent sexism was controlled for statistically. Implications of these findings are discussed.     

Sex differences in reactions to evaluative feedback

Two studies tested the influence of various types of verbal evaluative feedback men's and women's self-evaluations of their performance in achievenment situations. We tested a theory that women perceive evaluative feedback, particularly negative feedback, to be more informative about their abilities than do men. Because of this, women's self-assessments of their abilities are more straightforwardly influenced by evaluative feedback than are men's. In contrast, men take a more self-promotional approach to evaluative situations, and therefore are more selective in their responses to feedback. Results from our questionnaire study showed that women's self-evaluations were influenced by both positive and negative evaluative statements. Men allowed positive feedback to influence them more than negative feedback, and were less influenced overall by negative feedback than women. Furthermore, women reported that evaluative feedback, particularly negative feedback, contained more information relevant to their abilities than men. Our laboratory study showed that women's actual self-evaluations were impacted differently by positive and negative feedback, whereas men's were not. In addition, we found some evidence to indicate that women were more negatively influenced by feedback that was positively toned, yet irrelevant with respect to their performance, than men. This finding underscores the fact that the focus, and not just the valence, of evaluative feedback plays an important role in men's and women's responses to it.     

The Influence of Legitimacy Appraisals on the Determinants of Entitlement Beliefs

We conducted a laboratory experiment to determine whether legitimacy appraisals (i.e., the extent to which an outcome distribution is thought to be fair and just) would influence the extent to which entitlement beliefs about wages were based on in-group wage comparison information and perceptions of one's own performance. To manipulate legitimacy appraisals, participants were led to believe that the wage allocation procedure was unbiased, potentially biased, or biased. In addition, they were exposed to wage comparison information, indicating that in-group members had earned more than out-group members in the past or vice versa. Results show that, when procedures were thought to be unbiased, participants' beliefs about the amounts they deserved to be paid were influenced more by in-group wage comparison information than perceptions of their own performance. In contrast, when participants perceived allocation procedures to be biased, entitlement beliefs were influenced more by perceptions of their own performance than by in-group wage comparison information. These findings are presented in terms of the paradoxical contentment often observed among members of objectively disadvantaged groups.     

Stereotype susceptibility narrows the gender gap in imagined self-rotation performance

Three studies examined the impact of stereotype messages on men’s and women’s performance of a mental rotation task involving imagined self-rotations. Experiment 1 established baseline differences between men and women; women made 12% more errors than did men. Experiment 2 found that exposure to a positive stereotype message enhanced women’s performance in comparison with that of another group of women who received neutral information. In Experiment 3, men who were exposed to the same stereotype message emphasizing a female advantage made more errors than did male controls, and the magnitude of error was similar to that for women from Experiment 1. The results suggest that the gender gap in mental rotation performance is partially caused by experiential factors, particularly those induced by sociocultural stereotypes.     

GENDER, DISCRIMINATION BELIEFS, GROUP-BASED GUILT, AND RESPONSES TO AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR AUSTRALIAN WOMEN

Views of a selection committee's decision to promote a woman over a man on the basis of affirmative action were studied in a random sample of Australians (118 men and 111 women). The relations between perceptions of workplace gender discrimination, feelings of collective responsibility and guilt for discrimination, and judgments of entitlement to and, secondarily, deservingness of affirmative action were examined. AMOS analyses indicated that men's reports of collective guilt predicted attitudes toward women's entitlement. No coherent model was observed for women, which suggested ambivalent attitudes toward affirmative action. Gender differences in discrimination beliefs also suggested that women believe men are unfairly advantaged and that men believe women are responsible for their own disadvantage. Implications for research examining collective emotions and their role in social justice judgments are discussed.     

Gender Differences in Persistence and Attributions in Stereotype Relevant Contexts

The present research was designed to examine the effects of gender math stereotypes on performance attributions and persistence. Two experiments tested whether stereotypes guided men’s and women’s reactions to negative or positive feedback on an alleged test of verbal or math ability. In Study 1, attributions to ability were influenced by gender stereotypes: women were more sensitive to feedback on a test that was described as a test of their math ability than when the same test was described as a test of their verbal ability, whereas men showed the opposite pattern. Study 2 replicated these findings for negative feedback and further showed that gender differences in attributions to ability mediated the gender difference in persistence in the math domain following an alleged failure on a math test. The implications of stereotype-consistent attributions for women’s persistence in quantitative fields are discussed.     

Why Are Women Paid Less than Men, but Given Higher Raises?

We replicated and extended a largely ignored pattern of findings in the literature, namely, that women receive lower base pay but higher pay increases than men within the same organization. Despite the fact that we were able to explain about 95% of the variance in base pay, gender differences remained. We found that unequal starting pay was a significant factor in subsequent base pay. In addition, we compared two explanations for the finding that women receive higher pay raises than men. The results suggested that structural features of the pay increase system, rather than the reduction of stereotypes, seemed to account for women receiving higher pay increases.     

Sex Differences In Response To Evaluative Feedback: A Field Study

We investigated sex differences in response to evaluative feedback among bank employees who were going through the annual performance evaluation process. Questionnaires were mailed to employees before and after they had their face–to–face evaluation with their supervisor. Women and men received similar evaluation scores. Men's self–esteem was relatively unaffected by the nature of the feedback, whereas women's self–esteem slightly improved after positive feedback and substantially dropped after negative feedback. After the evaluations, women reported greater intentions to change their behavior based on the evaluation. However, this finding was accounted for by men's higher job status relative to women. The findings for self–esteem were partly explained by women's greater agreement with the feedback compared to men. Future research should explore how the nature of the supervisee–supervisor relationship influences how women and men respond to feedback.     

Men,women, and money: Exploring the role of gender,gender-linkage of college major and career-information sources in salary expectations

Research focused on salary expectations consistently reports gender-based differences in expectations for entry and peak career. Although a number of variables (e.g., value placed on work-facets, fair pay standards) have been found to mediate the relationship between gender and salary expectations, little research has attempted to assess how expectations may be formed. Based on suggestions by Martin (1989) and social comparison theory, we examined the role that sources of career information (e.g., professors, family) play in shaping college students' salary expectations. Results suggest: (1) differences in entry level salary expectations were associated with gender-linkage of college major and differences in peak salary expectations were associated with gender and gender-linkage of college major, (2) women gathered more information from female sources than did men, and men gathered more information from male sources than did women, and (3) career information was not predictive of either entry or peak salary expectations.     

Self-Handicapping in the Classroom: The Effects of Claimed Self-Handicaps on Responses to Academic Failure

The hypothesis that self-handicapping is in the service of self-esteem protection was examined in a naturalistic setting. College students were assessed for individual differences in self-handicapping and attributional style at the beginning of the term. Prior to the first exam they had an opportunity to claim handicaps that might hamper their performance on the exam. After receiving feedback that they had performed poorly on the exam, all students completed measures of mood, self-esteem, and performance attributions. Support for the hypothesis was found for men but not for women. Level of self-handicapping interacted with sex of subject such that high self handicapping among men predicted claimed handicapping prior to the exam and more external attributions for poor performance and higher self-esteem following feedback. Among women, the relations between self-handicapping tendencies and claimed handicaps and performance attributions were weaker than for men. In addition, unlike men's, women's post feedback self-esteem was unrelated to claimed handicaps and performance attributions. Potential mechanisms underlying sex differences in self-handicapping and responses to negative feedback are discussed.     

Interpreting and reacting to feedback in stereotype-relevant performance domains

Feedback on task performance is often phrased in subjective language (e.g., “not bad!”), but how do recipients understand or translate that feedback into a clear, objective, performance metric? We suggest that when feedback is provided in a stereotype-relevant domain, translation is made with reference to stereotyped expectations for one's group. In Study 1, women and men were exposed to negative subjective feedback about their performance on a leadership task; in Study 2, Black and White participants were provided subjective negative feedback, or no feedback, on an academic writing task. Women relative to men, and Black students relative to White students, translated their feedback to indicate objectively worse performance. Furthermore, this translation mediated a drop in the importance placed on the domain among women and Blacks. This research extends the literature on gender- and race-based reactions to feedback by noting the importance of the immediate interpretation of the feedback received.     

Gender bias triggers diverging science interests between women and men: The role of activity interest appraisals

Women leave science fields at greater rates than men, and loss of interest is a key motivator for leaving. Although research widely demonstrates effects of gender bias on other motivational processes, whether gender bias directly affects feelings of interest toward science activities is unknown. We used a false feedback paradigm to manipulate whether women (Study 1) and men (Study 2) participants perceived the reason for feedback as due to pro-male bias. Because activity interest also depends on how students approach and perform the activity, effects of biased feedback on interest appraisals were isolated by introducing gender bias only after the science activity was completed. When the feedback was perceived as due to pro-male bias, women (Study 1) reported lower interest and men (Study 2) reported greater interest in the science activity, and interest, in turn, positively predicted subsequent requests for career information in both studies. Implications for understanding diverging science interests between women and men are discussed.     

Evidence from a homosexual sample for a sex‐specific rival‐oriented mechanism: Jealousy as a function of a rival's physical attractiveness and dominance

Among heterosexual women in particular, a rival's physical attractiveness evokes jealousy, whereas among heterosexual men in particular, a rival's dominance evokes feelings of jealousy. The present study conducted with gay men and lesbian women examined whether these sex‐differentiated responses reflect an evolved sex‐specific rival‐oriented mechanism according to which males and females pay attention to different rival characteristics or an evolved general partner‐oriented mechanism, according to which males and females pay attention to those characteristics that their actual and potential partners find important. In an experiment, using a 2 (Participant Sex) × 2 (Rival Physical Attractiveness) × 2 (Rival Dominance) mixed factor design, homosexual participants were presented with a scenario in which their partners were flirting with an individual of the same sex. Lesbian women, but not gay men, reported more jealousy when they were exposed to a physically attractive rival as compared with a physically unattractive rival. Gay males, but not lesbian women, reported more jealousy when they were exposed to a rival high in dominance as compared with a rival low in dominance, especially when exposed to a physically unattractive rival. In addition, among women high in dominance, a dominant rival evoked relatively less jealousy, and among women high in social comparison orientation, an unattractive rival evoked relatively more jealousy. It is concluded that males and females posses an evolved sex‐specific rival‐oriented mechanism through which they respond more or less automatically to those rival characteristics that have been important in sexual selection in our evolutionary past.     

The relative importance of psychopathy-related traits in predicting impersonal sex and hostile masculinity

This paper reports the relative contributions of several facets of subclinical psychopathy (i.e., callous affect, erratic lifestyle, interpersonal manipulation), subclinical narcissism (i.e., entitlement, exploitation), and trait aggression (i.e., anger) to the prediction of four enduring attitudes towards women and sexual assault (i.e., hostility towards women, negative attitudes regarding women, sexual dominance, impersonal sex) and a behavioral indicator of an impersonal sexual behavior (i.e., number of one-night stands). Survey data were collected from 470 single men living in the Detroit Metropolitan area. The importance of personality traits varied as a function of the outcome with anger most predictive of hostility toward women; erratic lifestyle most predictive of impersonal sexual attitudes and behavior, and entitlement most predictive of sexual dominance and negative attitudes toward women. These outcome-specific findings are interpreted and directions for future research are discussed.