SEXISM, STEREOTYPING, AND THE GENDER WAGE GAP A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of Graduate Studies O t- The University of Guelph In partial fulfilment of requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy June, 2000 @Christine Alksnis, 2000 National Library Bibliothéque nationale I*I of Canada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395. nie Wellington Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Canada Canada Your fila Vom nlemw Our W Notre raterence The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sel1 reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/fiim, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique. The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts f?om it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. Canada ABSTRACT SEXISM, STEREOTYPING, AND THE GENDER WAGE GAP Christine Alksnis Advisor: University of Guelph, 2000 Dr. S. Desmarais For decades, women's average earnings have been a fraction of men's earnings. This dissertation is predicated on the assumption that gender stereotypes facilitate sexist behaviour by employers that in turn contributes, at least in part, to the persistence of this gender wage gap. The ways in which stereotypes lead women to be penalized in terms of hiring (access) and salary (value) was explored: the specific stereotypes examined related to segregation of the workforce and noms dictating that women assume more responsibility for childcare than men do. Study I was primarily concerned with the question of whether women's work is valued as highly as that of men. This study checked whether undergraduates would assign different salaries to three types ofjobs wherein the actual responsibilities and duties camed out were the same, but the job was situated in either a traditionally masculine or ferninine domain. Studies 2 and 3 examined whether and how women's expressed intentions to have a family hindered their access to jobs and affected the salaries they were assigned. In Study 2, undergraduate participants were asked to listen to a mock interview and then to indicate whether they would hire the candidate and what saiary they would allocate. The impact that candidate's family status. candidate's gender. and gender of panicipant had on these dependent variables was assessed. Four farnily status conditions were considered, wherein the candidate: (1) expressed an interest in starting a farnily; (2) revealed that s/he was unable to have children; (3) revealed that s/he did not want chiidren; or, (4) revealed that s/he was asthmatic [comparison condition]. In Study 3. a comrnunity sample comprised pnmanly of full-time workers and managers was asked to indicate whether a prospective employee's family status. living arrangements and comection to the community were advantageous or disadvantageous when applying for a job. Of primary interest was respondents' rating of four different types of familial circumstances, three of which were identical to those assessed in Study 2. The ways in which the results fit with traditional sexist beliefs as well as with contemporary theonzing about "neosexism" and "modem sexism" are discussed. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are a lot of people to thank for their support dunng my Ph.D. career. First, to Serge - I am so fortunate to have had the opportunity to work with you! Thank you for your enccuragement, your enthusiasm, and the many things you did to ease the process. Thanks also to my advisory cornmittee members, Jim Curtis, Mary hnEvans and Joanna Boehnert for their guidance, and special thanks to Jim for making it possible for me to get involved with the KWMAS. I'm grateful to the extemal members of my examination cornmittee, Francine Tougas and Karen Korabik for raising such interestin- issues at my defense. and particularly to Francine Tougas for agreeing to corne to Guelph while on sabbatical. Thanks also go to the chair. Brian Earn. for his contributions at the defense and for creating such a Friendly atmosphere. I've made some wonderfil fnendships in my time at Guelph. I'm especially grateful to Karen, Casey and Kem - thank you so much for being there for me. gooîïng off with me and heiping me through. No one could ask for better Friends! My appreciation goes to al1 the people who agreed to take part in my studies. and to those professors on campus who kindly allowed me to corne into their classes in order to recruit "just a few more people." Thanks also go to my family for al1 the support that they've given me, not just through the Ph-D. but always. TABLE OF CONTENTS THEGENDER WAGE GAP: A SUMMARY OF THE PROBLEM............................................ -7 SEXISM:AN OVERVIEW.............................................................................................. 6 "*New" Types of Srxisrn ........................................................................................ -8 Relevant Lrgsfatioti .............................................................................................. 10 GENDERSTEREOTYPES: BELEFS THAT HELP MAINTHE GENDER WAGE GAP ....... 12 Stereotypes rehtirig to oc~r~pationdsrgregatior? ................................................... 13 Stereotypes relating to fomiiy resy amih ili tirs ........................................................ 15 Subtypes ................... ........ .............................................................................. 17 Thearefical approaches to sterrotypi~~g................................................................. 18 MACRO-LEVELTKEOEUES .......................................................................................... -20 Econornic theorirs ................................................................................................. 21 STUDY HYPOTHESESFOR PWY &VALYSES ....................................................................... 37 METHOD................................................................................................................... -38 Powcr Calcufatioru ro L)ererrnitie S'ample Six .................................................38 Porticipunts ........................................................................................................... 39 Annual Salary .................................................................................................... -42 Compensatory Dimensions ................................................................................-42 Previrw of Analyses .............................................................................................. 43 Manipulation Checks ......................................................................................... -43 Pnmary Analyses ................................................................................................ -44 Supplementary Analyses .................................................................................... -45 RESULTS ................................................................................................................... -46 Mrmipdation <'hecks ............................................................................................. 46 Gender assigned to jobs by participants .............................................................. 46 Evaluation of jobs on compensatory factors ........................................................48 Primary Analysrs. ................................................................................................... 50 Al1 Participants ................................................................................................... 50 Participants who açree with stereotyped gender ofjob ........................................ 53 Maniplation C'hrcks ........................................................................................... 56 Primaty & Szrppkmetrtaty At~aiyses....................................................................... 57 Limitations ......................................................................................................... 61 Full-Time Non-Managerial Workers ................................................................. 144 Managers ......................................................................................................... 146 Drscuss~o~............................................................................................................. 149 Preihinary Anulysrs ............. .......................................................................... 149 Primary Analyses ................................................................................................. 1% Impact of Applicant 's Gender ........................................................................... 150 Impact of Respondent's Gender ....................................................................... 154 DEerences between Study 2 and 3 ................................................................... 156 GENERAL DISCUSSION ........................................................................................160