Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorZehnter Frisk, MK
dc.contributor.authorNater, C
dc.date.accessioned2024-09-27T08:18:57Z
dc.date.issued2024-09-26
dc.date.updated2024-09-27T05:45:22Z
dc.description.abstractThis research identified two mechanisms that explain gender differences in attitudes towards gender quotas. Using a multi-method approach, we assessed attitudes as self-reported support for gender quotas and rater-coded valence of participants’ free associations with gender quotas. Study 1 examined quotas for university professorship positions (N = 237) and Study 2 quotas for corporate leadership positions (N = 587). Supporting the first mechanism, women's greater perceptions of discrimination against women related to greater perceived necessity of gender quotas, which related to more favourable attitudes. Supporting the second mechanism, men's greater concerns that quotas discriminate against men related to greater concerns that quotas stigmatize women as incompetent, which related to less favourable attitudes. By advancing the understanding of key mechanisms behind attitudes towards gender quotas, this research contributes to effectively designing and successfully implementing hard affirmative action policies aimed at overcoming women's underrepresentation in leading academic and corporate positions.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipEuropean Unionen_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipSwiss National Science Foundationen_GB
dc.identifier.citationPublished online 26 September 2024en_GB
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.3113
dc.identifier.grantnumberNo 101024885en_GB
dc.identifier.grantnumberNo P400PS_199273en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/137557
dc.identifierORCID: 0000-0002-6996-4911 (Zehnter Frisk, Miriam K)
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherWileyen_GB
dc.relation.urlhttps://osf.io/pdxv6en_GB
dc.rights© 2024 The Author(s). European Journal of Social Psychology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.en_GB
dc.subjectAttitudesen_GB
dc.subjectFree associationsen_GB
dc.subjectGender differencesen_GB
dc.subjectGender quotasen_GB
dc.subjectPerceived discriminationen_GB
dc.titleBeyond Being Beneficiaries: Two Mechanisms Explain Why Women Have More Favourable Attitudes Towards Gender Quotas Than Menen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2024-09-27T08:18:57Z
dc.identifier.issn0046-2772
dc.descriptionThis is the final version. Available from Wiley via the DOI in this record. en_GB
dc.descriptionData Availability Statement. The data, and analysis code that support the findings of this research are available at OSF (https://osf.io/pdxv6).en_GB
dc.identifier.eissn1099-0992
dc.identifier.journalEuropean Journal of Social Psychologyen_GB
dc.relation.ispartofEuropean Journal of Social Psychology
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2024-09-10
dcterms.dateSubmitted2023-06-26
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2024-09-26
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2024-09-27T05:45:23Z
refterms.versionFCDAM
refterms.panelAen_GB
refterms.dateFirstOnline2024-09-26
exeter.rights-retention-statementNo


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© 2024 The Author(s). European Journal of Social Psychology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
cited.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as © 2024 The Author(s). European Journal of Social Psychology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.