thoughts on equal pay: gender differences in views on the … · 2016. 4. 12. · jackson, gardner,...
TRANSCRIPT
Running head: GENDER DIFFERENCES AND GENDER PAY GAP 1
Thoughts on Equal Pay: Gender Differences in Views on the Gender Pay Gap
Samantha Tan
April 12, 2016
GENDER DIFFERENCES AND GENDER PAY GAP 2
Thoughts on Equal Pay: Gender Differences in Views on the Gender Pay Gap
The amount of discussion about gender issues in the workplace has increased greatly over
the past few years, especially concerning the gender pay gap. The gender pay gap, also referred
to as the gender wage gap, is the difference between the salaries of men and women, and it points
out that women tend to be paid less than men on average. The average disparity between the
salary of women and that of men of the entire US workforce is around 77 cents to the dollar
(Stockdale & Nadler, 2009). There is a consensus that the gap does exist, but the reasons for its
existence are not quite clear yet. Even though there have been promises to fix the gender pay
gap, with legislation regarding equal pay for equal work, the gap continues to exist into the 21st
century. Many people of both genders have been debating the underlying reason of the gender
pay gap and whether or not it can be addressed and amended. This disparity between the
attitudes towards the gender pay gap, or even women in the workplace, may exhibit underlying
beliefs that have polarized these two views.
Although some argue that the gender pay gap is practically nonexistent, there have been
numerous studies refuting that with evidence of the pay gap in workforce segregation, pay
expectations, and in equally qualified individuals. However, many have focused on reducing or
even completely eliminating the gap. Becoming aware of stereotypes and recognizing inherent
bias against women may be a starting point in reducing the pay gap. Also, raising pay
expectations could also help reduce the gap. Because the gender pay gap is an issue regarding
gender differences, there may be attitudinal differences between the genders concerning issues
on the gender pay gap and related factors.
The effort to close gender pay gap began around the 1960’s, when the Equal Pay Act of
1963 was signed into law. The gender pay gap was 59%, or women made 59 cents to every
GENDER DIFFERENCES AND GENDER PAY GAP 3
dollar men made. The gap greatly improved over the next few decades, but recent data has
showed that the gap still exists in full force. Its existence has been detrimental to achieving true
equality between the sexes, but figuring out the root causes has been the main goal of
psychologists (Stockdale & Nadler, 2013; Jackson, Gardner, & Sullivan, 1992). Although the
existence of the gender pay gap has been generally accepted by most social scientists, there have
been differing views on how to remedy the gap.
From a psychological viewpoint, with some economic factors, the focus is on attitudes on
gender and how they contribute to the gender pay gap. While economists focus on the decisions
employees make, Stockdale and Nadler (2013) show that focusing on making rational choices in
attaining jobs fails to take into consideration the influences of social factors and cultural biases.
Instead, the psychological viewpoint focuses on the decisions employers make rather than
focusing on what is wrong with the employee. Social role theory, which implies that the idea of
traditionally male or female occupations have shaped the stereotypes of men and women, has
made gender a main predicting factor in the vocational choices of both men and women.
Occupational segregation is one of the main outcomes of this theory, or stereotypically female-
and male- dominated occupations, the latter of which is usually paid more than the former.
Jackson, Gardner, and Sullivan (1992) went through some of the causes of the gender pay gap,
including the aforementioned occupational sex segregation, perceived and actual gender
differences, and self-pay expectations. At the time, the gender pay gap ranged from about 50 to
75 cents to the dollar men made. All of these factors contributing to the gender pay gap show
that there is no simple way to fix the gender pay gap, but identifying the root of the gender pay
gap is a start at fixing the gap.
GENDER DIFFERENCES AND GENDER PAY GAP 4
There are mainly two different views on closing the gender pay gap: there is one simple
solution because gender equality exists, or there is no simple solution because biased attitudes on
gender prevent the achievement of gender equality. Goldin (2014) explains that the gap may
completely vanish if there was no incentive to reward individuals, usually men, who work more
hours and deserve more pay. Goldin describes that “gender convergence” is the reason why the
gender pay gap has no significance and does not require government intervention to be reduced.
Although complete gender equality still does not exist, more women are attaining college
degrees and are seen as equals in the economy and in society. However, Goldin does provide a
way to close the gender pay gap: more flexible work hours. If there were more flexibility at
work, working mothers and women in general would have better salaries. Yet, Goldin fails to
recognize that the gender pay gap persists, even after controlling for certain factors, including
education and job experience (Alksnis, Curtis, & Desmarais, 2008). This may be attributed to
workplace discrimination against women and gender differences. While gender equality seems
more attainable than it did fifty years ago, reducing the gender pay gap cannot be achieved by
simply making more flexible work hours. There are many factors, including economic and
psychological factors, that there is not a simple solution to the gender pay gap.
Attitudes on gender differences lie at the root of the problem. Alksnis and colleagues
(2008) found that gender-based discrimination influences the allocation of salary. The work of
women tends to be undervalued, and workplace segregation also contributes to these attitudes.
Nadler and Stockdale (2012) explain that even though women in lower-paying jobs contribute to
the gender pay gap, there is still a difference in pay when controlled for human capital variables.
Although women tend to underperform in competitive environments (Kleinjans, 2009), thus
affecting occupational choice and creating workforce segregation between the female- and male-
GENDER DIFFERENCES AND GENDER PAY GAP 5
dominated careers, gender stereotypes still plague women in male-dominated fields and
leadership positions. Gender role stereotypes can hurt women in managerial and male-dominated
fields, as they are, when compared to men, subject to lower pay and harsh performance
evaluations that have little relevance to their actual job performance (Nadler & Stockdale, 2012).
Therefore, their career may be stagnated, as they are less likely to advance into higher paying
jobs. Kulich, Ryan, and Haslam (2007) concur, as both women and men are attracted to
leadership positions, but women have lower pay expectations. Hogue, DuBois, and Fox-
Cardamone (2010) found that self-efficacy, or the “appraisal of one’s competence”, was a large
factor in lower pay expectations in women.
Numerous studies have been done on the gender pay gap in pay expectation; Hogue and
her colleagues (2010) showed that low pay expectation is an unaccounted variable in government
estimates, seeing as the gender differences in variables on human capital, or the unique attributes
every individual possesses, can account for about 60% of the gender pay gap. In their study, they
surveyed 435 undergraduate students (272 women, 163 men). The female participants tended to
have lower pay expectations than male participants for entry-level and peak career salary, which
could be attributed to self-views, namely appraisal of oneself, or self-efficacy. Even though the
article succeeded in showing that improving female self-efficacy might contribute to higher pay
expectations, thus reducing the gender pay gap, the large majority of participants were white.
However, Nadler and Stockdale (2012) compare gender discrimination to minority
discrimination, so there may be a similarity in issues with pay expectations, and other factors that
contribute to the gap.
Society has tried to remedy the gap through hiring and promoting more qualified women,
but inherent stereotypes and other psychological factors may have inadvertently contributed to
GENDER DIFFERENCES AND GENDER PAY GAP 6
the pay gap. Self-efficacy may help contribute to a smaller gap, but employers must. There have
been studies on closing the gap, but there have been research on how a female name could affect
the salary offered. Moss-Racusin and her colleagues (2012) employed a double-blind study (n =
127) to see if there was a gender bias when different science professors were presented with
identical résumés. Both male and female participants would select a higher salary for the résumé
with the name “John” on it, while the résumé with the name “Jennifer” was seen as less
competent than the male résumé. In a case study conducted by Travis, Gross, and Johnson
(2009), they found that of all full-time assistant, associate, and full professors at a university,
there was a salary difference of $2,986 for colleagues in the same department and rank. Along
with the gender bias towards male students in the study by Moss-Racusin and colleagues (2012),
the general consensus is that efforts to close the gender pay gap rest in the hands of the
employers.
Because gender lines could divide gender issues, it is important to understand if this is
simply an issue of men against women. Since hiring practices are a way of alleviating the gender
pay gap, it is important to understand whether or not these practices differ between men and
women. Do men and women differ in their attitudes towards women in the workplace,
influencing their opinion on whether they should be hired? Is there a relationship between gender
and the hiring practices of men? There will be two hypotheses: there will be a relationship
between gender and hiring practices of women, and there will be a relationship between gender
and attitudes towards the preferential hiring practices of men.
Method
The General Social Survey, also referred to as the GSS, is a nationally conducted survey,
measuring attitudes on social issues (Smith, Marsden, Hout, & Kim, 2012). It is considered
GENDER DIFFERENCES AND GENDER PAY GAP 7
nationally representative because it uses geographic stratification sampling of the population of
the United States. The version of the GSS that will be used is the 2012 version, using attitudes on
hiring practices of men and women.
Participants
There were 1,974 participants in the 2012 GSS, with 886 male participants and 1,088
female participants. The age of the participants ranged from 18 to 89 or older, and the race of the
participants were mostly white, with 1,477 participants identifying as white, 301 participants
identifying as black, and 196 participants identifying as “other”. Out of the 1,974 participants,
637 participants (245 men and 394 women) answered the question on the preferential hiring of
women, 639 participants (245 men and 394 women) for the question on promoting qualified
women over men, and 621 participants (321 men and 300 women) for the question regarding the
promotion of men over women.
Measures
The GSS utilized factors to measure attitudes towards preferential hiring, so it is
important to define these factors. Qualified women, the first factor, can be viewed as women
who meet the expectations of employers for the job they applied for (Nadler & Stockdale, 2012).
This can be subjective, and the qualifications are not compared to the qualifications of men. Hard
work is defined as work that goes beyond the requirements of the job, such as overtime work
(Goldin, 2014). Male-dominated career choices is not explicitly the factor measured, as it is men
having better paying jobs than women, but as stereotypical male-dominated careers tend to pay
higher salaries than that of female-dominated careers, it can be inferred that male-dominated
career choices is the measured factor. It can be defined as a career that has been traditionally
occupied by men (Stockdale & Nadler, 2013).
GENDER DIFFERENCES AND GENDER PAY GAP 8
Three different self-report scales will be used, assessing attitudes towards feminism and
women in the workplace. The first scale measuring attitudes toward feminism asks the question,
“Do you think of yourself as a feminist or not?” (Smith, Marsden, Hout, & Kim, 2012). The
participant is given the choice between “yes” and “no”. The second scale measuring the attitudes
towards hiring qualified women uses a scale from 1-5 (1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = neither
agree nor disagree, 4 = disagree, 5 = strongly disagree) to the statement, “Because of past
discrimination, employers should make special efforts to hire and promote qualified women”
(Smith, Marsden, Hout, & Kim, 2012). The third and fourth scales use the same measurement
scale, which measures attitudes on the gender pay gap on a scale from 1-4 (1 = very important, 2
= important, 3 = somewhat important, 4 = not at all important). The third scale responds to the
statement, “Men work harder on the job than women do”, and the fourth scale responds to the
statement, “Employers tend to give men better paying jobs than they give women” (Smith,
Marsden, Hout, & Kim, 2012).
Procedure
The GSS was conducted in face-to-face interviews, where the participants were asked
questions on demographic information and on attitudes towards relevant social issues (Smith,
Marsden, Hout, & Kim, 2012). Among the various questions on attitudes towards social issues
were the four aforementioned questions.
Results
The first hypothesis was that there would be a relationship between the participant’s sex
and attitudes towards hiring practices of women. The second hypothesis was that there would be
a relationship between the participant’s sex and attitudes towards promoting women over men.
The third hypothesis was that there would be a relationship between the participant’s sex and
GENDER DIFFERENCES AND GENDER PAY GAP 9
attitudes towards promoting men over women. The first variable asks the participants about their
attitudes towards hiring competent and qualified women for a job. There were 1337 missing
cases, which were excluded from the results. The second variable asks about the chances that a
man will not get a job or a promotion, but a less or an equally qualified woman got one instead.
There were 1335 missing cases, which were excluded from the results. The third variable asks
about the chances that a woman will not get a job or a promotion, but a less or an equally
qualified man got one instead. There were 1353 missing cases, which were excluded from the
results.
To test the first hypothesis, a chi-square test for independence was used. It was
determined that a chi-square test could be used because both variables are measured as
categorical data and are independent groups. The majority of participants were male (n = 335,
52.6%). The majority of participants identified as White (n = 477, 74.9%), while the remaining
participants identified as Black (n = 97, 15.2%) or Other (n = 63, 9.9%). As shown in Table 1,
the majority of participants responded with the answer “Agree”, showing that the majority of
participants agree that qualified women should be hired or promoted. A crosstabulation was
performed between the two variables, as shown in Table 2. The results from the chi-squared test
indicate that there is a significant relationship between the attitudes towards hiring qualified
women and the participant’s sex χ2(4, n = 637) = 17.62, p < .05, Cramer’s V = .17. There is a
significant relationship, so we reject the null hypothesis. There is a small effect size.
To test the second hypothesis, a chi-square test for independence was used. It was
determined that the chi-square test was to be used because both variables are categorical data and
are independent groups. The majority of participants were female (n = 394, 61.7%). The majority
of participants identified as White (n = 482, 75.4%), while the rest of the participants identified
GENDER DIFFERENCES AND GENDER PAY GAP 10
as either Black (n = 102, 16.0%) or as Other (n = 55, 8.6%). As shown in Table 3, the majority of
participants responded with the answer “Somewhat Likely”. A crosstabulation was performed
between the two variables, as shown in Table 4. The results from the chi-squared test indicate
that there is a significant relationship between the attitudes towards a man not getting a job or
promotion and the participant’s sex χ2(3, n = 639) = 11.38, p < .05, Cramer’s V = .13. Because
there is a significant relationship, we reject the null hypothesis. As shown in Figure 2, the
relationship between the participant’s sex and attitudes towards hiring women over men seems to
be evident. There is a small effect size.
To test the third hypothesis, a chi-square test for independence was used. A chi-square
test was used because the variables are independent groups and measure at the categorical data
level. There was a slight majority of male participants (n = 321, 51.7%). The majority of
participants identified as White (n = 464, 74.7%); the rest of the participants identified as Black
(n = 95, 15.3%) or Other (n = 62, 10.0%). As shown in Table 5, the majority of participants
responded with the answer “Somewhat Likely”. A crosstabulation was performed between the
two variables, shown in Table 6. The null hypothesis was that there was no significant
relationship between the two variables. The results from the chi-squared test indicate that there is
not a significant relationship between the attitudes towards a woman not getting a job or
promotion and the participant’s sex χ2(3, n = 621) = 7.58, p = .056. There is no significant
relationship between the variables, so we fail to reject the null hypothesis.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to see if a person’s sex and attitudes towards gendered
hiring practices, which can contribute to the gender pay gap, were related to each other. The first
hypothesis was whether gender and hiring practices of women were related; hiring more women
GENDER DIFFERENCES AND GENDER PAY GAP 11
helps alleviate the gender pay gap. There were two parts to this hypothesis: if gender is related to
the hiring of women and if gender is related to the hiring of women over men. The first part of
the hypothesis tested if there was a relationship between the participant’s sex and attitudes
towards preferential hiring practices of women. Because there was a relationship between the
two variables, it showed that gender lines could play into a positive view of hiring and promoting
qualified women. This outcome was expected, as there were clear gender differences in the
“strongly agree” and “disagree” answers, with the former having a higher percentage of women
and the latter having a higher percentage of men. The second part tested if there was a
relationship between the participant’s sex and attitudes towards promoting women over qualified
men. There was a relationship between sex and these attitudes, which may be due to men having
an aversion towards more women in powerful positions in the workforce. This may also be due
to women having a stronger positive opinion towards hiring women over men because more
women want to succeed now more than ever.
The second hypothesis was that there is a relationship between the participant’s sex and
attitudes towards promoting men over qualified women. The results showed that there is not a
relationship between the two variables. The second hypothesis may have not been supported
because the practice of hiring men over qualified women has been done for a large majority of
the years women have been in the workplace. It is not surprising to see that sex and attitudes
towards this type of hiring practice are not related.
In the study done by Moss-Racusin and colleagues (2012), they showed that there is a
bias towards hiring men. Even though the male and female applicants possessed identical
qualifications, the female applicant was viewed as less competent. The findings of that study are
comparable to the ones discussed in this paper. While gender is independent of the attitudes
GENDER DIFFERENCES AND GENDER PAY GAP 12
towards hiring men over women, there is a relationship between gender and the hiring practices
of women. Gender lines seem to be drawn between positive and negative attitudes towards hiring
practices, with women having more positive attitudes and men having more negative attitudes.
However, because the effect size is rather small, these findings may not be taken so seriously.
And while the findings are similar to the study conducted by Moss-Racusin and colleagues, there
was more of an equivalence of negative attitudes among men and women. So while the findings
were generally consistent, they should not be taken completely seriously.
The biggest limitation was the sample population because the majority of participants
identified as white. Even though the majority of this country is white, the minority populations
are severely underrepresented in these findings. It is important for a proper representation of
minorities because they make up a larger percentage of the country than presented in the GSS.
Another limitation is the education level, as a large majority of participants had a high school
diploma as their higher level of education compared to every other level of education that was
measured for. One way to alleviate these limitations is to have a larger sampling size, which may
help account for a better representation of minorities and education levels. Future research
should include looking further into hiring practices and its effect on the gender pay gap. Since
there are other reasons for the gender pay gap that are difficult to measure, these reasons should
be quantified and measured. Because of the relationship between gender and hiring practices,
gender differences should also be taken into account. If gender differences are one of the only
reasons keeping women from receiving equal pay, then maybe there needs to be an attitude shift
before equality can be achieved.
GENDER DIFFERENCES AND GENDER PAY GAP 13
References
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.
Goldin, C. (2014). A grand gender convergence: Its last chapter. American Economic Review,
104(4), 1091-1119.
Hogue, M., DuBois, C. L. Z., & Fox-Cardamone, L. (2010). Gender differences in pay
expectations: The roles of job intention and self-view. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
34(2), 215-227.
Jackson, L. A., Gardner, P. D., & Sullivan, L. A. (1992). Explaining gender differences in self-
pay expectations: Social comparison standards and perceptions of fair pay. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 77(5), 651-663.
Kleinjans, K. J. (2009). Do gender differences in preferences for competition matter for
occupational expectations?. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30, 701-710.
Kulich, C., Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2007). Where is the romance for women leaders? The
effects of gender on leadership attributions. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 56(4), 582-601.
Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012).
Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. PNAS, 109(41), 16474-16479.
Nadler, J. T., & Stockdale, M. S. (2012). Workplace gender bias: Not just between strangers.
North American Journal of Psychology, 14(2), 281-292.
Smith, T. W., Marsden, P., Hout, M., & Kim, J. General Social Surveys, 1972-2012. NORC ed.
Chicago: National Opinion Research Center.
GENDER DIFFERENCES AND GENDER PAY GAP 14
Stockdale, M. S., & Nadler, J. T. (2013). Paradigmatic assumptions of disciplinary research on
gender disparities: The case of occupational sex segregation. Sex Roles, 68, 207-215.
Travis, C. B., Gross, L. J., & Johnson, B. A. (2009). Tracking the gender pay gap: A case study.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33, 410-418.
GENDER DIFFERENCES AND GENDER PAY GAP 15
Tables
Table 1
Frequencies of Attitudes Towards Hiring and Promoting Qualified Women
Should Hire and Promote Women Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Strongly Agree 102 16.0 16.0 16.0 Agree 314 49.3 49.3 65.3 Neither Agree Nor Disagree 68 10.7 10.7 76.0 Disagree 132 20.7 20.7 96.7 Strongly Disagree 21 3.3 3.3 100.0 Total 637 100.0 100.0
GENDER DIFFERENCES AND GENDER PAY GAP 16
Table 2
Crosstabulation of Sex and Attitudes Towards Hiring and Promoting Qualified Women
Sex Should Hire and Promote Women Total Strongly
Agree Agree Neither Agree
Nor Disagree Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Male 41 (53.6)
161 (165.1)
33 (35.8)
88 (69.4)
12 (11.0)
245 (245.0)
Female 61 (48.4)
153 (148.9)
35 (32.2)
44 (62.6)
9 (10.0)
394 (394.0)
Total 102 (102.0)
314 (314.0)
68 (68.0)
132 (132.0)
21 (21.0)
639 (639.0)
GENDER DIFFERENCES AND GENDER PAY GAP 17
Table 3
Frequencies of Attitudes Towards Hiring and Promoting Women Over Men
A Man Won’t Get a Job or Promotion Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Very Likely 72 11.3 11.3 11.3 Somewhat Likely 247 38.7 38.7 49.9 Somewhat Unlikely 216 33.8 33.8 83.7 Very Unlikely 104 16.3 16.3 100.0 Total 639 100.0 100.0
GENDER DIFFERENCES AND GENDER PAY GAP 18
Table 4
Crosstabulation of Sex and Attitudes Towards Hiring and Promoting Women Over Men
Sex A Man Won’t Get a Job or Promotion Total Very Likely Somewhat Likely Somewhat Unlikely Very Unlikely Male 39
(27.6) 97 (94.7)
78 (82.8)
31 (39.0)
245 (245.0)
Female 33 (44.4)
150 (152.3)
138 (133.2)
73 (64.1)
394 (394.0)
Total 72 (72.0)
247 (247.0)
216 (216.0)
104 (104.0)
639 (639.0)
GENDER DIFFERENCES AND GENDER PAY GAP 19
Table 5
Frequencies of Attitudes Towards Hiring and Promoting Men Over Women
A Woman Won’t Get a Job or Promotion Frequency Percent Valid
Percent Cumulative
Percent
Very Likely 134 21.6 21.6 21.6 Somewhat Likely 294 47.3 47.3 68.9 Somewhat Unlikely 133 21.4 21.4 90.3 Very Unlikely 60 9.7 9.7 100.0 Total 621 100.0 100.0
GENDER DIFFERENCES AND GENDER PAY GAP 20
Table 6
Crosstabulation of Sex and Attitudes Towards Hiring and Promoting Men Over Women
Sex A Woman Won’t Get a Job or Promotion Total Very Likely Somewhat Likely Somewhat Unlikely Very Unlikely Male 61
(69.3) 145 (152.0)
80 (68.7)
35 (31.0)
321 (321.0)
Female 73 (64.7)
149 (142.0)
53 (64.3)
25 (29.0)
300 (300.0)
Total 134 (134.0)
294 (294.0)
133 (133.0)
60 (60.0)
621 (621.0)
GENDER DIFFERENCES AND GENDER PAY GAP 21
Figures
Figure 1
Attitudes Towards Preferential Hiring of Qualified Women
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
StronglyAgree Agree NeitherAgreeNorDisagree
Disagree StronglyDisagree
Female
Male
GENDER DIFFERENCES AND GENDER PAY GAP 22
Figure 2
Attitudes Towards Hiring Women Over Men
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
VeryLikely SomewhatLikely SomewhatUnlikely
VeryUnlikely
Female
Male