Thoughts on Equal Pay: Gender Differences in Views on the … · 2016. 4. 12. · Jackson, Gardner,...

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


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.


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-


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


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


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).


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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)


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


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)


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


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)


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


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

Thoughts on Equal Pay: Gender Differences in Views on the … · 2016. 4. 12. · Jackson, Gardner,...

Documents

Transcript of Thoughts on Equal Pay: Gender Differences in Views on the … · 2016. 4. 12. · Jackson, Gardner,...