Search

This study examines how gender and precarious manhood influence the specialty choices of medical students in the Netherlands. Specifically, it examines whether male medical students are less likely to choose female-dominated specialties and whether their perception of precarious manhood moderates this relationship. A cross-sectional survey was conducted with 227 medical students, who were asked about their preferred specialties. For exploratory purposes, the study also examined participants' least preferred specialty choices and whether precarious manhood moderated that relationship. The findings revealed that male students predominantly prefer male-dominated specialties, with precarious manhood significantly moderating this preference. In contrast, female students showed a balanced interest in male- and female-dominated specialties. The study concludes that gender stereotypes and societal expectations significantly impact specialty choices, suggesting a need for early educational interventions to address these biases and promote gender equity in medical fields. These insights can help medical schools, and policymakers develop strategies to reduce gender imbalances and encourage a more diverse representation across all medical specialties.

This study applies a social identity lens to show that, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Dutch government’s classification of occupations and labor market sectors as essential versus non-essential imposed a professional identity threat to those categorized as non-essential. Specifically, we hypothesized (1) that non-essential workers in the Netherlands would report lower professional identification (PI) during the pandemic relative to essential workers; (2) that non-essential workers’ mandatory shift to working from home and working fewer hours would (partially) explain their lower PI relative to essential workers; (3) that gender differences would emerge in the impact of categorization as (non-)essential worker on PI levels; and (4) that lower PI would negatively relate to work productivity and performance during the pandemic. Empirical evidence based on three cross-sectional datasets sampled among the Dutch working population during two peak waves of COVID-19 infections and national lockdowns (May/June 2020; Study 1: N = 371; November/December 2020, Study 2: N = 467; Study 3 = 735) all confirmed that non-essential workers reported lower PI relative to essential workers. The explanation for this outcome varied at different stages in the pandemic. Study 1 results showed that lower PI among those declared non-essential was partially explained by non-essential workers’ work location (home-bound) and reduced work hours, but only during the 1st peak wave. As the pandemic continued (2nd peak wave; Study 2 and 3), gender differences emerged, with more negative consequences of being classified non-essential for women than men. Non-essential workers’ lower PI levels were also associated with lower work productivity and performance. These findings underscore the importance of understanding social identity processes during the pandemic. We discuss socio-psychological ramifications of government regulations to control health crises, given how these may inadvertently undermine