Search

Although women's labour force participation has increased, women still lag behind in financial independence and men in spending time on parenting. Insight in individuals' explicit conversations with their partner about how to coordinate daily household, childcare and paid work may help to overcome these persistent inequalities. Using a daily diary design, the present study examined to what extent daily conversations with the partner about household, childcare and paid work can boost a more equal, fair task division and relationship quality among Dutch mothers and fathers in a heterosexual relationship (N = 1235 daily reported conversations nested in 157 participants; 66.2% female). Mixed model results showed that (1) on days when participants conversed more with their partner about household tasks, they reported a more egalitarian task division and higher satisfaction with and fairness of the task division, and higher relationship quality (2) this higher daily satisfaction with and perceived fairness of the task division (but not egalitarianism) were, in turn, associated with higher relationship quality and (3) conversations had limited spill-over effects to the next day, stressing the importance of daily coordination. Together, these findings imply that daily household coordination helps parents to overcome traditional gender roles and align with their desired work/family division., (© 2023 The Authors. British Journal of Social Psychology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Psychological Society.)

Gender gaps in academia persist with women being less likely to attain leadership, earning lower salaries, and receiving less research funding and resources compared to their male peers. The current research demonstrates yet another, more intangible gender gap in academia called lack of fit, whereby compared to male academics, female academics perceive higher misfit between their professional self-concept and the agentic 'superhero' stereotype of the successful academic. The entire population of Dutch academics (i.e., assistant, associate, and full professors from 14 universities) was approached to participate in a nationwide survey. Results from this unique dataset (N = 3978) demonstrate that academics perceive agency (e.g., self-confident, self-focused, competitive) as more descriptive of the stereotypical successful academic than communality (e.g., team-oriented, good teacher, collegial). Importantly, early career female academics perceived highest lack of fit with this narrowly-defined agentic occupational stereotype, which was correlated with lower work engagement, professional identification and career efficacy, and higher work exhaustion and exit intentions. Thus, lack of fit seems yet another barrier contributing to pervasive gender gaps in academia. Implications for building more inclusive academic cultures, where not only agentic but also communal academic practice is recognized and rewarded are discussed., (© 2021 The Authors. British Journal of Social Psychology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Psychological Society.)

In the study of women in academia, the focus is often particularly on women's stark underrepresentation in the math-intensive fields of natural sciences, technology, and economics (NTE). In the non-math-intensive of fields life, social and behavioral (LSB) sciences, gender issues are seemingly less at stake because, on average, women are well-represented. However, in the current study, we demonstrate that equal gender representation in LSB disciplines does not guarantee women's equal opportunity to advance to full professorship-to the contrary. With a cross-sectional survey among N  = 2,109 academics at mid-level careers (i.e., assistant and associate professors) in the Netherlands, we test the hypothesis that in LSB (more than NTE), female academics perceive to hit a "thicker" glass ceiling-that is, they see a sharper contrast between the high representation of women at the lower compared to the top levels. We test whether this predicts female academics' lower estimated chances to reach full professorship relative to men in LSB (but not NTE). We introduce a novel perceived glass ceiling index (GCI), calculated based on academics' perceptions of the share of women and men in their direct work environment minus their perceptions of gender ratio among full professors in their field. Results confirm that the perceived glass ceiling is thicker in the non-math-intensive LSB compared to math-intensive NTE fields. Furthermore, only in LSB (but not NTE), women perceived a thicker glass ceiling than men. Moreover, only among female academics, the thicker the perceived glass ceiling, the lower their estimated chances to become full professor 1 day. Combined, a moderated mediation showed that for women only, a thicker perceived glass ceiling in LSB compared to NTE disciplines predicted their lower estimated chances to advance to full professor level. No such mediation occurred for men. We conclude that women's higher numerical representation in LSB disciplines does not negate a male-dominant normative standard about academic leadership and success. Paradoxically, the perceived odds for female academics to reach the top of their field are lower in fields where they are relatively highly represented, and this may pose unique barriers to women's perceived opportunities for career success., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 van Veelen and Derks.)

The very early perceptional processes that underlie social categorization can be detected with event-related brain potentials (ERPs). Using this methodology, the present work aims to detect differential attentional processing of ingroup and outgroup members based on gender categories. Specifically, three EEG studies tested how factors that enhance social identity relevance, namely gender identification and contextual salience of gender representation, moderate neural gender categorization effects. Study 1 showed that both women (Study 1a) and men (Study 1b) were more likely to show preferential attention to ingroup over outgroup members, but only when they identified strongly with their gender group. Study 2 showed that when gender categories in an intergroup leadership context were made salient (i.e., when women were numerically underrepresented versus equally represented compared to men), women, irrespective of their level of gender identification, showed preferential attention to ingroup over outgroup members. Together, this work provides empirical evidence for (1) the neural gender categorization effect among both men and women as soon as 100 ms after face perception and (2) the moderating role of factors that enhance social identity relevance in early gender categorization.

Masculine work contexts form an important source of social identity threat for working women. But what aspect of masculine work contexts is most threatening to women's gender identity at work: A numerical majority of male colleagues (i.e., numerical male dominance), working in a profession in which women are negatively stereotyped (i.e., normative male dominance), or the combination? The current study aimed to disentangle these two aspects of masculine work contexts by testing its combined impact on the experience of gender identity threat among women and men who work in the STEM sector (i.e., Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics). A field study was conducted among women ( N = 177) and men ( N = 630) graduates holding an academic degree in a STEM educational program. Respondents either worked in- or outside the STEM sector (i.e., stronger vs. weaker gender stereotype) and estimated the ratio of men to women in their direct work environment. Results from a Structural Equation Model demonstrated that women in STEM face double trouble: The combination of working almost solely with male colleagues (being outnumbered) and working in the technical sector (where women are negatively stereotyped) predicted the highest levels of experienced gender identity threat, particularly among women who highly identified with their gender group. Gender identity threat, in turn, negatively predicted women's work engagement and career confidence. Men did not face double trouble: Their experience of gender identity threat was not related to working in a masculine STEM sector. Importantly, considering that the women in this sample already hold a degree in STEM, and have proven their competence in STEM and resilience to gender stereotypes, this research reveals how in naturalistic work settings, prevailing social identity threats continue to affect women's professional careers.

In the present article, we propose a dynamic model of the longitudinal predictors and consequences of ingroup identification among newcomers to a social category. We hypothesize a shift in the relative importance of intragroup affiliation as compared with intergroup differentiation for ingroup identification. Two longitudinal studies confirm the theoretical model assessing cross-sectional and longitudinal relationships between ingroup identification and interpersonal attraction, self-prototypicality, and ingroup favoritism at three measurement points during the first 4 months of group membership in two different social categories. Results demonstrate that in the initial phases of group membership, ingroup identification is mainly determined by intragroup affiliation (interpersonal attraction) and that ingroup favoritism starts playing a relevant role later on, when category membership has been established., (© 2016 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.)

Social identification denotes individuals' psychological bond with their ingroup. It is an indispensable construct in research on intragroup and intergroup dynamics. Today's understanding of social identification is firmly grounded in self-stereotyping principles (i.e., assimilation to the ingroup prototype). However, we argue for a more integrative approach to understand social identification, including a more prominent role for the personal self. We present the Integrative Model of Social Identification (IMSI) and postulate that there are two cognitive pathways to self-group overlap that can simultaneously yet distinctly explain social identification: self-stereotyping and self-anchoring (i.e., projection of personal self onto ingroup). We review different theoretical and methodological approaches to both processes and integrate them into one model. Subsequently, we empirically demonstrate the positive relationship between self-stereotyping, self-anchoring, and identification in various group contexts and individuals. In sum, our model highlights the dynamic interplay of personal and social self as cornerstones of social identification., (© 2015 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.)

Upon joining a new social category, group members strive to establish and maintain high social identification. Thus far, we know relatively little about the cognitive underpinnings of social identification when developing from a new to a well-established group member. This research investigates the differential impact of newcomers' self-stereotyping (i.e., assimilation of the self to group stereotypes) and self-anchoring (i.e., projection of self-attributes onto the ingroup) on the development of social identification over time. Across two time points during the academic year, first year psychology students (N = 123) filled in a questionnaire on their perceptions about the self, psychology students, and social identification. Cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses confirmed our hypotheses that self-anchoring instigated new group members' social identification, while self-stereotyping instigated social identification once group membership was more well-established. This research emphasizes the interactive role of the personal and social self in the development of social identification., (© 2013 The British Psychological Society.)

Majority members often react negatively to efforts to stimulate diversity. An important reason for this is that in diverse groups, majority members' own group bond is typically based on perceived prototypicality, which serves to disregard those who are different. In the present research we investigate how majority members' pro-diversity beliefs may be enhanced, by experimentally manipulating how the self is cognitively defined in relation to a diverse group. Specifically, we hypothesize that majority members' focus on the personal self (i.e., self-anchoring) rather than the social self (i.e., self-stereotyping) when creating a group bond may facilitate their pro-diversity beliefs and positive attitudes toward minority members. In two experiments we manipulated self-anchoring and self-stereotyping via mindset priming among ethnic majority members in diverse teams. As expected, results showed that relative to self-stereotyping, majority members' self-anchoring enhanced pro-diversity beliefs and positive attitudes toward minority members.

The present paper investigates how people identify with groups depending on the clarity of a group's identity content. According to self-categorization theory, self-stereotyping (i.e., projection of group prototypes onto self) should be the cognitive process underlying social identification. We argue, however, that this is only plausible in clearly defined groups. If a group is unclear in terms of its identity content, we argue that self-anchoring (i.e., projection of personal self onto group) accounts for social identification. In line with these hypotheses, two studies (with minimal and real groups) reveal that self-anchoring positively predicts the level of social identification and entitativity in unclearly, but not clearly defined groups. Conversely, self-stereotyping positively predicts the level of social identification in clearly, but not unclearly defined groups. Together, these findings are the first to demonstrate the differential impact of cognitive projection processes on social identification depending on group clarity., (© 2012 The British Psychological Society.)