Can't Catch a Break: Intersectional Inequalities at Work

The labor market is the site of longstanding and persistent inequalities across race and gender groups in hiring, compensation, and advancement. In this paper, we draw on data from 13,574 hourly service-sector workers to extend the study of intersectional labor market inequalities to workers' experience on the job. In the service sector, where workers are regularly expected to be on their feet for long hours and to contend with workloads that are intense and unrelenting, regular break time is an essential component of job quality and general well-being. Yet, we find that Black women are less likely than their counterparts to get a break during their work shift. Although union membership and laws mandating work breaks are effective in increasing access to breaks for workers overall, they do not ameliorate the inequality Black women face in access to work breaks within the service sector. A sobering implication is that worker power and labor protections can raise the floor on working conditions but leave inequalities intact. Our findings also have implications for racial health inequalities, as the routine daily stress of service sector takes a disproportionate toll on the health of Black women.

"When" Versus "Whether" Gender/Sex Differences: Insights From Psychological Research on Negotiation, Risk-Taking, and Leadership

We present a conceptual framework of situational moderators of gender/sex effects in negotiation, risk-taking, and leadership-three masculine-stereotypic domains associated with gender/sex gaps in pay and authority. We propose that greater situational ambiguity and higher relevance and salience of gender/sex increase the likelihood of gender/sex-linked behaviors in these domains. We argue that greater ambiguity increases the extent to which actors and audiences must search inwardly (e.g., mental schema, past experience) or outwardly (e.g., social norms) for cues on how to behave or evaluate a situation and thereby widens the door for gender/sex-linked influences. Correspondingly, we propose that gender/sex effects on behavior and evaluations in these domains will be more likely when gender/sex is more relevant and salient to the setting or task. We propose further that these two situational moderators may work jointly or interactively to influence the likelihood of gender/sex effects in negotiation, risk-taking, and leadership. We conclude by discussing applications of our conceptual framework to psychological science and its translation to practice, including directions for future research.

Gender, Sex and Desk-Based Postural Behaviour: A systematic review re-interpreting biomechanical evidence from a social perspective

BACKGROUND

Biomechanical and pain prevalence differences between sex/gender groups are frequently attributed to biological differences between sexes without considering the influence of socially-constructed gender. This may lead to interventions which are insufficient and culturally unresponsive. This review reinterprets the evidence regarding differences in desk-based postural behaviour between sex/gender groups from a gender-based perspective.

METHODS

Four prominent databases were searched using terms such as 'desk based', 'posture', and 'position'. Articles were included if they objectively investigated desk-based positional variability, postural variability and/or habitual alignment in healthy adults.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included. Differences were found in postural variability and habitual alignment between sex/gender groups and were not explored from a gender-based perspective.

CONCLUSION

Gender-based expectations regarding 'acceptable' posture and movement likely contribute to biomechanical and pain differences between genders. This should be considered by clinicians intending to affect patients' movement and postural patterns and by researchers working in this space.

Embracing Complexity: A Review of Negotiation Research

In this review, we identify emerging trends in negotiation scholarship that embrace complexity, finding moderators of effects that were initially described as monolithic, examining the nuances of social interaction, and studying negotiation as it occurs in the real world. We also identify areas in which research is lacking and call for scholarship that offers practical advice. All told, the existing research highlights negotiation as an exciting context for examining human behavior, characterized by features such as strong emotions, an intriguing blend of cooperation and competition, the presence of fundamental issues such as power and group identity, and outcomes that deeply affect the trajectory of people's personal and professional lives.

The fear of conflict leads people to systematically avoid potentially valuable zero-sum situations

From interpersonal interactions to international arms races, game theorists and social scientists have long studied decision-making in zero-sum situations. Yet, what happens when people can freely choose whether to enter zero-sum situations in the first place? Thirteen studies (including five pre-registered) consistently document evidence for zero-sum aversion-the desire to avoid situations that are (or are believed to be) zero-sum. Across different contexts (economic games, market entry decisions, performance reviews, negotiations, job applications), samples (online participant pool, MBA students, community sample), and designs (within- and between-participant, real and hypothetical decisions), people avoid zero-sum situations that inversely link their and others' outcomes as well as refrain from putting others in such situations. Because people fear that zero-sum situations will be rife with conflict, they exhibit zero-sum aversion even when doing so is costly. Finally, we find that people require zero-sum situations to provide substantially higher payoffs (e.g., compensation) to overcome their zero-sum aversion. We conclude with a discussion of the implications for interpersonal and intergroup conflict.

Are Strategies for Women in Compensation Negotiations More Appealing When It Is Explained How They Are Meant to Impact Negotiation Outcomes?

Women perceive specific strategies developed to support their performance in compensation negotiations as ineffective and are unlikely to use them—suggesting an implementation gap. We examined whether providing theoretical rationales—explaining how specific strategies are meant to work—attenuates this gap. Furthermore, we explored a novel cause of it: women's expectations regarding the perpetuation of gender roles upon using a strategy. In two studies ( N = 1,254), we observed that regardless of the provision of the rationales, women expected all examined specific strategies to be less economically effective and most of them to perpetuate gender roles more than regular assertiveness. Moreover, especially women's expectations regarding economic outcomes decreased their intentions to use most specific strategies. Women also expected most specific strategies to lead to less favorable social evaluations than yielding, which again led to their lower intentions to use them. Altogether, negotiation trainers and educators should consider that explaining how specific strategies are meant to work is not enough to close the implementation gap and to reduce gender inequality in negotiations. To attenuate the implementation gap, they may need to enable women to more fully experience how using specific strategies can improve their negotiation performance. Additional online materials for this article are available on PWQ's website at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/03616843221128484 .

What’s Race Got to Do with It? The Interactive Effect of Race and Gender on Negotiation Offers and Outcomes

Research suggests that women negotiators tend to obtain worse outcomes than men; however, we argue this finding does not apply to all women. Integrating research on social hierarchies, gender in negotiations, and intersectional stereotype content, we develop a theoretical framework that explains the interactive effect of race and gender on offers and outcomes received in distributive negotiations. With a focus on Black and White women and men negotiators, we predicted that stereotypes related to their race and gender lead Black women negotiators to receive more favorable negotiation offers and outcomes than White women and Black men negotiators and this effect is explained by ascriptions of dominance and prestige, respectively. Results of three experimental studies involving diverse samples—online panel participants, individuals selling items on Craigslist, and MBA students—support these predictions. More specifically, we find that Black women negotiators are perceived as more dominant than White women negotiators, and Black women negotiators are ascribed greater prestige than Black men negotiators. These ascriptions allow Black women negotiators to receive more favorable negotiation offers and outcomes compared with White women and Black men. These findings highlight the importance of jointly considering the influence of race and gender in negotiations.

Intersectional Invisibility in Women's Diversity Interventions

Many diversity interventions for women are ineffective. One reason for this may be that the field that diversity interventions are usually based on, the social sciences, often do not consider intra-group differences among women. Specifically, differences by racialization may be excluded from such diversity interventions. The present research examines whether racially marginalized women have different diversity interventions needs than White women, and whether organizations are less likely to represent those needs (i.e., intersectional invisibility). Across an open-ended coding (n = 293) and a ranking study (n = 489), Black women noted a need to incorporate intersectional differences, Asian women prioritized methods to address challenges to their authority, and White women indicated a need to address agency perceptions. Improving work-life balance and networks was a shared concern among participants, though we theorized different racially gendered reasons for why these intervention needs are relevant to each group. In Study 3 (n = 92 organizations), we analyzed organizations’ websites using word count and textual analysis. Organizations— including the Education, Science, and Research sector— most readily advocated for women through enhancing agency. They were also less likely to mention dealing with perceptions of excessive agency or addressing intersectional considerations. The organizations broadly mentioned other marginalized groups besides women, but rarely did they do so intersectionality. Taken together, our findings demonstrate different intervention priorities across differently racialized groups. We found evidence of intersectional invisibility where organizations were more likely to address agency-enhancing intervention needs while failing to include other intervention needs relevant for Black women and Asian women. We discuss the implications of these findings for organizations, in general, as well as potential implications for the field of academic social sciences.

When Gender Matters in Organizational Negotiations

A person's gender is not a reliable predictor of their negotiation behavior or outcomes, because the degree and character of gender dynamics in negotiation vary across situations. Systematic effects of gender on negotiation are best predicted by situational characteristics that cue gendered behavior or increase reliance on gendered standards for agreement. In this review, we illuminate two levers that heighten or constrain the potential for gender effects in organizational negotiations: ( a) the salience and relevance of gender within the negotiating context and ( b) the degree of ambiguity (i.e., lack of objective standards or information) with regard to what is negotiable, how to negotiate, or who the parties are as negotiators. In our summary, we review practical implications of this research for organizational leaders and individuals who are motivated to reduce gender-based inequities in negotiation outcomes. In conclusion, we suggest future directions for research on gender in organizational negotiations.

An Exploratory Study of Gender Role Stress and Psychological Distress of Women in Kosovo

INTRODUCTION

Although investigations of changing gender roles have been performed globally, most studies have been conducted in high-income countries, and studies from emerging and developing countries are lacking. This study aims to examine the factor structure of the feminine gender role stress scale among women (FGRS) and explore its relationship with psychological distress (PD).

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was carried out with 656 women from Kosovo using a convenience sampling technique during October 2017 and March 2018. The data were collected through face-to-face interviews and analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 21 and Mplus 7.3. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and path analysis were used to understand the goodness-of-fit of the FGRS scale in the Kosovo context and explore the relationship between the FGRS scale and PD when treated as latent variables. Multivariance analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to understand the differences between groups of women based on employment and FGRS. Multinomial logistic regression was used to assess the prediction of different domains of FGRS for PD separately for each category while controlling for age.

RESULTS

After demonstrating that the five-factor model of the FGRS showed a good fit to the data in this sample of Kosovo women, analyses revealed that the FGRS domains (fear of victimization and behaving with assertiveness) were positively associated with psychological distress.

CONCLUSION

The findings validate the usefulness of the FGRS scale in a sample of Kosovar women. The intersectionality perspective was used to interpret the importance of multiple layers of vulnerabilities and their coexistence, including education, socioeconomic status, and their implications for health inequalities.

An investigation of quantitative methods for assessing intersectionality in health research: A systematic review

Intersectionality is a theoretical framework that investigates how interlocking systems of power and oppression at the societal level influence the lived experiences of historically and socially marginalized groups. Currently, there are no consistent or widely adopted quantitative methods to investigate research questions informed by intersectionality theory. The objective of this systematic review is to describe the current landscape of quantitative methods used to assess intersectionality and to provide recommendations on analytic best practices for future research. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Web of Science in December 2019 to identify studies using analytic quantitative intersectionality approaches published up to December 2019 (PROSPERO CRD42020162686). To be included in the study, articles had to: (1) be empirical research, (2) use a quantitative statistical method, (3) be published in English, and (4) incorporate intersectionality. Our initial search yielded 1889 articles. After screening by title/abstract, methods, and full text review, our final analytic sample included 153 papers. Eight unique classes of quantitative methods were identified, with the majority of studies employing regression with an interaction term. We additionally identified several methods which appear to be at odds with the key tenets of intersectionality. As quantitative intersectionality continues to expand, careful attention is needed to avoid the dilution of the core tenets. Specifically, emphasis on social power is needed as methods continue to be adopted and developed. Additionally, clear explanation of the selection of statistical approaches is needed and, when using regression with interaction terms, researchers should opt for use of the additive scale. Finally, use of methods that are potentially at odds with the tenets of intersectionality should be avoided.

Beyond biology: The importance of cultural factors in explaining gender disparities in STEM preferences

Gender disparities in participation in many STEM fields, particularly computer science, engineering, and physics, remain prevalent in Western societies. Stewart-Williams and Halsey contend that an important contributor to these disparities is gender differences in career-related preferences that are driven partly by biology. We argue that Stewart-Williams and Halsey understate the influence of cultural factors in shaping these preferences. We provide evidence for an important and overlooked cultural factor that contributes to gender disparities in computer science, engineering, and physics: masculine defaults. Masculine defaults exist when cultures value and reward traits and characteristics associated with the male gender role and see them as standard ( Cheryan & Markus, 2020 ). We provide examples of how changing computer science, engineering, and physics cultures can decrease gender disparities in participation. Finally, we discuss policy implications, specifically the importance of (1) recognizing that preferences for STEM are malleable and (2) addressing exclusionary cultures of STEM fields. Recognizing and changing exclusionary STEM cultures are important for creating a society that is more just and equitable.

Exploring the Odds: Gender Differences in Departing the Engineering Profession

Women’s departure or nonentrance into science, technology, engineering, and mathematics professions, particularly engineering, has been a lively source of scholarly inquiry for the past three decades. Much of the literature in this area has been with solely female samples of participants, begging the question as to whether or not men and women either choose to leave the profession or not enter for the same or similar reasons. This present study collected a large sample of men ( n = 1,273) who had either left or never entered the engineering profession and compared their responses to a large sample of women ( n = 1,235) on a set of categorical response variables. Using the perspective of the Theory of Work Adjustment, our results suggest that there are gender differences in reasons for departure, raising the possibility that engineering climates differentially reinforce needs for men and women. Implications of this research are discussed.