The complex fight for gender equality in the workplace: affirmative actions and ambivalences

• Ano de defesa: 2022
• Autor(a) principal: Rezende, Julia Pereira
• Orientador(a): Story, Joana
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: eng
• Palavras-chave em Português: Sexismo benevolente; Fundamentos morais; Ações afirmativas; Normas de gênero; Desigualdade de gênero no trabalho; Segregação ocupacional de gênero
• Palavras-chave em Inglês: Benevolent sexism; Moral foundations; Affirmative action; Gender norms; Workplace gender inequality; Occupational gender segregation
• Link de acesso: https://hdl.handle.net/10438/32389

There have been many studies on gender inequalities in the workplace. Some have focused on prejudiced behaviors that act as both an antecedent and consequence of this structural problem. Specifically, they look at the role that affirmative action programs or gender quotas have in addressing this issue. In this paper, we examined the antecedents of gender-based affirmative actions by using theoretical lenses such as Ambivalent Sexism and Moral Foundations. These theories assess nuanced versions of sexism and morality in order to better capture differences in how people react to such programs. Therefore, we tested if people scoring higher in benevolent sexism are more likely to support affirmative action programs that promote women in positions seen as feminine (rather than masculine), which would potentially lead to long term results of gender segregation instead of inclusion and equality in the workplace. We also tested if gender, moral foundations and being in a position of leadership moderate this relationship. Using a sample of 180 participants and a time-lag design we found that there is a significant relationship between benevolent sexism and support for an affirmative action program. However, we did not find a moderating effect of moral foundation, gender, and leadership position. We also found that the use of validated scales for ambivalent sexism and moral foundations exposed challenges around external validity as it came to a more diverse sampled population. Implications for theory and practice finish this paper.