| Popis: |
Decades of research, and even the Federal government, have recognized the existence of the so-called glass ceiling (U. S. Department of Labor, 1991). Some contemporary investigations have speculated that women are discriminated against in the workplace when there is a misalignment between the type job or job requirements and the stereotypical traits associated with sex and gender (Heilman, 1983; Eagly & Karau, 2002). However, such explanations are invalidated when considering males who work in female-dominated or feminine gender-typed jobs. The preferential treatment of men in female-dominated jobs has come to be known as the glass escalator (Williams, 1992). The glass escalator phenomenon stands in contrast to theories and hypotheses that suggest norm violations are responsible for backlash against individuals who pursue out-of-role careers (i.e., male nurses or female managers). Additional research is needed to explain the differences between male and female norm violation effects. To achieve this goal, the current study modified and extended the penalties for success research conducted by Heilman et al. (2004) to include reactions to males who pursue work in feminine gender-typed jobs. A secondary objective of the current study was to examine a potential explanation as to why male norm violators might be viewed more positively than female norm violators. It was predicted that males in feminine gender-typed jobs would not only be perceived as possessing both the positively valenced masculine, agentic traits associated with their sex, but also the positive communal traits associated with the job gender-type. Results of this investigation revealed that at the multivariate level there was a significant interaction between the sex of the target and the gender-type of the job. The pattern of means revealed that female norm abiders were rated the most favorably, followed next by male norm-violators, then male norm-abiders with female norm violators viewed the least favorably. However, the follow-up univariate analyses for each of the dependent variables were non-significant. Whereas the pattern of means for female norm violators is consistent with norm violation explanations for workplace discrimination, the pattern for male norm violators is not. Implications and limitations of the current study are discussed. |
