Zero‐Sum Thinking and the Masculinity Contest: Perceived Intergroup Competition and Workplace Gender Bias

Abstract

Gender‐based zero‐sum thinking reflects beliefs that women's status gains correspond directly with men's status losses. These beliefs may help explain people's resistance to gender equity. Here, two studies examined the association between men's zero‐sum thinking and workplace gender biases. In Study 1, men (N = 235) employed in workplaces with stronger masculinity contest norms reported observing stronger bias against women in the workplace, and this effect was mediated by an increase in their own zero‐sum thinking. In Study 2, college students (N = 269) read information that either threatened or affirmed the gender status hierarchy and then reported their zero‐sum thinking and their support for gender fair workplace policies that undermine the masculinity contest. Men, but not women, reduced support for gender fair policies following a gender hierarchy threat, and this effect was mediated by an increase in their zero‐sum thinking. Discussion considers the workplace policy implications of these findings.

Work as a Masculinity Contest

“…Kuchynka at al. () explored how men respond to system level threats to gender hierarchy, i.e., when men's in‐group advantage is jeopardized. Specifically, they examined whether women's workplace advances elicited gender‐based, zero‐sum thinking (“women's gains equal men's losses”) among men.…”

“…It examines how even when “what it takes to succeed” in most workplaces may appear neutral on the surface, these values may in actuality engage gender identities so that “real men” are the ones most likely to thrive. In this article, we conceptualized MCCs in organizations, and the following papers develop and validate a measure to study them (Glick et al., ), examine some of their consequences (Alonso, ; Glick et al., ; Matos et al., ; Rawski & Workman‐Stark, ), explain why they persist (Kuchynka et al, ; Munsch et al., ), show how MCCs may vary by occupation (Reid et al., ), and discuss what might be done to address or change them (Ely & Kimmel, ; Rawski & Workman‐Stark, ).…”

“…This introductory article outlines a theoretical framework for thinking about MCCs. Subsequent papers in this special issue represent initial studies into measuring MCCs (Glick et al., ), assessing their consequences (Alonso, ; Glick et al., ; Matos, O'Neill, and Lei, ; Reid, O'Neill & Blair‐Loy, ; Rawski & Workman‐Stark, ), analyzing their ideological underpinnings (Kuchynka, Bosson, Vandello, & Puryear, ; Munsch, Weaver, Bosson, & O'Connor, ), and considering potential interventions (Ely & Kimmel, ; Rawski & Workman‐Stark, ).…”

Country‐level and individual‐level predictors of men's support for gender equality in 42 countries

“…In the context of gender, those higher in zero-sum thinking view women's gains as directly related to men's losses (e.g., in status, power, and the workplace; Ruthig et al, 2017). In general, men endorse zero-sum thinking about gender more strongly than women do (Bosson, Vandello, Michniewicz, & Lenes, 2012;Kuchynka, Bosson, Vandello, & Puryear, 2018;Wilkins, Wellman, Babbitt, Toosi, & Schad, 2015), indicating that men relative to women generally view gender group relations in a competitive "us vs. them" manner. This may be because menas members of the higher status gender group across countries (Brown, 1991;World Economic Forum, 2018) have more to lose, materially, if the gender hierarchy should change or reverse.…”

“…In particular, longitudinal and experimental designs will be essential in further tests of our model. Kuchynka et al (2018) already found that experimentally manipulated reminders of women's progress heightened men's zero-sum beliefs about gender and accordingly reduced their support for workplace gender equity policies. However, it will be important to replicate this experimental finding cross-culturally.…”