Open Collections

Aday, Audrey

University of British Columbia

Gender gaps systemizing and empathizing interest are often cited to explain broader patterns of gender segregation. The present work examines situational affordances as a key mechanism for sustaining gender gaps in interest. Drawing on theories of psychological essentialism, I test how primarily biological (vs. sociocultural) explanations for gender differences in interest inform situational affordances in measurement (Chapter 2) and the workplace (Chapter 3) in ways that perpetuate the interest gap and contribute to gender segregation. In Chapter 2 (Studies 1-3), I examine popular self-report measures of systemizing (SQ) and empathizing (EQ) that are often assumed to reflect biological differences. Study 1 (N = 624) first estimated gender differences on the EQ and SQ in large representative samples. Both lay coders (Study 2, N = 199) and psychology journal reviewers (Study 3, N = 116) rated SQ and EQ item activities as being more learned (vs. innate) and believed men are given more systemizing, and women given more empathizing (Study 3 only), affordances. Items showing the largest gender differences in Study 1 were those rated as having the most gendered affordances (more than gendered genetic advantages). In Chapter 3 (Studies 4-6), I test how people’s explanations for gender gaps in interest drive situational affordances in the workplace. In Study 4 (N = 285), professionals of all genders who endorsed a primarily biological (vs. social) explanation for gender differences in interest were more likely to provide women with empathizing, and men with systemizing, affordances. I replicated Study 4’s results experimentally with men in Study 5 (N = 379). In Study 6 (N = 300), women who received gendered (vs. counter-gendered) situational affordances based on the selections of participants in Study 4 shifted their interests toward empathizing and chose more empathizing work assignments. In contrast, women who received counter-gendered (vs. gendered) situational affordances shifted their interests toward systemizing and chose empathizing and systemizing work assignments equally. Together, this body of work highlights situational affordances, driven by essentialist explanations for the interest gap, as a key contributor to gender gaps in interest and occupational pursuits.

Text

2023-08-22

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International

http://hdl.handle.net/2429/85568

Psychology

University of British Columbia

UBCV

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/