Gender Stereotypes and Gender-

Typed Work

Heather M. Clarke

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Occupational Segregation by Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Occupational Preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
The Gender Pay Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Gender-Based Occupational Stereotypes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Gender Bias in Employment-Related Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Theories Explaining Gender Bias . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Women Doing Men’s Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Men Doing Women’s Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
The Influence of Sexual Orientation on Gender Bias . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Abstract
The persistence of the gender-typing of work, as well as its implications, is
substantiated by empirical and experimental data and by court decisions.
Gender-typed work is work that is numerically or normatively dominated by
one gender. Occupational segregation by gender results in occupations that are
numerically dominated by either men or women. The data and literature reviewed
herein indicate that industries, occupations, and the organizational hierarchy
remain segregated by gender, and this segregation perpetuates gender inequality
in status and pay. Numerical domination of an occupation by one gender produces
an archetype of the worker in that occupation as being of the gender that is
predominant, hence giving rise to normative domination. Presumptions then arise

H. M. Clarke (*)
Austin E. Cofrin School of Business, University of Wisconsin – Green Bay, Green Bay, WI, USA
e-mail: clarkeh@uwgb.edu

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 1

K. F. Zimmermann (ed.), Handbook of Labor, Human Resources and Population
Economics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57365-6_21-1
2 H. M. Clarke

about the attributes necessary to be successful in that occupation. When there is

an incongruency between the gender stereotypes of an individual and the gender-
based occupational stereotypes of their occupation, bias and employment dis-
crimination can manifest. This review demonstrates that, rather than being an
anachronistic concept, gender-typed work persists today as does the bias that
results from the interaction of gender stereotypes with job gender-types. Gender-
typed work is an area in need of further scholarly investigation to dig deeper into
the boundary conditions that facilitate or inhibit gender-based bias in work
workplace.

Introduction

At first glance, a discussion of gender-typed work in the year 2019 may appear
anachronistic. Surely, we have left in the past an era when certain occupations are
deemed appropriate for women and others for men. Today, in the United States,
women are graduating high school and earning undergraduate and graduate degrees
at higher rates than men and this gender gap is increasing. Yet women’s salaries and
organizational ranks continue to lag those of men (BLS 2018). If women are equally
skilled and equally qualified, why have they not attained equal status or remunera-
tion? As evidenced by the research discussed in this review, one reason is the gender-
typing of work.
Gender typed work is work that is numerically or normatively dominated by one
gender. That is, gender-typed work is that which we associate primarily with one
gender either because one gender is numerically predominant in that occupation
(i.e., occupational segregation by gender) or because we believe the work requires
attributes that we stereotypically associate with one gender (i.e., gender-based
occupational stereotypes). Although gender segregation in the workplace is pro-
hibited sex discrimination, recent empirical data confirms that occupational segre-
gation by gender persists (United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) 2018).
Research also indicates that we continue to associate certain occupations with men
and others with women (e.g., Hancock et al. 2020).
When the gender stereotypes of a job candidate or incumbent are incongruent
with the gender-based stereotypes of their occupation, it can result in gender bias.
Studies demonstrating the bias that results from the interaction of gender stereotypes
and occupational stereotypes have spanned decades, with a number of meta-analyses
substantiating bias against women in male-typed occupations (e.g., Koch et al.
2015). Basing employment-related decisions on gender stereotypes was deemed a
form of illegal sex discrimination by the United States Supreme Court in the seminal
case of Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989). Despite 30 years of legal sanctions and
decades of research on gender-typed work, gender-based bias and discrimination in
employment continue.
Gender Stereotypes and Gender-Typed Work 3

Occupational Segregation by Gender

One way that work becomes gender-typed is through occupational segregation by

gender. Gender segregation in employment manifests in two ways: vertically and
horizontally (Fortin and Huberman 2002). Horizontal segregation by gender refers to
the numerical domination of an occupation by one gender. For example, the nursing
profession has traditionally been a female-dominated occupation. The utilization of
the term “male nurse” indicates that it is an aberration for men to occupy this role.
One of the most significant implications of horizontal occupational segregation by
gender is that it relegates women to lower status, lower paying jobs. Vertical gender
segregation refers to the separation of genders by hierarchical level of jobs or roles in
organizations, with increasingly higher levels of leadership becoming increasingly
male-dominated. Vertical segregation has the effect of blocking women from
attaining higher level managerial or executive positions. Even within female-typed
occupations, women tend not to ascend to management positions as quickly as
their male counterparts do. This has been referred to as the glass escalator
(Williams 1992).
In the United States, the overall rate of participation in paid work is now equal
across genders but continues to vary by industry, occupation, subfields within
occupations, and hierarchical levels within organizations (BLS 2018; Heilman
2012). Segregation decreased substantially over the period of 1970–2009, but it
decreased at a declining rate until it plateaued around the year 2000 (Blau et al.
2013). Segregation declined by only 1.1% over the period from 2000 to 2009 (Blau
et al. 2013). Further, the decrease was largely in one direction with more women
entering jobs traditionally held by men than men moving into jobs traditionally held
by women, likely due to the devaluation of women’s work. Work traditionally
performed by women is generally lower paid and viewed as less prestigious than
occupations traditionally held by men. Women therefore have more incentive to
enter male-typed occupations than men have to enter female-typed occupations.
The BLS (2018) data summarized in Table 1 lists the five most male- and female-
typed occupations within each major occupational grouping in 2017. As evidenced
by the data, women were more likely than men to work in professional occupations,
but less likely than men to work in the higher paying professional occupations.
Women also more heavily populated lower paying education and healthcare jobs,
rather than higher paying computer and engineering jobs. Further, women consti-
tuted the majority in office and administrative support jobs while construction,
production, and transportation jobs were numerically dominated by men.
In 2017, women occupied 44% of management positions in the United States
(BLS 2018); however, women’s representation in management was both horizon-
tally and vertically segregated. There were greater numbers of female managers in
some fields than others: 77.9% of human resource managers were female but only
7.7% of construction managers were female. With respect to vertical segregation,
women held only 26.9% of chief executive positions. The number of female CEO’s
of Fortune 500 companies reportedly reached a record high of 6.4% in 2017 only to
drop to 4.8% in 2018 (Miller 2018). In fact, women hold less that 5% of CEO
4 H. M. Clarke

Table 1 Fivea most male- and female-typed occupations in each major occupational grouping
(BLS 2018)
Major Total Percentage of
occupational Gender- workers workers that
grouping type Occupationb (000 s) are womenc
Management, Female Meeting, convention, and event 102 87.3%
business, and planners
financial Fundraisers 72 76.4
operations Human resources workers 664 72.6
Medical and health services 610 71.0
managers
Social and community service 337 70.0
managers
Male Architectural and engineering 128 07.8
managers
Construction managers 582 09.6
Cost estimators 113 11.5
Farmers, ranchers, and other 121 17.4
agricultural managers
Transportation, storage, and 274 17.9
distribution managers
Professional and Female Preschool and kindergarten 530 97.7
related teachers
Speech-language pathologists 106 96.2
Dental hygienists 78 93.6
Medical records and health 151 92.7
information technicians
Nurse practitioners 141 91.5
Male Computer network architects 100 03.0
Surveying and mapping 63 03.2
technicians
Aerospace engineers 137 06.6
Mechanical engineers 337 07.7
Electrical and electronics 276 10.9
engineers
Service Female Dental Assistants 215 94.4
Hairdressers, hairstylists, and 324 93.2
cosmetologists
Childcare workers 448 92.2
Medical assistants 457 91.5
Nursing, psychiatric, and home 1,387 88.2
health aides
Male Firefighters 272 02.9
Grounds maintenance workers 837 03.7
Pest control workers 94 05.3
111 08.1
(continued)
Gender Stereotypes and Gender-Typed Work 5

Table 1 (continued)
Major Total Percentage of
occupational Gender- workers workers that
grouping type Occupationb (000 s) are womenc
First-line supervisor of
landscaping, lawn service, and
groundskeeping workers
Police and sheriff’s patrol 688 13.7
officers
Sales and related Female Travel agents 57 82.5
Cashiers 1,360 72.2
Real estate brokers and sales 488 55.1
agents
Insurance sales agents 440 55.0
Advertising sales agents 193 54.9
Male Parts salespersons 115 06.1
Sales representatives, services, 458 26.2
all other
Sales representatives, wholesale 1,105 27.9
and manufacturing
Securities, commodities, and 231 33.3
financial services sales agents
First-line supervisors of 815 33.6
non-retail sales workers
Office and Female Secretaries and administrative 2,165 94.5
administrative assistants
support Receptionists and information 892 92.6
clerks
Word processors and typists 80 90.0
Tellers 209 88.0
Bookkeeping, accounting, and 718 87.0
auditing clerks
Male Couriers and messengers 155 15.5
Shipping, receiving, and traffic 544 30.3
clerks
Stock clerks and order fillers 982 34.5
Postal service mail carriers 266 40.6
Natural resources, Female Graders and sorters, agricultural 99 67.7
construction, and products
maintenance Male Brickmasons, blockmasons, 121 <0.1
and stonemasons
Roofers 174 <0.1
Miscellaneous vehicle and 64 <0.1
mobile equipment mechanics,
installers, and repairers
Electrical powerline installers 132 <0.1
and repairers
124 0.8
(continued)
6 H. M. Clarke

Table 1 (continued)
Major Total Percentage of
occupational Gender- workers workers that
grouping type Occupationb (000 s) are womenc
Automotive body and related
repairers
Production, Female Laundry and dry-cleaning 106 74.5
transportation, and workers
materials moving Flight attendants 71 71.8
Medical, dental, and 57 70.2
ophthalmic laboratory
technicians
Sewing machine operators 70 68.8
Food batch workers 157 54.3
Male Crane and tower operators 52 01.9
Welding, soldering, and brazing 542 04.4
workers
Machinists 343 04.7
Water and wastewater treatment 107 04.7
plant and system operators
Driver/sales workers and truck 2,828 04.9
drivers
Notes:
a
In a few cases, there were less than 5 female-typed or male-typed occupations in a group
b
Only occupations with at least 50,000 workers are included in this table
c
Figures are author’s calculations from data on BLS (2018)

positions in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Europe (Edgecliffe-Johnson
2018). Kaplan and Sorensen (2017) analyzing assessments of 2,600 executives
found no significant differences between the abilities and skills of males and females
yet females were much less likely to become CEOs.
If women possessed the same skills and abilities, why were they much less likely
obtain higher level management and executive positions? Some research suggests
that women have less interest in leadership positions than men (e.g., Sheppard 2018).
Does occupational segregation, horizontal or vertical, manifest because men and
women are making different career choices?

Occupational Preference

A large-scale longitudinal study conducted in Sweden examined whether there were

differences in the academic strengths of adolescent girls and boys and whether these
differences predicted later career choices (Dekhtyar et al. 2018). The study’s findings
indicated that 16-year-old females were more likely than boys to demonstrate a
greater strength in verbal skills relative to quantitative skills, while boys were more
likely to have stronger quantitative skills than verbal skills. Individuals also tended
Gender Stereotypes and Gender-Typed Work 7

to choose a career with cognitive requirements congruent with their academic

strengths. Although academic strengths at age 16 years predicted career choice at
age 32, it did not for girls with a relevant strength in quantitative skills, presumably
because those careers are male-typed and dominated by men.
In the United States, women earn the majority of university degrees. In
2014–2015, women earned 57.3% of bachelor’s degrees, 59.4% of master’s degrees,
and 53.3% of doctoral degrees (National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)
2018). Historically there has been gender segregation by field of study, with women
earning a majority of the degrees in such areas as education, library science, and
health professions, and men earning a large majority of the degrees in such areas as
engineering, business, and physical sciences (Jacobs 1995). Today, women still earn
the majority of undergraduate degrees in education (81.1%), health professions
(84.1%), and library science (89.9%), and still earn a minority of the degrees in
engineering (21.5%), physical sciences (39.7%), and business (47.1%, NCES 2018).
Research on gender as a predictor of career interest has produced inconsistent
findings. Some studies have found that men place greater importance on salary,
opportunities for advancement, and job security (e.g., Sinisalo 2004), while other
studies have found no gender differences in preferences for these attributes (e.g.,
Rottinghaus and Zytowski 2006). Such inconsistent findings may be due to
unidentified boundary conditions necessary for one to opt for a gender-stereotypical
career. For instance, career choice is also influenced by the extent to which an
individual possesses gender stereotype-congruent personality traits (Dinella et al.
2014). Thus, women high in communal traits would be more likely to enter a female-
typed career. Dinella et al. (2014) also found that women who felt pressure to
conform to the female gender stereotype, a dimension of gender identity, possessed
more interest in traditional female-typed careers.
Occupational preferences, then, are likely influenced by individual characteristics
like personality and ability, labor market factors, and social norms regarding gen-
dered behaviors.

The Gender Pay Gap

Occupational segregation by gender has a number of significant implications.

Organizations with a workforce dominated by one gender may not acquire valuable
human capital that members of the minority group may possess (Dinella et al. 2014).
Another significant implication of occupational segregation by gender is its contri-
bution to the gender pay gap and obstructing women’s entry into higher paying jobs.
Female-typed occupations are generally viewed as being less prestigious, afforded
less status, and lower paid. Researchers have found female-typed jobs to be paid less
than male-typed jobs even after controlling for the education and skill required by
the job (Levanon et al. 2009).
Occupational segregation by gender is a significant contributor to the gender
wage gap. Experimental research has demonstrated that individuals will allocate a
lower salary to a female-typed job than a male-typed job, notwithstanding the jobs
8 H. M. Clarke

Table 2 Gender distribution and earnings across major occupational grouping (BLS 2018)
Median Percentage of Women’s earnings
Major occupational Total workers weekly workers that are as percentage of
grouping (in thousands) earnings women men’s
Management, 19, 414 $1,327 46.4 74.3
business, and
financial operations
Professional and 27, 794 1,160 55.4 72.9
related
service 16,044 544 50.2 82.4
Sales and related 9,953 763 43.8 65.2
office and 13,733 701 71.7 94
administrative
support
Natural resources, 11,509 801 4.5 71.6
construction, and
maintenance
Production, 14,825 692 21 74
transportation, and
materials moving

requiring identical responsibilities and duties (e.g., clerk in a hardware store (male-
typed) versus clerk in a china/crystal store (female-typed)) (Alksnin et al. 2008).
Female-typed occupations lag male-typed occupations not only in material rewards
but also job quality, including security, autonomy, and working conditions (Stier and
Yaish 2014).
In the United States, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the majority of the
gains that women made in closing the gender pay gap occurred in the 1980s and
1990s, and essentially no gains have been made since 2004 (BLS 2018). Researchers
have argued that the decrease in the gender pay gap resulted from more women
entering higher paid male-typed occupations, rather than from increased pay in
female-typed occupations (England and Folbre 2005). In 2017, among full-time
workers 16 years and older, women had median earnings only 81.8% that of men
(BLS 2018). Table 2 below reports women’s earnings as a percentage of men’s in
each major occupational grouping in 2017. Tables 3 and 4 show the percentage of
women in the ten highest and lowest paying jobs, respectively. A perusal of the data
reveals that women formed a minority in seven of the ten highest paying occupations
and a majority in seven of the ten lowest paying occupations.

Gender-Based Occupational Stereotypes

Occupational segregation creates assumptions about the gendered attributes required

to be successful in a given occupation. Those gendered attributes are stereotypically
assigned to the gender that predominates the occupation. Gender segregation and
job-gender type (gender-based occupational stereotypes) are highly correlated but
Gender Stereotypes and Gender-Typed Work 9

Table 3 Gender distribution and earnings in the ten top paying occupations (BLS 2018)
Median
Total workers weekly Percentage of workers
Occupation (in thousands) earnings that are women
Chief executives 1,136 $2,296 27.6
Architectural and engineering 128 1,999 7.8
managers
Pharmacists 254 1,923 57.9
Physicians and surgeons 815 1,918 43.2
Lawyers 781 1,901 43.1
Aerospace engineers 137 1,892 6.6
Nurse practitioner 141 1,841 91.5
Veterinarians 60 1,840 66.7
Electrical and electronics 276 1,803 10.9
engineers
Software developers, 1,439 1,792 18.4
applications and systems
software

Table 4 Gender distribution and earnings in the ten lowest paying occupations (BLS 2018)
Median Percentage of
Total workers weekly workers that are
Occupation (in thousands) earnings women
Dishwashers 131 $401 14.5
Hosts and hostesses, restaurant, 67 401 86.6
lounge, and coffee shop
Combined food preparation and 175 407 57.1
serving workers, including fast food
Food preparation workers 510 425 52.7
Cashiers 1,360 438 72.2
Maids and housekeeping cleaners 815 450 84.3
Laundry and dry-cleaning workers 106 450 74.5
Dining room and cafeteria attendants 134 458 41.0
and bartender helpers
Counter attendants, cafeteria, food 65 460 55.4
concession, and coffee shop
Cooks 1,365 466 37.1

distinct constructs (Cejka and Eagly 1999) and mutually reinforcing. Gender segre-
gation gives rise to occupational stereotypes. Occupational stereotypes influence
career choices and hiring decisions, thereby perpetuating occupational segregation.
Gender stereotypes influence our beliefs about and expectations of others. The
female gender stereotype is one of communality: concern for others, affiliative
tendencies, deference, and emotional sensitivity, while the male stereotype is one
of agency: achievement-orientation, inclination to take charge, autonomy, and ratio-
nality (Heilman 2012). Research has demonstrated the content of gender stereotypes
10 H. M. Clarke

to transcend geographical boundaries (e.g., Williams and Best 1990) and time (e.g.,
Clarke and Arnold 2017). These categorical beliefs, which lead us to attribute to
individuals, certain traits, preferences, behaviors, activities, and occupations based
on group membership (i.e., male or female), are both descriptive and prescriptive
(Burgess and Borgida 1999). Gender stereotypes are descriptive in the sense that
they are generalized descriptions of men and women. They are prescriptive in that
they also represent social norms, or expectations of how men and women should be.
Although gender itself may be continuous rather than binary, gender stereotypes
are by definition categorical in nature. Another significant aspect of gender stereo-
types is that the labels of male and female essentially represent mutually exclusive
categories. That is, the male and female stereotypes are oppositional (Heilman
2012): men are agentic and not communal; women are communal and not agentic.
The work of Biernat and other researchers has elucidated the psychological under-
pinning of this phenomenon (see, e.g., Biernat 1991). When forming judgments
about others, we employ a bipolar model of gender, in which masculinity and
femininity are inversely related. Hence, when we categorize an individual as being
female, we both assume and expect that she possesses female stereotype-consistent
characteristics and does not possess male stereotype-consistent characteristics. As
discussed below, this is of crucial importance when explaining bias and discrimina-
tion experienced by those whose gender is deemed to be inconsistent with the
stereotypes of their occupation.
Occupational stereotypes, collective beliefs about workers in a given occupation,
have been studied for several decades and identified as an influence on career choice
(Walker 1958), including gender-based occupational stereotypes (see, e.g., Correll
2001). As discussed above, gender-based occupational stereotypes are collective
beliefs about the gender of the typical worker we expect to find in an occupation as
well the gendered attributes we believe are necessary to be successful in that
occupation (Koch et al. 2015). Such stereotypes are an “important factor in the
way in which members of an occupational group are perceived and constitute part of
the role expectations for an occupation” (Walker 1958 p. 124).
Just as gender stereotypes persist, so do gender-based occupational stereotypes.
For instance, a study employing a sample of American adults with professional
experience in hiring also found a number of occupations to be gender-typed (Han-
cock et al. 2020). Examples of male-typed occupations were auto-mechanic, fire-
fighter, CEO, professional athlete, engineer, and laborer. Included among the female-
typed occupations were nurse, social worker, childcare worker, secretary, house-
keeper, and dental assistant (Hancock et al. 2020).
Gender segregation occurs both horizontally and vertically. Occupational stereo-
types also operate horizontally, by designating some occupations more suitable for
women and others more suitable for men, and vertically by deeming higher-level
positions to be male typed. Leadership is a male-typed role, as evidenced by research
on the glass ceiling (Morrison et al. 1987), the “think manager, think male” phe-
nomenon (Schein et al. 1996), and the bias faced by female leaders (Eagly and Karau
2002). A meta-analysis of 69 studies of the stereotype of leaders as masculine
demonstrated that leaders are viewed as being more similar to men than to
Gender Stereotypes and Gender-Typed Work 11

women, leadership was more strongly associated with agency than communion, and
leaders were presumed to be masculine. Further, presumed masculinity increased
with the status of the leader (Koenig et al. 2011).
One of the most significant implications of gender-based occupational stereotypes
is that they interact with gender stereotypes to create perceptions of fit and expec-
tations of performance. When there is incongruency between gender stereotypes and
occupational stereotypes, it can lead to bias and employment discrimination.

Gender Bias in Employment-Related Decisions

A person is engaged in gender-congruent work when the stereotypes of their gender

and their occupation have similar content. A notable example of this is the “think
manager, think male” phenomenon (Schein et al. 1996). When a person is engaged in
gender inconsistent work, it can result in bias, as evidenced in the seminal case of
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989).
In Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989), the USSC deemed basing employment-
related decisions on sex stereotypes to be sex discrimination and therefore prohibited
by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1964). This case involved a woman, Hopkins,
who was a senior manager with the professional accounting firm of Price
Waterhouse. Accounting is a male-typed occupation, and, at that time, there were
only 7 women among the 662 partners at the firm and of the 88 candidates for partner
the year Hopkins was proposed, she was the only woman. Despite increased entry of
women into the accounting profession, it remains strongly gendered today with men
occupying the majority of senior level positions (Haynes 2017).
During her 5-year tenure with Price Waterhouse, her performance was described
as “outstanding” and “virtually at the partner level.” It was also stated that none of
the other candidates matched her performance in securing contracts for the firm. Yet,
after being proposed for partnership, her candidacy was put on hold for reconsider-
ation the next year. The following year, however, the partners refused to propose her
again. Thus, she was in effect rejected for partnership. The negative comments from
partners that were relied upon to reject her spoke to her interpersonal skills, in
particular her aggressiveness. When informed of the factors that influenced the
decision not to re-propose her for partnership, Hopkins was told that to improve,
she should walk, talk, and dress more “femininely.”
Hopkins brought an action for sex discrimination against Price Waterhouse. The
District Court deemed the partners comments, including those above, to be sex
stereotyping, and therefore, the decision not to submit Hopkins as a partner was
illegal sex discrimination. Aggressive behavior, a masculine attribute, was needed
for success in Hopkins’ role and her male counterparts were not penalized for their
aggressiveness. Hopkins was penalized because her aggressive behavior violated the
feminine niceness norm. The District Court’s decision was later upheld by the
Supreme Court. The USSC outright rejected Price Waterhouse’s claim that sex
stereotyping had no legal relevance. In their decision, the plurality of the USSC
stated that “[a]n employer who objects to aggressiveness in women but whose
12 H. M. Clarke

positions require this trait places women in an intolerable and impermissible Catch-
22: out of a job if they behave aggressively and out of a job if they do not. Title VII
lifts women out of this bind” (USSC 1989 p. 490 US 251).
The backlash that women face when successful in a male-typed role, such as that
experienced by Hopkins, has been explained by several well-established theories.

Theories Explaining Gender Bias

Koch et al.’s (2015) meta-analysis of studies on gender bias in employment deci-

sions (hiring, performance evaluation, salary, and promotion) found a pro-male bias
in male-typed jobs but no bias in female-typed jobs or gender-neutral jobs. Several
theories aid our understanding of the perceived lack of fit (Heilman 2012) or
incongruity (Eagly and Karau 2002) between the presumed traits of women and
the traits believed to be required for male-typed jobs.
The lack of fit model (Heilman 2012) explains how gender stereotypes and
occupational stereotypes interact to influence performance evaluations. The per-
ceived fit of an individual’s attributes with those believed to be necessary for
successful performance of a job creates assumptions and expectations about the
individual’s competence. These gender-based presumptions about person-job fit can
lead to employment discrimination (Bobbitt-Zeher 2011).
Eagly and Karau (2002) developed role congruity theory to explain the experi-
ence of female leaders, as leadership is a male-typed role. Role congruity theory
describes how two types of gender stereotypes give rise to bias against female
leaders. The first type, descriptive gender stereotypes, refers to how we describe
women; how we believe women are. Because individuals describe managers as
being more similar to men than to women: “think manager, think male” (Schein
et al. 1996), female leaders are presumed to lack the masculine attributes necessary
to be an effective leader. This perceived role incongruity contributes to the glass
ceiling (Morrison et al. 1987); the invisible barriers that prevent women and minor-
ities from climbing the ranks of the corporate hierarchy. How we believe women are
and what we believe are the necessary traits to be a leader are incongruent and lead to
the presumption that women are less competent leaders than men. The perception of
women as lacking the characteristics necessary to be successful leaders is more
common in male-dominated industries (Garcia-Retamero and Lopez-Zafra 2006);
however, even in female-typed occupations, like nursing, men can ride the glass
escalator; advance to management roles more quickly than their female counterparts
(Williams 1992).
The second type of gender stereotypes are prescriptive. They are collective beliefs
regarding the way men and women should be (Eagly and Karau 2002). Individuals
face backlash or social punishment when they fail to behave in ways prescribed for
their gender. Heilman and Okimoto’s (2007) experimental study demonstrated this
backlash. Their participants perceived a fictional female successful in a male-typed
job to be unlikable and interpersonally hostile. Yet the participants did not appear to
punish the female for possessing male characteristics. Rather they punished her
Gender Stereotypes and Gender-Typed Work 13

because they presumed that she lacked prescribed feminine communal characteris-
tics. As discussed above, gender stereotypes are bipolar in nature, suggesting that a
female portraying masculine agentic traits must also lack feminine communal traits.
When the fictional female successful in a male-typed role was described to possess
these communal traits, through her motherhood status or a description of her
communal behavior, she was no longer disliked or rated interpersonally hostile.
This is consistent with another study that found that, to be perceived as effective,
female leaders had to demonstrate both sensitivity and strength, although male
leaders only needed to demonstrate strength (Johnson et al. 2008).
A selection of research on the bias that results from lack of fit or role incongruity
is discussed below.

Women Doing Men’s Work

Hiring
Women are stereotyped as being less competent than men in traditionally male-
dominated occupations, such as those in the fields of science, technology, engineer-
ing, and math (STEM; e.g., Smeding 2012). In one experimental study, physics
faculty rated a fictional male candidate more competent and more hirable than the
female candidate with identical qualifications (Eaton et al. 2019).
The use of gendered words in an organization’s job ads or selection criteria, or in
an applicant’s application package, can lead to a perceived lack of fit for gender-
typed work. Gaucher et al. (2011), using archival data, demonstrated that job
advertisements for male-dominated occupations contained more stereotypically
masculine words, like leader and competitive, than ads for female-dominated occu-
pations. There was, however, no difference in the frequency of feminine words, like
support and interpersonal, across job gender-types. Further, through a series of
experiments, the authors found that participants perceived there to be more men in
occupations with job ads that included more masculine than feminine words, and
that female participants were less interested in these occupations. Similarly, an
empirical study of hiring in large US law firms indicated that women were less
likely to be hired when the selection criteria comprised of more stereotypically male
attributes than feminine characteristics (Gorman 2005).
Drydakis et al. (2018) found, through a field study, that women whose job
applications portrayed them as possessing masculine personality traits were more
likely to be invited for an interview, and more likely to be invited for an interview for
a higher paying job, than women portraying feminine personality traits. The wage
differential was even more pronounced in male-dominated occupations. Meaning
that the advantage that masculine personality traits gave women was greater in male-
typed jobs. Another study examined the effects of gendered wording in letters of
recommendation for academic positions (Madera et al. 2009). They found that
female applicants were more likely to be described in communal terms than agentic
terms and communal traits were negatively related to hiring decisions.
14 H. M. Clarke

Even when it is undeniable that a female is equally qualified for a male-typed job,
raters appear to find other ways to justify biased decisions. For instance, Phelan et al.
(2008) compared perceptions of competence, social skills, and hirability of agentic
and communal male and female applicants for a managerial position. Both the
agentic male and agentic female were perceived as competent, but the female was
also perceived as lacking social skills. Further, competence was a stronger predictor
of performance than social skills for all candidates except the agentic female. For the
agentic female, social skills were a stronger predictor of hiring decisions. The
authors argued that the participants shifted the hiring criterion in order to justify
discriminating against the agentic female. Another manner in which raters justify
employment discrimination is by inflating the qualifications of their preferred can-
didate relative to other candidates. In Norton et al.’s (2004) study, participants
inflated the qualifications of the male candidate for a male-typed job in order to
justify their decision to hire the less qualified male over the more educated female
candidate.
This shifting of criteria or inflation of qualifications can be explained by the
shifting standards model (Biernat 1991). According to the shifting standards model,
the judgments a rater forms about a target from a given social group are influenced
by the rater’s conceptualization of the group mean or typical member of that group.
As a result, different standards are applied when forming judgments about men than
when forming judgments about women. In this manner, “people routinely shift or
adjust their standards of judgment as they think about members of different social
groups” (Biernat and Manis 1994, p. 5). Shifting standards have resulted in female
job applicants for male-typed jobs being judged against lower minimum standards
than male applicants but higher confirmatory standards. Several studies have dem-
onstrated that women were equally or more likely to be short-listed (i.e., minimum
standard) for a male-typed job but less likely to be hired (i.e., confirmatory standard)
(e.g., Bosak and Sczesny 2011).

Performance Evaluation
The bias resulting from the perceived incongruity of an individual’s gender with his
or her job also occurs posthire during performance evaluation. For example,
Heilman et al.’s (2004) experimental study compared how an identically described
male and female job incumbent in a male-typed job (assistant vice president for sales
in an aircraft company) were rated both when performance success was ambiguous
and when it was clear. Heilman et al. (2004) found that when performance success
was ambiguous, the female stimulus person was rated less competent than the male,
despite being identically described. However, when performance success was clear,
the female was rated competent, but more unlikeable and interpersonally hostile than
the identical male. A further study demonstrated that this disliking of the successful
female occurred only when in a male-typed job (financial planning) and not when in
a female-typed (employee assistance) or gender-neutral (training) job (Heilman et al.
2004). Disliked individuals were also rated less likely to be recommended for a
salary increase or promotion, demonstrating potential workplace effects of “the
disapproval arising from the violation of prescriptive norms” (Heilman et al. 2004
Gender Stereotypes and Gender-Typed Work 15

p. 420). Rudman et al. (2012) similarly found that female leaders demonstrating
agentic traits were viewed as less likable than male leaders exhibiting the same traits.
Luksyte et al. (2018) found, across both field and experimental studies, that men’s
innovative behaviors were associated with positive performance evaluations,
whereas for women they were not. The authors argued that innovative behaviors
are male-typed and more expected of men because they involve the portrayal of
agentic traits like assertiveness and achievement orientation. Brescoll et al. (2010)
found in their experimental study no differences in perceptions of competence of
individuals in gender-inconsistent jobs versus a gender-consistent jobs, until, how-
ever, the individual made a mistake. Individuals in a gender-inconsistent role that
made a mistake were seen as less competent than individuals in a gender-consistent
role that made the same mistake.
The diminishment of women’s competence in a male-typed job when perfor-
mance is ambiguous appears to occur in the team setting as well. The results of one
experimental study indicated that when a male-female dyad successfully performed
a male-typed task (i.e., creation of an investment portfolio), and the contributions of
the individuals were unclear, participants rated the female dyad member, in compar-
ison to her male counterpart, less competent, less influential, and less likely to have
led the team in completing the task (Heilman and Haynes 2005).
The shifting of criteria and standards that can result in biased hiring has also been
evidenced in performance evaluation. It was demonstrated by the Price Waterhouse
case discussed above where the partners placed heavier emphasis on Hopkins’
interpersonal skills than those of her male counterparts when making promotion
decisions. In a study of military cadets, males and females did not differ on objective
measures of performance but men were viewed as more likely to possess the
motivation and leadership qualities necessary for successful military performance
than were women (Boldry et al. 2001). Lyness and Heilman (2006) investigated how
gender and job gender-type interact to predict performance evaluations and pro-
motions of 448 upper-level managers. Women in line positions (male-typed)
received lower evaluations than women in staff positions (female-typed) and men
in either position. The authors also argued that the female managers had to meet a
higher standard than men in order to be promoted because promoted women had
higher performance scores than promoted men and performance scores were stron-
ger predictors of promotions for women than for men. Similarly, an experimental
study demonstrated that participants applied a more generous definition of effective
work behaviors when attributing those behaviors to men than when ascribing them
to women (Martell 1996).

Men Doing Women’s Work

Much research on gender stereotypes and gender-typed work has focused on females
in male-typed jobs, since women have historically faced workplace discrimination
and because male-typed jobs are higher paid and higher status, precipitating
women’s entry into those roles. Other research has examined men in female-typed
16 H. M. Clarke

jobs. Notwithstanding that Koch et al.’s (2015) meta-analysis found no anti-male

bias in female-typed jobs, other studies have found that men suffer backlash too.
Because competence is part of the male gender stereotype, men are not viewed as
less competent than women when engaged in a female-typed occupation, but men
who choose jobs that have traditionally been held by women (e.g., childcare) can
have their masculinity called into question (Nixon 2009). Men engaged in female-
dominated occupations may feel a threat to their masculinity as research suggests
that they will redefine their tasks as being masculine in nature and emphasize their
own masculinity to increase the masculinity of their gender role self-concept (Korek
et al. 2014).
Heilman and Wallen (2010) investigated whether men are also penalized when
they are successful in a gender-inconsistent job by examining perceptions of men
and women in a male-typed job (financial advisor) and a female-typed job (employee
relations counselor). They found men and women who were successful in a gender-
consistent job were preferred as bosses over those who were successful in a gender-
inconsistent job. Men were also seen as more ineffectual and less respected than
women in the female-typed job and men in a male-typed job. Clarke and Arnold
(2018) similarly found that employed adults with experience in hiring rated a
fictional heterosexual male job candidate less effectual, less respect-worthy, and
less hirable when he applied for a female-typed job than when he applied for a male-
typed job. Thus, men can also suffer negative consequences when they violate
prescribed gender norms.

The Influence of Sexual Orientation on Gender Bias

Underlying the research discussed thus far is heteronormativity: the assumption that
all individuals are heterosexual. However, research on gender stereotypes of gay
men and lesbian women suggests that they are not the same as those of heterosexuals
(e.g., Clarke and Arnold 2017). If gender stereotypes of gay men and lesbians differ,
what is considered to be gender-incongruent work and the circumstances under
which gay and lesbian workers face gender stereotype-based bias may also differ.
Early work on gender stereotypes of gay men and lesbians produced implicit
inversion theory (Kite and Deaux 1987). According to implicit inversion theory,
gender stereotypes of gay men and lesbian women are inverted or opposite to those
of their heterosexual counterparts. Thus, heterosexual women are stereotyped as
high in femininity, but lesbian women are stereotyped as high in masculinity.
Similarly, heterosexual men are presumed to be high in masculine attributes and
gay men are presumed to be high in feminine attributes.
Numerous studies over several decades have found support for this implicit
inversion theory (e.g., Blashill and Powlishta 2009), yet a more recent study did
not. Clarke and Arnold (2017), employing an explicit measure of gender stereotypes
(OAT-AM, short version, Liben and Bigler 2002), found gender stereotypes of the
typical heterosexual male and female to be consistent with traditional conceptuali-
zations; men are high in masculinity and low in femininity, while women are high in
Gender Stereotypes and Gender-Typed Work 17

femininity and low in masculinity. However, the stereotypes captured of the typical
gay male and lesbian female were not in line with implicit inversion theory. The gale
male and lesbian female targets were viewed as being approximately equal in
masculinity and femininity, and not significantly different from each other. The
authors suggested that, with social change, the gender of gay men and lesbians
may have come to be viewed as androgynous rather than inverted.
Some occupations may also be stereotyped as “gay jobs” (Hancock et al. 2020).
Hancock et al.’s (2020) also investigated whether any jobs (from a list of 60 jobs)
were viewed as gay-typed or lesbian-typed. For certain jobs, the participants indi-
cated that they would assume a man in that job to be gay. These jobs were interior
decorator, dressmaker, professional dancer, salon owner, fashion designer, make-up
artist, and hairstylist. These occupations were also characterized as female typed.
There were also a number of jobs that participants thought it would be unlikely that a
man in that job would be gay, including police officer, laborer, and engineer.
Curiously, no jobs were characterized as lesbian-typed but there were some jobs
that participants thought it was unlikely that a lesbian would occupy, including
interior decorator, childcare worker, and flight attendant.
Some research has investigated bias that gay men and lesbians may face when in a
gender-incongruent occupation. Drydakis’ (2015) field experiment examined how
likely gay men and lesbians were to be invited for job interviews, in comparison to
heterosexual applicants, when applying for jobs in both male- and female-dominated
occupations. Gay men received fewer invitations for interviews for positions in
male-dominated occupations than did heterosexual men. Gay men also received
fewer invitations for interviews for positions that listed masculine personality traits
in job descriptions. Similarly, lesbians received fewer invitations for interviews than
heterosexual women for both positions in female-dominated occupations and posi-
tions with job descriptions emphasized feminine personality traits.
Clarke and Arnold’s (2018) experimental study demonstrated a fictional gay male
applicant to be rated equally suitable and hirable for a male-typed job (auto
mechanic) as for a female-typed job (esthetician). However, the gay male was
rated less suitable for the male-typed job than the heterosexual male. Niedlich and
Steffens’ (2015) German participants perceived gay and lesbian candidates to
possess equal levels of social skills, a communal trait, and task-related competence,
an agentic trait. The results of another study demonstrate the nuanced nature of
gender stereotypes of gay men and lesbians. Steffens et al. (2019), using a German
sample, found that gay men were perceived to be less masculine and more communal
than heterosexual men but not lower in agency or less able for a job requiring both
agency and communion. In a second experiment, they again found the gay applicant
was rated higher in communion and lower in masculinity but not lower in agency.
They further found that the gay applicant was perceived a better fit for female-typed
jobs than male-typed jobs, while the heterosexual male applicant was rated more
suitable for male-typed jobs than female-typed jobs.
In tandem, the results if these studies intimate that the gender stereotypes of gay
men and lesbian women, and inevitably perceptions of person-job fit, may be
more nuanced than simply opposite to those of heterosexuals. As posited by
18 H. M. Clarke

Steffens et al. (2019), it may be that heterosexual men are more gender-typed than
gay men. Alternatively, some of the gendered traits attributed to gay men and
lesbians may differ from heterosexuals but same may be the same. For example,
there may be certain traits deemed feminine that gay men are presumed to possess
and others that they are not. Thus, the person-job fit or gender-role congruity would
differ depending on the specific traits assumed to be required for a given job; the
feminine traits assumed to be necessary to be a hairstylist may differ from those
assumed to be necessary for a childcare worker.

Summary

The persistence of the gender-typing of work, as well as its implications, is substan-

tiated not only by empirical and experimental data such as that reviewed above but
also by court decisions. A recent review of gender discrimination cases in the United
States and Europe found evidence of unequal pay and both horizontal and vertical
segregation (Castaño et al. 2019). It is clear that there is a continuing need for
research on gender-typed work. Of particular import is research clarifying the
boundary conditions that must be in place for gender-based bias to manifest within
the context of gender-typed work.
Rater gender is frequently identified as a boundary condition, with men
displaying more bias than women (e.g., Cejka and Eagly 1999). For instance,
Koch et al.’s (2015) meta-analysis indicated that male raters exhibited stronger
bias against females in male-typed roles than did female raters. Similarly, the
stereotype of leaders being masculine (i.e., think manager, think male) is more
strongly held by men than by women (Koenig et al. 2011) and female leaders are
more likely to experience backlash from male subordinates, Conversely, other
studies have failed to confirm a difference in bias between male and female raters
(e.g., Rudman et al. 2012)
It is probable that there are other variables, correlated with gender, that are
stronger predictors of gender bias than rater gender, or moderate the effect of rater
gender. Men tend to be higher than women in attributes that are associated with bias,
such as social dominance orientation and traditional gender ideology. Individuals
high in social dominance orientation tend to adopt beliefs that justify their
advantaged position in the social hierarchy and reject beliefs that support equality
(Pratto et al. 2000). Raters with a traditional gender ideology are more likely to
demonstrate bias against women in male-typed jobs when evaluating their perfor-
mance (Rice and Barth 2017). Thus, it may be such beliefs or attitudes that lead to
gender bias rather than gender per se.
Further research is also needed to elucidate the circumstances under which gender
role incongruity leads to assimilation effects and when it produces contrast effects
(Biernat et al. 2010). Assimilation effects occur when an individual is evaluated in a
manner consistent with a given stereotype (i.e., women are less competent than men
at male-typed work). Contrast effects occur when judgments formed about a target
are counter-stereotypical (i.e., women are more competent than men at male-typed
Gender Stereotypes and Gender-Typed Work 19

work). For example, a recent study found that women’s performance of civic virtue
behavior, a male-typed behavior, had a positive impact on their performance
appraisal and promotion ratings, whereas for men it did not (Clarke and Sulsky
2019). A similar effect has been found for men performing helping behavior, a
female-typed behavior (Heilman and Chen 2005).
A better understanding of the predictors and moderators of gender bias may lead
to the development of more effective diversity training. A substantial body of
research suggests that diversity training is impotent at changing attitudes (Bezrukova
et al. 2016). In fact, diversity efforts can reduce perceptions of competence of
members of the target demographic (Heilman and Welle 2006). Thus, the very
means utilized to increase diversity within an organization, like diversity-based
recruitment with preferential hiring, can also increase diversity-based bias.
To reduce the impact of gender stereotypes in the employment context, Heilman
and Caleo (2018) recommend, among others, anonymizing evaluations where pos-
sible, increasing the presence of women in traditionally male roles, clarifying
performance criteria, increasing the frequency of evaluations, performing structured
interviews, and motivating raters to be objective and accurate. There is research
evidence that motivation to be accurate can reduce stereotypical responses (Koch
et al. 2015). It may be that training on how to accurately and objectively evaluate
candidates/incumbents may be more successful in addressing bias than diversity
training.
The data and literature reviewed herein suggest that the continuing prevalence of
the gender-typing of work, both through gender segregation and gender-based
occupational stereotypes, may be better described as ageless rather than anachronis-
tic. The implications of gender-typed work, such as biased hiring decisions and the
gender pay gap, also appear to be contemporary phenomena that require the
unabated attention of scholars, organizational leaders, and lawmakers.

Cross-References

▶ Gender and Income Inequality

▶ Gender and Inequality in the Workplace: Lessons from Institutional and Marxist
Perspectives
▶ Gender Gaps in Education
▶ Gender on the Labor Market
▶ Gender Wage Gaps and Skills
▶ Gender, Gender Self-perceptions, and Workplace Leadership
▶ Masculinity, Femininity and Workplace Outcomes
▶ Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in the Workplace: A Review on
Employees’ Experiences
20 H. M. Clarke

References
Alksnin C, Desmarais S, Curtis J (2008) Workforce segregation and the gender wage gap: is
“women’s” work valued as highly as “men’s”? J Appl Soc Psychol 38:1416–1441
Bezrukova K, Spell CS, Perry JL et al (2016) A meta-analytical integration of over 40 years of
research on diversity training evaluation. Psychol Bull 142:1227–1274
Biernat M (1991) Gender stereotypes and the relationship between masculinity and femininity:
a developmental analysis. J Pers Soc Psychol 61:351–365
Biernat M, Manis M (1994) Shifting standards and stereotype-based judgments. J Pers Soc Psychol
66:5–20
Biernat M, Fuegen K, Kobrynowicz D (2010) Shifting standards and the inference of incompetence:
effects of formal and informal evaluations tools. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 36:855–868
Blashill AJ, Powlishta KK (2009) Gay stereotypes: the use of sexual orientation as a cue for gender-
related attributes. Sex Roles 61:783–793
Blau FD, Brummund P, Liu YH (2013) Trends in occupational segregation by gender 1970-2009:
adjusting for the impact of changes in the occupational coding system. Demography
50:471–492
Bobbitt-Zeher D (2011) Gender discrimination at work: connecting gender stereotypes, institutional
policies, and gender composition of workplace. Gend Soc 25:764–786
Boldry J, Wood W, Kashy DA (2001) Gender stereotypes and the evaluation of men and women in
military training. J Soc Issues 57:689–705
Bosak J, Sczesny S (2011) Gender bias in leader selection? Evidence from a hiring simulation study.
Sex Roles 65:234–242
Brescoll VL, Dawson E, Uhlmann EL (2010) Hard won and easily lost: the fragile status of leaders
in gender-stereotype-incongruent occupations. Psychol Sci 21:1640–1642
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2018) Highlights of women’s earnings in 2017. https://www.bls.gov/
opub/reports/womens-earnings/2017/home.htm#chart5. Accessed 1 June 2019
Burgess D, Borgida E (1999) Who women are, who women should be: descriptive and prescriptive
stereotyping in sex discrimination. Psychol Public Policy Law 5:665–692
Castaño AM, Fontanil Y, Garcia-Izquierdo AL (2019) Why can’t i become a manager? A systematic
review of gender stereotypes and organizational discrimination. Int J Environ Res Public Health
16:1813–1842
Cejka MA, Eagly AH (1999) Gender-stereotypic images of occupations correspond to the sex
segregation of employment. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 25:413–423
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (United States), Pub.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241 (1964)
Clarke HM, Arnold KA (2017) Diversity in gender stereotypes? A comparison of heterosexual, gay
and lesbian perspectives. Can J Adm Sci 34:149–158
Clarke HM, Arnold KA (2018) The influence of sexual orientation on the perceived fit of male
applicants for both male- and female- typed jobs. Front Psychol 9:656–665
Clarke HM, Sulsky LM (2019) The impact of gender stereotypes on the appraisal of civic virtue
performance. J Res Gend Stud 9:25–43
Correll SJ (2001) Gender and the career choice process: the role of biased self-perceptions.
Am J Sociol 106:1691–1730
Dekhtyar S, Weber D, Helgertz J et al (2018) Sex differences in academic strengths contribute to
gender segregation in education and occupation: a longitudinal; examination of 167,776 indi-
viduals. Intelligence 67:84–92
Dinella LM, Fulcher M, Weisgram ES (2014) Sex-typed personality traits and gender identity as
predictors of young adults’ career interests. Arch Sex Behav 43:493–504
Drydakis N (2015) Sexual orientation discrimination in the United Kingdom’s labour market: a field
experiment. Hum Relat 68:1–28
Drydakis N, Sidiropoulou K, Bozani V (2018) Masculine vs feminine personality traits and
women’s employment outcomes in Britain. Int J Manpow 39:621–630
Gender Stereotypes and Gender-Typed Work 21

Eagly AH, Karau SJ (2002) Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychol Rev
109:573–598
Eaton AA, Saunders JF, Jacobson RK et al (2019) How gender and race stereotypes impact
advancement of scholars in STEM: professors’ biased evaluations of physics and biology
post-doctoral candidates. Sex Roles. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01052-w
Edgecliffe-Johnson A (2018) Women hold fewer than 5% of CEO positions in US and
Europe. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/1090105c-fb7b-11e8-aebf-99e208d3
e521. Accessed 5 Sept 2019
England P, Folbre N (2005) Gender and economic sociology. In: Smelser NJ, Swedberg R (eds) The
handbook of economic sociology. Russell Sage Foundation, New York, pp 627–649
Fortin NM, Huberman M (2002) Occupational gender segregation and women’s wages in Canada:
an historical perspective. Can Public Policy 28(Suppl):S11–S39
Garcia-Retamero R, Lopez-Zafra E (2006) Prejudice against women in male-congenial environ-
ments: perceptions of gender role congruity in leadership. Sex Roles 55:51–61
Gaucher D, Friesen J, Kay AC (2011) Evidence that gendered wording in job advertisements exists
and sustains gender inequality. J Pers Soc Psychol 101:109–128
Gorman EH (2005) Gender stereotypes, same-gender preferences, and organizational variation in
the hiring of women: evidence from law firms. Am Sociol Rev 70:702–728
Hancock AJ, Clarke HM, Arnold KA (2020) Sexual orientation occupational Stereotypes. J Vocat
Psychol 119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103427
Haynes K (2017) Accounting as gendering and gendered: a review of 25 years of critical accounting
research on gender. Crit Perspect Account 43:110–124
Heilman ME (2012) Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Res Organ Behav 32:113–135
Heilman ME, Caleo S (2018) Combatting gender discrimination: a lack of fit framework. Group
Process Intergroup Relat 21:725–744
Heilman ME, Chen JJ (2005) Same behavior, different consequences: reactions to men’s and
women’s altruistic citizenship behavior. J Appl Psychol 90:431–441
Heilman ME, Haynes MC (2005) No credit where credit is due: attributional rationalization of
women’s success in male-female teams. J Appl Psychol 90:905–916
Heilman ME, Okimoto TG (2007) Why are women penalized for success at male tasks? The
implied communality deficit? J Appl Psychol 92:81–92
Heilman ME, Wallen AS (2010) Wimpy and undeserving of respect: penalties for men’s gender-
inconsistent success. J Exp Soc Psychol 46:664–667
Heilman ME, Welle B (2006) Disadvantaged by diversity? The effects of diversity goals on
competence perceptions. J Appl Soc Psychol 36:1291–1319
Heilman ME, Wallen AS, Fuchs D et al (2004) Penalties for success: reactions to women who
succeed at male gender-typed tasks. J Appl Psychol 89:416–427
Jacobs JA (1995) Gender and academic specialties: trends among recipients of college degrees in
the 1980s. Sociol Educ 68:81–98
Johnson SK, Murphy SE, Zewdie S et al (2008) The strong, sensitive type: effects of gender
stereotypes and leadership prototypes on the evaluation of male and female leaders. Organ
Behav Hum Decis Process 106:39–60
Kaplan SN, Sorensen M (2017) Are CEOs different? Characteristics of top managers. The National
Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 23832 https://www.nber.org/papers/w23832.
Accessed 1 June 2019
Kite ME, Deaux K (1987) Gender belief systems: homosexuality and the implicit inversion theory.
Psychol Women Q 11:83–96
Koch AJ, D’Mello SD, Sackett PR (2015) A meta-analysis of gender stereotypes and bias in
experimental simulations of employment decision making. J Appl Psychol 100:128–161
Koenig AM, Eagly AH, Mitchell AA et al (2011) Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-
analysis of three research paradigms. Psychol Bull 137:616–642
22 H. M. Clarke

Korek S, Sobiraj S, Weseler D et al (2014) The gender role self-concept of men in female-
dominated occupations: does it depend on how they see their job? J Appl Soc Psychol 44:
241–254
Levanon A, England P, Allison P (2009) Occupational feminization and pay: assessing causal
dynamics using 1950–2000 U.S. Census data. Soc Forces 88:865–891
Liben LS, Bigler RS (2002) The developmental course of gender differentiation: conceptualizing,
measuring, and evaluating constructs and pathways. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev 67:1–183
Luksyte A, Unsworth KL, Avery DR (2018) Innovative work behavior and sex-based stereotypes:
examining sex differences in perceptions and evaluations of innovative work behavior. J Organ
Behav 39:292–305
Lyness KS, Heilman ME (2006) When fit is fundamental: performance evaluations and promotions
of upper-level female and male managers. J Appl Psychol 91:777–785
Madera JM, Hebl MR, Martin RC (2009) Gender and letters of recommendation for academics:
Agentic and communal differences. J Appl Psychol 94:1591–1599
Martell RF (1996) What mediates gender bias in work behavior ratings? Sex Roles 35:153–169
Miller CC (2018) The number of female chief executives is falling. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/23/upshot/why-the-number-of-female-chief-executives-is-
falling.html. Accessed 5 Sept 2019
Morrison A, White RP, Van Velsor E (1987) Breaking the glass ceiling: can women reach the top of
America’s largest corporations? Personnel Decisions, Inc., Beverly
National Center for Education Statistics (2018) Digest of education statistics. Retrieved from:
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/2018menu_tables.asp. Accessed 1 June 2019
Niedlich C, Steffens MC (2015) On the interplay of (positive) stereotypes and prejudice: impres-
sions of lesbian and gay applicants for leadership positions [Special issue]. Sensoria J Mind
Brain Cult 11:70–80
Nixon D (2009) “I can’t put a smiley face on”: working-class masculinity, emotional labour and
service work in the “new economy”. Gend Work Organ 16:300–322
Norton MI, Vandello JA, Darley JM (2004) Casuistry and social category bias. J Pers Soc Psychol
87:817–831
Phelan JE, Moss-Racusin CA, Rudman LA (2008) Competent yet out in the cold: shifting criteria
for hiring reflect backlash toward agentic women. Psychol Women Q 32:406–413
Pratto F, Liu JH, Levin S et al (2000) Social dominance orientation and the legitimization of
inequality across cultures. J Cross-Cult Psychol 31:369–409
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989)
Rice L, Barth JM (2017) A tale of two gender roles: the effects of implicit and explicit gender role
traditionalism and occupational stereotype on hiring decisions. Gend Issues 34:86–102
Rottinghaus PJ, Zytowski DG (2006) Commonalities between adolescents’ work values and
interests. Meas Eval Couns Dev 38:211–221
Rudman LA, Moss-Racusin CA, Phelan JE et al (2012) Status incongruity and backlash effects:
defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. J Exp Soc Psychol
48:165–179
Schein VE, Mueller R, Lituchy T et al (1996) Think manager – think male: a global phenomenon?
J Organ Behav 17:33–41
Sheppard LD (2018) Gender differences in leadership aspirations and job and life attribute
preferences among U.S. undergraduate students. Sex Roles 79:565–577
Sinisalo P (2004) Changing work values and expressed educational plans of adolescents: a cross-
sectional follow-up of three cohorts in Finland. Eur J Psychol Educ 19:227–236
Smeding A (2012) Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): an
investigation of their implicit gender stereotypes and stereotypes’ connectedness to math
performance. Sex Roles 67:617–629
Steffens MC, Niedlich C, Beschorner R et al (2019) Do positive and negative stereotypes of gay and
heterosexual men affect job-related impressions? Sex Roles 80:548–564
Gender Stereotypes and Gender-Typed Work 23

Stier H, Yaish M (2014) Occupational segregation and gender inequality in job quality: a multi-level
approach. Work Employ Soc 28:225–246
Williams CL (1992) The glass escalator: hidden advantages for men in the “female professions”.
Soc Probl 39:253–267
Williams JE, Best DL (1990) Measuring sex stereotypes: a multinational study, Rev edn. Sage,
Beverly Hills
Walker K (1958) A study of occupational stereotypes. J Appl Psychol 42:122–124