CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Gender preference in employment has become a significant area of research and concern, as it

raises questions about fairness, equality, and inclusivity in the workforce. Despite progress

towards gender equality in many aspects of society, biases and preferences based on gender

continue to persist within employment settings. The issue of gender preference in employment

stems from societal norms and expectations that shape individuals' perceptions of suitable jobs

based on gender. These norms are often reinforced through socialization processes and the

perpetuation of gender stereotypes (Eagly, 2020). Society conditions individuals to associate

certain job roles with specific genders, creating preconceived notions about the suitability of men

or women for particular occupations.

Occupational segregation is another factor influencing gender preferences in employment.

Occupational segregation refers to the concentration of men and women in different job sectors

or roles. Extensive research has shown persistent patterns of occupational segregation across

industries, indicating that certain fields are dominated by one gender (Blau & Kahn, 2017). The

existence of occupational segregation can reinforce gender preferences as individuals tend to

choose careers aligned with their gender-majority occupational groups. Work-life balance and

family responsibilities play a crucial role in shaping gender preferences in employment.

Traditional gender roles and societal expectations often place a higher burden of family and

caregiving responsibilities on women, which can influence their career choices (Bianchi et al.,

2019). Women may prioritize job characteristics that offer flexibility and support for work-life

balance, such as part-time or remote work options. Conversely, men may be more inclined to
seek positions with higher earning potential, regardless of work-life balance considerations.

These divergent preferences contribute to gender disparities in employment patterns. Stereotype

threat and bias are additional factors that significantly impact gender preferences in employment.

Stereotype threat refers to the fear of confirming negative stereotypes associated with one's

social group, which can influence individuals' career choices and aspirations (Steele, 1997). Bias,

both explicit and implicit, in the workplace can create barriers for individuals seeking

employment opportunities outside of the gender norms associated with certain roles. These

psychological factors affect the decisions of both employers and workers, perpetuating gender

preferences in employment.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

The presence of gender preferences in employment raises concerns about fairness, equality, and

inclusivity in the workforce. Despite advancements in gender equality, biases and preferences

based on gender continue to persist, impacting hiring decisions, career aspirations, and

organizational dynamics. This study aims to investigate the extent of gender preferences in

employment and identify the underlying factors that contribute to these preferences among

workers. The research will explore various factors including socialization, gender stereotypes,

occupational segregation, work-life balance considerations, and the influence of stereotype threat

and bias. The findings of this research will contribute to the existing body of knowledge by

uncovering the mechanisms that perpetuate gender preferences and will provide guidance to

organizations, policymakers, and stakeholders on strategies to address biases, challenge

stereotypes, and create an inclusive work environment that offers equal opportunities to

individuals irrespective of their gender.

1.3 Aims of the Study

The main aim of this study was to evaluate gender preference in the employment of workers

specifically the objectives of this study are:

Objectives

i. To assess the prevalence and extent of gender preferences in employment

ii. To identify the factors contributing to gender preferences in employment

iii. To propose strategies for promoting gender equality and inclusivity in the workforce

1.4 Research Questions

To what extent do gender preferences exist in the employment of workers across different

industries and job roles?

What are the underlying factors contributing to gender preferences in employment?

How do gender preferences impact hiring decisions, career aspirations, and organizational

dynamics in the workplace?

What are the implications of gender preferences in employment for achieving gender equality

and inclusivity?

What strategies and interventions can be implemented to mitigate biases, challenge stereotypes,

and foster equal opportunities for individuals of all genders in the workforce?

1.5 Significance of the Study

This study is expected to provide a guideline for employers who prefer one gender of workers to

the other based on their efficiency qualities and attributes. It will significantly bring to the fore of

its readers a scientific evidence of formerly unsubstantiated facts on related issues concerning the

relationship among workers (of both gender) and their managers. It will help the researcher to

know how workers employed in the past and use it to compare their future findings in order to
make adequate recommendations. The student, workers, manager and researchers who may want

to carry out further research in the area of study will use it as a reference material.

1.6 Scope of the Study

The study was restricted to gender preference in the employment of workers. The researcher is

expected to cover some _______________

1.7 Limitation of the Study

The researcher encountered a few constrains in the process of caring out this research. However,

of mention here is the financial involvement and time constraints and because of these, the study

has been reduced considerably.

1.8 Definition of Terms

Gender Preferences: Refers to the subjective inclinations, biases, or tendencies individuals may

have in favor of or against a particular gender in employment. It encompasses personal attitudes,

beliefs, and perceptions that influence individuals' choices, decisions, and behaviors related to

hiring, career aspirations, and workplace dynamics.

Employment: The act or process of being engaged in paid work or occupation, either as an

employee or self-employed. It encompasses various job roles, positions, and industries in which

individuals actively participate to earn a livelihood.

Socialization: The process through which individuals acquire and internalize societal norms,

values, beliefs, and behaviors. It involves learning and adopting social expectations and roles,

including those related to gender, through interactions with family, peers, education, and broader

cultural influences.
CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Gender and Gender Equality

The purpose is to explore and understand how organizations practice gender equality and

therefore it is important to give insights to the different parts of the concept, as well as its

importance in organizations and society.

2.1.1 Gender or Sex?

Sex is referred to a person’s biological and physiological characteristics that define men and

women, while gender is referred to as the:

“socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers

appropriate for men and women”

(WHO, 2015). How people perceive the differences between sexes will not differ extensively

between different societies, on the contrary the perceptions of gender can vary greatly (WHO,

2015). The development and recreation of gender takes place at the individual, cultural and

societal level. They are all equally important as people shape these gender roles and norms

through activities and reproduce them by adjusting to the expectations of the gender we belong

to (Council of Europe, 2004, p.8; Genus, 2012). We have chosen to use the term gender instead

of sex, as our purpose is not to study the biological characteristics, also we agree that gender is a

socially defined concept.

The phenomenon gender is historical, as it has been known for many centuries. Gender is not

only interpreted differently within different cultures and time, it also continues to develop and is
in a constant change. Social science is a part of culture, thus influences how gender will be

practiced and understood in the future. The ratio of men respectively women working as

managers, nurses, housekeepers and engineers is affected by social practices and cultural ideas

rather than genes. Social science is combined with cultural ideas and therefore the development

of cultural ideas is influenced by social science (Alvesson & Billing, 1997).

In the pre-industrial era men and women had specific work and there were even some work that

only one gender was allowed to do. For instance women were the only ones allowed to milk

cows in Sweden until this century. Men did not want to do women's work as they would loose

status and prestige, something that women could rarely get as it was only related to men's jobs.

Segregation between genders is no longer as common but it exists in some industries where there

are still ideas about what is regarded as women's work and men's work (Alvesson & Billing,

1997). As mentioned by Alvesson & Billing (1997) “…the career-oriented person, giving

priority to work over family matters, may be preferable in the business world, as a strong

commitment to equality would mean a re-balancing or downplaying of corporate matters in

relation to family obligations and values.”

2.1.2 Gender equality

The council of Europe is Europe's leading organization within human rights where Sweden has

been a member since the start in 1949. Gender equality is one of the values within human rights

and has by the council of Europe been defined as:

”Gender equality means an equal visibility, empowerment and participation of both sexes in all

spheres of public and private life.”

(Council of Europe, 2014) The concept has previously been described as a means of equally

accepting and valuing the differences between the two genders and the diverse roles they have in

society. Accomplishing gender equality is an essential factor in the protection of human rights

(Council of Europe, 2004). Human rights refer to every person having the right to be

independent, not discriminated and have the equal rights and obligations (UN, 2015). Both men

and women need to acknowledge the need to remove the unbalances that exists in society, they

also share the responsibility to take action (Council of Europe, 2014).

GenderEquality within organizations Frink et al. (2003,) found that a gender equal workforce

was beneficial for organizations. Their hypothesis that organizations with a gender equal

workforce, meaning 50/50, are performing better in terms of profitability compared to an

organization with an uneven distribution of the genders, was supported. Campbell & Minguez-

Vera (2008,) further found that gender diversity among board members has a positive impact on

an organizations' firm value. It is highlighted that there is a need to establish a more equal

distribution between men and women. This phenomenon have been further confirmed by

Kakabadse et al. (2015) who found that gender diverse boards have several nonfinancial

benefits, for example higher corporate reputation, improved decision making and better use of

talents.

2.1.3 Critics – Gender and Gender Equality

In reference to using the distinction between genders, Kakabadse et al. (2015) was researching

the perceptions amongst female directors regarding the use of female quotas when selecting

board members. Their result showed that it was important to employ more women on the boards,

but quotas were not the appropriate way to accomplish it. The general idea amongst the female
directors was that they perceived themselves as individuals and wanted to be chosen based on

their knowledge and experiences, not because of their gender (Kakabadse et al., 2015,).

Another criticism to gender and the practice of it, is that the discussions and statements are based

on personal values and never politically neutral (Alvesson & Billing, 1997). Not to consider

gender is a political action, likewise it is if you choose to study gender or to use a clear

distinction between men and women. There might be different distinctions for different people,

for instance, sexual orientation, ethnicity and age can be as important to some people as male and

female is for others. Some might not want to separate men and women arguing that humans are

universal rather than two sexes (Alvesson & Billing, 1997) As mentioned before, we have

however chosen to use the concept of gender as socially constructed attributes of male and

female.

When looking at the people in our society they do not only differ in gender. People have other

demographic variables such as age, ethnicity, religion and socioeconomic background (George &

Jones, 2012). All of these different demographic variables can contribute to a variety of different

viewpoints that can be an advantage for organizations (Emmott & Worman, 2008). To meet the

purpose, hence to more thoroughly understand gender equality and the usage of it, we will

elaborate further on the attributes of workforce diversity below, as gender equality is a part of

that.

2.2 Workforce Diversity

In the search for literature regarding gender equality we found that there was also an emphasis on

workforce diversity. Referring to the purpose we want to understand how organizations practice

CSR focusing on the statutory equality plan and gender equality policies. Hence, since gender is
a part of workforce diversity, it would be unwise not to consider workforce diversity. The

concept of workforce diversity have been defined as:

“a mixed workforce that provides a wide range of abilities, experience, knowledge, and strengths

due to its heterogeneity in age, background, ethnicity, physical abilities, political and religious

beliefs, sex, and other attributes”

(Business Dictionary, 2015). This reflects that sex, which we refer to as gender, is only one part

of the concept. Workforce diversity is the reality for organizations, their employees and

managers as all people are different (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998, pp. 120-121). How

organizations and their employees respond to workforce diversity is determined by both

individual as well as organizational values. Therefore, workforce diversity must be investigated

from an organizational culture perspective (Guillaume et al., 2013).

The business perspective of workforce diversity is been shown in a research conducted by

Homan et al., (2007) where workforce diversity does certainly promote social interaction, work

group performance and innovation when group members themselves believe in the value of

workforce diversity. To benefit from the positive sides of workforce diversity it is therefore of

great importance to make the employees value the workforce diversity that exists within a group.

They emphasize that these values start with the management beliefs and need to be

communicated throughout the organization (Homan et al., 2007).

2.2.1 Work Values and Work-Goals Preferences

The literature is replete with references to the concepts of work values/ goals/ norms/ outcomes,

as all of these deals with the importance that individuals attach to different aspects of their work

life (Sharabi & Harpaz 2002). Among these are interesting work, security, variety, pay, and
interpersonal relations. Much research has been carried out on these aspects, and they have been

defined and characterized differently by many scholars of various approaches (Sharabi & Harpaz

2002). Despite the difference in studies, views, and terminology considering work

goals/values/ preferences, etc., they all deal with specific work values’ outcomes. Comparison

between those views shows that 'good pay' and 'job security' are generally instrumental or

materialistic goals (namely extrinsic or hygienic) and 'interesting job', 'variety', and

'autonomy' are generally expressive or post-materialistic goals (namely intrinsic or

motivational). I use Locke and Henne’s (1986) definition that goals are the mechanism

through which values are converted into action. Consequently, work goals may be regarded as a

reflection of an individual’s values, specifically related to work outcomes. An investigation of

the sort of goals individuals seek from work may shed light on the fundamental question of why

people work. A useful way of understanding what is important to people in their working life is

to focus on a uniform set of work goals, or facets of work, and to ascertain how important each

of them is to individuals (MOW 1987; Harpaz 1990). The term ‘Work Goals' Importance’

means the relative importance for individuals of various goals and values sought through work

(MOW 1987). Work goals, such as expressive goals, instrumental and comfort goals, and

learning goals have proved important in various cultures (MOW 1987).

2.2.2 Gender, Work-Family Domains, and Work Goals Differences

For many years, it has been debated whether gender roles are a product of socialization or a

product of biological differences. Evolutionary and socio-biological approaches claim that

women’s nature makes them more capable of being domestic and raising children than men and

less suitable to a work life that requires competitiveness, aggressiveness and organizational

politics (Sharabi & Harpaz 2011b). Many other studies indicate that gender roles are the result of
socialization processes which occur throughout an individual’s life and especially during

early childhood. These gender differences depend on culture and change over time according to

social trends. Gender role socialization guides individuals to "feminine" and "masculine”

occupations (Hesse-Biber & Carter 2004; Konrad et al. 2000). Several studies have found that

for women the centrality of work is significantly lower than for men (Mannheim et al.; Harpaz

1990), especially among men and women with children (Snir, Harpaz, & Ben-Baruch 2009).

Harpaz & Fu (1997) found that men in the US, Germany, Japan and Israel had a higher work

centrality than women. MOW (1987) found similar gender differences in eight countries and

therefore we may conclude that this is a universal phenomenon. The responsibility for the

family's economic well-being is normatively perceived as men's duty, leading them to prefer

work over family as a central life domain (Hesse-Biber & Carter 2004; Sharabi & Harpaz

2009a). On the other hand, the responsibility for the family's social needs, providing the

necessary emotional support, is normatively perceived as women's duty. Furthermore,

single women show a higher work centrality than married women, especially mothers,

reflecting the impact of marriage and childbirth on the tendency to prefer family over work as a

central life domain (Snir, Harpaz, & Ben-Baruch 2009; Sharabi & Harpaz 2011b).

Regarding other work goals, Konrad et al. (2000) found significant gender differences on 33 of

40 job attribute preferences examined, based on a meta-analysis of 242 samples from the US

between 1970 and 1998. Overall, men and boys preferred promotion, power and autonomy,

while women and girls preferred interpersonal relationships, helping others, and a positive

work environment. These findings were generally consistent with gender roles and

stereotypes. Relating to non-gender-type goals, the researchers also found that women prefer

variety, interest, using their abilities and personal growth while men prefer leisure. Warr (2008)
found that men gave higher importance to responsibility and opportunities for promotion,

achievement and initiative while women preferred interpersonal relationships. Based on the

1997 "International Social Survey Programme" data from 14 countries (including Israel),

Corrigall & Konrad's (2006) found that men assigned higher preference to independence

while women favored sociability. Contrary to Warr (2008) and Konrad et al. (2000), they

did not find gender differences regarding advancement and promotion preferences. On the

other hand, Gunkel et al. (2007) found few gender differences related to work goals in the US

and Germany. Opportunity for advancement was more important only among men in production

in the US. Co-operation was more important only among German and American women in

production. Working relationships with the manager and use of skills and abilities were more

important only among American women in production and German women in

administration.

2.3 Theoretical Framework

To comprehensively understand gender preference in employment, several theoretical

frameworks provide insights into the underlying mechanisms and dynamics involved. These

frameworks offer varying perspectives on the origins and perpetuation of gender biases in

occupational preferences.

Various theoretical frameworks have been proposed to understand gender preference in

employment. Social role theory suggests that gender differences in occupational preferences and

behavior arise from societal expectations and division of labor (Eagly & Wood, 2013). This

theory posits that individuals internalize gender norms and conform to prescribed roles, leading

to the perpetuation of gender-based occupational preferences. The cognitive approach

emphasizes cognitive processes, such as gender schema and self-categorization, in shaping

occupational preferences (Diekman & Eagly, 2008). These theoretical frameworks provide

lenses through which to analyze the factors influencing gender preference in employment.

2.3.1 Social Role Theory:

Social role theory posits that gender differences in occupational preferences and behavior arise

from societal expectations and the division of labor (Eagly & Wood, 2013). According to this

theory, individuals learn gender-specific roles and behaviors through socialization processes,

leading to the internalization of cultural norms. For example, boys are often encouraged to

pursue careers in STEM fields, while girls are directed towards nurturing and caregiving

occupations. These learned roles and expectations contribute to the perpetuation of gender-based

occupational preferences.

2.5.2 Cognitive Approaches:

Cognitive approaches focus on cognitive processes, such as gender schema and self-

categorization, as central factors in shaping occupational preferences. Gender schema theory

suggests that individuals develop mental frameworks (schemas) that organize and guide their

understanding of gender roles and behaviors (Diekman & Eagly, 2008). These schemas influence

the interpretation of occupational information and guide individuals' preferences and aspirations.

For instance, if someone's gender schema associates engineering with masculinity, they may be

more inclined to view engineering as a suitable career path if they identify as male. Self-

categorization theory explores how individuals identify themselves in relation to gender groups

and how this influences their occupational preferences. People tend to categorize themselves as

belonging to specific social groups, such as "women" or "men," and seek to conform to the
norms and behaviors associated with these groups (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell,

1987). This categorization process can influence individuals' occupational preferences, as they

may strive to select careers perceived as congruent with their gender identity.

2.3.3 Intersectionality:

Intersectionality theory highlights the interconnected nature of social identities, such as gender,

race, ethnicity, and class, and how they intersect to shape individuals' experiences and

opportunities (Crenshaw, 1989). In the context of gender preference in employment,

intersectionality recognizes that gender biases are influenced by multiple intersecting factors. For

example, women from marginalized racial or ethnic backgrounds may face additional barriers

and biases that compound the challenges they encounter in the workforce. Examining gender

preference through an intersectional lens acknowledges the complex interplay of various social

identities and their impact on occupational opportunities and preferences.

2.3.4 Stereotypes and Bias

Stereotypes and biases play a significant role in shaping gender preference in employment.

Stereotypes regarding gender and job suitability contribute to the underrepresentation of certain

genders in specific occupations (Heilman, 2001). The "think-manager-think-male" stereotype,

for example, perpetuates the belief that leadership positions are more suited to men, thereby

influencing hiring and promotion decisions (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Implicit biases, such as the

association of women with communal traits and men with agentic traits, also influence

occupational preferences (Burgess, Borgida, & Moffitt, 2018). Recognizing and challenging

these biases are essential steps towards creating a more inclusive and unbiased work

environment.
2.3.5 Organizational Culture and Policies

Organizational culture and policies have a significant impact on gender preference in

employment. The presence of gender bias in recruitment, promotion, and performance evaluation

processes can perpetuate gender imbalances within organizations (Biernat & Fuegen, 2001).

Family-friendly policies, such as flexible work arrangements and parental leave, can contribute

to the attraction and retention of a diverse workforce (Powell & Graves, 2003). Creating an

inclusive organizational culture that values diversity and supports work-life balance is crucial for

mitigating gender preference in employment.

Additionally, exploring the intersectionality of gender with other factors, such as race and

ethnicity, can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the complexities surrounding

employment preferences. By acknowledging and challenging gender preferences in employment,

society can strive towards creating a more equitable and inclusive workforce.

2.4 Empirical Review

2.4.1 Presence of Gender Bias

Numerous studies have documented the existence of gender bias in employment. For example,

research consistently shows that certain occupations continue to be heavily dominated by one

gender, creating gender imbalances in various industries (e.g., STEM fields, healthcare, and

education) (Ceci, Ginther, Kahn, & Williams, 2014; Stout, Dasgupta, Hunsinger, & McManus,

2011). Other studies have found evidence of implicit biases, where individuals exhibit

unconscious preferences for specific genders in hiring, promotion, and performance evaluations

(Moss-Racusin et al., 2012; Heilman, Wallen, Fuchs, & Tamkins, 2004). These findings
underscore the persistent nature of gender preference in employment and its impact on

occupational representation.

2.4.2 Factors Influencing Occupational Preferences

Empirical research has explored various factors that contribute to gender preference in

employment. Socialization processes have been found to play a significant role, as individuals

internalize societal expectations and stereotypes regarding gender roles and occupational

suitability (Eccles, 1994; Liben & Bigler, 2002). Family and cultural influences, educational

experiences, and exposure to role models have also been identified as influential factors shaping

occupational preferences (Eccles et al., 2006; Marx, Ko, & Friedman, 2009). Organizational

culture and policies, such as the presence of gender bias in recruitment and promotion practices,

can further reinforce gender preferences in employment (Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008). By

examining these factors, empirical research provides valuable insights into the mechanisms

perpetuating gender biases in occupational choices.

2.4.3 Consequences of Gender Preference

Gender preference in employment has significant consequences for individuals and society.

Research has shown that gender biases in occupational preferences contribute to disparities in

employment opportunities, wages, and career advancement (Blau & Kahn, 2017; Correll et al.,

2007). These disparities not only affect individuals' economic well-being but also contribute to

the perpetuation of gender inequality at societal levels. Moreover, gender preference in

employment can reinforce stereotypes, limit diversity, and hinder organizational effectiveness

and innovation (Ely & Padavic, 2007; Kalev, Dobbin, & Kelly, 2006). Understanding the
consequences of gender preference is vital for designing interventions and policies to promote

gender equity and inclusivity in the workforce.

2.4.4. Consequences of Gender Preference

Gender preference in employment has far-reaching consequences for individuals and

organizations. Research consistently shows that gender biases in occupational preferences lead to

disparities in employment opportunities, career progression, and wages (Blau & Kahn, 2017;

Correll, Benard, & Paik, 2007). Such disparities not only affect individuals' economic well-being

but also contribute to gender inequality at a societal level. Furthermore, gender preference in

employment can limit diversity, hinder organizational effectiveness, and impede innovation (Ely

& Padavic, 2007; Kalev, Dobbin, & Kelly, 2006). Understanding the consequences of gender

preference is vital for developing strategies to promote gender equity and create inclusive work

environments.
 CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

3.1. Research Design

This work attempts to ascertain the Gender preference on employment worker The research

adopted a survey research design. The survey research design engaged researcher to administer

questionnaire to sample members of a study population. It involves that researcher made effort to

report response/result from the sample participants without any attempt to manipulate response.

3.2 Study Area

The study will be carry out at Ibarapa Central Local Government. Ibarapa Central Local

Government with headquarters at Igboora, Oyo State was carved out of the then Ifeloju Local

Government on 4th December, 1996 by the then Head of State and Commander in Chief of

Armed Forces, Late General Sanni Abacha..

3.3. Populations

Awokemi (2006:92) refers to population study as the “set of all participant that qualify for a

study” The study population of this research is compromised of all staff at Ibarapa Central Local

Government. The population of Ibarapa Central.

3.4. Sample technique and Sample Size

Snowball sampling techniques was used to the staff of Ibarapa Central Local Government. This

sampling technique gave the researcher the opportunity to draw proportional sample from every

of labor union. However the sample size for study is determined using simple size for the studys

is Yard’s 1971 formula which is n= N where n = sample size N= Total population according to

NPC (2006) and which is constant at 0.05 the total sample size for Ibarapa Central Local

Goernment is ____________.
3.5. Method of Data Collection

This research work adopted Primary method of data collection. The primary data collection

method is a method used by the research when the data/information are collected by the

researcher.

3.6. Source of Data

For this research, two sources were adopted; firstly the primary source which entails

administering. The questionnaire to the respondents, which include the staff of Ibarapa Central

Local Government. Information and data from other researchers, articles, publication, and books

were used as the secondary data source.

3.7. Research Instrument

The researcher need qualitative analysis technique due to the nature of the data was collected.

The collected data were transferred to SPSS and were analyzed using descriptive statistics such

as frequency and percent.

3.8 Model Specification

The study used only two components of gender preference as its independent variable while

employment was employed as dependent variable of the study.

The econometric equation ids given below:

Y= β0+ β1X1+β2X2+ β3X3+ β4X4+ ε

Where:

Y = Gender,

β0 = constant,

β1, - β2 = Coefficient
X1 = Employment

X2 = Term of TGM.

3.9 Validation and Reliability of Instrument

In order to ensure that the instruments had a high level of validity, a number of precautions were

taken, first, the researcher ensured that the items in each of the instrument were relevant to the

objectives of the study it was also ascertained that the wordings of the items were simple enough

and unambiguous so that the items could be understood as intended guide were submitted to the

supervisor comments and advice were adhered to in order to ensure further enhance of the

validity of the instruments.

3.10 Method of Data Analysis

Data was analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistic. Descriptive statistic such as

frequency table, sample percentage and multiple bar chart that was used to analyze response

from the respondent through questionnaires, inferential statistic of Chi-square was used to test

the study hypothesis.

 REFERENCE

Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique

of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago

Legal Forum, 139-167.

Diekman, A. B., & Eagly, A. H. (2008). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of

the past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(6), 829-840.

Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2013). The nature-nurture debates: 25 years of challenges in

understanding the psychology of gender. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 340-357.

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987).

Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Basil Blackwell.

Powell, G. N., & Graves, L. M. (2003). Women and men in management. Sage Publications.

Biernat, M., & Fuegen, K. (2001). Shifting standards and the evaluation of competence:

Complexity in gender-based judgment and decision making. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 707-

724.

Burgess, D., Borgida, E., & Moffitt, K. (2018). Stereotyping and the gender gap: Communal

versus agentic traits in stereotypes of women and men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 42(3),

315-330.

Eagly, A. H., & Chin, J. L. (2010). Diversity and leadership in a changing world. American

Psychologist, 65(3), 216-224.

Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.

Psychological Review, 109(3), 573-598.

Blau, F. D., & Kahn, L. M. (2017). The gender wage gap: Extent, trends, and explanations.

Journal of Economic Literature, 55(3), 789-865.

Ceci, S. J., Ginther, D. K., Kahn, S., & Williams, W. M. (2014). Women in academic science:

Explaining the gender gap. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 15(3), 75-141.

Correll, S. J., Benard, S., & Paik, I. (2007). Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty?

American Journal of Sociology, 112(5), 1297-1339.

Eccles, J. S. (1994). Understanding women's educational and occupational choices: Applying the

Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18(4), 585-

609.

Eccles, J. S., Jacobs, J. E., & Harold, R. D. (2006). Gender role stereotypes, expectancy effects,

and parents' socialization of gender differences. Journal of Social Issues, 62(4), 779-797.

Ely, R. J., & Padavic, I. (2007). A feminist analysis of organizational research on gender.

Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1121-1143.

Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tamkins, M. M. (2004). Penalties for success:

Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology,

89(3), 416-427.

Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy

of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review, 71(4),

589-617.

Liben, L. S., & Bigler, R. S. (2002). The developmental course of gender differentiation:

Conceptualizing, measuring, and evaluating constructs and pathways. Monographs of the Society

for Research in Child Development, 67(2), 1-147.

Marx, D. M., Ko, S. J., & Friedman, R. A. (2009). The "Obama effect": How a salient role model

reduces race-based performance differences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4),

953-956.
Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012).

Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy

of Sciences, 109(41), 16474-16479.

Purdie-Vaughns, V., & Eibach, R. P. (2008). Intersectional invisibility: The distinctive

advantages and disadvantages of multiple subordinate-group identities. Sex Roles, 59(5-6), 377-

391.

Stout, J. G., Dasgupta, N., Hunsinger, M., & McManus, M. A. (2011). STEMing the tide: Using

ingroup experts to inoculate women's self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and

mathematics (STEM). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,