Abstract
ABSTRACT Parental discrimination has been shown to be related to several risks, including impaired health, increased job stress, and decreased job satisfaction, which calls for increased awareness of parental discrimination. This paper analyzes fairness and legitimacy judgments of unequal treatment based on parental status at work and the antecedents that influence these judgments. Stereotypes of symbolic vilification that suggest lower commitment due to caring responsibilities, and symbolic amplification, which refers to rational economic organizational needs, are expected to rationalize discrimination. Moreover, we expect specific values and ideologies to be related to judgments of fairness and legitimacy, mediated by resonance with symbolic vilification and amplification. Analyses are based on survey data from a sample of employees aged between 20 and 45 years (n = 376). Respondents’ evaluations of parental discrimination were measured using two fictional cases. The results suggest that greater acceptance of vilifying and amplifying justifications is triggered by a stronger preference for the ideal worker norm and traditional gender role expectations. Women tend to view discrimination as more unfair and illegitimate than men, while men’s judgments are more strongly driven by economic reasoning.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call