Abstract
In this study, we analyze the free verbal associations to the stimuli women quotas and men quotas of 327 medical students. Women and men quotas are characterized by the same modus operandi (i.e., preferential treatment based on sex/gender). However, women quotas help a low-status group, whereas men quotas help a high-status group. In line with a support paradox, that is, the perception that support for women is less fair and less legitimate than support for men, we expected that students would reject women quotas in academia more vehemently than men quotas. Specifically, we hypothesized that students would have more negative and more emotional associations with women quotas than men quotas. As predicted, students had more negative associations with women quotas than with men quotas. However, students did not have more emotional associations with women quotas than with men quotas. In addition, we explored the semantic content of the free associations to identify specific concerns over each quota. Students perceived women quotas as counterproductive, derogatory, and unfair, whereas they perceived men quotas as beneficial and fair. Concerns over the negative perceptions of quota beneficiaries were associated more frequently with women quotas than men quotas. Potential factors underlying students’ perceptions of both quotas are discussed.
Highlights
In the 21st century, women represent a small proportion of political and economic leaders
Women and men quotas are characterized by the same modus operandi
The objective of the present study is to investigate whether – in line with a support paradox – students, spontaneously, object more to women quotas than men quotas in academia
Summary
In the 21st century, women represent a small proportion of political and economic leaders. Women lead less than five percent of Fortune 500 companies and hold only 29 percent of senior management roles (Catalyst, 2019b). In academia in many countries (e.g., EU, U.S.), women hold half of the doctoral degrees, but represent only one-third of researchers (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2018; European Commission, 2019). Enhancing the opportunities for women, there has been an upsurge in the use of women quotas in politics and economics in the recent years (Bonitz, 2017; International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assitance, 2018). The European Union pushed for mandatory women quotas in corporate boardrooms (Boffey, 2017; Zillman, 2017). In the US, California was the first state to introduce mandatory women quotas in corporate boards in 2018 (Ortiz, 2018)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
