Beyond Being Beneficiaries: Two Mechanisms Explain Why Women Have More Favourable Attitudes Towards Gender Quotas Than Men

Abstract

This research identified two mechanisms that explain gender differences in attitudes towards gender quotas. Using a multi‐method approach, we assessed attitudes as self‐reported support for gender quotas and rater‐coded valence of participants’ free associations with gender quotas. Study 1 examined quotas for university professorship positions (N = 237) and Study 2 quotas for corporate leadership positions (N = 587). Supporting the first mechanism, women's greater perceptions of discrimination against women related to greater perceived necessity of gender quotas, which related to more favourable attitudes. Supporting the second mechanism, men's greater concerns that quotas discriminate against men related to greater concerns that quotas stigmatize women as incompetent, which related to less favourable attitudes. By advancing the understanding of key mechanisms behind attitudes towards gender quotas, this research contributes to effectively designing and successfully implementing hard affirmative action policies aimed at overcoming women's underrepresentation in leading academic and corporate positions.

Full text

European Journal of Social Psychology
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Beyond Being Beneficiaries: Two Mechanisms Explain Why
Women Have More Favourable Attitudes Towards Gender
Quotas Than Men
Miriam K. Zehnter1Christa Nater2
1Department of Psychology, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK 2Department of Psychology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
Correspondence: Miriam K. Zehnter (M.K.Zehnter@exeter.ac.uk)
Received: 26 June 2023 Accepted: 10 September 2024
Funding: This work was supported, in part, through the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie
Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement (No 101024885) awarded to Miriam K. Zehnter and by a postdoctoral fellowship grant from the Swiss National Science
Foundation (No P400PS_199273) awarded to Christa Nater.
Keywords: attitudes | free associations | gender differences | gender quotas | perceived discrimination
ABSTRACT
This research identified two mechanisms that explain gender differences in attitudes towards gender quotas. Using a multi-
method approach, we assessed attitudes as self-reported support for gender quotas and rater-coded valence of participants’ free
associations with gender quotas. Study 1 examined quotas for university professorship positions (N=237) and Study 2 quotas for
corporate leadership positions (N=587). Supporting the first mechanism, women’s greater perceptions of discrimination against
women related to greater perceived necessity of gender quotas, which related to more favourable attitudes. Supporting the second
mechanism, men’s greater concerns that quotas discriminate against men related togreater concerns that quotas stigmatize women
as incompetent, which related to less favourable attitudes. By advancing the understanding of key mechanisms behind attitudes
towards gender quotas, this research contributes to effectively designing and successfully implementing hard affirmative action
policies aimed at overcoming women’s underrepresentation in leading academic and corporate positions.
1 Introduction
A growing number of nations and organizations have introduced
gender quotas to increase women’s representation in economic,
academic and political leadership (EIGE 2021). For instance, the
European Commission mandated that publicly listed companies
in the European Union must achieve a quota of 40% women
among non-executive board members or 33% women in all board
director roles by 2026 (Huet 2022). Albeit increasingly prevalent,
gender quotas—a hard form of affirmative action—often ignite
strong opposition with men typically holding less favourable
attitudes than women (Bell, Harrison, and McLaughlin 2000;
Harrison et al. 2006; Kravitz, Bludau, and Klineberg 2008). The
most prominent and widely shared explanation for this gender
difference is that women benefit from such policies individually
and collectively, whereas men do not (Harrison et al. 2006;
Kane and Whipkey 2009; Martins and Parsons 2007;Olsen
et al. 2016). Although self-interest surely is a powerful predictor
of attitudes towards gender policies (for reviews, see Crosby,
Sabattini, and Aizawa 2013; Morgenroth and Ryan 2018), the
formation of attitudes towards gender quotas is likely more
complex than simply being or not being a beneficiary of the policy.
Advancing the current scientific knowledge, the present research
seeks to test more specific mechanisms underlying women’s and
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
cited.
© 2024 The Author(s). European Journal of Social Psychology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
European Journal of Social Psychology,2025;55:1–16
https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.3113
1

men’s attitudes towards gender quotas, aiming to understand
the formation of attitudes towards an increasingly prevalent, yet
controversial, policy.
1.1 Mechanisms Underlying Gender Differences
in Attitudes Towards Gender Quotas
Going beyond the explanation that women are beneficiaries of
gender policies and thus hold favourable attitudes, qualitative
research found that women were more likely than men to
describe gender quotas as necessary to overcome discrimination
against women, whereas men were more likely to voice concerns
over quotas being discriminatory against men and, surprisingly,
were more worried that gender quotas would stigmatize women
as incompetent than women themselves (Zehnter and Kirchler
2020). Building on these qualitative results, we aim to empirically
examine whether two hitherto untested mechanisms help explain
gender differences in attitudes towards gender quotas. The first
mechanism we propose is that women perceive more anti-women
discrimination than men, thus perceiving gender quotas as more
necessary, and in turn hold more favourable attitudes towards
quotas. The second mechanism we propose is that men are
more concerned that gender quotas discriminate against men
than women, yet hide their self-interest behind concerns over
women being stigmatized as incompetent, and in turn, hold less
favourable attitudes towards quotas.
1.1.1 Mechanism 1: Perception of Discrimination
Against Women and Perceived Necessity of Gender Quotas
Women tend to perceive greater levels of discrimination against
women than men (García-González, Forcén, and Jimenez-
Sanchez 2019;Swimetal.2005), and this gender gap is particu-
larly pronounced for institutional sexism (Blodorn, O’Brien, and
Kordys 2012). Such gender differences in perceived discrimina-
tion may underly gender differences in attitudes towards gender
policies. Indeed, one study found that among academics from
an Australian university, gender differences in attitudes towards
affirmative action targeting women could be explained by percep-
tions of gender discrimination. Specifically, women were more
likely than men to perceive discrimination against women and
thus held more positive attitudes towards affirmative action
(Konrad and Hartmann 2001). Vice versa, participants’ denial
of continued gender discrimination and their perception of the
current system as fair related to their negative attitudes towards
affirmative action and organizations using affirmative action
when recruiting new personnel (Phelan and Rudman 2011).
Gender quotas can broadly be conceptualized as a way of con-
fronting sexism and a form of collective action. Both approaches
highlight that recognizing discrimination precedes action. Stair-
case models such as the ‘ask, answer and announce’ model
(Stangor et al. 2003) and the ‘confronting prejudicial response’
model (Ashburn-Nardo, Morris, and Goodwin 2008)suggestthat
the perception of sexism is a necessary first step in confronting
it. Similarly, perceiving injustice is an important antecedent of
collective action (van Zomeren, Postmes, and Spears 2008)and
perceiving gender-based injustices is key to igniting women’s
interest in collective action to overcome sexism (Ellemers and
Barreto 2009; Radke, Hornsey, and Barlow 2016).
Importantly, recognizing discrimination is an important first
step towards action, but not the last one. For example, in the
‘confronting prejudicial response’ model, perceiving discrimi-
nation was followed by classifying it as an emergency that
warrants action (Ashburn-Nardo, Morris, and Goodwin 2008).
Similarly, Konrad and Hartmann (2001) suggested that perceiving
discrimination may lead women to classify affirmative action
policies as necessary and consequently hold favourable attitudes
towards them. In fact, the notion that perceptions of contin-
ued discrimination against women relate to greater perceived
necessity and subsequently to more favourable attitudes towards
gender policies was suggested early on (Kluegel 1985). However,
these links have not yet been tested.
The present research proposes and empirically tests whether
women’s compared to men’s greater perception of continued
discrimination against women relates to women perceiving gen-
der quotas as more necessary and, consequently, helps explain
women’s more favourable attitudes towards quotas.
To critically appraise our theoretically proposed mechanism,
we use the Hyman–Tate criterion, which states that ‘mediation
requires a conceptual time-ordering of the predictor, mediator
and outcome’ (Tate 2015, 237). Although predictor, mediator and
outcome variables do not have to be measured in a sequential time
order, it must be plausible that the predictor (i.e., gender) emerges
prior to the mediators (i.e., perceived discrimination of women,
perceived necessity of gender quotas), which in turn emerges
prior to the outcome (i.e., attitudes towards gender quotas). Gen-
der as a natural group variable can only be a predictor (Tate 2015).
The above-described literature and in particular the staircase
models that describe the recognition of discrimination as the first
step in a chain of reactions towards discrimination (e.g., Ashburn-
Nardo, Morris, and Goodwin 2008;Stangoretal.2003) underpin
the theoretical plausibility of our proposed mechanism. In fact,
discrimination against women is an ongoing problem and gender
quotas are one, albeit controversial, solution. It thus is the logical
sequence of events that the awareness of a problem precedes the
perception that a solution is necessary, which in turn precedes the
evaluation of the solution.
1.1.2 Mechanism 2: Concerns Over Anti-Men Discrimi-
nation and Anti-Women Stigmatization
Past qualitative research has further shown that men were not
only more concerned than women that gender quotas would
discriminate against men but also worried more than women
themselves that gender quotas would stigmatize women as
incompetent (Zehnter and Kirchler 2020). Although concerns
over gender quotas discriminating against men and stigmatizing
women are often voiced together (Bell, Harrison, and McLaughlin
2000), little research has examined whether these concerns may
jointly drive attitudes towards gender policies. We next discuss
both concerns and how they may relate to each other and
subsequently to attitudes towards gender quotas.
So far, an extensive body of research shows that self-interest
underlies attitudes towards affirmative action, with men endors-
ing these policies to a lesser extent than women (for reviews, see
Crosby, Sabattini, and Aizawa 2013; Morgenroth and Ryan 2018).
2European Journal of Social Psychology,2025

Thus, men’s greater concerns over the discrimination of their gen-
der group likely explain why men hold less favourable attitudes
towards gender quotas than women do. Indeed, past research
found that men saw affirmative action as more threatening to
their careers than women, and therefore held less favourable
attitudes towards these policies (Konrad and Hartmann 2001).
Moreover, confronting White men with pro-diversity messages
not only led them to verbally express concerns over being discrim-
inated against but also caused them to experience physical threat
reactionssuchaselevatedheartrates(Dover,Major,andKaiser
2016). Gender quotas may feel particularly threatening to men.
In contrast to softer affirmative action policies for women such
as special training or mentoring opportunities, gender quotas—
as a hard form of affirmative action—pursue a fix-the-system
rather than fix-the-women approach (Burkinshaw and White
2017). Such perceived threats to the system can increase system-
justifying beliefs (Brescoll, Uhlmann, and Newman 2013;Jost
and Hunyady 2005), which in turn relates to greater opposition
to affirmative action and collective action (Fraser, Osborne, and
Sibley 2015; Osborne et al. 2019; Phelan and Rudman 2011).
At a more general level, a growing body of research showed that
men tend to believe that women’s advancement leads to increases
in anti-men discrimination. For instance, while women and men
believed that discrimination against women has decreased over
the last six decades, men believed that discrimination against
men is increasing (Kehn and Ruthig 2013). Some men even
believe that due to women’s advancements, the tables have
turned and that today men (and not women) are the primary
victims of gender discrimination (Zehnter et al. 2021). Zero-sum
thinking seems to underlie men’s perceptions of increasing anti-
men discrimination. That is, men more than women tend to
see gender relations from a competitive win-lose perspective and
believe that any gains women make in the workplace create losses
for men (Ruthig et al. 2017). The consequences of men’s zero-
sum thinking regarding gender issues can be dire. For example,
research showed that across 42 nations, zero-sum thinking was
negatively associated with men’s support for collective action for
women (Kosakowska-Berezecka et al. 2020).
Whereas concerns that gender quotas discriminate against men
plausibly reduce men’s support for this policy, it seems plausible
that concerns over the stigmatization of women would reduce
women’s rather than men’s support for the policy, given that
women face these negative effects. In fact, experimental research
documented that female leaders selected through quotas were
seen as less competent and deserving of their roles than those
selected based on merit (Heilman et al. 1992; Heilman and
Welle 2006; Nater, Heilman, and Sczesny 2023). Paradoxically,
yet importantly for the present research, members of the group
not targeted by a quota may more likely raise concerns over the
stigmatization of the target group. Past research on affirmative
action benefiting ethnic minorities provides support for this
assumption. In fact, White Americans voiced more concerns over
affirmative action stigmatizing Black American beneficiaries as
incompetent than Black Americans themselves (O’Brien et al.
2010). This research established a causal link between framing
affirmative action as hurting White Americans and the expres-
sion of concerns for Black American beneficiaries. Specifically,
members of the majority group (i.e., White) raised concerns over
the stigmatization of beneficiaries (i.e., Black) to mask their
own individual and collective self-interests, rather than out of
‘genuine’ concern for the beneficiaries (O’Brien et al. 2010).
Based on this reasoning, we propose that men, compared to
women, are more concerned that gender quotas discriminate
against men, and in turn—masking their self-interest—voice
greater concerns over gender quotas stigmatizing women, which
then relates to men’s less favourable attitudes towards gender
quotas.
Again, we assessed this mechanism against the Hyman—Tate
criterion (Tate 2015). Supporting our theoretical reasoning, Bell,
Harrison, and McLaughlin (2000) showed that beliefs about
the attributes of affirmative action, including beliefs about
the discrimination of non-beneficiaries and negative conse-
quences for beneficiaries, predicted attitudes towards affirmative
action. The fact that their experimental manipulations of these
attributes successfully changed attitudes towards affirmative
action strengthens the assumption of causality between perceived
attributes of affirmative action and attitudes towards them (Bell,
Harrison, and McLaughlin 2000). The above-described results
from O’Brien and colleagues’ experiments—namely that White
Americans’ concerns that race-based affirmative action stigma-
tizes Black Americans was a direct response to an experimental
manipulation that presented race-based affirmative action as
disadvantageous for them—further underline the plausibility
of our proposed mechanism. At least some men may mask
their self-interest (which is not being discriminated against by
gender quotas) behind concerns over gender quotas stigmatizing
women.
2Present Research
In this research, we seek to test two mechanisms to explain
why women hold more favourable attitudes towards gender
quotas than men. The first mechanism focuses on perceptions
of discrimination against women and necessity and the second
mechanism on concerns about discrimination against men and
stigmatization of women. Figure 1visualizes the two proposed
mechanisms.
Hypothesis 1. Women, compared to men, perceive greater
discrimination against women, which relates to greater perceived
necessity of gender quotas, and subsequently more favourable
attitudes in the form of both self-reported support (1a) and free
associations with quotas (1b).
Hypothesis 2. Men, compared to women, have greater concerns
over men being discriminated against by gender quotas, which—
masking their own self-interest—relate to greater concerns over
women being stigmatized by gender quotas and subsequently to less
favourable attitudes in the form of both self-reported support (2a)
and free associations with quotas (2b).
Across two studies, we examined whether the proposed mech-
anisms explain attitudes towards gender quotas for university
professorship positions (Study 1) and leadership positions in the
corporate world (Study 2). Using structural equation modelling
(SEM), we tested whether the proposed mechanisms explain
attitudes in terms of (a) self-reported support for gender quotas
3

FIGURE 1 Illustration of the two hypothesized mechanisms underlying gender differences in attitudes towards gender quotas. Participant gender
was coded men =0, women =1.
and (b) the rater-coded valence of participants’ free associations
with gender quotas. This multi-method approach reduced bias
based on common method variance and increased the generaliz-
ability and robustness of our findings (Jakobsen and Jensen 2015;
Tehseen, Ramayah, and Sajilan 2017).
This research is the first empirical test of two detailed mecha-
nisms that should underly gender differences in attitudes towards
gender quotas. Knowledge about these mechanisms advances the
scientific understanding of attitude formation regarding gender
quotas and has high practical relevance as it informs the fram-
ing and communication of often controversial gender quotas.
Another innovative aspect of this research is its consideration of
attitudes in terms of both self-reported support for gender quotas
and the valence of free associations with gender quotas. Past
work has mainly focused on self-reported support for gender-
based affirmative action (e.g., Kane and Whipkey 2009;Konrad
and Hartmann 2001; Olsen et al. 2016). In contrast to deliberate
self-reports, free associations are words and short sentences that
spontaneously come to mind (Nelson, Mcevoy, and Dennis 2000).
Reflecting people’s naturalistic thoughts, free associations are an
ecologically valid measure of attitudes (Joffe and Elsey 2014). In
particular, the valence of free associations, that is, the ratio of
positive and negative associations with an attitude object tends to
be stable over time (Schnabel and Asendorpf 2013). Compared to
self-reported support, free associations tend to be less susceptible
to social desirability (Joffe and Elsey 2014) and more predictive
of behaviour (Rooke, Hine, and Thorsteinsson 2008). Hence,
examining what fosters free associations with gender quotas
is important given that these may better predict behaviours
such as pursuing jobs at organizations that use gender quotas
(Shaughnessy et al. 2016).
All data and analysis code are available at OSF (https://osf.io/
pdxv6). The verbatim study materials are available in Supporting
Information S1a-S1c in the online supplemental material. The
studies were approved by the Data Protection Commission of
the Medical University of Vienna (Pilot Study) and the Ethics
Commission of the University of Bern (Studies 1 and 2).
3Pilot Study
Given this research’s unique methodological approach, we con-
ducted a pilot study to examine (1) the strength of the relationship
between self-reported support of gender quotas and the rater-
coded valence of participants’ free associations with gender
quotas and (2) whether the same mechanism, namely perceptions
of continued discrimination against women, would predict both.
To this end, an online survey, conducted in 2014, assessed 192
undergraduate medicine students’ (93 women, 99 men) attitudes
towards gender quotas for professorship positions at universities
in Austria.
According to Austrian public legislation, universities must select
equally qualified women over men until a quota of 50% women
researchers is achieved (Austrian University Act 120/2002 §20b
2002). Although the Austrian gender quota was introduced as
early as 1993 (Austrian Federal Act for Gender Equality 100/1993
§11b 1993), women remain a minority among university profes-
sors to this day. At medical universities in Austria, where the
pilot study was conducted, the percentage of women professors
increased from 14% in 2010 to 23% in 2018 (FEMTech 2018).
A detailed description of the pilot study is provided in the
Supporting Information S2. In short, results revealed a strong
relationship between self-reported support for gender quotas and
the rater-coded valence of participants’ free associations with
gender quotas. Answering the main question of the pilot study—
whether the same simplified mechanism underlies gender
differences in both attitudes—results confirmed that perceptions
of continued discrimination against women explained gender
differences in both. That is, women perceived greater anti-women
discrimination than men and in turn, showed more support for
4European Journal of Social Psychology,2025

gender quotas and more positive free associations with gender
quotas.
4Study 1
Study 1 examined attitudes towards gender quotas for university
professorship positions in Switzerland, testing the two hypoth-
esized mechanisms (see Figure 1). Notably, Switzerland did not
have gender quotas for professorship positions in 2018 (at the
time this study was conducted). Instead, we informed participants
about the quota at Austrian universities to then assess their
attitudes. This provided a realistic scenario given that Austria is
culturally and geographically close to Switzerland.
4.1 Method
4.1.1 Participants
Participants were undergraduate medical students (as in the
pilot study) but this time from the medical department at the
University of Bern (Switzerland). In total, 245 students completed
the study. We excluded one (<1%) from data analysis for missing
values in key variables and seven (3%) for mean times per associ-
ation exceeding the sample’s mean by three standard deviations.
The final sample included 237 participants, 149 (63%) women
and 88 (37%) men. Participants were between 18 and 31 years of
age (M=22.57, SD =2.65). Power calculations with pwrSEM
(Wang and Rhemtulla 2021) showed that this sample size was
sufficient to detect medium-sized indirect effects (abc =0.04),
path coefficients (a=0.40, b=0.30, c=0.30), with a power
of 80% and alpha of p<0.05.
4.1.2 Procedure
Students received an email invitation for a study on academic
recruitment decisions. After giving informed consent, the study
started with the free association task. Participants were presented
with a description of gender quotas (similar to those at Austrian
universities; Austrian University Act 120/2002 §20b 2002)and
learned that such a quota may be discussed in Switzerland in
the future. Concretely, participants read that ‘Several countries
dictate the application of gender quotas and demand that when
hiring for research positions, equally qualified women are to
be treated preferentially until a certain percentage of women
(e.g., 50%) is reached. In Switzerland, no such quota is cur-
rently applied; however, these might be discussed in the future’.
Participants then wrote down their free associations with this
gender quota and indicated their support for it, responded to
questions containing the mediator variables and demographic
information.
4.1.3 Measures
4.1.3.1 Valence of Free Associations With Gender
Quotas. Following current recommendations (Schnabel and
Asendorpf 2013), we used participants’ first two associations
as they are most spontaneous. Two independent raters (one
woman, one man) rated each association as either a positive,
neutral or negative response to gender quotas, with substantial
interrater agreement, Cohen’s kappa =0.70. Disagreements were
resolved by a third independent rater. Based on these ratings,
we calculated each participant’s valence of free associations by
subtracting the number of negative associations from the number
of positive associations divided by two (Schnabel and Asendorpf
2013). Supporting Information S3 describes the method of free
associations and the calculation of their valence in detail.
4.1.3.2 Self-Reported Support for Gender Quotas. Par-
ticipants indicated their attitude on seven pairs of short phrases
and words with opposite meanings (e.g., ‘I don’t support this’—‘I
support this’ and ‘unfair’—‘fair’) on a 6-point rating scale. Greater
values indicated more positive attitudes, α=0.97. To facilitate
comparability between the valence of free associations ranging
from −1 to 1 and self-reported support ranging from 1 to 6, we
standardized these measures using z-scores (Fischer and Milfont
2010). The resulting scores ranged from −4 to 4, with higher
scores indicating more positive attitudes.
4.1.3.3 Mediator Variables. Perceived discrimination agai
nst women was assessed with the German 10-item version of
the Modern Sexism Scale (Eckes and Six-Materna 1998)that
asks for participants’ agreement to statements such as ‘The
discrimination of women is still a problem in Switzerland’, α=
0.81.
Perceived necessity of gender quotas was assessed with three
items, namely, ‘Gender quotas in research in Switzerland would
be necessary’, ‘[...] important’ and ‘[...]dispensable’(reversed),
α=0.89.
Concerns over discrimination against men were assessed with
three items, such as ‘Gender quotas in research lead to the
discrimination of men in recruitment decisions’, α=0.63.
Concerns over the stigmatization of women were measured with
three items, such as ‘Because of gender quotas in research,
women in research are taken less seriously’, α=0.68. All ratings
were made on a 7-point scale (1 =strongly disagree,7=strongly
agree).
4.1.4 Analysis Plan
Hypotheses 1 and 2 were tested using SEM with maximum-
likelihood estimation (lavaan R package; Rosseel 2012). To opti-
mize the indicators of the latent variables, confirmatory factors
analyses (CFAs) ensured one-factor solutions of all measures
and items with weak standardized factor loadings (≤0.40) were
dropped and residuals of item pairs with similar wording were
allowed to co-vary. The SEM included the rater-coded valence of
participants’ free associations as a single indicator latent variable
and included the residual covariance of support and valence
of free associations. For tests of indirect effects, we used 95%
bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals based on 10,000
bootstrap samples and reported unstandardized coefficients.
Model fit was assessed with the comparative fit index (CFI), the
Tucker—Lewis index (TLI) and the root-mean-square error of
approximation (RMSEA; Hu and Bentler 1999).
5

TABLE 1 Study 1: Means, standard deviations and correlation matrix.
Wom en M
(SD)
Men M
(SD)tpDW PN DM SM S
Discrimination of women (DW) 4.49 (0.97) 4.08 (0.85) −3.41 <0.001
Perceived necessity (PN) 3.88 (1.68) 3.11 (1.48) −3.67 <0.001 0.61*
Discrimination of men (DM) 3.31 (1.10) 4.17 (1.22) 5.48 <0.001 −0.34*−0.54*
Stigmatization of women (SM) 3.81 (1.16) 3.83 (1.29) 0.09 0.928 −0.22*−0.43*0.45*
Self-Reported support for quotas (S) 0.16 (0.99) −0.27 (0.97) −3.30 0.001 0.51*0.83*−0.60*−0.42*
Free associations with quotas (FA) 0.10 (0.99) −0.16 (1.00) −1.93 0.055 0.34*0.61*−0.41*−0.42*0.65*
Note: Gender was coded as 0 =men and 1 =women. Support and free associations are indicated as standardized z-scores ranging from −4 to 4, with higher scores
indicating more positive attitudes.
*p<0.05.
4.2 Results
As shown in Table 1, women perceived greater levels of anti-
women discrimination than men, perceived gender quotas as
more necessary and were less concerned about gender quotas
discriminating against men. Notably, women were neither more
nor less concerned than men that gender quotas could stigmatize
women. Moreover, women’s self-reported support for gender
quotas was greater than men’s and women’s free associations with
gender quotas were descriptively more positive than those of men
although non-significant. Table 1displays the means, standard
deviations and intercorrelations of all variables included in this
study.
4.3 Mechanisms Underlying Gender Differences
in Support and Valence of Free Associations
The proposed model had good fit, χ2(258) =559.85, p<0.001;
CFI =0.931; TLI =0.920; RMSEA =0.070, 95% CI [0.06, 0.08]
and accounted for 81% of the variance in self-reported support
for gender quotas and 41% of the variance in the rater-coded
valence of participants’ free associations with gender quotas.
Figure 2displays the model, Supporting Information S4 shows
results from CFAs and Supporting Information S5a shows the
SEM regression results.
Supporting Hypothesis 1a, gender predicted support for gender
quotas through perceived discrimination of women and perceived
necessity, indirect effect β=0.35, 95% CI [0.17, 0.59]. Women
perceived greater levels of anti-women discrimination than men,
b=0.29, p<0.001, which related to greater perceived necessity
of gender quotas, b=−0.61, p<0.001, and in turn to more
support, b=0.89, p<0.001. Supporting Hypothesis 1b, gender
also predicted the valence of free associations with gender quotas
through perceived anti-women discrimination and perceived
necessity, indirect effect β=0.16, 95% CI [0.08, 0.28]. The greater
perceived necessity of gender quotas also related to more positive
free associations, b=0.93, p<0.001.
Contrary to Hypothesis 2a, gender did not significantly predict
support through concerns over discrimination against men and
concerns over the stigmatization of women, indirect effect β
=−0.01, 95% CI [−0.23, 0.08]. Specifically, concerns over the
stigmatization of women were not related to support for gender
quotas, b=0.02, p=0.812. Supporting Hypothesis 2b, gender
predicted the valence of free associations with gender quotas
through concerns over discrimination against men and concerns
over the stigmatization of women, indirect effect β=0.08, 95% CI
[0.01, 0.26]. Men, compared to women, perceived gender quotas
as more discriminating against men, b=−0.39, p<0.001, which,
as predicted, related to greater concerns over the stigmatization
of women, b=0.70, p<0.001 and in turn to less positive free
associations, b=−0.31, p=0.021.
Additional exploratory results revealed that gender predicted
support for gender quotas through concerns over anti-men
discrimination only, indirect effect β=0.25, 95% CI [0.11, 0.56].
Men had greater concerns over anti-men discrimination than
women, b=−0.39, p<0.001, which related to less support,
b=−0.29, p<0.001. Furthermore, gender predicted the valence
of free associations through concerns over the stigmatization of
women, indirect effect β=−0.08, 95% CI [−0.29, −0.01]. Once the
impact of concerns over anti-men discrimination was controlled
for, women, compared to men, had more concerns over women
being stigmatized, b=0.26, p=0.001.
4.4 Discussion
Overall, women expressed greater support for gender quotas and
their free associations tended to be more positive than those of
men. As predicted, these differences could largely be explained
by the two hypothesized mechanisms, accounting for large
percentages of variance in both support for quotas and the valence
of free associations with gender quotas. First, women’s greater
perceptions of continued anti-women discrimination related to
greater perceived necessity of gender quotas, which related to
more support of quotas and more favourable free associations.
Second, men’s greater concerns over discrimination against men
related, as predicted, to greater concerns over the stigmatization
of women, which related to less favourable free associations, but
not less self-reported support of quotas.
Notably, women and men were equally concerned over the
stigmatization of women through quotas. Only when controlling
for concerns over anti-men discrimination, did gender differences
in concerns over the stigmatization of women occur, with women
6European Journal of Social Psychology,2025

–0.09
0.08 ns –0.15 ns
Covariance: 0.21*
0.02 ns
0.02
–0.06
–0.02
–0.05 ns
0.61*** 0.89***
0.93***
0.29***
–0.39***
0.26*
–0.29*
0.70*** –0.31*
FIGURE 2 Study 1: Structural equation model of mechanisms underlying gender differences in attitudes towards gender quotas for university
professorship positions. Standardized results are depicted. Significant paths are indicated by solid lines, and nonsignificant paths are indicated by dashed
lines. Gender was coded men =0, women =1. Rectangles represent observed variables, and ellipses represent latent variables. Significance levels are
indicated as * p<0.05, ** p<0.01 and *** p<0.001.
expressing more such concerns than men. These incidental
results suggest that men indeed voice concerns about the
stigmatization of women to mask their own self-interest to not be
discriminated against by quotas—a mechanism first suggested
byO’Brienetal.(2010) in the context of race-based affirmative
action.
Limitations of Study 1 raise questions for further inquiry. The
relatively small and homogeneous sample consisting of medicine
students potentially reduced test power and the robustness
and generalizability of the results. Moreover, the assessment of
perceived necessity, concerns over the discrimination of men
and concerns over the stigmatization of women with three
items each has potentially limited the capability to calculate fit
models for these measures. Finally, the focus on attitudes towards
gender quotas for university professorship positions limits the
applicability of our findings to other contexts, as attitudes might
be different in the corporate world where quotas are more often
in place. Study 2 was designed to overcome these limitations.
5Study 2
Study 2 examined the same set of hypotheses as Study 1 (see
Figure 1) to test whether our proposed mechanisms also explain
women’s and men’s attitudes towards gender quotas in the
corporate world. Study 2 was conducted in Switzerland in 2021,
where gender quotas for corporate boards have been effective
since January 2021. Specifically, large, listed companies are to
employ 30% women on the board of directors and 20% women
on the executive board (Poggio 2020).
5.1 Method
5.1.1 Participants
Participants were students from the University of Bern (Switzer-
land). After receiving an e-mail invitation, 610 students com-
pleted the study. Six (1%) participants were excluded because of
missing values in key variables and 11 (2%) for average response
times per association above three standard deviations from the
sample mean. Six (1%) individuals who did not self-identify as
either a woman or a man were excluded from the main analyses.
The final sample consisted of 587 students, 396 (67%) women and
191 (33%) men. Their age ranged from 18 to 68 years (M=24.09,
SD =5.60). Power calculations showed that this sample size was
sufficient to detect small-sized indirect effects (abc =0.01) and
path coefficients (a=0.20, b=0.20, c=0.20), with a test power
of 80% and alpha of p<0.05.
5.1.2 Procedure
The procedure was identical to that of Study 1, except for the
different quota stimuli. Specifically, participants read: ‘Since
January 2021, there has been a gender quota for management
positions in large, listed companies in Switzerland. Specifically,
from now on, companies are to employ 30% women on the
board of directors and 20% women on the executive board’. After
learning about this newly introduced gender quota, participants
provided their free associations, indicated their support for it and
responded to questions containing the mediator variables and
demographic information.
7

TABLE 2 Study 2: Means, standard deviations and correlation matrix.
Wom en M (SD)MenM(SD)tpDW PN DM SM S
Discrimination of women (DW) 4.99 (0.99) 4.23 (1.17) −7.72 <0.001
Perceived necessity (PN) 4.98 (1.60) 3.77 (1.79) −7.96 <0.001 0.61*
Discrimination of men (DM) 2.32 (1.19) 3.56 (1.53) 9.79 <0.001 −0.55*−0.61*
Stigmatization of women (SM) 3.80 (1.47) 4.18 (1.56) 2.80 0.005 −0.28*−0.55*0.47*
Self-reported support for quotas (S) 0.18 (0.91) −0.37 (1.08) −6.07 <0.001 0.50*0.79*−0.60*−0.58*
Free associations with quotas (FA) 0.14 (0.96) −0.28 (1.03) −4.67 <0.001 0.39*0.64*−0.44*−0.51*0.64*
Note: Gender was coded as 0 =men and 1 =women. Support and free associations are indicated as standardized z-scores, ranging from −4 to 4, with higher scores
indicating more positive attitudes.
*p<0.05.
5.1.3 Measures
5.1.3.1 Valence of Free Associations With Gender Quo-
tas. As in Study 1, two independent raters categorized partic-
ipants’ first two free associations as a positive, a neutral or
a negative response to gender quotas. Their agreement was
substantial, Cohen’s kappa =0.77. Based on these ratings, we
calculated the valence of the free associations.
5.1.3.2 Self-Reported Support for Gender Quotas. As in
Study 1, support for gender quotas was again assessed with the
seven-item pairs of opposite meanings, α=0.96. To facilitate
comparison between the valence of free associations and self-
reported support, we again standardized both attitude measures
using z-scores, ranging from −4to4.Greatervaluesindicatemore
positive attitudes.
5.1.3.3 Mediator Variables. As in Study 1, perceived dis-
crimination against women was measured using the German
10-itemModernSexismScale,α=0.88.
Extending the scales used in Study 1, a four-item scale assessed
the perceived necessity of gender quotas, α=0.91, concerns
over discrimination against men, α=0.85 and concerns over the
stigmatization of women, α=0.89. Participants indicated their
agreement with all statements on a 7-point scale (1 =strongly
disagree,7=strongly agree).
5.1.4 Analysis Plan
Following the analysis plan of Study 1, SEM tested the proposed
mechanisms outlined in Hypotheses 1 and 2.
5.2 Results
AsshowninTable2, women perceived more anti-women
discrimination than men, perceived gender quotas as more
necessary and were less concerned about gender quotas
discriminating against men. Notably, women were less concerned
than men that gender quotas could stigmatize women as
incompetent. Moreover, women’s self-reported support for
gender quotas was greater than men’s. Similarly, women’s free
associations with gender quotas were more positive than those
of men. Table 2displays the means, standard deviations and
inter-correlations of all variables included in Study 2.
5.3 Mechanisms Underlying Gender Differences
in Attitudes
The proposed model had good fit, χ2(417) =1,424.83, p<0.001;
CFI =0.927; TLI =0.919; RMSEA =0.064, 95% CI [0.061, 0.068]
and accounted for 73% of the variance in self-reported support
for gender quotas and 41% of the variance in the rater-coded
valence of participants’ free associations with gender quotas.
Figure 3displays the model, Supporting Information S4 shows
results from CFAs and Supporting Information S5b shows the
SEM regression results.
Supporting Hypothesis 1a, gender predicted support for gender
quotas through perceived discrimination against women and
perceived necessity, indirect effect β=0.47, 95% CI [0.34, 0.64].
Women perceived greater levels of anti-women discrimination
than men, b=0.33, p<0.001, which related to greater perceived
necessity of gender quotas, b=0.61, p<0.001, and in turn to more
support, b=0.85, p<0.001. Supporting Hypothesis 1b, gender
also predicted the valence of free associations with gender quotas
through perceived discrimination against women and perceived
necessity, indirect effect β=0.17, 95% CI [0.12, 0.25]. Greater
perceived necessity of gender quotas related to more positive free
associations, b=0.61, p<0.001.
Supporting Hypothesis 2a, gender predicted support for gender
quotas through concerns over discrimination against men and the
stigmatization of women, indirect effect β=0.12, 95% CI [0.06,
0.19]. Men had greater concerns over the discrimination of men,
b=−0.42, p<0.001, which were associated with greater concerns
over the stigmatization of women, b=0.58, p<0.001, and in turn
with less support, b=−0.17, p<0.001. Supporting Hypothesis
2b, the effect of gender on the valence of free associations with
gender quotas was also mediated by concerns over discrimination
against men and the stigmatization of women, indirect effect β=
0.08, 95% CI [0.05, 0.13]. Greater concerns over the stigmatization
of women related to less positive free associations, b=−0.22, p<
0.001.
Contrary to predictions, additional exploratory results revealed
that gender predicted support for gender quotas through
8European Journal of Social Psychology,2025

–0.06 ns
–0.06 ns
0.02
–0.03 ns
–0.04 ns
–0.03 ns
0.33***
0.61*** 0.85***
0.61***
0.14***
–0.42***
0.11*
–0.13***
–0.17***
–0.22***
0.58***
Covariance: 0.19***
FIGURE 3 Study 2: Structural equation model of mechanisms underlying gender differences in attitudes towards gender quotas for leadership
positions in the corporate world. Standardized results are depicted. Significant paths are indicated by solid lines, and nonsignificant paths are indicated
by dashed lines. Gender was coded men =0, women =1. Rectangles represent observed variables, ellipses represent latent variables. Significance levels
are indicated as * p<0.05, ** p<0.01 and *** p<0.001.
perceived necessity only, indirect effect β=0.32, 95% CI [0.15,
0.50]. That is, women, compared to men, perceived gender quotas
as more necessary, b=0.14, p<0.001. Gender also predicted
the valence of free associations through perceived necessity only,
indirect effect β=0.12, 95% CI [0.06, 0.20]. Moreover, contrary
to predictions, but consistent with findings from Study 1, gender
related to support for gender quotas through concerns over
discrimination against men only, indirect effect β=0.16, 95% CI
[0.06, 0.29]. Greater concerns over the discrimination of men
resulted in less support, b=−0.13, p<0.001. Again, gender
also predicted support for gender quotas through concerns over
women being stigmatized, indirect effect β=−0.05, 95% CI [−0.11,
−0.01]. Once the impact of concerns over the discrimination
of men was controlled for, women had more concerns over the
stigmatization of women than men, b=0.11, p=0.012. Finally,
gender also predicted the valence of free associations through
concerns over women’s stigmatization, indirect effect β=−0.03,
95% CI [−0.08, −0.01]. Note, however, that overall, women were
less concerned over the stigmatization of women than men (see
Table 2).
5.4 Discussion
Women, compared to men, showed more support for and more
favourable free associations with gender quotas in the corporate
world. Replicating the results of Study 1, these differences
could largely be explained through the two hypothesized
mechanisms, which accounted for large amounts of variance in
self-reported support and the rater-coded valence of participants’
free associations. First, women perceived greater levels of anti-
women discrimination than men and, in turn, perceived gender
quotas as more necessary, which related to more support and
more favourable free associations. Second, men’s, compared to
women’s, lesser support and less favourable free associations were
explained by greater concerns over discrimination against men,
which related to greater concerns over women being stigmatized.
Notably, overall, men expressed greater concerns over the stigma-
tization of women than women themselves. As in Study 1, only
when controlling for concerns over anti-men discrimination,
did women express greater concerns over the stigmatization of
women. Again, these results were consistent with prior findings
that members of majority groups may mask their own self-
interests in relation to policies such as gender quotas behind
concerns over such policies harming the benefitting minority
(O’Brien et al. 2010).
6General Discussion
This research examined two mechanisms on why women hold
more favourable attitudes towards gender quotas than men. Using
a multi-method approach, the proposed mechanisms were tested
for attitudes in terms of both self-reported support for gender
quotas and rater-coded valence of participants’ free associations
with gender quotas. Two studies found support for our pro-
posed mechanisms—namely (1) perceived discrimination against
9

women related to perceived necessity and (2) concerns over the
discrimination of men related to concerns over the stigmatization
of women—and both mechanisms explained large amounts
of variance in attitudes towards gender quotas for university
professorship positions (Study 1) and leadership positions in the
corporate world (Study 2).
6.1 Perceived Discrimination Against Women
Related to Perceived Necessity of Quotas
(Mechanism 1)
Results confirmed our assumption that women’s greater per-
ceived anti-women discrimination related to greater perceived
necessity of gender quotas, which in turn related to more self-
reported support for and to more positive free associations with
gender quotas. This result is consistent with the long-presumed
but not yet empirically tested notion (Kluegel 1985;Konrad
and Hartmann 2001) that perceptions of continued discrimina-
tion against women on attitudes towards gender policies are
mediated by the perceived necessity of such policies. Moreover,
our results align with research showing that the recognition of
discrimination against women tends to be the first, but not last
step when confronting sexism or joining collective action for
women (Ashburn-Nardo, Morris, and Goodwin 2008; Ellemers
and Barreto 2009; Radke, Hornsey, and Barlow 2016;Stangoretal.
2003).
Although we find strong support for the theoretically pro-
posed model in two studies, alternative and extended mediation
models are plausible. First, in addition to general perceptions
of continued discrimination against women (measured in our
studies), the perceived pervasiveness and severity of anti-women
discrimination may also influence how necessary gender quotas
are perceived to be. Moreover, perceptions of intersectional
forms of discrimination may affect the perceived necessity of
gender quotas. For instance, Women of Colour typically perceive
greater barriers to aspiring to leadership than White women
(Showunmi, Atewologun, and Bebbington 2016) and would thus
likely perceive gender quotas as more necessary.
Notably, perceptions of discrimination against women fully
mediated the effect of gender on the perceived necessity of
gender quotas in research (Study 1). However, it only partly
mediated the same effect for quotas in the corporate world
(Study 2). This indicates that, besides perceptions of continued
anti-women discrimination, additional variables may explain
why women, compared to men, perceive gender quotas as
more necessary. In particular, in the corporate context, percep-
tions that greater proportions of female leaders are good for
business may predict the perceived necessity of gender quotas
(Bernile, Bhagwat, and Yonker 2018;Kirsch2018;Starkand
Hyll 2014).
There may also be additional mediators between perceptions of
anti-women discrimination and attitudes towards gender quo-
tas. Individuals could perceive ongoing discrimination against
women, but perceive gender quotas as inviable or inappropriate
solution, which could lead to less favourable attitudes towards
gender quotas. For example, research showed that gender quotas
increased the representation of women in corporate boards in
Norway, but women reported having less ability than men to
influence board decisions and felt largely excluded from the inner
circle (Storvik and Gulbrandsen 2016). Other research found
that the presence of gender quotas decreased organizational
attractiveness among potential applicants (Shaughnessy et al.
2016).
6.2 Concerns Over the Discrimination of Men
Related to the Stigmatization of Women
(Mechanism 2)
Results confirmed our assumption that men’s greater concerns
over men being discriminated against related to greater con-
cerns over women being stigmatized, which related to less
self-expressed support for and more negative free associations
with gender quotas. Notably, from a self-interest perspective, one
would expect that women, compared to men, would be more
concerned that gender quotas stigmatize them as incompetent.
However, in Study 1 women and men expressed this concern to an
equal extent and in Study 2 men expressed this concern to an even
greater extent than women. Only when controlling for concerns
over anti-men discrimination did gender differences in concerns
over the stigmatization of women occur (Study 1) or change
direction (Study 2), with women expressing more such concerns.
These incidental results add plausibility to O’Brien et al. (2010)
and our own reasoning, suggesting that men raise concerns about
gender quotas’ negative consequences for women to mask their
own self-interests. Notably, past work showed that men who feel
threatened by gender quotas also appear to be the ones driving
backlash against the beneficiaries of gender quotas. Specifically,
fearing that gender quotas would have negative consequences for
one’s own career led men to evaluate women more stereotypically
when they benefitted from gender quotas in the public sector in
Albania (Faniko et al. 2017).
Overall, these findings raise the question of how genuine con-
cerns over women being stigmatized by quotas are. Before delving
into this question though, one must consider the possibility of
alternative mediation models. For instance, concerns over gender
quotas discriminating against men and concerns over gender
quotas stigmatizing women as competent could be two parallel
mediators between gender and attitudes towards gender quotas.
Like this, the two concerns could be tantamount attributes of
gender quotas that both predict attitudes towards them (Bell,
Harrison, and McLaughlin 2000). At least some men could have
genuine concerns regarding the fairness of quotas considering
women and men alike (Bobocel et al. 1998). Moreover, not all
men see gender discrimination as a zero-sum game. Instead,
some men take a ‘we are in this together’ perspective, perceiving
discrimination against women and men to co-occur (Bosson et al.
2012).
Importantly, not all men may hide their self-interests regarding
gender quotas behind concerns over women being stigmatized.
Indeed, our SEM results revealed that concerns over the
stigmatization of women did not absorb all variance from
concerns over anti-men discrimination. Men’s greater concerns
over anti-men discrimination also related directly to less self-
reported support for gender quotas (but not to less favourable
free associations with gender quotas). But who then are the men
10 European Journal of Social Psychology,2025

who voice concerns over women being stigmatized to hide their
own fears of being discriminated against?
Men may use this strategy to both avoid the negative conse-
quences associated with complaining about discrimination and
position themselves as benevolent protectors of women. Research
studying reactions to women who complain about gender dis-
crimination found that complainers tend to be disliked and
seen as overly sensitive and overreacting (Czopp and Monteith
2003; Kaiser and Miller 2001). When men claim that gender
quotas discriminate against them, they may fear being seen
negatively (similar to women complaining about discrimination).
In addition, men may fear that complaining about anti-men
discrimination may be seen as violating norms of masculinity,
which can lead to negative evaluations of being unmanly and
unworthy of respect (Heilman and Wallen 2010; Moss-Racusin,
Phelan, and Rudman 2010). On the flipside, concerns for women
allow men to position themselves as beneficial protectors, which
is in line with masculinity norms (Glick and Fiske 1999; Good,
Sanchez, and Moss-Racusin 2018). In sum, men who hide their
self-interests behind concerns for women may be characterized
by the endorsement of traditional masculinity norms, including
benevolence towards women (Glick, Wilkerson, and Cuffe 2015;
Glick and Fiske 2001) and see their manhood as easily lost (e.g.,
when complaining about discrimination; Vandello et al. 2008;
Vandello and Bosson 2013). Somewhat in line with this is a finding
from recent research that was conducted in Austria, Germany and
Switzerland after the introduction of gender quotas for leadership
positions in political parties: Only men from political parties
with conservative agendas that uphold traditional gender roles
stigmatized female politicians who benefitted from gender quotas
as incompetent (Radojevic 2023).
Men’s masking of their own self-interest behind concerns for
women may occur by an associative, spontaneous process,
rather than by a propositional, deliberate process, which is
common in attitude formation (Gawronski and Bodenhausen
2006; Sweldens, Corneille, and Yzerbyt 2014). Notably, the effect
of concerns over anti-men discrimination on free associations
(unlike self-reported support) was fully mediated by concerns
over the stigmatization of women. Compared to self-reported
support, free associations measure more spontaneous attitudes
and default thinking (Joffe and Elsey 2014; Rozin, Kurzer, and
Cohen 2002).
As discussed above, after controlling for anti-men discrimination,
women were more concerned than men that gender quotas would
stigmatize women and these concerns also related to less support
for and more negative associations with gender quotas. So far,
past work mainly explained women’s support for gender policies
with their self-interest as potential beneficiaries (Harrison et al.
2006; Kane and Whipkey 2009; Martins and Parsons 2007;Olsen
et al. 2016). Expanding the literature on how attitudes towards
gender policies form, the present results suggest that women’s
concerns over negative consequences of gender quotas likely is
another facet of women’s self-interest. That is, some women may
reject gender quotas because they fear negative consequences of
this policy, personally or collectively. For instance, affirmative
action has been called demeaning for women in merit-driven
contexts (Kimura 1997). In academia, quotas discouraged some
women from taking on leadership positions for fear of being
stigmatized as less competent (van den Brink and Benschop
2012). In leadership contexts, affirmative action statements in
job advertisements only increased women’s inclination to apply
when the organizations’ focus on women’s merit was present
(Nater and Sczesny 2016).
Especially senior women sometimes reject gender policies, such
as gender quotas, for junior women (Faniko, Ellemers et al.
2017). In particular, in men-dominated professions, senior women
tend to assimilate into their masculine work environments and
distance themselves from junior women (Derks, Van Laar, and
Ellemers 2016; Faniko, Ellemers, and Derks 2021). Notably, this
so-called queen bee behaviour was found to be a threat-response,
which serves senior women to maintain a positive social identity
and self-image in masculine work environments, where feminine
qualities tend to be discounted (Derks, Van Laar, and Ellemers
2016). Similar to the process described for men (who masked their
self-interests behind concerns for women), senior women may
mask their own self-interests of being perceived positively behind
concerns of junior women being stigmatized by gender quotas.
6.3 Limitations and Future Research
The presented research is not without limitations but paves
promising avenues for future work. First, although we tested the
two proposed mechanisms in different contexts (i.e., 50% gender
quotas for university professorships and 20–30% gender quotas
for management positions), we relied on students as research
participants. Future research should examine whether the here-
tested mechanisms can be replicated in more heterogeneous
samples including participants working in different industries.
Second, the cross-sectional nature of the collected data does not
allow for causal claims regarding the tested model (Tate 2015).
Future experimental research is needed to lend stronger support
to the proposed mechanisms underlying gender differences in
attitudes towards gender quotas. In particular, Mechanism 2
(men’s greater concerns over the discrimination of men, related
to greater concerns over the stigmatization of women, related
to attitudes towards gender quotas) deserves further attention
and experimental research. Such work might use a paradigm
similar to O’Brien et al. (2010). Manipulating the extent to which
men are disadvantaged by gender quotas could confirm that
men’s self-interests precede concerns over the stigmatization of
women. It would also be valuable to further examine whether
the process by which men conceal their own self-interests behind
concerns for women is spontaneous or deliberate. Limiting to the
present study, we did not include individual difference variables
that may help explain why some men mask their concerns
over being discriminated by quotas behind concerns over the
stigmatization of women. Future work should include variables,
capturing among other zero-sum thinking, beliefs about mas-
culinity and benevolent sexism to shed further light on this
mechanism.
Furthermore, research on women’s concerns over gender quo-
tas stigmatizing them as incompetent would be valuable. For
example, it seems promising to examine whether certain context
factors increase women’s concerns for the negative side effects
of a policy that is designed to promote them. Recent research
11

found that women benefitting from gender quotas for political
parties were only perceived negatively in conservative parties
(Radojevic 2023). Similarly, women could be more concerned
about being perceived negatively when gender quotas are applied
in organizations with a masculine rather than a more egalitar-
ian gender-inclusive organizational culture. Another promising
route for future research would be to examine how women
weight potential advantages (e.g., access to top positions) and
disadvantages (e.g., being perceived as undeserving) in their
attitudes towards gender quotas.
Given that beliefs about anti-men discrimination are on the rise
(Kehn and Ruthig 2013; Zehnter et al. 2021), a closer examination
of the antecedents and consequences of these beliefs, also in
the context of gender quotas, is warranted. First and foremost,
it would be worthwhile to disentangle justified concerns over
the discrimination of men in communal domains (Manzi 2019)
from an unjustified perception of anti-men bias in all, including
masculine typed, domains (Zehnter et al. 2021), and to then
examine how these different motivations relate to support for
pro-women interventions. Investigating predictors of concerns
over anti-men discrimination, future research could examine
whether the perception of the status quo, including the over-
representation of men in research and leadership roles, as fair
and legitimate, may lead to the belief that policies, such as gender
quotas, discriminate against men (Jost et al. 2010).
Finally, investigating the consequences of concerns over the
discrimination of men, future research may test whether these
concerns affect perceptions of women selected under a quota
policy. Because negative perceptions can serve to penalize women
(Faniko et al. 2017), those perceiving gender quotas to discrimi-
nate against men may be particularly motivated to portray quota
beneficiaries in a negative light. Also, those who perceive anti-
men discrimination may reject policies that promote women,
while they embrace policies promoting men (Zehnter et al.
2021). Supporting this idea, past research found that women
quotas were perceived as less favourable than men quotas for
university professorship positions (Zehnter and Kirchler 2020).
Even in the highly men-dominated domain of physics, support
(e.g., through mentoring) was perceived fairer when provided to
men rather than to women (Van den Brink and Stobbe 2014). It
would be worthwhile for future research to investigate whether
different concerns over anti-men discrimination, that is, the
justified (Manzi 2019) and unjustified perceptions of anti-men
bias (Zehnter et al. 2021), lead to the endorsement of policies
promoting men.
6.4 Practical Implications
The present findings have several practical implications for
organizations and policymakers. Given the strong association
between the perceived necessity of gender quotas and attitudes
towards them, it seems highly important to clearly communicate
why gender quotas are needed upon or before implementing
them. Thereby, men and the general public seem to respond
particularly well to moral arguments, such as gender quotas
increasing fairness (Muriaas and Peters 2024; Prime, Moss-
Racusin, and Foust-Cummings 2009). Moreover, the present
research suggests that raising awareness of the persistent dis-
crimination against women can be a solid strategy to increase
the perception that gender quotas are necessary and ultimately
increase the acceptance of this policy. The recognition of contin-
ued discrimination against women was particularly important in
convincing men to support policies for women (Prime and Moss-
Racusin 2009). However, this strategy can entail some pitfalls
that are discussed below. To highlight the necessity of gender
quotas, organizational representatives and policymakers can also
draw on an extensive body of research alluding to the advantages
of greater proportions of women in leadership positions (Chen,
Leung, and Evans 2018;KimandStarks2016;Ritter-Hayashi
Id, Vermeulen, and Knoben 2019; Simionescu et al. 2021)and
on some research showing the positive consequences of gender
quotas more specifically (Balafoutas and Sutter 2012; Calsamiglia,
Franke, and Rey-Biel 2013; Stark and Hyll 2014).
As concerns over gender quotas discriminating against men
affect attitudes towards gender quotas, organizational represen-
tatives and policymakers are advised to take such concerns
seriously (Dover, Major, and Kaiser 2016). Addressing and deter-
ring these concerns would likely increase men’s acceptance of
gender quotas. Hitherto, there is a lack of research on effective
strategies to ameliorate concerns over anti-men discrimination.
However, factors that foster perceptions of anti-men bias should
be consciously considered. For example, pointing at men as
the perpetrators of anti-women discrimination can lead men
to engage in competitive victimhood and focus on anti-men
discrimination, rather than taking in information on continued
anti-women discrimination (Noor et al. 2012). Thus, raising
awareness about the persistent discrimination against women—
as advised above—needs to be accomplished in a sensitive
manner. Again, strategies that appeal to men’s empathy and
morality may be most effective in engaging them in women’s
issues (Becker and Swim 2012; Čehajić-Clancy and Bilewicz 2021).
In addition, promising approaches may appeal to men’s self-
interest by referring to research showing that gender quotas do
not only increase chances for competent women to be selected
over less competent men but also for competent men to be
selected over their less competent counterparts (Besley et al.
2017).
Finally, organizational representatives and policymakers need to
address concerns over the stigmatization of women as incompe-
tent. These concerns are valid, as women who benefit from poli-
cies such as gender quotas are often perceived more negatively
than their merit-based selected counterparts (Heilman et al. 1992;
Heilman and Welle 2006; Nater, Heilman, and Sczesny 2023). As
a way to reassure quota beneficiaries and women more generally,
organizations and policymakers can commit interventions that
manage negative perceptions of quota beneficiaries.
7 Conclusion
This research examined why women hold more favourable
attitudes towards gender quotas than men. Two key mechanisms
explained gender differences in attitudes towards gender quotas:
(1) Women’s greater perceptions of discrimination against women
related to greater perceived necessity of gender quotas and (2)
men’s greater concerns over the discrimination of men related to
greater concerns over the stigmatization of women. In addition
12 European Journal of Social Psychology,2025

to advancing the scientific understanding of attitudes towards
gender quotas, the present findings have important practical
implications for organizations and policymakers. To increase the
acceptance of gender quotas, it is important to raise awareness
of persistent discrimination against women and clearly commu-
nicate the necessity for gender quotas. In addition, addressing
and deterring concerns over the discrimination of men and
the stigmatization of women would likely increase acceptance
of gender quotas among women and men. Combining these
two strategies seems a promising road to effectively frame and
successfully implement policies aimed at overcoming women’s
underrepresentation in research and leadership.
Acknowledgements
We thank Michelle Ryan and Agnieszka Pietraszkiewicz for their valuable
comments on a previous version of this manuscript. This work was
supported, in part, through the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research
and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant
agreement (No 101024885) awarded to Miriam K. Zehnter and by a post-
doctoral fellowship grant from the Swiss National Science Foundation (No
P400PS_199273) awarded to Christa Nater.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Ethics Statement
The manuscript adheres to ethical guidelines specified in the APA Code
of Conduct and the present studies were approved by the Data Protection
Commission of the Medical University of Vienna (pilot study) and the
Ethics Commission of the University of Bern (Studies 1 and 2). All studies
were risk-free for the participants, and anonymity was assured.
Data Availability Statement
The data, and analysis code that support the findings of this research are
available at OSF (https://osf.io/pdxv6).
References
Ashburn-Nardo, L., K. A. Morris, and S. A. Goodwin. 2008. “The
Confronting Prejudiced Responses (CPR) Model: Applying CPR in Orga-
nizations.” Academy of Management Learning & Education 7, no. 3:
332–342. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2008.34251671.
Austrian Federal Act for Gender Equality 100/1993 §11b.
1993. https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=
Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=10008858.
Austrian University Act 120/2002 §20b. 2002. https://www.ris.bka.gv.
at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=
20002128.
Balafoutas, L., and M. Sutter. 2012. “Affirmative Action Policies Promote
Women and Do Not Harm Efficiency in the Laboratory.” Science 335, no.
6068: 579–582. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1211180.
Becker, J. C., and J. K. Swim. 2012. “Reducing Endorsement of Benevolent
and Modern Sexist Beliefs.” Social Psychology 43, no. 3: 127–137. https://
doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000091.
Bell, M. P., D. A. Harrison, and M. E. McLaughlin. 2000. “Forming,
Changing, and Acting on Attitude Toward Affirmative Action Programs in
Employment: A Theory-driven Approach.” Journal of Applied Psychology
85, no. 5: 784–798. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.784.
Bernile, G., V. Bhagwat, and S. Yonker. 2018. “Board Diversity, Firm Risk,
and Corporate Policies.” Journal of Financial Economics 127, no. 3: 588–
612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2017.12.009.
Besley, T., O. Folke, T. Persson, and J. Rickne. 2017. “Gender Quotas and
the Crisis of the Mediocre Man: Theory and Evidence From Sweden.”
American Economic Review 107, no. 8: 2204–2242. https://doi.org/10.1257/
aer.20160080.
Blodorn, A., L. T. O’Brien, and J. Kordys. 2012. “Responding to Sex-Based
Discrimination: Gender Differences in Perceived Discrimination and
Implications for Legal Decision-Making.” Group Processes & Intergroup
Relations 15, no. 3: 409–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430211427172.
Bobocel, D. R., L. S. Son Hing, L. M. Davey, D. J. Stanley, and M. P. Zanna.
1998. “Justice-Based Opposition to Social Policies: Is It Genuine?” Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 75, no. 3: 653–669. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0022-3514.75.3.653.
Bosson, J. K., J. A. Vandello, K. S. Michniewicz, and J. G. Lenes. 2012.
“AmericanMen’s and Women’s Beliefs About Gender Discrimination: For
Men, It’s Not Quite a Zero-sum Game.” Masculinities and Social Change
1, no. 3: 210–239. https://doi.org/10.4471/MCS.2012.14.
Brescoll, V. L., E. L. Uhlmann, and G. E. Newman. 2013. “The Effects of
System-Justifying Motives on Endorsement of Essentialist Explanations
for Gender Differences.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 105,
no. 6: 891–908. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034701.
Burkinshaw, P., and K. White. 2017. “Fixing the Women or Fixing
Universities: Women in HE Leadership.” Administrative Sciences 7, no.
3: 30–44. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci7030030.
Calsamiglia, C., J. Franke, and P. Rey-Biel. 2013. “The Incentive Effects
of Affirmative Action in a Real-effort Tournament.” Journal of Public
Economics 98: 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2012.11.003.
Čehajić-Clancy, S., and M. Bilewicz. 2021. “Moral-Exemplar Intervention:
A New Paradigm for Conflict Resolution and Intergroup Reconciliation.”
Current Directions in Psychological Science 30, no. 4: 335–342. https://doi.
org/10.1177/09637214211013001.
Chen, J., W. S. Leung, and K. P. Evans. 2018. “Female Board Rep-
resentation, Corporate Innovation and Firm Performance.” Journal of
Empirical Finance 48: 236–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jempfin.2018.07.
003.
Crosby, F. J., L. Sabattini, and M. Aizawa. 2013. “Affirmative Action and
Gender Equality.” In The SAGE Handbook of Gender and Psychology,
edited by M. K. Ryan, and N. R. Branscombe, 484–499. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446269930.
Czopp, A. M., and M. J. Monteith. 2003. “Confronting Prejudice (Liter-
ally): Reactions to Confrontations of Racial and Gender Bias.” Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin 29, no. 4: 532–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0146167202250923.
Derks, B., C. Van Laar, and N. Ellemers. 2016. “The Queen Bee
Phenomenon: Why Women Leaders Distance Themselves From Junior
Women .” The Leadership Quarterly 27, no. 3: 456–469. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.leaqua.2015.12.007.
Dover, T. L., B. Major, and C. R. Kaiser. 2016. “Members of High-Status
Groups Are Threatened by Pro-Diversity Organizational Messages.”
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 62: 58–67. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jesp.2015.10.006.
Eckes, T.,and I. Six-Materna. 1998. “Leugnung von Diskriminierung: Eine
Skala zur Erfassung des Modernen Sexismus. [Denial of Discrimination:
A Scale Measuring Modern Sexism.].” Zeitschrift Für Sozialpsychologie 29,
no. 3: 224–238.
EIGE. 2021. Quotas can Turbocharge Progress on Gender Balance
in Politics and Business. European Institute for Gender Equality.
https://eige.europa.eu/news/quotas-can-turbocharge-progress-gender-
balance-politics- and-business.
Ellemers, N., and M. Barreto. 2009. “Collective Action in Modern Times:
How Modern Expressions of Prejudice Prevent Collective Action.”
13

Journal of Social Issues 65, no. 4: 749–768. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
4560.2009.01621.x.
Faniko, K., T. Burckhardt, O. Sarrasin, et al. 2017. “Quota Women
Are Threatening to Men: Unveiling the (Counter)Stereotypization of
Beneficiaries of Affirmative Action Policies.” Swiss Journal of Psychology
76, no. 3: 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1024/1421-0185/a000195.
Faniko, K., N.Ellemers, and B. Derks. 2021. “The Queen Bee Phenomenon
in Academia 15 Years After: Does It Still Exist, and If So, Why?.” British
JournalofSocialPsychology60, no. 2: 383–399. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.
12408.
Faniko, K., N. Ellemers, B. Derks, and F. Lorenzi-Cioldi. 2017. “Nothing
Changes, Really: Why Women Who Break Through the Glass Ceiling End
up Reinforcing It.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 43, no. 5:
638–651. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217695551.
FEMTech. 2018. “ProfessorInnen im Hochschulsektor nach
Wissenschaftsfeldern.” [University Professors in Different Academic
Fields]. Frauen in Forschung & Technologie. https://www.femtech.at/
daten/professorinnen-im-hochschulsektor-nach-wissenschaftsfeldern.
Fischer, R., and T. L. Milfont. 2010. “Standardization in Psychological
Research.” International Journal of Psychological Research 3, no. 1: 88–96.
https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.852.
Fraser, G., D. Osborne, and C. G. Sibley. 2015. ““We Want You in
the Workplace, but Only in a Skirt!” Social Dominance Orientation,
Gender-Based Affirmative Action and the Moderating Role of Benevolent
Sexism.” Sex Roles 73, no. 5–6: 231–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-
0515-8.
García-González, J., P. Forcén, and M. Jimenez-Sanchez. 2019. “Men
and Women Differ in Their Perception of Gender Bias in Research
Institutions.” PLoS ONE 14, no. 12: e0225763. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0225763.
Gawronski, B., and G. V. Bodenhausen. 2006. “Associative and Propo-
sitional Processes in Evaluation: An Integrative Review of Implicit and
Explicit Attitude Change.” Psychological Bulletin 132, no. 5: 692–731.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.692.
Glick, P., and S. T. Fiske. 1999. “The Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory:
Differentiating Hostile and Benevolent Beliefs About Men.” Psychology
of Women Quarterly 23, no. 3: 519–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471- 6402.
1999.tb00379.x.
Glick, P., and S. T. Fiske. 2001. “An Ambivalent Alliance: Hostile
and Benevolent Sexism as Complementary Justifications for Gender
Inequality.” American Psychologist 56, no. 2. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-
066X.56.2.109.
Glick, P., M. Wilkerson, and M. Cuffe. 2015. “Masculine Identity, Ambiva-
lent Sexism, and Attitudes Toward Gender Subtypes.” Social Psychology
46, no. 4: 210–217. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000228.
Good, J. J., D. T. Sanchez, and C. A. Moss-Racusin. 2018. “A Paternal-
istic Duty to Protect? Predicting Men’s Decisions to Confront Sexism.”
Psychology of Men & Masculinity 19, no. 1: 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/
men0000077.
Harrison, D. A., D. A. Kravitz, D. M. Mayer, L. M. Leslie, and D. Lev-Arey.
2006. “Understanding Attitudes Toward Affirmative Action Programs
in Employment: Summary and Meta-Analysis of 35 Years of Research.”
Journal of Applied Psychology 91, no. 5: 1013–1036. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0021-9010.91.5.1013.
Heilman, M. E., C. J. Block, and J. A. Lucas. 1992. “Presumed Incompe-
tent? Stigmatization and Affirmative Action Efforts.” Journal of Applied
Psychology 77, no. 4: 536–544. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.4.536.
Heilman, M. E., and A. S. Wallen. 2010. “Wimpy and Undeserving of
Respect: Penalties for Men’s Gender-Inconsistent Success.” Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology 46, no. 4: 664–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jesp.2010.01.008.
Heilman, M. E., and B. Welle. 2006. “Disadvantaged by Diversity? The
Effects of Diversity Goals on Competence Perceptions.” Journal of Applied
Social Psychology 36, no. 5: 1291–1319. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9029.
2006.00043.x.
Hu, L., and P. M. Bentler. 1999. “Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covari-
ance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives.”
Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6, no. 1: 1–55.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.
Huet, N. 2022, June. “EU Strikes Deal to Impose 40% Quota for
Women on Boards of Large Companies by 2026.” Euronews.
https://www.euronews.com/next/2022/06/08/eu-strikes-deal-to-
impose-40-per-cent-quota-for-women-on-boards-of-large-companies-
by-2026.
Jakobsen, M., and R. Jensen. 2015. “Common Method Bias in Public
Management Studies.” International Public Management Journal 18, no.
1: 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2014.997906.
Joffe, H., and J. W. B. Elsey. 2014. “Free Association in Psychology and the
Grid Elaboration Method.” Review of General Psychology 18, no. 3: 173–185.
https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000014.
Jost, J. T., and O. Hunyady. 2005. “Antecedents and Consequences of
System-Justifying Ideologies.” Current Directions in Psychological Science
14, no. 5: 260–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00377.x.
Jost, J. T., I. Liviatan, J. Van Der Toorn, A. Ledgerwood, A. Mandisodza,
and B. A. Nosek. 2010. “System Justification: How Do We Know It’s
Motivated?” In The Psychology of Justice and Legitimacy: The Ontario
Symposium (Volume 11), edited by R. D. Bobocel, A. C. Kay, M. P. Zanna,
and J. M. Olson, 173–204. Hove, U K: Psychology Press.
Kaiser, C. R., and C. T. Miller. 2001. “Stop Complaining! The Social Costs
of Making Attributions to Discrimination.” Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy Bulletin 27, no. 2: 254–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201272010.
Kane, E. W., and K. J. Whipkey. 2009. “Predictors of Public Support for
Gender-Related Affirmative Action.” Public Opinion Quarterly 73, no. 2:
233–254. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfp019.
Kehn, A., and J. C. Ruthig. 2013. “Perceptions of Gender Discrimination
Across Six Decades: The Moderating Roles of Gender and Age.” Sex Roles
69, no. 5–6: 289–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-013-0303-2.
Kim, D., and L. T. Starks. 2016. “Gender Diversity on Corporate Boards:
Do Women Contribute Unique Skills?” American Economic Review 106,
no. 5: 267–271. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20161032.
Kimura, D. 1997. “Affirmative Action Policies Are Demeaning to Women
in Academia.” Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne 38, no. 4:
238–243. https://doi.org/10.1037/0708-5591.38.4.238.
Kirsch, A. 2018. “The Gender Composition of Corporate Boards: A Review
and Research Agenda.” The Leadership Quarterly 29, no. 2: 346–364.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.06.001.
Kluegel, J. R. 1985. “If There Isn’t a Problem, You Don’t Need a Solution.”
American Behavioral Scientist 28, no. 6: 761–784. https://doi.org/10.1177/
000276485028006004.
Konrad, A. M., and L. Hartmann. 2001. “Gender Differences in Attitudes
Toward Affirmative Action Programs in Australia: Effects of Beliefs,
Interests, and Attitudes Toward Women.” Sex Roles 45, no. 5–6: 415–432.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014317800293.
Kosakowska-Berezecka, N., T. Besta, J. K. Bosson, et al. 2020. “Country-
Level and Individual-Level Predictors of Men’s Support for Gender
Equality in 42 Countries.” European Journal of Social Psychology 50, no.
6: 1276–1291. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2696.
Kravitz, D. A., T. M. Bludau, and S. L. Klineberg. 2008. “The Impact of
Anticipated Consequences, Respondent Group, and Strength of Affirma-
tive Action Plan on Affirmative Action Attitudes.” Group & Organization
Management 33, no. 4: 361–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601108318655.
Manzi, F. 2019. “Are the Processes Underlying Discrimination the Same
for Women and Men? A Critical Review of Congruity Models of Gender
Discrimination.” Frontiers in Psychology 10: 469. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2019.00469.
14 European Journal of Social Psychology,2025

Martins, L. L., and C. K. Parsons. 2007. “Effects of Gender Diversity
Management on Perceptions of Organizational Attractiveness: The Role
of Individual Differences in Attitudes and Beliefs.” Journal of Applied
Psychology 92, no. 3: 865–875. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.
865.
Morgenroth, T., and M. K. Ryan. 2018. “Quotas and Affirmative Action:
Understanding Group-Based Outcomes and Attitudes.” Social and Per-
sonality Psychology Compass 12, no. 3: e12374. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.
12374.
Moss-Racusin, C. A., J. E. Phelan, and L. A. Rudman. 2010. “When Men
Break the Gender Rules: Status Incongruity and Backlash Against Modest
Men.” Psychology of Men & Masculinity 11, no. 2: 140–151. https://doi.org/
10.1037/a0018093.
Muriaas, R. L., and Y. Peters. 2024. “Attitudes to Gender Quotas: Why and
Where to Adjust Gender Imbalance in Leadership.” European Journal of
Political Research.https://doi.org/10.1111/1475- 6765.12680.
Nater, C., M. E. Heilman, and S. Sczesny. 2023. “Footsteps I Would Like to
Follow? How Gender Quotas Affect the Acceptance of Women Leaders as
Role Models and Inspirations for Leadership.” European Journal of Social
Psychology 53, no. 1: 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2892.
Nater, C., and S. Sczesny. 2016. “Affirmative Action Policies in Job
Advertisements for Leadership Positions: How They Affect Women’s and
Men’s Inclinations to Apply.” European Journal of Social Psychology 46:
891–902. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp2892.2200.
Nelson, D. L., C. L. Mcevoy, and S. Dennis. 2000. “What Is Free
Association and What Does It Measure?” Memory & Cognition 28, no. 6:
887–899. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209337.
Noor, M., N. Shnabel, S. Halabi, and A. Nadler. 2012. “When Suffering
Begets Suffering: The Psychology of Competitive Victimhood Between
Adversarial Groups in Violent Conflicts.” Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy Review 16, no. 4: 351–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868312440048.
O’Brien, L. T., D. Garcia, C. S. Crandall, and J. Kordys. 2010. “White
Americans’ Opposition to Affirmative Action: Group Interest and the
Harm to Beneficiaries Objection.” British Journal of Social Psychology 49,
no. 4: 895–903. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466610X518062.
Olsen, J. E., C. K. Parsons, L. L. Martins, and V. Ivanaj. 2016. “Gender
Diversity Programs, Perceived Potential for Advancement, and Organi-
zational Attractiveness.” Group & Organization Management 41, no. 3:
271–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115583579.
Osborne, D., J. T. Jost, J. C. Becker, V. Badaan, and C. G. Sibley. 2019.
“Protesting to Challenge or Defend the System? A System Justification
Perspective on Collective Action.” EuropeanJournalofSocialPsychology
49, no. 2: 244–269. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2522.
Phelan, J. E., and L. A. Rudman. 2011. “System Justification Beliefs,
Affirmative Action, and Resistance to Equal Opportunity Organizations.”
Social Cognition 29, no. 3: 376–390. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2011.29.3.
376.
Poggio, K. 2020. “Geschlechterrichtwerte und Transparenzregeln für
Rohstoffsektor treten Anfang 2021 in Kraft.” [Directives for Gender
Quotas and Rules of Transparency Become Effective in the Beginning of
2021]. Der Bundesrate Der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft. https://
www.admin.ch/gov/de/start/dokumentation/medienmitteilungen.msg-
id-80358.html.
Prime, J., and C. A. Moss-Racusin. 2009. “Engaging Men in Gender
Initiatives: What Change Agents Need to Know (Report)”. The Catalyst,
available at https://www.catalyst.org/research/engaging-men-in- gender-
initiatives-what-change-agents-need-to- know/.
Prime, J., C. A. Moss-Racusin, and H. Foust-Cummings. 2009. “Engaging
Men in Gender Initiatives: Stacking the Deck for Success (Report)”. The
Catalyst, avalibale at https://www.catalyst.org/research/engaging-men-
in-gender-initiatives-stacking-the-deck-for-success/.
Radke, H. R. M., M. J. Hornsey, and F. K. Barlow. 2016. “Barriers to
Women Engaging in Collective Action to Overcome Sexism.” American
Psychologist 71, no. 9: 863–874. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0040345.
Radojevic, M. 2023. “The Subjective Effects of Gender Quotas: Party Elites
Do Not Consider ‘Quota Women’to be Less Competent.” Po litics & Gende r
19, no. 2: 349–372. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X22000137.
Ritter-Hayashi Id, D., P. Vermeulen, and J. Knoben. 2019. “Is This a Man’s
World? The Effect of Gender Diversity and Gender Equality on Firm
Innovativeness.” PLoS ONE 14, no. 9: e0222443. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0222443.
Rooke, S. E., D. W. Hine, and E. B. Thorsteinsson. 2008. “Implicit
Cognition and Substance Use: A Meta-analysis.” Addictive Behaviors 33,
no. 10: 1314–1328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2008.06.009.
Rosseel, Y. 2012. “Lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Mod-
eling.” Journal of Statistical Software 48, no. 2: 1–36. https://doi.org/10.
18637/jss.v048.i02.
Rozin, P., N. Kurzer, and A. B. Cohen. 2002. “Free Associations to “Food:”
The Effects of Gender, Generation, and Culture.” Journal of Research
in Personality 36, no. 5: 419–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)
00002-8.
Ruthig, J. C., A. Kehn, B. W. Gamblin, K. Vanderzanden, and K. Jones.
2017. “When Women’s Gains Equal Men’s Losses: Predicting a Zero-Sum
Perspective of Gender Status.” Sex Roles 76, no. 1–2: 17–26. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11199-016-0651-9.
Schnabel, K., and J. B. Asendorpf. 2013. “FreeAssociations as a Measure of
Stable Implicit Attitudes.” European Journal of Personality 27, no. 1: 39–50.
https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1890.
Shaughnessy, B., S. Braun, T. Hentschel, and C. V. Peus. 2016. “Diverse
and Just? The Role of Quota-Based Selection Policies on Organizational
Outcomes.” EuropeanJournalofSocialPsychology46, no. 7: 880–890.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2208.
Showunmi, V., D. Atewologun, and D. Bebbington. 2016. “Ethnic, Gender
and Class Intersections in British Women’s Leadership Experiences.”
Educational Management Administration & Leadership 44, no. 6: 917–935.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143215587308.
Simionescu, L. N., Ş. C. Gherghina, H. Tawil, and Z. Sheikha. 2021. “Does
Board Gender Diversity Affect Firm Performance? Empirical Evidence
From Standard & Poor’s 500 Information Technology Sector.” Financial
Innovation 7, no. 1: 52. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-021-00265-x.
Stangor, C., J. K. Swim, G. B. Sechrist, J. DeCoster, K. L. Van Allen,
and A. Ottenbreit. 2003. “Ask, Answer, and Announce: Three Stages in
Perceiving and Responding to Discrimination.” European Review of Social
Psychology 14, no. 1: 277–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280340000090.
Stark, O., and W. Hyll. 2014. “Socially Gainful Gender Quotas.” Journal of
Economic Behavior & Organization 105: 173–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jebo.2014.02.022.
Storvik, A., and T. Gulbrandsen.2016. “Included, but Still Not Equal? Gen-
der Segregation at Quota Regulated Boards.” Corporate Board: Role,Duties
and Composition 12, no. 2: 35–45. https://doi.org/10.22495/cbv12i2art5.
Sweldens, S., O. Corneille, and V. Yzerbyt. 2014. “The Role of Awareness
in Attitude Formation Through Evaluative Conditioning.” Personality
and Social Psychology Review 18, no. 2: 187–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1088868314527832.
Swim, J. K., R. Mallett, Y. Russo-Devosa, and C. Stangor. 2005. “Judgments
of Sexism: A Comparison of the Subtlety of Sexism Measures and Sources
of Variability in Judgments of Sexism.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 29,
no. 4: 406–411. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00240.x.
Tate, C. U. 2015. “On the Overuse and Misuse of Mediation Analysis: It
May be a Matter of Timing.” Basic and Applied Social Psychology 37, no. 4:
235–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2015.1062380.
Tehseen, S., T. Ramayah, and S. Sajilan. 2017. “Testing and Controlling for
Common Method Variance: A Review of Available Methods.” Journal of
Management Sciences 4, no. 2: 142–168. https://doi.org/10.20547/jms.2014.
1704202.
Vandello, J. A., and J. K. Bosson. 2013. “Hard Won and Easily Lost: A
Review and Synthesis of Theory and Research on Precarious Manhood.”
15

Psychology of Men & Masculinity 14, no. 2: 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0029826.
Vandello, J. A., J. K. Bosson, D. Cohen, R. M. Burnaford, and J. R. Weaver.
2008. “Precarious Manhood.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
95, no. 6: 1325–1339. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012453.
van den Brink, M., and Y. Benschop. 2012. “Slaying the Seven-headed
Dragon: The Quest for Gender Change in Academia.” Gender, Work
& Organization 19, no. 1: 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2011.
00566.x.
Van den Brink, M., and L. Stobbe. 2014. “The Support Paradox: Overcom-
ing Dilemmas in Gender Equality Programs.” Scandinavian Journal of
Management 30, no. 2: 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2013.07.
001.
van Zomeren, M., T. Postmes, and R. Spears. 2008. “Toward an Integrative
Social Identity Model of Collective Action: A Quantitative Research Syn-
thesis of Three Socio-psychological Perspectives.” Psychological Bulletin
134, no. 4: 504–535. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504.
Wang, Y. A., and M. Rhemtulla. 2021. “Power Analysis for Parameter
Estimation in Structural Equation Modeling: A Discussion and Tutorial.”
Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 4, no. 1:
251524592091825. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920918253.
Zehnter, M. K., and E. Kirchler. 2020. “Women Quotas vs. Men Quotas in
Academia: Students Perceive Favoring Womenas Less FairThan Favoring
Men.” Frontiers in Psychology 11: 700. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.
00700.
Zehnter, M. K., F. Manzi, P. E. Shrout, and M. E. Heilman. 2021. “Belief
in Sexism Shift: Defining a New Form of Contemporary Sexism and
Introducing the Belief in Sexism Shift Scale (BSS scale).” PLoS ONE 16,
no. 3: e0248374. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248374.
Supporting Information
Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting
Information section.
16 European Journal of Social Psychology,2025