How perceived gender distinctions obstruct women’s opportunities and impact

A recent investigation from the University of Michigan indicates that there is a strong belief among individuals that women are more altruistic, collaborative, and driven by equality compared to men.

These prevalent perceptions shape workplace interactions, hiring practices, and leadership opportunities, frequently hindering women from attaining critical roles of authority. Furthermore, they reinforce conventional gender roles within households and political spheres, restricting women’s options and affecting their assessments in both professional and social contexts.

The research, which scrutinized 15 distinct experiments with nearly 9,000 participants, revealed that both genders predominantly anticipate that women will make socially driven decisions—prioritizing fairness over personal gain, advocating equality, and engaging in altruistic behavior. However, when actual decision-making patterns were analyzed, it was found that men and women displayed similar behavior across numerous scenarios.

“These perceptions are significant regardless of their validity,” stated Christine Exley, an associate professor of economics at U-M and one of the authors of the study. “They influence the expectations and limitations women encounter in both professional and personal realms, affecting how they are perceived, assessed, and treated.”

The belief that women are more socially focused can produce substantial real-world effects, particularly in the workplace, explains Exley. Women anticipated to be cooperative and fair may be overlooked for leadership roles that necessitate making tough, occasionally unpopular, decisions. Employers and colleagues may presume that women will favor fairness over performance-based incentives, potentially making them less likely to receive promotions to positions that involve negotiating salaries, allocating resources, or managing competitive situations.

These misconceptions also affect hiring practices, she adds. Since women are believed to prefer fairness over merit-based results, employees who could benefit from equal pay initiatives were more inclined to favor female employers. Consequently, workplaces led by women may unintentionally draw in lower-performing candidates, reinforcing professional inequalities.

Outside the workplace, these notions also influence family dynamics and policy preferences. Study participants anticipated women, more than men, would wish for equitable caregiving responsibilities. These differing expectations illustrate a challenge in negotiating against traditional gender roles within the home. In discussions surrounding policies, women were perceived as stronger advocates for redistribution and social welfare initiatives, such as equal pay, access to education, and affordable healthcare. Such expectations could shape voting behaviors and broader political outcomes, leading to assumptions about which candidates and policies women are more likely to endorse, says Exley.

The research suggests that these entrenched beliefs do not arise spontaneously. Rather, they are influenced by how individuals recall and interpret past experiences, a phenomenon referred to as associative memory. For instance, if an individual recalls a notably generous woman, they might unintentionally apply that behavior to all women, even if they have also encountered generous men.

While Exley and her team do not claim that gender disparities are non-existent, their results highlight the necessity of acknowledging how firmly held beliefs can shape professional, political, and social interactions—often in ways that perpetuate existing inequalities.

If women are consistently expected to exhibit specific behaviors, they may face increased scrutiny when deviating from these assumptions. For example, a woman who prioritizes financial self-interest in a negotiation might be perceived more negatively than a man doing the same, simply due to differing baseline expectations.

The findings are published in the February issue of The Quarterly Journal of Economics.