The Queen Bee phenomenon in Academia 15 years after: Does it still exist, and if so, why?

Fifteen years ago, the British Journal of Social Psychology published a set of studies on male and female academics, documenting that female faculty members were more likely than male faculty members to express stereotyped views of women at the beginning of their academic careers (PhD candidates; Ellemers et al., 2004, Br. J. Soc. Psychol., 43, 3). At the same time, the self-descriptions of female faculty members were just as masculine as those of their male colleagues. Ellemers and colleagues (2004, Br. J. Soc. Psychol., 43, 3) referred to this combination of results as indicating the existence of a 'Queen Bee (QB) phenomenon' in academia. The present contribution investigates whether the QB phenomenon is also found among current generations of academics, investigating this in two recent samples of academic professionals (N = 462; N = 339). Our findings demonstrate that the phenomenon first documented in 2004 still exists: Advanced career female academics are more likely than their male counterparts to underestimate the career commitment of women at the beginning of their academic careers. At the same time, both male and female academics at advanced career stages describe themselves in more masculine terms than those at early career stages. We argue this indicates a response pattern in which successful women emulate the masculinity of the work environment. To indicate this, the term 'self-group distancing' might be more appropriate than 'Queen Bee effect'.

Nothing Changes, Really: Why Women Who Break Through the Glass Ceiling End Up Reinforcing It.

Two correlational studies conducted in Switzerland ( N = 222) and Albania ( N = 156) explained the opposition of female managers to gender quotas by examining the origins and consequences of the "Queen Bee (QB)-phenomenon," whereby women who have been successful in male-dominated organizations do not support the advancement of junior women. Results disconfirm previous accounts of the QB-phenomenon as indicating competitiveness among women. Instead, the tendency of women managers to consider themselves as different from other women, and their opposition to gender quotas, emerged when junior women were addressed but not when they considered their direct competitors, other women managers. Personal sacrifices women managers reported having made for career success predicted self-distancing from junior women and opposition to gender quotas targeting these women. We provide a more nuanced picture of what the QB-response is really about, explaining why women managers oppose quotas for junior women, while supporting quotas for women in the same rank.

Egalitarianism and Sexual Prejudice: the Role of Ingroup Distinctiveness Motives.

The present research examined the hypothesis that heterosexual men's motivation to differentiate their ingroup from gay men moderates the link between egalitarianism and sexual prejudice. In two experiments conducted in Switzerland (N = 74) and Ecuador (N = 104), we assessed heterosexual men's endorsement of egalitarian values and experimentally manipulated scientific evidence supporting or refuting the existence of biological differences between heterosexual and gay men (the biological theory). The main dependent variable was attitude towards homosexuality. As predicted, the interaction between egalitarianism and the biological theory was significant in both experiments, t(67) = 3.18, p = .002, ηp 2 = .13, and t(100) = 2.26, p = .026, ηp 2 = .04, respectively. Egalitarianism increased positive attitudes towards homosexuality only when science supported the existence of biological differences between heterosexual and gay men. We discuss the relevance of this finding to intergroup relations.

Egalitarianism and sexual prejudice: the role of ingroup distinctiveness motives

The present research examined the hypothesis that heterosexual men's motivation to differentiate their ingroup from gay men moderates the link between egalitarianism and sexual prejudice. In two experiments conducted in Switzerland (N = 74) and Ecuador (N = 104), we assessed heterosexual men's endorsement of egalitarian values and experimentally manipulated scientific evidence supporting or refuting the existence of biological differences between heterosexual and gay men (the biological theory). The main dependent variable was attitude towards homosexuality. As predicted, the interaction between egalitarianism and the biological theory was significant in both experiments, t(67) = 3.18, p = .002, ηp 2 = .13, and t(100) = 2.26, p = .026, ηp 2 = .04, respectively. Egalitarianism increased positive attitudes towards homosexuality only when science supported the existence of biological differences between heterosexual and gay men. We discuss the relevance of this finding to intergroup relations (AU)

No disponible