Abstract
Perceptions of wage entitlement differ between women and men such that men are more likely to feel worthy of higher pay. Based on a combination of status-related theories and evidence from two studies of 120 undergraduate men, we examined men’s reactions to gendered threats to their task abilities. When told that women typically outperform men, men responded with elevated projections of their own competence without reducing their self-pay. These effects were not related to endorsements of masculinity ideology. Instead, exaggerated competence was related to individual men’s heightened legitimate entitlement, and resistant high self-pay was linked to narcissistic entitlement. These patterns demonstrate that what appears to be a gender-based phenomenon is explained more accurately by men’s internalized status beliefs.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Berger, J., Rosenholtz, S. J., & Zelditch, M. (1980). Status organizing processes. Annual Review of Sociology, 6, 479–508.
Berger, J., Fisek, M. H., Norman, R. Z., & Wagner, D. G. (1985). The formation of reward expectations in status situations. In J. Berger & M. J. Zelditch, Jr. (Eds.) Status, rewards, and influence: How expectations organize behavior (pp. 215–216). San Francisco: Jossey–Bass.
Berger, J., Ridgeway, C. L., & Zelditch, M. (2002). Construction of status and referential structures. Sociological Theory, 20, 157–179.
Brannon, R. (1976). The male sex role: Our culture’s blueprint for manhood and what it’s done for us lately. In D. David & R. Brannon (Eds.), The 49% majority: The male sex role (pp. 1–48). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Brannon, R., & Juni, S. (1984). A scale for measuring attitudes about masculinity [MS. 2612]. Psychological Documents, 14, 6–7.
Dipboye, R. L., & Flanagan, M. F. (1979). Research settings in industrial and organizational psychology: Are findings in the field more generalizable than in the laboratory? American Psychologist, 34, 141–150.
Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233–256.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1999). Gender, power dynamics, and social interaction. In M. M. Ferree, J. Lorber, & B. B. Hess (Eds.) Revising gender (pp. 365–398). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hogue, M., & Yoder, J. D. (2003). The role of status in producing depressed entitlement in women’s and men’s pay allocations. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27, 330–337.
Hogue, M. B., Yoder, J. D., & Ludwig, J. (2002). Increasing initial leader effectiveness: Assisting both women and men. Sex Roles, 46, 377–384.
Jacobs, D. (1985). Unequal organizations or unequal attainments? An empirical comparison of sectoral and individualistic explanations for aggregate inequality. American Sociological Review, 50, 166–180.
Johnson, A. G. (2006). Privilege, power, and difference (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Jost, J. T. (1997). An experimental replication of the depressed entitlement effect among women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 387–393.
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498.
Lucas, J. W. (2003). Status processes and the institutionalization of women as leaders.American Sociological Review, 68, 464–480.
Major, B. (1994). From disadvantage to deserving: Comparisons, justifications, and the psychology of entitlement. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental Social Psychology (pp. 293–335). New York: Academic.
Major, B., & Konar, E. (1984). An investigation of sex differences in pay expectations and their possible causes. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 777–792.
Meyer, W. S. (1991). A case of restricted entitlement. Clinical Social Work Journal, 19, 223–235.
Pelham, B. W., & Hetts, J. J. (2001). Underworked and overpaid: Elevated entitlement in men’s self-pay. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 93–103.
Ridgeway, C. (1991). The social construction of status value: Gender and other nominal characteristics. Social Forces, 70, 367–386.
Ridgeway, C. L. (1997). Interaction and the conservation of gender inequality: Considering employment. American Sociological Review, 62, 218–235.
Ridgeway, C. L. (2001). Gender, status, and leadership. Journal of Social Issues,57, 637–655.
Ridgeway, C. L., & Walker, H. (2001). Status structures. In A. Branaman (Ed.), Self and society (pp. 298–320) Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Seachrist, G. B., & Stangor, C. (2001). Perceived consensus influences intergroup behavior and stereotype accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 645–654.
Speigel, R. (1987). Reflections on entitlement and idealization. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 23, 272–277.
Steil, J. M. (1994). Equality and entitlement in marriage: Benefits and barriers. In M. Lerner & G. Mikula (Eds.), Entitlement and the affectional bond: Justice in close relationships (pp. 229–258). New York: Plenum.
Syroit, J., & Poppe, M. (2000). Equity: Effects of input and outcome orientation on taking, giving, and dividing money. Social Justice Research, 13, 41–54.
Thompson, E. H., Grisanti, C., & Pleck, J. H. (1985). Attitudes toward the male role and their correlates. Sex Roles, 13, 413–427.
Wagner, D. G., & Berger, J. (1997). Gender and interpersonal task behaviors: Status expectation accounts. Sociological Perspectives, 40, 1–32.
Walker, D. F., Tokar, D. M., & Fischer, A. R. (2000). What are eight popular masculinity-related instruments measuring? Underlying dimensions and their relations to sociosexuality. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 1, 98–108.
Whitmeyer, J. M. (2003). The mathematics of expectation states theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66, 238–253.
Yoder, J. D., & Kahn, A. S. (2003). Making gender comparisons more meaningful: A call for more attention to social context. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27, 281–290.
Acknowledgement
The authors thank Devon Cummings for her help with data analysis.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hogue, M., Yoder, J.D. & Singleton, S.B. The Gender Wage Gap: An Explanation of Men’s Elevated Wage Entitlement. Sex Roles 56, 573–579 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9199-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9199-z