Skip to main content
Log in

The Gender Wage Gap: An Explanation of Men’s Elevated Wage Entitlement

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Sex Roles Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, J., Ridgeway, C. L., & Zelditch, M. (2002). Construction of status and referential structures. Sociological Theory, 20, 157–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brannon, R., & Juni, S. (1984). A scale for measuring attitudes about masculinity [MS. 2612]. Psychological Documents, 14, 6–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogue, M. B., Yoder, J. D., & Ludwig, J. (2002). Increasing initial leader effectiveness: Assisting both women and men. Sex Roles, 46, 377–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, A. G. (2006). Privilege, power, and difference (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T. (1997). An experimental replication of the depressed entitlement effect among women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 387–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, J. W. (2003). Status processes and the institutionalization of women as leaders.American Sociological Review, 68, 464–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Major, B., & Konar, E. (1984). An investigation of sex differences in pay expectations and their possible causes. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 777–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, W. S. (1991). A case of restricted entitlement. Clinical Social Work Journal, 19, 223–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. (1991). The social construction of status value: Gender and other nominal characteristics. Social Forces, 70, 367–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L. (1997). Interaction and the conservation of gender inequality: Considering employment. American Sociological Review, 62, 218–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L. (2001). Gender, status, and leadership. Journal of Social Issues,57, 637–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L., & Walker, H. (2001). Status structures. In A. Branaman (Ed.), Self and society (pp. 298–320) Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seachrist, G. B., & Stangor, C. (2001). Perceived consensus influences intergroup behavior and stereotype accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 645–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Speigel, R. (1987). Reflections on entitlement and idealization. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 23, 272–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Syroit, J., & Poppe, M. (2000). Equity: Effects of input and outcome orientation on taking, giving, and dividing money. Social Justice Research, 13, 41–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, E. H., Grisanti, C., & Pleck, J. H. (1985). Attitudes toward the male role and their correlates. Sex Roles, 13, 413–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, D. G., & Berger, J. (1997). Gender and interpersonal task behaviors: Status expectation accounts. Sociological Perspectives, 40, 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitmeyer, J. M. (2003). The mathematics of expectation states theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66, 238–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The authors thank Devon Cummings for her help with data analysis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary Hogue.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9199-z

Keywords

Navigation