Klea Faniko

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 mens 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 mens 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.

Quota women are threatening to men: Unveiling the (counter)stereotypization of beneficiaries of affirmative action policies

Two studies carried out among Albanian public-sector employees examined the impact of different types of affirmative action policies (AAPs) on (counter)stereotypical perceptions of women in decision-making positions. Study 1 (N = 178) revealed that participants – especially women – perceived women in decision-making positions as more masculine (i.e., agentic) than feminine (i.e., communal). Study 2 (N = 239) showed that different types of AA had different effects on the attribution of gender stereotypes to AAP beneficiaries: Women benefiting from a quota policy were perceived as being more communal than agentic, while those benefiting from weak preferential treatment were perceived as being more agentic than communal. Furthermore, we examined how the belief that AAPs threaten men’s access to decision-making positions influenced the attribution of these traits to AAP beneficiaries. The results showed that men who reported high levels of perceived threat, as compared to men who reported low levels of perceived threat, attributed more communal than agentic traits to the beneficiaries of quotas. These findings suggest that AAPs may have created a backlash against its beneficiaries by emphasizing gender-stereotypical or counterstereotypical traits. Thus, the framing of AAPs, for instance, as a matter of enhancing organizational performance, in the process of policy making and implementation, may be a crucial tool to countering potential backlash.