Author
Listed:
- Justine E. Tinkler
(Department of Sociology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA)
- Jody Clay-Warner
(Department of Sociology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA)
Abstract
Background: Occupational gender segregation is a key driver of labor market inequality and is prominent across occupations, within occupations, and within workplace task groups. This paper explores how structural arrangements and cultural messages shape women’s preferences for working with men vs. women. With respect to structural arrangements, we analyze how women’s relative power on a team influences their partner preference. With respect to cultural messages, we examine how one common source of information that has the potential to either challenge or reify notions of gender difference—sexual harassment policy training—affects partner preference. Methods: We conducted a laboratory experiment in which we placed 100 college-aged women in positions they may commonly find themselves in at the start of a new job—identifying coworkers to partner with on group tasks—and varied (1) their relative power on the team (leader or helper) and (2) exposure to workplace training (sexual harassment or ergonomic computer setup). We then assessed their attitudinal and behavioral preference for working with a female vs. a male partner on a decision-making task. Results: Women, particularly women assigned to a leadership position, more often chose to work with a female partner. Sexual harassment training did not affect women leaders’ attitudes about working with a male partner but those in a helper role expressed more positive attitudes about working with a man after sexual harassment training. These findings document how macro-level processes can shape workplace gender segregation, thus identifying mechanisms underlying the reproduction of gender inequality.
Suggested Citation
Justine E. Tinkler & Jody Clay-Warner, 2026.
"Leadership Status, Sexual Harassment Training, and Women’s Expectations About Working with Men,"
Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-13, February.
Handle:
RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:15:y:2026:i:2:p:123-:d:1865499
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:15:y:2026:i:2:p:123-:d:1865499. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address
(email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.