Zehnter Miriam K, Kirchler Erich
Department of Applied Psychology, Work, Education and Economy, Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Front Psychol. 2020 Apr 28;11:700. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00700. eCollection 2020.
In this study, we analyze the free verbal associations to the stimuli and of 327 medical students. Women and men quotas are characterized by the same (i.e., preferential treatment based on sex/gender). However, women quotas help a low-status group, whereas men quotas help a high-status group. In line with a support paradox, that is, the perception that support for women is less fair and less legitimate than support for men, we expected that students would reject women quotas in academia more vehemently than men quotas. Specifically, we hypothesized that students would have more negative and more emotional associations with women quotas than men quotas. As predicted, students had more negative associations with women quotas than with men quotas. However, students did not have more emotional associations with women quotas than with men quotas. In addition, we explored the semantic content of the free associations to identify specific concerns over each quota. Students perceived women quotas as counterproductive, derogatory, and unfair, whereas they perceived men quotas as beneficial and fair. Concerns over the negative perceptions of quota beneficiaries were associated more frequently with women quotas than men quotas. Potential factors underlying students' perceptions of both quotas are discussed.
在本研究中，我们分析了327名医学生对这些刺激的自由言语联想。女性配额和男性配额具有相同的特征（即基于性别/性别的优待）。然而，女性配额帮助的是低地位群体，而男性配额帮助的是高地位群体。与支持悖论一致，也就是说，认为对女性的支持不如对男性的支持公平和合理，我们预计学生在学术界会比男性配额更强烈地拒绝女性配额。具体而言，我们假设学生对女性配额的负面联想和情感联想会比男性配额更多。正如预测的那样，学生对女性配额的负面联想比对男性配额更多。然而，学生对女性配额的情感联想并不比对男性配额更多。此外，我们探究了自由联想的语义内容，以确定对每种配额的具体担忧。学生认为女性配额适得其反、带有贬义且不公平，而他们认为男性配额有益且公平。对配额受益者负面看法的担忧与女性配额的关联比与男性配额的关联更频繁。讨论了学生对两种配额看法背后的潜在因素。
