Abstract
Family responsibility discrimination is a form of discrimination against men and women because of their caregiving responsibilities. Unlike prior studies that have predominantly focused on Western contexts, this study shifts attention to observers’ differentiated discrimination against men and women in China involved in work–family interference. The findings across four main experiments (N = 2577) suggest that shouldering family responsibility in the context of both family interference in work and work interference in family would stimulate more discrimination against men in urban China. We also explore whether a firm’s work–family balance policies can mitigate such discrimination. The results demonstrate that such policies mitigate supervisors’ discrimination against men involved in family interference in work but not observers’ discrimination against men involved in work interference in family. Post-hoc experiments and further tests (N = 931) demonstrate the robustness of our findings and show additional insights. Our findings suggest that gender discrimination in non-Western contexts can be very different.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Conventional wisdom about gender discrimination is that women in the workplace are more likely to be discriminated against than men. Additionally, women are often paid less at the same positions1,2, and are less likely to be promoted3,4. One type of gender discrimination is family responsibility discrimination that often occurs among female workers based on their family responsibilities5,6, which can be traced to their traditional roles of managing childcare and housework7,8 and related gender difference stereotypes9. The family responsibility discrimination issue has become more complicated of late with a large proportion of dual-earning families10 and growing demands for caregiving from men and breadwinning from women11,12. This is more salient with the development of teleworking devices when many people have to work from home while shouldering more home responsibilities13.
Several studies have examined the differential impact on males and females of shouldering home responsibilities, but most have focused on the resulting work overload, stress, and work–family conflict14,15. Little is known about how observers find this difference in shouldering childcare and housework responsibilities and how their views differ between men and women. Moreover, prior studies have predominantly focused on family responsibility discrimination in Western contexts16. While a few have examined labor market discrimination against married women and mothers17,18, there is still limited knowledge about gender differences in the consequences of shouldering family responsibilities in China.
Scholars have suggested that cultural norms interact with institutional contexts to affect the patterns of gender convergence19. There are obvious differences in terms of political, economic, cultural, and institutional systems among countries20,21,22,23,24. Nevertheless, Eastern countries have experienced dramatic society changes in the past few decades25, with China as a typical example. In the past, it is generally believed that Chinese hold more conservative views in gender role attitudes26. However, it has been experiencing an integration of Eastern, Western, tradition and modernity views toward gender in the past decades25. Therefore, it is important to understand more about Chinese people’s views on gender roles and gender discrimination today. To fill these gaps, this study attempts to explore the following research questions by focusing on urban China where people encounter more work–family interference: In urban China, who are more likely to be discriminated against by observers when holding more family responsibilities, male or female workers? What measures can be used to fend off the discriminations?
According to social role theory, although originating from physical differences, the differences and similarities in the behaviors of men and women mainly emanate from societal gender role beliefs27,28. Men are thought to be agentic (masterful, dominant, and aggressive), whereas women are thought to be communal (friendly, unselfish, and caring individuals)29. Research has shown that gender role norms not only guide people’s work and family role behaviors30,31, but also affect their expectations and attributions regarding men and women32,33. Although the literature has predominantly focused on discrimination against women34,35, theoretically, both women and men can be discriminated against in gender-incongruent domains. We adopt the social role theory to propose that, because traditional gender role beliefs, such as that men should be breadwinners and women caregivers9, still prevail in urban China36,37, men would be more discriminated against when holding more housework and childcaring tasks as it is incongruent with gender expectations. Therefore, compared with women, men are more likely to be observed in contempt in the context of family interference in work (hereafter “FIW”), but less likely to be so in the context of work interference in family (hereafter “WIF”). In addition, we explore whether a firm’s work–family balance (“WFB”) policies can mitigate such discrimination, and whether the gender discrimination effects found vary across different groups.
To test the hypothesized causal relationships, we conducted four main experiments from late November 2021 to early June 2022 with a total of 2577 participants from urban China. Participants were recruited from Sojump (http://www.sojump.com), a leading online crowdsourcing platform in China38,39,40,41. The large pool of participants of Sojump and our random selection help us avoid potential selection biases in the experiments. For key observers, we zoomed in on supervisors and irrelevant observers of workers because their discrimination can directly or indirectly affect workers’ work and life outcomes. Specifically, in our main experiments, irrelevant observers are general others in the society; in the post-hoc experiment, they are the community neighbors. In China, people are deeply influenced by the collectivist culture42,43. In such a culture, people view the whole society as a big family44, and similar to community neighbors in Western societies45, they tend to use informal social control as the means to curb unethical behaviors of others in the society, which may bring consequences46. Therefore, individuals care about the opinions and views of others (include families, friends, and even general others in the society) in their life and career development47.
In all the experiments, we deployed a single-factor between-subject design. Participants were randomly assigned to different groups and asked to read different scenarios that manipulated the core factor. We examined supervisors’ contempt under the context of FIW in Experiment 1 and 3, and irrelevant observers’ contempt under the context of WIF in Experiment 2 and 4. Because supervisors care more about work performance of the workers, FIW would be more likely to influence their evaluation of the workers. In contrast, influenced by the collectivist culture43 and Confucianism42, people in China would view the whole society as a big family and simply generalize experiences and habits acquired in the family to any individuals or groups in the society42,44. Therefore, irrelevant observers (i.e., general others or community neighbors) would care more about whether the workers have fulfilled their family responsibility in their evaluation, and WIF would be affect their evaluation of the workers.
The results from the first experiment reveal that men receive more contempt from supervisors than women in the context of FIW. Contrary to our prediction, the results of the second experiment demonstrated that men are more held in contempt by irrelevant observers in the context of WIF. The third and fourth experiments demonstrate that a firm’s WFB policies mitigate supervisors’ discrimination against men, but not the discrimination by irrelevant observers. Our additional analyses showed that people of lower subjective socioeconomic status and working in male-dominated industries showed significantly more contempt for males. Moreover, we found that WFB policies play significant roles in alleviating discrimination against males in the context of FIW for those with higher subjective SES, higher education, higher or lower income, working in male-dominated industries, and born in the urban or rural areas. Additional post-hoc experiments, robustness checks, and further tests demonstrate the robustness of our findings.
Results
Study 1: Gender discrimination in the context of FIW
The goal of Experiment 1 was to determine the differences in supervisor contempt for a female versus male worker in the context of FIW. This study comprised 650 participants with managerial experience from urban China. All participants were randomly assigned to one of the two scenarios, with 325 participants in each scenario. In both scenarios, participants were asked to imagine that they were supervisors of a department, and a worker in the department was often asked to leave for family reasons. All the information is the same in both scenarios except for worker’s gender. After reading the scenarios, participants were asked to rate their contempt for the worker. They were also asked to report their personal background information and the pandemic risk levels of the regions in which they stayed because it was conducted during COVID-19 pandemic.
The results of the T-test are shown in the top half of Table 1, and reveal that participants in the male worker group showed more contempt than those in the female worker group (Mdiff = 0.387, se = 0.110, p < 0.001), indicating discrimination against men involved in FIW. The bar chart in the top left corner of Fig. 1 shows the means for supervisor contempt under the different conditions in Experiment 1. It is clear to see the difference in supervisor-perceived contempt for female and male workers.
Study 2: Gender discrimination in the context of WIF
The goal of Experiment 2 was to determine the differences in irrelevant observer contempt for a male versus female worker in the context of WIF when working at home. The irrelevant observers were general others in the society. This study included a total of 816 participants from urban China. They were randomly assigned to one of the two scenarios. In both scenarios, participants were asked to imagine that they, as irrelevant observers, found a wife/husband’s negligence in her/his childcare when she/he was working at home. All the information is the same in both scenarios except for the worker’s gender. After reading the scenarios, participants were asked to rate their contempt for the worker and report their personal background information, as in Experiment 1.
As shown in the top half of Table 2, the participants showed higher contempt for male workers than for female workers (Mdiff = 0.232, se = 0.081, p < 0.01), indicating discrimination against men with WIF. The bar chart in the top-right corner of Fig. 1 shows the means for irrelevant observers’ contempt under the different conditions in Experiment 2. We can clearly see participants demonstrated more contempt for male workers than for female workers. To further explore the mechanism underlying irrelevant observers’ contempt, we asked participants to rate family conscientiousness of the worker described in the scenario using an existing scale48. The results revealed that for the full sample, participants showed lower family responsibility ratings for male workers than for female workers (Mdiff = −0.335, se = 0.069, p < 0.001).
Study 3: Effect of WFB policies in the context of FIW
Given our findings on gender discrimination against male workers with FIW in Experiment 1, Experiment 3 was designed to further examine the effect of a firm’s WFB policies in mitigating supervisor contempt for the male worker with FIW. In total, 513 managers from urban China were recruited and randomly assigned to two scenarios (low vs. high WFB policies). We manipulated the firm’s WFB policies by differentiating the descriptions. Under high WFB policies, the firm was described as caring for workers’ interests and helping workers to take on their family responsibilities, while under low WFB policies, it was described as neglecting worker interests and implementing strict management policies. The manipulation of the male worker’s FIW was the same as in Experiment 1. Finally, the participants were asked to rate their contempt for the male worker and answer questions for the manipulation check. All measures of the variables were the same as in Experiment 1.
As shown in the bottom half of Table 1, participants showed less contempt for the male worker with FIW in the condition of high WFB policies than in the condition of low WFB policies (Mdiff = −0.327, se = 0.125, p < 0.01). The bar chart in the lower left corner of Fig. 1 shows the means of participants’ contempt for male workers under different conditions in Experiment 3. It is clearly seen that WFB policies alleviate supervisors’ contempt for male workers with FIW to a large extent.
Study 4: Effect of WFB policies in the context of WIF
Based on our findings on gender discrimination against male workers with WIF in Experiment 2, Experiment 4 was designed to examine the role of a firm’s WFB policies in mitigating irrelevant observer contempt for the male worker with WIF. A total of 598 participants from urban China participated in this experiment. They are randomly assigned to two scenarios (low vs. high firm WFB policies). The manipulation of the firm’s WFB policies was the same as in Experiment 3, while that of the male workers’ WIF was the same as in Experiment 2. Finally, the participants were asked to rate their contempt for the male worker and answer questions for the manipulation check. All measures of the variables were the same as in Experiment 2.
As shown in the bottom half of Table 2, participants showed no difference in contempt for male workers with WIF under the conditions of low and high WFB policies (Mdiff = −0.042, se = 0.106, n.s.). The same trends can be observed in the bar chart in the lower-right corner of Fig. 1.
Additional results in the four main experiments
We also investigated whether the gender discrimination effects found in Experiments 1–4 vary across groups. Prior studies have shown significant correlations between socioeconomic status (SES) and gender stereotypes49,50. As links between SES and people’s attitudes may differ by whether SES is assessed objectively or subjectively51, we further grouped the participants in all experiments according to their subjective SES and objective SES. Following the literature51,52, we selected education and income as the objective SES indicators. In addition, we also grouped the participants according to other characteristics and obtained the following interesting results as shown in Tables 3–6.
Overall, the subjective SES is only moderately correlated with education (Experiment 1: r = 0.16; Experiment 2: r = 0.17) and monthly income (Experiment 1: r = 0.31; Experiment 2: r = 0.38), indicating that they are different. Moreover, we find that participants with lower subjective SES demonstrated significantly more contempt for male workers than for females in both the FIW (Table 3) and WIF contexts (Table 4) (FIW: Mdiff = 0.397, se = 0.112, p < 0.001; WIF: Mdiff = 0.244, se = 0.083, p < 0.01). In the context of FIW, participants in both higher- and lower income subgroups showed more contempt for male workers than for female workers (higher income: Mdiff = 0.477, se = 0.239, p < 0.05; lower income: Mdiff = 0.358, se = 0.123, p < 0.01), whereas in the context of WIF, only lower income participants showed more contempt for male subgroups (lower income: Mdiff = 0.236, se = 0.085, p < 0.01). However, participants with higher educational levels showed significantly more contempt for males than for females in both FIW and WIF contexts (FIW: Mdiff = 0.453, se = 0.120, p < 0.001; WIF: Mdiff = 0.297, se = 0.093, p < 0.001). Overall, these findings are largely consistent with past studies in that people of lower socioeconomic status hold more conventional beliefs such as gender role stereotypes53,54. However, we can see clearly differences between subjective SES and objective SES indicators. Particularly, the findings on the impact of education shows a departure55,56, perhaps because individuals with higher levels of education often experienced greater psychological anxiety and stress in China, particularly during the pandemic57. To reduce stress and conflict, they may be using intuitive reasoning to increase predictability and feeling of control58 and adopt conventional gender stereotypical thinking.
In addition, participants working in male-dominated industries showed significantly more contempt for males (FIW: Mdiff = 0.542, se = 0.132, p < 0.001; WIF: Mdiff = 0.307, se = 0.101, p < 0.01). This may be because traditional gender role expectations for men are relatively stronger in male-dominated industries59, and workers in such industries may hold relatively more traditional gender role stereotypes. In the context of FIW, participants born in urban as well as rural areas showed more contempt for males (urban areas: Mdiff = 0.380, se = 0.134, p < 0.01; rural areas: Mdiff = 0.401, se = 0.183, p < 0.05). Similar effects were found in the context of WIF (urban areas: Mdiff = 0.266, se = 0.114, p < 0.01; rural areas: Mdiff = 0.187, se = 0.113, p < 0.1). This may have been caused by rapid migration in China, resulting in urban and rural people becoming increasingly similar in attitudes, including in gender role stereotypes.
The results also show that firm WFB policies play significant roles in alleviating discrimination against males in the context of FIW (Table 5) for those with higher subjective SES (Mdiff = −1.096, se = 0.363, p < 0.01), with higher education (Mdiff = −0.340, se = 0.132, p < 0.01), with higher income (Mdiff = −0.469, se = 0.246, p < 0.1), with lower income (Mdiff = -0.271, se = 0.143, p < 0.1), working in male-dominated industries (Mdiff = −0.365, se = 0.143, p < 0.05), born in the urban areas (Mdiff = −0.318, se = 0.154, p < 0.05), and born in the rural areas (Mdiff = −0.353, se = 0.202, p < 0.1). Overall, these results demonstrate the robustness of our findings regarding the effects of a firm’s WFB policies in the FIW context.
Post-hoc experiments and further tests
To verify the robustness of the results and provide additional insights, we conducted five additional experiments in late August 2023 with a total of 931 participants from urban China. See Table 7 for detailed results. First, we included a post-hoc experiment (i.e., Post-hoc Experiment) including 132 participants to examine whether the results in Experiment 2 hold when the participants are the community neighbors of the focal workers (i.e., irrelevant observers living in the same community as the focal workers). We find more contempt for men than for women (Mdiff = 0.369, se = 0.216, p < 0.05), which is similar to the findings in Experiment 2.
Second, both engaging in care of aged parents and engaging in care of child are typical family responsibilities. To test whether the gender discrimination we founded varies with the types of family responsibilities, we conducted another two experiments (i.e., Experiment 1i and 2i), with only the content of family responsibility changed to engaging in care of aged parents. A total of 212 participants were included for Experiment 1i and 196 for Experiment 2i. The analysis shows significant and more contempt for men than for women in both FIW and WIF contexts (FIW: Mdiff = 0.433, se = 0.198, p < 0.05; WIF: Mdiff = 0.345, se = 0.188, p < 0.05), which is consistent with what we have found in Experiment 1 and Experiment 2.
Third, we added two additional experiments to examine gender role discrimination in the context of FIW and WIF when switching participants’ perspectives. Specifically, the Experiment 1ii considers FIW from the point of view of irrelevant observers while Experiment 2ii considers WIF from the point of view of supervisors. The sample size of Experiment 1ii is 211 and that for Experiment 2ii is 180. We found that irrelevant observers show more contempt towards men than women in the context of FIW, which is marginally significant (Mdiff = 0.290, se = 0.199, p < 0.10), while supervisors show less contempt for men than for women in the context of WIF, which is not significant (Mdiff = −0.115, se = 0.206, n.s.). This may be because supervisors do not care much about the impact of work on the family in China.
Fourth, we also used ordinary linear square regression (OLS) as an alternative analytical method and controlled for the influence of participants’ personal information, such as age, gender, education level, etc., and regional pandemic risk. As reported in Table 8, the results in all the four main experiments remain consistent with that from the main analyses. The results demonstrate robustness of our findings.
Discussion
Employing four experiments in China, our research finds that in urban China discrimination against men involved in FIW is higher than against their female counterparts. These results are contrary to past findings that women were more discriminated in workplace3,4,60, but it is consistent with the traditional gender role beliefs that women are expected to bear more family responsibilities, and men are expected to bear more work responsibilities8. In other words, male workers are expected to focus on their work rather than being distracted by family responsibilities.
Contrary to our prediction, the results show that in urban China discrimination against men involved in WIF is higher than that against females. This may be due to people’s enhanced expectations of men to assume more family responsibilities. Urban Chinese women—like women elsewhere—face a double burden in the male-centered work world and female-centered home61. With various social efforts to promote gender equality in China62, such expectations may be increasing, especially in the context of working from home. However, in reality, women still perform more housework and care work in the family context14. Facing a gap between expectations and reality, people tend to be less tolerant of men’s accidental negligence of family responsibilities than that of women.
In addition, we find that a firm’s WFB policies can reduce supervisors’ discrimination against males in the context of FIW, whereas such an effect was not observed in the context of WIF. According to existing research, a firm with WFB policies often has a family friendly culture. This means that supervisors support workers to achieve a better balance between work and family life63, and would not criticize them for assuming more family responsibilities. However, the firm’s WFB policies fail to alleviate discrimination against men in the family context, suggesting that such policies have a limited effect. Future studies should explore other tactics that can help alleviate this discrimination.
The findings have important implications for the literature and practice. First, previous studies have often focused on discrimination against minority groups. Contrary to the conventional wisdom that women are more likely than men to face discrimination1,2,3,4, we find that shouldering family responsibilities in the contexts of both FIW and WIF would stimulate more discrimination against men in China relative to women. Further, unlike prior research that has focused on the varying degrees of discrimination when people violate traditional gender stereotype64, our findings suggest that in China, people’s expectations around division of family responsibilities are changing. Finally, while previous studies have been focused on gender discrimination in Western contexts, our findings suggest that gender discrimination in non-Western contexts can be very different.
Second, this study contributes to the literature by examining tactics for mitigating workplace gender discrimination. Previous studies found that the commonly used work–family accommodations, such as flexible work arrangements65, might create a “flexibility stigma” for females who use such policies66. Our study goes beyond this to demonstrate that a WFB policy package can play a positive role in fending off discrimination against male workers facing FIW, and presents a clearer picture of the consequences of work–family accommodation.
Finally, this research contributes to the work–family literature. While prior studies have mostly focused on consequences such as work overload, burnout, work–family conflict14,15, and legal resolution67, our findings on gender differences in suffering family responsibility discrimination enrich the understanding of how observers, including supervisors and irrelevant observers, view workers involved in FIW and WIF, respectively. Because observer discrimination could put further pressure on workers, researchers can pursue this strand to investigate how other observers view such workers and how to address such discrimination.
Future research could also investigate other factors that can reduce gender discrimination, particularly in the post-pandemic era. For instance, companies such as Microsoft and Twitter have indicated that staff could stay remote even after the pandemic eased. It has become necessary to explore whether the widespread application of teleworking technology can improve the division of family responsibilities and gender attitudes among workers.
Methods
This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the first author’s affiliated university and was performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. In all the studies, the participants provided informed consent before participation. All participants were compensated for their time with a flat fee ranging from ¥ 7–10 to each participant in the different experiments.
Sampling method
We recruited participants from Sojump, which is a leading online crowdsourcing platform like Mechanical Turk in China. It comprises 2.6 million respondents, whose personal information was confirmed, allowing for an authentic, diverse, and representative sample. Many studies have used samples from Sojump in China in their research38,39,40,41.
To ensure the quality of the experiments, in all of our studies, exclusion criteria were applied and administered in all experiments. Respondents were required to pass a captcha image check to gain access, and the Sojump platform excluded repeat participants for all our experiments. We also excluded participants under the age of 18. In experiments with participants as supervisors, participants were restricted to those who had experiences of supervising workers; in all the experiments, participants should work or live in the urban areas. In addition, we excluded participants who did not complete the main task or failed the attention-check task. Across all experiments, as an attention check, we asked the participants to indicate their imaginary identities. The attention check could be passed only when the selected options were consistent with the experimental instructions. We have compared the participants in the treatment group and control group for each experiment, and found no significant differences on personal attributes, such as age, gender, education level, etc.
Experiment 1 recruited 710 participants with managerial experience. Of these participants, 60 failed the attention-check questions, leaving 650 participants for the final analysis (48.9% (318) females; 4.6% (30) aged 18–25 years, 30.5% (198) aged 26–30 years, 46.2% (300) aged 31–40 years, 10.7% (70) aged 41–50 years, 7% (46) aged 51–60 years, and 1% (6) aged above 60 years; the mean of monthly income in the range of 8001–17,000 yuan; 85.5% obtained the bachelor degree or above). A total of 844 participants were recruited for Experiment 2. Among them, only 816 participants passed the attention check and were used for data analysis (56.5% (461) females; 15.2% (124) aged 18–25, 34.3% (280) aged 26–30, 31.1% (254) aged 31–40, 10.2% (83) aged 41–50, 7.7% (63) aged 51–60, and 1.5% (12) aged >60 years; the mean of monthly income in the range of 4001–8000 yuan; 77.7% obtained the bachelor degree or above). Experiment 3 recruited another 615 managers, among whom 102 failed the attention check, leaving 513 participants for analysis (47.6% (244) females; 3.1% (16) aged 18–25, 31.6% (162) aged 26–30, 58.9% (302) aged 31–40, 5.8% (30) aged 41–50, and 0.6% (3) aged 51–60; the mean of monthly income in the range of 8001–17,000 yuan; 91.9% obtained the bachelor degree or above). A total of 625 participants were recruited in Experiment 4, among whom 598 passed the attention check and were used for data analysis (47.5% (284) females; 19.7% (118) aged 18–25 years, 34.4% (206) aged 26–30 years, 37.6% (225) aged 31–40 years, 5.9% (35) aged 41–50 years, and 2.3% (14) aged 51–60 years; the mean of monthly income in the range of 8001–17,000 yuan; 87.6% obtained the bachelor degree or above).
Post-hoc Experiment recruited 159 participants. Of these participants, 27 failed the attention-check questions, leaving 132 participants for the final analysis (48.5% (64) females; 6.8% (9) aged 18–25 years, 34.9% (46) aged 26–30 years, 43.9% (58) aged 31–40 years, 10.6% (14) aged 41–50 years, 3.8% (5) aged 51–60 years; the mean of monthly income in the range of 8001–17,000 yuan; 84.0% obtained the bachelor degree or above). A total of 226 participants were recruited for Experiment 1i with managerial experience. Among them, only 212 participants passed the attention check and were used for data analysis (48.1% (102) females; 3.7% (8) aged 18–25 years, 33.5% (71) aged 26–30 years, 50.5% (107) aged 31–40 years, 9.9% (21) aged 41–50 years, 2.4% (5) aged 51–60 years; the mean of monthly income in the range of 8001–17,000 yuan; 89.6% obtained the bachelor degree or above). Experiment 2i recruited another 211 participants, among whom 15 failed the attention check, leaving 196 participants for analysis (50.5% (99) females; 8.2% (16) aged 18–25 years, 33.2% (65) aged 26–30 years, 51.0% (100) aged 31–40 years, 6.6% (13) aged 41–50 years, 1.0% (2) aged 51–60 years; the mean of monthly income in the range of 8001–17,000 yuan; 91.3% obtained a bachelor degree or above). A total of 221 participants were initially recruited for Experiment 1ii. However, 10 participants did not pass the attention-check questions, resulting in a final sample size of 211 participants for data analysis (55.5% (117) females; 10.4% (22) aged 18–25 years, 33.2% (70) aged 26–30 years, 45.0% (95) aged 31–40 years, 9.0% (19) aged 41–50 years, 2.4% (5) aged 51–60 years; the mean of monthly income in the range of 8001–17,000 yuan; 89.1% obtained the bachelor degree or above). In Experiment 2ii, a total of 212 managers were initially recruited. Following the attention check, 180 managers successfully passed and were included in the final data analysis (59.4% (107) females; 3.3% (6) aged 18–25 years, 40.6% (73) aged 26–30 years, 47.8% (86) aged 31–40 years, 6.0% (11) aged 41–50 years, 1.7% (3) aged 51–60 years, and 0.6% (1) aged above 60 years; the mean of monthly income in the range of 8001–17,000 yuan; 90.0% obtained the bachelor degree or above).
Procedure
We employed a single-factor between-subject design for all experiments. Participants were randomly assigned to two groups and asked to read different scenarios that manipulated the core factor (Experiments 1 and 2: male vs. female worker; Experiments 3 and 4: male worker and low vs. high WFB policies; Post-hoc Experiment, Experiments 1i, 2i, 1ii, and 2ii: male vs. female worker). We designed firm WFB policies based on the EU Work-Life Balance Directive (or Directive 2019/1158) and corporate social responsibility for work-life balance68,69. After reading the scenarios, participants were asked to rate their contempt using a scale developed by Romani, Grappi, and Bagozzi70. In addition, they were also asked to report their own personal background information, such as gender, age, education level, the region where they live, and the pandemic risk level of each region according to the list provided by the Chinese government (“0” for low-risk regions, “1” for middle- or higher-risk regions). During the pandemic, the Chinese government kept updating the risk level of each region every day in the official website (http://www.gov.cn/fuwu/2021-08/08/content_5630141.htm), which was also easily accessible in the WeChat.
Manipulation check
We used both words and pictures to manipulate gender of the workers in the scenarios in Experiments 1 and 2, which were so obvious that there was no need for a manipulation check. For Experiment 3, participants in the high WFB policies condition reported higher levels of perception of firm WFB policies (M = 5.77) than participants in the low WFB policies condition (M = 2.85; t = −32.42, p < 0.001). Similar results were found in Experiment 4; participants in the high WFB policies condition reported higher levels of perception of firm WFB policies (M = 5.89) than participants in the low WFB policies condition (M = 3.05; t = −30.19, p < 0.001). These results demonstrate the effectiveness of the WFB manipulation.
Data analysis strategy
To test whether any intergroup differences in the mean of the dependent variable, contempt, across the four studies, we conducted the main analyses with a two-sided independent sample T-test using STATA. Although the dependent variable was non-normally distributed, previous scholars71 have pointed out that T-test results are still robust under non-normally distributed data. We reported 95% confidence intervals for the T-tests and calculated the effect sizes (r) using the following equation72.
We also performed a least-squares regression analysis for a series of grouped samples (e.g., lower- vs. higher income levels) and tested the between-subsample differences in coefficients using a seemingly unrelated estimation (Suest command in STATA).
Reporting summary
Further information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article.
Data availability
All data, codes, and scenarios of experiments used in the current article are available at https://osf.io/52jnt.
Code availability
All data, codes, and scenarios of experiments used in the current article are available at https://osf.io/52jnt.
References
Blau, F. D. & Kahn, L. M. The gender wage gap: extent, trends, and explanations. J. Econ. Lit. 55, 789–865 (2017).
Cobb, A. J. How firms shape income inequality: stakeholder power, executive decision making, and the structuring of employment relationships. Acad. Manage. Rev. 41, 324–348 (2015).
Babcock, L., Recalde, M. P., Vesterlund, L. & Weingart, L. Gender differences in accepting and receiving requests for tasks with low promotability. Am. Econ. Rev. 107, 714–747 (2017).
Ma, Y., Oliveira, D. F., Woodruf, T. K. & Uzzi, B. Women who win prizes get less money and prestige. Nature 565, 287–288 (2019).
Bornstein, S. & Painter, G. R. Discrimination against mothers is the strongest form of workplace gender discrimination: lessons from US Caregiver Discrimination Law. Int. J. Comp. Labour Law Ind. Relat. 28, 45–62 (2012).
Adams, S. J., Heywood, J. S. & Miller, L. A. Caregivers, firm policies and gender discrimination claims. Rev. Econ. Household 12, 359–377 (2014).
Morgan, A. C. et al. The unequal impact of parenthood in academia. Sci. Adv. 7, eabd1996 (2021).
Hochschild, A. & Machung, A. The Second Shift: Working Families and the Revolution at Home (Penguin, 2012).
Trzebiatowski, T. & Triana, M. D. C. Family responsibility discrimination, power distance, and emotional exhaustion: when and why are there gender differences in work–life conflict? J. Bus. Ethics 162, 15–29 (2020).
Bellavia, G. M. & Frone, M. R. Work-family conflict. In Handbook of Work Stress (eds Barling, J.) 113–147 (Sage, 2005).
Bianchi, S. M. & Milkie, M. A. Work and family research in the first decade of the 21st century. J. Marriage Fam. 72, 705–725 (2010).
Perrone, K. M., Wright, S. L. & Jackson, Z. V. Traditional and nontraditional gender roles and work—family interface for men and women. J. Career Dev. 36, 8–24 (2009).
Brynjolfsson, E. et al. COVID‐19 and Remote Work: An Early Look at US Data (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2020). https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w27344/w27344.pdf.
Lemos, A. H. D. C., Barbosa, A. D. O. & Monzato, P. P. Women in home office during the COVID-A9 pandemic and the work-family conflict configurations. RAE Rev. Admin. Empres. 60, 388–399 (2021).
Sullivan, O. Gender inequality in work-family balance. Nat. Hum. Behav. 3, 201–203 (2019).
Jayachandran, S. The roots of gender inequality in developing countries. Ann. Rev. Econ. 7, 63–88 (2015).
Yu, J. & Xie, Y. Motherhood penalties and living arrangements in China. J. Marriage Fam. 80, 1067–1086 (2018).
Zhang, Y., Hannum, E. & Wang, M. Gender-based employment and income differences in urban China: considering the contributions of marriage and parenthood. Soc. Forces 86, 1529–1560 (2008).
Kan, M. Y. et al. Revisiting the gender revolution: time on paid work, domestic work, and total work in East Asian and western societies 1985–2016. Gend. Soc. 36, 368–396 (2022).
Caragliu, A. & Del Bo, C. F. Smart cities and the urban digital divide. npj Urban Sustain 3, 43 (2023).
Lenzi, C. & Perucca, G. Economic inequalities and discontent in European cities. npj Urban Sustain 3, 26 (2023).
Furszyfer Del Rio, D. D., Sovacool, B. K., Griffiths, S., Foley, A. M. & Furszyfer Del Rio, J. A cross-country analysis of sustainability, transport and energy poverty. npj Urban Sustain 3, 41 (2023).
Chen, M. et al. Rising vulnerability of compound risk inequality to ageing and extreme heatwave exposure in global cities. npj Urban Sustain 3, 38 (2023).
Caggiano, H., Kocakuşak, D., Kumar, P. & Tier, M. O. U. S. cities’ integration and evaluation of equity considerations into climate action plans. npj Urban Sustain 3, 50 (2023).
Ji, Y. Asian families at the crossroads: a meeting of east, west, tradition, modernity, and gender. J. Marriage. Fam. 77, 1031–1038 (2015).
Chia, R. C., Moore, J. L., Lam, K. N., Chuang, C. J. & Cheng, B. S. Cultural differences in gender role attitudes between Chinese and American students. Sex Roles 31, 23–30 (1994).
Eagly, A. H., Wood, W. & Diekman, A. B. Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: a current appraisal. In The Developmental Social Psychology of Gender (eds Eckes, T. & Trautner, H. M.) 123–174 (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 2000).
Eagly, A. H. & Wood, W. Explaining sex differences in social behavior: a meta-analytic perspective. Pers. Soc. Psychol. B 17, 306–315 (1991).
Bakan, D. The Duality of Human Existence: Isolation and Communion in Western Man (Beacon Press, 1966).
Duxbury, L. E. & Higgins, C. A. Gender differences in work-family conflict. J. Appl. Psychol. 76, 60–74 (1991).
Gutek, B. A., Searle, S. & Klepa, L. Rational versus gender role explanations for work-family conflict. J. Appl. Psychol 76, 560–568 (1991).
Cejka, M. A. & Eagly, A. H. Gender-stereotypic images of occupations correspond to the sex segregation of employment. Pers. Soc. Psychol. B 25, 413–423 (1999).
Eby, L. T., Allen, T. D. & Douthitt, S. S. The role of nonperformance factors on job-related relocation opportunities: a field study and laboratory experiment. Organ. Behav. Hum. Dec. 79, 29–55 (1999).
Ferguson, T. W. Female leadership and role congruity within the clergy: communal leaders experience no gender differences yet agentic women continue to suffer backlash. Sex Roles 78, 409–422 (2018).
Eagly, A. H. & Karau, S. J. Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychol. Rev. 109, 573–598 (2002).
Qing, S. Gender role attitudes and male-female income differences in China. J. Chinese Soc. 7, 12–24 (2020).
Higgins, L. T., Zheng, M., Liu, Y. & Sun, C. H. Attitudes to marriage and sexual behaviors: a survey of gender and culture differences in China and United Kingdom. Sex Roles 46, 75–89 (2002).
Zhang, J. et al. The relationship between resilience, anxiety and depression among patients with mild symptoms of COVID‐19 in China: a cross‐sectional study. J. Clin. Nurs. 29, 4020–4029 (2020).
Pan, Z. et al. An online survey of primary care physicians’ knowledge of common respiratory diseases in China. NPJ Prim. Care Respir. Med. 32, 28 (2022).
Wang, Y. et al. Acute psychological effects of Coronavirus Disease 2019 outbreak among healthcare workers in China: a cross-sectional study. Transl. Psychiatry 10, 348 (2020).
Liao, D., Cui, K. & Ke, L. A nationwide Chinese consumer study of public interest on agriculture. NPJ Sci. Food 6, 32 (2022).
Farh, J. L. & Cheng, B. S. A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations. In Management and Organizations in the Chinese Context 84–127 (Palgrave Macmillan, 2000).
Woodhams, C., Xian, H. & Lupton, B. Women managers’ careers in China: theorizing the influence of gender and collectivism. Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 54, 913–931 (2015).
Yang, K. S. Chinese Social Orientation: An Integrative Analysis. In: Lin, T. Y., Tseng, W. S. & Yeh, Y. K., Eds., Chinese Societies and Mental Health 19-39 (Oxford University Press, 1995).
Warner, B. D. & Burchfield, K. Misperceived neighborhood values and informal social control. Justice Q 28, 606–630 (2011).
Rojek, D. G. Social control in the People’s Republic of China. Crim. Justice. Rev. 14, 141–153 (1989).
Hui, C. H. & Triandis, H. C. Individualism-collectivism: a study of cross-cultural researchers. J. Cross. Cult. Psychol. 17, 225–248 (1986).
John, O. P. & Srivastava, S. The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research (eds Pervin, L. A. & John, O. P.) 102–138 (Guilford Press, 1999).
Ojeda, L., Rosales, R. & Good, G. E. Socioeconomic status and cultural predictors of male role attitudes among Mexican American men: Son más machos? Psychol. Men Masculin. 9, 133–138 (2008).
Kulik, L. The impact of social background on gender-role ideology: parents’ versus children’s attitudes. J. Fam. Issues 23, 53–73 (2002).
Tan, J. J., Kraus, M. W., Carpenter, N. C. & Adler, N. E. The association between objective and subjective socioeconomic status and subjective well-being: a meta-analytic review. Psychol. Bull. 146, 970–1020 (2020).
Adler, N. E., Epel, E. S., Castellazzo, G. & Ickovics, J. R. Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: preliminary data in healthy, White women. Health Psychol. 19, 586–592 (2000).
Samari, G. & Coleman-Minahan, K. Parental gender expectations by socioeconomic status and nativity: implications for contraceptive use. Sex Roles 78, 669–684 (2018).
Cassidy, M. L. & Warren, B. O. Family employment status and gender-role attitudes. Gender Soc. 10, 312–329 (1996).
Glick, P., Lameiras, M. & Castro, Y. R. Education and Catholic religiosity as predictors of hostile and benevolent sexism toward women and men. Sex Roles 47, 433–441 (2002).
Hellmer, K., Stenson, J. T. & Jylhä, K. M. What’s (not) underpinning ambivalent sexism?: Revisiting the roles of ideology, religiosity, personality, demographics, and men’s facial hair in explaining hostile and benevolent sexism. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 122, 29–37 (2018).
Liu, B. et al. Who is the most vulnerable to anxiety at the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak in China? A cross-sectional nationwide survey. Healthcare 9, 970 (2021).
Sloman, S. Two systems of reasoning: an update. In Dual-Process Theories of the Social Mind (eds Sherman, J. W. et al.) 69–79 (The Guilford Press, 2014).
Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J. & Makhijani, M. G. Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 117, 125–145 (1995).
Ji, Y., Wu, X., Sun, S. & He, G. Unequal care, unequal work: toward a more comprehensive understanding of gender inequality in post-reform urban China. Sex Roles 77, 765–778 (2017).
Pimentel, E. E. Gender ideology, household behavior, and backlash in urban China. J. Fam Issues. 27, 341–365 (2006).
Wang, T. Striving for equal opportunities: gender identities and educational challenges of ethnic migrants in Northwest China. Children Youth Serv. Rev. 119, 105497 (2020).
Allen, T. D. Family-supportive work environments: the role of organizational perceptions. J. Vocat. Behav. 58, 414–435 (2001).
Skočajić, M. M., Radosavljević, J. G., Okičić, M. G., Janković, I. O. & Žeželj, I. L. Boys just don’t! Gender stereotyping and sanctioning of counter-stereotypical behavior in preschoolers. Sex Roles 82, 163–172 (2020).
Brescoll, V. L., Glass, J. & Sedlovskaya, A. Ask and ye shall receive? The dynamics of employer‐provided flexible work options and the need for public policy. J. Soc. Issues 69, 367–388 (2013).
Padavic, I., Ely, R. J. & Reid, E. M. Explaining the persistence of gender inequality: the work–family narrative as a social defense against the 24/7 work culture. Admin. Sci. Quart. 65, 61–111 (2020).
Hirsh, C. E., Treleaven, C. & Fuller, S. Caregivers, gender, and the law: an analysis of family responsibility discrimination case outcomes. Gender Soc. 34, 760–789 (2020).
Činčalová, S. Inequalities in social responsibility across Europe focused on work-life balance. Calitatea 21, 142–146 (2020).
Chieregato, E. A work–life balance for all? Assessing the Inclusiveness of EU Directive 2019/1158. Int. J. Comp. Lab. Law Ind. Rel. 36, 59–80 (2020).
Romani, S., Grappi, S. & Bagozzi, R. P. My anger is your gain, my contempt your loss: explaining consumer responses to corporate wrongdoing. Psychol. Market 30, 1029–1042 (2013).
Poncet, A., Courvoisier, D. S., Combescure, C. & Perneger, T. V. Normality and sample size do not matter for the selection of an appropriate statistical test for two-group comparisons. Methodology 12, 61 (2016).
Field, A. Discovering Statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (Sage, 2013).
Acknowledgements
This project is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 72172075, 71902100, 72072101, 72372092) and Youth Innovation Team Program of Shandong Higher Education Institution (2021RW013).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Y.X. led the theorizing, conceptualization, methodology, and writing of the manuscript. S.Z. and M.L. substantially contributed to the conceptualization, methodology, and writing of the manuscript. The first three authors can be considered co-first authors. D.L., H.Z., and G.T. contributed to the conceptualization of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Ethics approval
We have obtained informed consent from all participants. This research was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Shandong University and was performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Xu, Y., Zhang, S., Li, M. et al. Work–family interference in urban China: gender discrimination and the effects of work–family balance policies. npj Urban Sustain 4, 1 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-023-00137-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-023-00137-6