Cited by 10Work-Family Balance ChallengesGender Diversity and InequalityCareer Development and Diversity

Maternal wall biases and the maybe baby effect

Open access
Delacruz, Angie Y., Speer, Andrew B.·2023·Industrial and Organizational Psychology

Abstract

Gabriel and colleagues' (2022) focal article addresses how academia's culture surrounding tenure, career success, and promotions can cause women scholars to question if they can simultaneously have both a successful career and a family.Balancing both a fulfilling career and family life has been an ongoing issue for women in all industries.Not only can this balancing act itself hinder career opportunities for women, but as the authors point out, a lack of support, toxic attitudes, and biased perceptions regarding pregnant women and mothers in the workforce can create additional career obstacles.Interestingly, recent research suggests that pregnancy-related biases may extend beyond even currently pregnant women or mothers, and may also apply to women who might simply be perceived as soon becoming pregnant (e.g., Gloor et al., 2018;Gloor et al., 2021).This has been coined the "maybe baby effect."The maybe baby effect proposes that the assumed likelihood of a young woman soon becoming pregnant increases employers' perceptions of accompanied inconvenience (i.e., maternity leave) while decreasing perceptions of the woman's job commitment (Gloor et al., 2018).The maybe baby effect can be traced back to the "maternal wall" phenomenon, which embodies the different forms of discrimination and biases working mothers or pregnant employees experience in the workplace or while trying to enter the workforce (Williams, 2004).The maternal wall differs from the glass ceiling 1 because it specifically pertains to biases that occur because of a woman's parental or pregnancy status, and not because of other gender-based biases.The article by Gabriel and colleagues speaks to general maternal wall issues within academia.In this commentary, we expand upon Gabriel et al. (2022) maternal wall concerns by discussing the maybe baby effect and how it might adversely impact women within the academic work setting.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/iop.2023.3

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Mothers may face professional setbacks or unpaid labor due to their parental status, which exacerbates existing gender biases.

    “Economic. Mothers may face professional setbacks or unpaid labor due to their parental status, which exacerbates existing gender biases (36–38).”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Delacruz, A. Y., & Speer, A. B.
Affiliations
Wayne State University (US)
Corresponding author
Delacruz, Angie Y.
Venue
Industrial and Organizational Psychology
Published
2023-05-09
Volume
16
Issue
2
Pages
221-224
ISSN
  • 1754-9426 (ISSN-L)
  • 1754-9434
OpenAlex
W4375948704
Cited by
10
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1
FWCI
3.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Industrial and Organizational Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Work-Family Balance Challenges
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Diversity and Inequality
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Career Development and Diversity
Keywords
women in academia, work-family balance, maternity leave, work commitment, gender bias in hiring, academic careers, women's career advancement

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review