The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Occupational Segregation and the Devaluation of Women's Work across U.S. Labor Markets
Open accessAbstract
Previous research on the devaluation of women's work has investigated whether the net effect of gender composition varies across jobs and organizational settings. We extend that research by using hierarchical linear models that combine data from a random sample of U.S. work establishments with metropolitan-area data to explore whether macro-level gender inequality also influences the tendency to devalue women's work roles. Thus, we offer the first attempt to examine processes that lead to organizational gender inequality in local labor market contexts. Specifically we hypothesize that gender devaluation will be strongest in highly gender-segregated labor markets. One reason for this may be that in segregated markets, men are in a stronger position to benefit from devaluation while women are less able to resist it. The results strongly support this hypothesis: Higher levels of occupational segregation at the labor market level are associated with a significantly increased tendency to devalue women's work roles. This finding is not explained by a diverse set of controls at both the establishment and local labor market level. Our findings highlight an additional way that gender segregation intensifies labor market inequality.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Macro-level Gender Inequality and the Division of Household Labor in 22 Countries
Fuwa, M. (2004) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/000312240406900601 · Cited by 722
Croft, A., Schmader, T., & Block, K. (2015) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/1088868314564789 · Cited by 395
Gender and Occupational Segregation
Wong, Y. L. A., & Charles, M. (2020) · Companion to Women's and Gender Studies · doi:10.1002/9781119315063.ch16 · Cited by 18
Metadata
- Authors
- Cohen, P. N., & Huffman, M. L.
- Venue
- Social Forces
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2003-03-01
- Volume
- 81
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 881-908
- ISSN
- 0037-7732 (ISSN-L)
- 1534-7605
- OpenAlex
- W2134729415
- Cited by
- 213
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 33.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.