CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 951Gender and Feminist StudiesGender Diversity and InequalityEmployment, Labor, and Gender Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 61 of the 61 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Interaction and the Conservation of Gender Inequality: Considering Employment

Ridgeway, Cecilia L.·1997·American Sociological Review
DOI 10.2307/2657301
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

How can we explain the persistence of gender hierarchy over transformations in its socioeconomic base? Part of the answer lies in the mediation of gender inequality by taken-for-granted interactional processes that rewrite inequality into new institutional arrangements. The problems of interacting cause actors to automatically sex-categorize others and, thus, to cue gender stereotypes that have various effects on interactional outcomes, usually by modifying the performance of other, more salient identities. Because changes in the status dimension of gender stereotypes lag behind changes in resource inequalities, interactional status processes can reestablish gender inequalities in new structural forms. Interactional sex categorization also biases the choice of comparison others, causing men and women to judge differently the rewards available to them. Operating in workplace relations, these processes conserve inequality by driving the gender-labeling of jobs, constructing people as gender-interested actors, contributing to employers' discriminatory preferences, and mediating men's and women's perceptions of alternatives and their willingness to settle for given job outcomes.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/2657301

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 61 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 901–951 of 951

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Ridgeway, C. L.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Ridgeway, Cecilia L.
ORCID
Ridgeway, Cecilia L.
Venue
American Sociological Review
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
1997-04
Volume
62
Issue
2
Pages
218
ISSN
0003-1224 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2307/2657301
OpenAlex
W2091725322
Cited by
939
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 63 · 2019: 44 · 2018: 48 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 30 · 2015: 37 · 2014: 45 · 2013: 53 · 2012: 39
FWCI
28.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
American Sociological Review (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Feminist Studies
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Diversity and Inequality
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Industrial relations › Employment, Labor, and Gender Studies
Keywords
gender inequality, gender stereotypes, interaction processes, sex categorization, gender hierarchy, employment, employment discrimination, gender pay gap, job choice

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