Cognitive bias and the motherhood penalty

Hastings Law Journal

Volumn 59, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 1359-1387

  Benard, Stephen ^a   Paik, In ^b   Correll, Shelley J ^c  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics

^c STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 54249141827     PISSN: 00178322     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (275)

1. See, e.g., Michelle Budig & Paula England, The Wage Penalty for Motherhood, 66 AM. SOC. REV. 204, 204 (2001).
2. For related work, see generally Deborah J. Anderson et al., The Motherhood Wage Penalty Revisited: Experience, Heterogeneity, Work Effort, and Work-Schedule Flexibility, 56 INDUS. & LAB. REL. REV. 273 (2003);
3. Shelly Lundberg & Elaina Rose, Parenthood and the Earnings of Married Men and Women, 7 LAB. ECON. 689 (2000);
4. and Jane Waldfogel, The Effect of Children on Women's Wages, 62 AM. SOC. REV. 209 (1997).
5. For other examples of studies of the motherhood wage penalty see Jane Waldfogel, Understanding the 'Family Gap' in Pay for Women with Children, 12 J. ECON. PERSP. 137 (1998) [hereinafter Waldfogel, Understanding].
6. Budig & England, supra note 1.
7. Id.
8. Waldfogel, Understanding, supra note 1, at 141;
9. see also SUSAN HARKNESS & JANE WALDFOGEL, THE FAMILY GAP IN PAY: EVIDENCE FROM SEVEN INDUSTRIALISED COUNTRIES 15 (1999);
10. Joya Misra & Michelle Budig, The Cross-National Effects of Work-Family Policies on the Wage Penalty for Motherhood 8 (Oct. 15, 2006) (unpublished grant proposal submitted to the National Science Foundation) (on file with The Hastings Law Journal) (discussing the motherhood penalty cross-nationally).
11. A motherhood penalty has been documented in countries including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Sweden. While all of these countries exhibit a motherhood penalty, the size of the penalty varies by country. Waldfogel, Understanding, supra note 1, at 141 tbl.2.
12. Sarah Avellar & Pamela Smock, Has the Price of Motherhood Declined Over Time? A Cross-Cohort Comparison of the Motherhood Wage Penalty, 65 J. MARRIAGE & FAM. 597, 604 (2003).
13. Amy J.C. Cuddy et al., When Professionals Become Mothers, Warmth Doesn't Cut the Ice, 60 J. SOC. ISSUES 701, 709 (2004).
14. A few examples of relevant social psychological work on stereotyping include; John A. Bargh et al., Automaticity of Social Behavior: Direct Effects of Trait Construct and Stereotype Activation on Action, 71 J. PERS'LTY & SOC. PSYCHOL. 230 (1996), discussing the effect of stereotype activation on behavior, rather than simply on perception;
15. Patricia G. Devine, Stereotypes and Prejudice: Their Automatic and Controlled Components, 56 J. PERS'LTY & SOC. PSYCHOL. 5 (1988), discussing the vulnerability of both high and low-prejudice individuals to cognitive bias;
16. Daniel T. Gilbert & Gregory J. Hixon, The Trouble of Thinking: Activation and Application of Stereotypic Beliefs, 60 J. PERS'LTY & SOC. PSYCHOL. 509 (1991), discussing the effects of cognitive load on stereotype activation and application;
17. Anthony G. Greenwald & Mahzarin Banaji, Implicit Social Cognition: Attitudes, Self-Esteem, and Stereotypes, 102 PSYCHOL. REV. 4 (1995), discussing implicit stereotype activation;
18. Ziva Kunda et al., The Dynamic Time Course of Stereotype Activation: Activation, Dissipation, and Resurrection, 82 J. PERS'LTY & SOC. PSYCHOL. 283 (2002), discussing the persistence of stereotype activation over the course of an interaction;
19. and Thomas K, Srull & Robert S. Weyer, Jr., The Role of Category Accessibility in the Interpretation of Information About Persons: Some Determinants and Implications, 37 J. PERS'LTY & SOC. PSYCHOL. 1660 (1979), discussing the effects of cognitive activation of trait categories on person perception.
20. For examples of useful reviews and theoretical statements, see John A. Bargh & Melissa J. Ferguson, Beyond Behaviorism: On the Automaticity of Higher Mental Processes, 126 PSYCHOL. BULL. 925 (2001);
21. Ziva Kunda & Stephen J. Spencer, When Do Stereotypes Come to Mind and When Do They Color Judgment? A Goal-Based Theoretical Framework for Stereotype Activation and Application, 129 PSYCHOL. BULL. 522 (2003);
22. and Timothy D. Wilson & Nancy Brekke, Mental Contamination and Mental Correction: Unwanted Influences on Judgments and Evaluations, 116 PSYCHOL. BULL. 117 (1994).
23. See ANN CRITTENDEN, THE PRICE OF MOTHERHOOD: WHY THE MOST IMPORTANT JOB IN THE WORLD IS STILL THE LEAST VALUED 6 (2001) (showing statistical disparities among workers and their effects on family spending and earning);
24. MARY C. STILL, LITIGATING THE MATERNAL WALL: U.S. LAWSUITS CHARGING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WORKERS WITH FAMILY RESPONSIBILITIES 2 (2006) (tracking trends in litigation of family responsibility discrimination litigation);
25. U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, CHARTING THE U.S. LABOR MARKET IN 2006, at §§ 5-6 (2007), available at http://www.bls.gov/cps/labor2006/chartbook.pdf (addressing cumulative disadvantages);
26. Jennifer Glass, Blessing or Curse? Work-Family Policies and Mother's Wage Growth Over Time, 31 WORK & OCCUP'S 367, 369 (2004) (tying motherhood to the gender gap in pay);
27. Wendy Sigle-Rushton & Jane Waldfogel, Motherhood and Women's Earnings in Anglo-American, Continental European, and Nordic Countries, FEMINIST ECON., Apr. 2007, at 55, 76 (addressing cumulative disadvantages);
28. Julie Holliday Wayne & Bryanne L. Cordiero, Who is a Good Organizational Citizen? Perceptions of Male and Female Employees Who Use Family Leave, 49 SEX ROLES 233, 240 (2003) (discussing family responsibility discrimination);
29. Alison A. Reuter, Note, Subtle but Pervasive: Discrimination Against Mothers and Pregnant Women in the Workplace, 33 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 1369, 1372 (2006) (depicting discrimination claims based on family responsibility discrimination).
30. Sigle-Rushton & Waldfogel, supra note 9.
31. Id. at 76 tbl.1.
32. Id.
33. CRITTENDEN, supra note 9.
34. Id.
35. Id.
36. U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, supra note 9.
37. Id. at § 6, chart 6-8.
38. Id. at § 6, chart 6-1.
39. Id. at § 6, chart 6-3; U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, WOMEN IN THE LABOR FORCE, A DATABOOK tbl.5 (2006), available at http://www.bls.gov/cps/wlf- table5-2006.pdf.
40. Glass, supra note 9.
41. STILL, supra note 9.
42. See, e.g., CRITTENDEN, supra note 9; Single-Rushton & Waldfogel, supra note 9.
43. Wayne & Cordiero, supra note 9, at 236, 240.
44. Reuter, supra note 9.
45. STILL, supra note 9.
46. Id.
47. Id. at 13.
48. Status characteristics theory is detailed, with a mathematically specified set of propositions and derivations supported by over three decades of research. We do not have the space in this Article to fully describe aH aspects of the theory, so we present only a brief overview. For more information, see generally JOSEPH BERGER, STATUS CHARACTERISTICS AND SOCIAL INTERACTION: AN EXPECTATION- STATES APPROACH (1977), providing a general overview of status characteristics theory;
49. James W. Balkwell, From Expectations to Behavior: An Improved Postulate for Expectation States Theory, 56 AM. SOC. REV. 355, (1991);
50. Shelley J. Correll & Cecilia L. Ridgeway, Expectation States Theory, in HANDBOOK OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 29 (John Delameter ed., 2003);
51. Cecilia L. Ridgeway & Shelley J. Correll, Motherhood as a Status Characteristic, 60 J. SOC. ISSUES 683 (2004);
52. and Murray Webster, Jr. & Martha Foschi, Overview of Status Generalization, in STATUS GENERALIZATION: NEW THEORY AND RESEARCH 1 (Murray Webster, Jr. & Martha Foschi eds., 1988).
53. Ridgeway & Correll, supra note 28, at 684-85; Webster & Foschi, supra note 28, at 5-6; see also Martha Foschi, Double Standards in the Evaluation of Men and Women, 59 SOC. PSYCHOL. Q. 237, 237-38 (1996).
54. Foschi, supra note 29, at 239; Ridgeway & Correll, supra note 28, at 692.
55. See, e.g., Foschi supra note 29, at 238-39.
56. Id. at 239.
57. Id.
58. See id.
59. Shelley J. Correll, Stephen Benard, & In Paik, Getting a Job: Is There a Motherhood Penalty?, 112 AM. J. SOC. 1297, 1300 (2007); Ridgeway & Correll, supra note 28, at 684.
60. Correll, Benard, & Paik, supra note 35, at 1303; Ridgeway & Correll, supra note 28, at 697.
61. MARY BLAIR-LOY, COMPETING DEVOTIONS: CAREER AND FAMILY AMONG WOMEN EXECUTIVES 120 (2003).
62. Id. at 121.
63. Id. at 119-21.
64. Ridgeway & Correll, supra note 28, at 687.
65. Id. at 687-88.
66. Wayne & Cordeiro, supra note 9, at 240-41.
67. For a more detailed discussion of the stereotype content model as it relates to the motherhood penalty, see Cuddy et al., supra note 6, at 702-04.
68. Id. at 703.
69. Cf. id. at 705 (explaining the "condescending affection" exhibited towards homemakers and the "envious prejudice" exhibited towards women executives by dominant groups).
70. Id.
71. Id. at 705-06.
72. Id. at 706-07.
73. Id.
74. See id. at 711-13.
75. Kathleen Fuegen et al., Mothers and Fathers in the Workplace: How Gender and Parental Status Influence Judgments of Job-Related Competence, 60 J. SOC. ISSUES 737, 738 (2004).
76. Id.
77. Cf. Monica Biernat, Toward a Broader View of Social Stereotyping, 58 AM. PSYCHOLOGIST 1019, 1019 (2003) (describing how shifting standards apply to the evaluation of women in leadership positions).
78. For a qualitative case study of the bias faced by female litigators, see generally JENNIFER PIERCE, GENDER TRIALS: EMOTIONAL LIVES IN CONTEMPORARY LAW FIRMS (1995).
79. Cf. Biernat, supra note 53 (discussing how lower standards apply to review of women in leadership positions).
80. See PIERCE, supra note 53 at 114-16; cf. Biernat, supra note 53, at 1020, 1024-25 (discussing this phenomenon in the context of subjective evaluations of athleticism of men and women and in the abstract).
81. Biernat, supra note 53, at 1023.
82. Id. at 1021.
83. Cf. id. (describing the use of such stereotypes in situations of racial bias).
84. Id. at 1023; see also Monica Biernat & Diane D. Kobrynowicz, Gender and Race-Based Standards of Competence: Lower Minimum Standards but Higher Ability Standards for Devalued Groups, 72 J. PERS'LTY & SOC. PSYCHOL. 544, 545 (1997).
85. See Biernat, supra note 53, at 1023 (discussing the impact on women in stereotypically male professions, generally).
86. Id.
87. Id. For more discussion of this research, see generally Biernat and Kobrynowicz, supra note 59, discussing the shifting standards model in the context of race and gender, and Diane D. Kobrynowicz & Monica Biernat, Decoding Subjective Evaluations: How Stereotypes Provide Shifting Standards, 33 J. EXPMT'L SOC. PSYCHOL. 579 (1997), detailing three experimental studies focusing on shifting standards in the contexts of mothers and fathers, good parenting, and race-associated stereotypes of mathematical ability.
88. See Biernat, supra note 53, at 1023, 1025-26.
89. Id. at 1023, 1025; Biernat & Kobrynowicz, supra note 59, at 551.
90. Biernat, supra note 53, at 1026.
91. See generally BARBARA J. RISMAN, GENDER VERTIGO: AMERICAN FAMILIES IN TRANSITION (1998) (looking empirically at several families, their parenting situations, housework and childcare distributions, etc., and discussing different reactions and expectations of wives and husbands).
92. This issue has surfaced recently in the popular press. See, e.g., David Crary, Men Who do Housework May Get More Sex, S.F. CHRON., Mar. 6, 2008, available at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/ n/a/2008/03/05/national/a210129S01.DTL.
93. Madeline E. Heilman & Tyler G. Okimoto, Motherhood: A Potential Source of Bias in Employment Decisions, 93 J. APPLIED PSYCHOL. 189, 189-90 (2008).
94. The lack of fit model is similar to role congruity theory, another psychological theory. See generally, Alice H. Eagly & Stephen J. Karau, Role Congruity Theory of Prejudice Toward Female Leaders, 109 PSYCHOL. REV. 573 (2002), for more information on role congruity theory.
95. Heilman & Okimoto, supra note 67, at 189.
96. Id. at 189-90.
97. Id. at 190.
98. See id.
99. Id. at 189.
100. Id. at 190.
101. Id. at 189.
102. Id.
103. See sources cited supra note 1.
104. Budig & England, supra note 1.
105. Id.
106. See id. at 207.
107. See id. at 220.
108. See, e.g., Jane A. Halpert et al., Pregnancy as a Source of Bias in Performance Appraisals, 14 J. ORG'L BEHAV. 649, 652-53 (1993) (detailing two experiments, one in which subjects responded to questionnaires about pregnant women in the workplace and a second in which subjects responded to videos of pregnant and nonpregnant employees).
109. E.g., id. (examples of these experimental methods).
110. E.g., id. at 653.
111. E.g., id.
112. E.g., id. This is the same logic and methodology that underlies the housing audits conducted by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to assess racial discrimination on the part of real estate brokers. See also NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, MEASURING RACIAL DISCRIMINATION 6-9, 72-75 (Rebecca M. Blank et al. eds., 2004).
113. Halpert et al., supra note 81, at 655 (discussing the results of one experiment in which men, to a much greater extent than women, gave lower ratings to the performance of pregnant employees as compared to nonpregnant employees when all other details were held constant).
114. Sara J. Corse, Pregnant Managers and Their Subordinates: The Effects of Gender Expectations on Hierarchical Relationships, 26 J. APPLIED BEHAV. SCI. 25, 31-32 (1990).
115. Id. at 33.
116. Id.
117. Id. at 32-33.
118. Id. at 37.
119. Id. at 39.
120. Id. at 39-40.
121. Halpert et al., supra note 81, at 653.
122. Id. at 654.
123. Id. at 653.
124. Id. at 655.
125. Jane A. Halpert & Julia Hickman Burg, Mixed Messages: Co-Worker Responses to the Pregnant Employee, 12 J. BUS. & PSYCHOL. 241, 245 (1997).
126. See id. at 244-48 (analyzing results of the study and finding that while many women did experience positive responses at least from some co-workers and supervisors, negative results and discrimination were also prevalent).
127. Id. at 246.
128. Id. at 246, 248.
129. Id. at 246.
130. Jennifer DeNicholis Bragger et al., The Effects of the Structured Interview on Reducing Biases Against Pregnant Job Applicants, 46 SEX ROLES 215, 220, 223 (2002).
131. Id. at 221.
132. Id. at 220-21.
133. Id. at 220.
134. Id. at 221.
135. Id. at 223.
136. Jennifer Cunningham & Therese Macan, The Effects of Applicant Pregnancy on Hiring Decisions and Interview Ratings, 57 SEX ROLES 497, 498-99 (2007).
137. Id. at 498.
138. Id.
139. Id. at 501.
140. Id.
141. Id. at 503-04.
142. Id.
143. Barbara Masser et al., 'We Like You, But We Don't Want You' - The Impact of Pregnancy in the Workplace, 57 SEX ROLES 703, 708-09 (2007).
144. Id. at 707.
145. Id. at 707-08.
146. Id. at 708-09.
147. Id.; Cunningham & Macan, supra note 109, at 501-02. The studies described control for job characteristics across condition, so there were no reasons to think the pregnant women were less qualified for the job described.
148. Masser et al., supra note 116, at 710.
149. Id. at 710-12.
150. See, e.g., Cuddy et al., supra note 6, at 702.
151. Id. at 707-08.
152. Id. at 709, 711.
153. Id. at 712; see also discussion supra Part I.A.2.
154. Cuddy et al., supra note 6, at 711-12.
155. See id. at 710, 712 (finding that working men with children were perceived as warmer than working men without children, but that their competence was not affected nor were their recommendations for promotion, etc.).
156. Id. at 711.
157. Id.
158. Fuegen et al., supra note 51, at 741.
159. Id. at 742.
160. Id. at 746.
161. Id. at 748.
162. See discussion supra Part I.A.1.
163. See, e.g., Fuegen et al., supra note 51, at 751.
164. See id.
165. See, e.g., Jeanette N. Cleveland & Andrew H. Berman, Age Perceptions of Jobs: Agreement Between Samples of Students and Managers, 61 PSYCHOL. REP. 565, 566 (1987) (finding that ratings of job candidates by managers are consistent with those of undergraduates);
166. Jeanette N. Cleveland, Using Hypothetical and Actual Applicants in Assessing Person-Organization Fit: A Methodological Note, 21 J. APPLIED SOC. PSYCHOL., 1004, 1004 (1991) (showing that evaluators tend to rate applicants similarly whether they are real or hypothetical);
167. see also Judy D. Olian & Donald P. Schwab, The Impact of Applicant Gender Compared to Qualifications on Hiring Recommendations: A MetaAnalysis of Experimental Studies, 41 ORG'L BEHAV. & HUM. DEC. PROC'S 180, 180 (1988) (a meta analysis finding no significant differences between student and manager samples in the effect of applicant gender on evaluations).
168. See sources cited supra note 138.
169. Correll, Benard, & Paik, supra note 35, at 1298.
170. Id. at 1309-10.
171. Id. at 1310.
172. Id. at 1309-10.
173. Id. at 1309.
174. Id. at 1312.
175. Id. "Counterbalancing" means that half the time one of the two applicants was presented as a parent, and half the time the other applicant was presented as a parent. This ensures that any differences in the resumes are uncorrelated with the parental status manipulation.
176. Id. at 1315-16.
177. Id. at 1316.
178. Id.
179. Id.
180. Id.
181. Id. at 1317.
182. Id.
183. See Ann Orloff, Gender and the Welfare State, 22 ANN. REV. SOC. 51, 53 (1996) (discussing how the family wage system contributes to social reproduction of gender inequality by justifying "men's relatively superior wages" in terms of support of "dependent wives and children").
184. Correll, Benard, & Paik, supra note 35, at 1317-18.
185. Id.
186. Id. at 1327.
187. Id. at 1327-28.
188. Id. at 1328.
189. Id. at 1328-29. Parental status was subtly manipulated in two ways. The resumes listed either participations in a parent-teacher organization or a different organization that did not signal parental status. In addition, the cover letter indicated that the applicant was relocating with his or her family, or did not mention family and stated only that the applicant was relocating. Id.
190. Id. at 1330.
191. Id.
192. Heilman & Okimoto, supra note 67, at 190-91, 193.
193. Id. at 191.
194. Id. at 193, 196.
195. Id.
196. Id.
197. Id.
198. Tanya Koropeckyj-Cox et al., Biases, Premiums, and Penalties: Students' Perceptions of Parents and Childless/Childfree Couples 16-19 (2008) (unpublished manuscript under review, on file with authors).
199. Id. at 10, 13-14.
200. Id. at 13-14.
201. Id. at 14-15.
202. Id. at 16.
203. Id. at 18.
204. Id. at 18-19.
205. Id. Interestingly, only childless women - and not childless women without any intention of having children - were found to be more reliable than mothers. See id. at 18 tbl.3.
206. See TERESA L. AMOTT & JULIE A. MATTHAEI, RACE, GENDER, AND WORK: A MULTICULTURAL ECONOMIC HISTORY OF THE WOMEN IN THE UNITED STATES 13-17 (1996).
207. Letitia Anne Peplau & Adam Fingerhut, The Paradox of the Lesbian Worker, 60 J. SOC. ISSUES 719, 730-31 (2004).
208. Id. at 732.
209. See Cuddy et al., supra note 6.
210. Peplau & Fingerhut, supra note 178, at 728-29.
211. Id. at 730-31.
212. Id. at 730.
213. Id. at 731.
214. See, e.g., Rebecca Glauber, Marriage and the Motherhood Wage Penalty Among African Americans, Hispanics, and Whites, 69 J. MARRIAGE & FAM. 951, 951 (2007).
215. Id. at 955-57.
216. Id.
217. See generally Amy J.C. Cuddy & C.M. Frantz, Race, Work Status, and the Maternal Wall (May 3, 2007) (unpublished paper presented at Gender Roles: Current Challenges, an invited symposium conducted at the 79th annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association in Chicago, Ill.) (on file with authors) (exploring differences in perceptions of white and black working and stay-at-home mothers).
218. See Ivy Kennelly, That Single Mother Element: How White Employers Typify Black Women, 13 GENDER & SOC'Y, 168, 182 (1999) (discussing different stereotypes of black working mothers).
219. Glauber, supra note 185, at 958.
220. Koropeckyj-Cox et al., supra note 169, at 16-17.
221. Glass, supra note 9, at 367.
222. Id. at 367-68.
223. Id. at 387-88.
224. Id. at 388. However, the study also pointed out that changing jobs did carry its own costs as workers lost benefits associated with seniority when changing employers. Id. at 383.
225. Tammy D. Allen & Joyce E.A. Russell, Parental Leave of Absence: Some Not So Family-Friendly Implications, 29 J. APPLIED SOC. PSYCHOL. 166, 185 (1999).
226. Bragger et al., supra note 103, at 218, 223.
227. Id. at 222.
228. Id. at 217.
229. Id.
230. Id. (discussing John E. Hunter & Ronda F. Hunter, Validity and Utility of Alternative Predictors of Job Performance, 96 PSYCHOL. BULL. 72 (1984)); see also Hunter & Hunter supra, at 86 tbl.8.
231. Bragger et al., supra note 103, at 219.
232. Phillip E. Tetlock, Accountability and Complexity of Thought, 45 J. PERS'LTY & SOC. PSYCHOL. 74, 81 (1983) (finding that individuals held accountable engage in more "integratively complex" thought but "only when subjects do not have the lazy option of expressing views that they are confident will gain the approval of the person to whom they feel accountable");
233. Philip E. Tetlock, Accountability and the Perseverance of First Impressions, 46 SOC. PSYCHOL. Q. 285, 289 (1983) (discussing a study on accountability and perceptions of guilt and finding "accountability prior to reading the evidence would eliminate the perseverance of initial impressions of guilt").
234. Jennifer S. Lerner & Philip E. Tetlock, Accounting for the Effects of Accountability, 125 PSYCHOL. BULL. 255, 259 (1999) (noting that accountability must be "predecisional" in order to have these effects).
235. See, e.g., Foschi, supra note 29, at 247.
236. Id. at 250.
237. Id. at 248.
238. But see Lerner & Tetlock, supra note 204, at 270 (cautioning that while accountability is useful, it is not a "social panacea," and that only specific types of accountability will actually help to remove bias and inconsistency from results).
239. See, e.g., Katherine W. Phillips, The Effects of Categorically Based Expectations on Minority Influence: The Importance of Congruence, 29 PERS'LTY & SOC. PSYCHOL. BULL. 3, 5 (2003) (detailing one study in which the diversity being tested was that of an MBA student, an MBA, and a medical student).
240. See id.
241. Id. at 4.
242. Id. at 10; Katherine W. Phillips & Denise Lewin Loyd, When Surface and Deep-Level Diversity Collide: The Effects on Dissenting Group Members, 99 ORG'L BEHAV. & HUM. DEC. PROC'S 143, 157 (2006).
243. Phillips & Loyd, supra note 212.
244. See generally Bragger et al., supra note 103 (discussing the impact of structured interviews on variation and discrimination in hiring processes).
245. Glass, supra note 9, at 379-89.
246. Erin L. Kelly & Alexandra Kalev, Managing Flexible Work Arrangements in U.S. Organizations: Formalized Discretion or 'A Right to Ask', 4 SOCIO-ECON. REV. 379, 403 (2006).
247. Kennelly, supra note 189, at 171.
248. See id. at 172.
249. E.g., Glauber, supra note 185; Cuddy & Frantz, supra note 188.
250. Correll, Benard, & Paik, supra note 35, at 1324.
251. However, both Glauber, supra note 185, and Budig and England, supra note 1, conducted nonexperimental quantitative survey analysis of Latinas.
252. Correll, Benard, & Paik, supra note 35, at 1317.
253. Fuegen et al., supra note 51, at 746.
254. NICHOLAS W. TOWNSEND, THE PACKAGE DEAL: MARRIAGE, WORK, AND FATHERHOOD IN MEN'S LIVES 2 (2002).
255. See id.; see also Orloff, supra note 154, at 53 (discussing the "gender hierarchy" and the assumptions that go along with it as well as the "family ethic" expected of women).
256. Orloff, supra note 154, at 53.
257. See id.
258. See TOWNSEND, supra note 224, at 16-17 (discussing how in the meaning of "fatherhood" in America "work and breadwinning are central").
259. Wayne & Cordeiro, supra note 9, at 241 (finding that men were devalued - relative to other men not taking leave - when they took leave for the birth of a child).
260. See discussion supra Part I.
261. See generally Diane Burgess & Eugene Borgida, Who Women Are, Who Women Should Be: Descriptive and Prescriptive Stereotyping in Gender Discrimination, 5 PSYCHOL. PUB. POL'Y & L. 665 (1999) (discussing the difference between descriptive and prescriptive stereotypes and how they relate to different types of discrimination in the workplace); Eagly & Karau, supra note 67 (discussing normative expectations of ideal behavior of women in the context of role congruity theory);
262. Madeline E. Heilman, Description and Prescription: How Gender Stereotypes Prevent Women's Ascent up the Organizational Ladder, 57 J. SOC. ISSUES 657 (2001) (discussing bias based on gender-stereotypic prescriptions and its resulting penalization of women in the workplace);
263. Madeline E. Heilman et al., Penalties for Success: Reactions to Women Who Succeed at Male Gender-Typed Tasks, 89 J. APPLIED PSYCHOL. 416 (2004) (detailing experimental studies analyzing prescriptive bias and its implications).
264. Cf. Burgess & Borgida, supra note 231, at 673 (explaining how working women violate these prescriptive norms by engaging in paid work - especially specific types of work).
265. Stephen Benard & Shelley Correll, Normative Discrimination and the Motherhood Penalty (Sept. 2006-Dec. 2007) (unpublished data, on file with authors).
266. Madeline E. Heilman & Tyler G. Okimoto, Why Are Women Penalized for Success at Male Tasks?: The Implied Communality Deficit, 92 J. APPLIED PSYCHOL. 81, 90-91 (2007).
267. See, e.g., Anthony G. Greenwald & Linda Hamilton Krieger, Implicit Bias: Scientific Foundations, 94 Cal. L. Rev. 945 (2006); Kunda & Spencer, supra note 8.
268. See, e.g., Kunda & Spencer, supra note 8.
269. See generally E. Ashby Plant & Patricia G. Devine, Personality Processes and Individual Differences - Internal and External Motivation to Respond Without Prejudice, 75 J. PERS'LTY & SOC. PSYCHOL. 811 (1998).
270. Shelley J. Correll, Stephen Benard & In Paik, Getting a Job: Is There a Motherhood Penalty? (Sept. 2003-May 2004) (unpublished data, on file with authors).
271. Id.
272. Plant & Devine, supra note 237.
273. See, e.g., Joan C. Williams & Stephanie Bornstein, Caregivers in the Courtroom: The Growing Trend of Family Responsibilities Discrimination, 41 U.S.F. L. REV. 171, 181-85 (2006) (discussing legal theories in recent FRD cases);
274. Joan C. Williams & Consuela A. Pinto, Family Responsibilities Discrimination: Don't Get Caught Off Guard, 22 LAB. LAW. 293, 297-301 (2007) (detailing various explicitly discriminatory statements by employers in recent cases).
275. Williams & Pinto, supra note 241, at 297.