How does the application of gender quotas impact attitudes? That was the question before Ragnhild L. Muriaas and Yvette Peters in their new paper, “Attitudes to gender quotas: Why and where to adjust gender imbalance in leadership, recently published in the European Journal of Political Research.”
They were interested in what might make people more, or less, supportive of gender quotas. The authors noted that they know a lot about who supports quotas: women tend to be more supportive, and women’s equal presence legitimizes decisions. But, they said, they know less about the kind of information that might lead someone to support quotas, or not. To the best of their knowledge, this article was one of the first about support for gender quotas based on where and why they are applied.
The authors surveyed Norwegian citizens and elected officials to “examine the potential of new rationales and different areas of application to find out what makes (some) people more supportive of gender quotas.”
Why Norway?
They used Norway because political polarization on the issue of gender quotas was minimal, and lawmakers’ opinion studies found that political parties did not have coherent opinions on the matter.
The authors also pointed out that “Norway, even if known for party pluralism and consensus on gender equality, does not have legislative gender quotas, and despite a quota for listed companies the proportion of women on boards in private firms is currently 20%.”
They used Norway because political polarization on the issue of gender quotas was minimal, and lawmakers’ opinion studies found that political parties did not have coherent opinions on the matter.
The authors used a citizen-elite paired survey experiment, wherein they tested whether support for gender quotas was impacted by the type of argument used; whether support was impacted by information about where the quota was applied; and whether citizens and elected representatives feel similarly.
Their study found that the why and the where did indeed matter. They found “an argument promoting common benefits without challenging men’s capabilities is generally effective in promoting support, and that support for gender quotas in religious leadership tends to be relatively high.”
Emphasizing Insights Boosts Support
They found that citizens were impacted more by moral arguments than by elected officials. Additionally, emphasizing women’s insights helped boost support for the more undecided, whereas hinting at a woman’s untapped potential might hurt. They also found that, “unexpectedly … those on the right are more supportive of gender quotas in the leadership of religious institutions than elsewhere, and that this seems to be driven at least partly by skepticism against migrants.”
The authors propose that future research could look at the utility of different frames in greater detail and depth. What are understood to be the benefits? Who understands these to be the benefits? They also suggest scholars look at the strength of arguments promoting equality through means besides quotas. They are especially interested in movement on the right: what would it take for those who do not want to bend for gender quotas to break in favor of gender equality?
