Psychology in Russia: State of the Art

Volume 15, Issue 2, 2022

Social Perceptions of Gender Differences and the Subjective

Significance of the Gender Inequality Issue
Svetlana D. Gurievaa*, Tatiana V. Kazantsevaa,
Larisa V. Mararitsaa, Olga E. Gundelakha
a
Saint Petersburg State University, Saint Petersburg, Russia
*Corresponding author. E-mail: gurievasv@gmail.com

Background. Gender inequality continues to reproduce itself in hidden and ambiv- Keywords:
alent forms and leads to invisible barriers in women’s careers and lives. The authors Gender
were interested in how social perceptions of gender differences would relate to the differences,
maintenance of gender inequality in various spheres of life. gender
Objective. The purpose of the presented research was to study social percep- inequality,
tions of gender differences in relation to the subjective significance of the gender social
inequality issue. perceptions
Design. The study was conducted via an online survey throughout February- of gender
September of 2019. The sample included 106 people aged 18 to 68 (M = 30.2, differences,
σ = 10.5), 49% of respondents were women. The authors have developed and tested traditionalism,
a questionnaire assessing the adherence to ideas regarding evident gender differ- egalitarianism
ences in various spheres of life. The reliability of all scales of the questionnaire has
been tested. Respondents also completed a questionnaire identifying their percep-
tions of gender inequality and shared their life experience with respect to this phe-
nomenon in the form of free description.
Results. The following two latent factors reflecting different aspects of gender
perceptions have been identified: “Career Inequality” and “Differences in Social
Spheres”. Indicators of the subjective significance of gender inequality (which in-
clude gender awareness, frequency of gender inequality witnessing, personal expe-
rience of gender discrimination and the emotional significance of this experience)
were positively correlated with perceptions of career inequalities (these support
ideas regarding gender differences when it comes to opportunities for professional
realization) and negatively correlated with perceptions of differences within social
spheres (these support ideas regarding the existence of essential gender differences
within the family, politics and everyday life).
Conclusion. Articulation of personal experiences of gender inequality is associ-
ated with social perceptions of the absence of essential gender differences in various
social domains (egalitarianism) and sensitivity to gender inequality with regards to
career opportunities.

ISSN 2074-6857 (Print) / ISSN 2307-2202 (Online)

© Lomonosov Moscow State University, 2022
© Russian Psychological Society, 2022 The journal content is licensed with CC BY-NC
http://psychologyinrussia.com “Attribution-NonCommercial” Creative Commons license.
66  Gurieva, S.D., Kazantseva, T.V., Mararitsa, L.V., Gundelakh, O.E.

Introduction
The problem of perception of gender differences and, as a result, gender inequality
remains a topical issue today. Gender inequality in society, organizations, business
and politics continues to exist despite the fact that the nature of gender inequal-
ity and social circumstances have changed. The persistence of gender inequality
has been called a phenomenon of “stalled progress” (Cohen, Huffman, & Knauer,
2009). An example of this according to Andresen, Biemann and Pattie (2015) is
the unceasing inequality between men and women as far as status and income are
concerned, despite the significant increase in the share of women participating in
the economy. There is an increased interest in gender differences due to the rapid
growth of women’s wealth and the resulting economic behavior. Studies (Charness
& Gneezy, 2012; 2018) have confirmed that women subjectively perceive them-
selves as less financially literate than men and, therefore, trade less frequently on
stock exchanges (Charness & Gneezy, 2012) and invest with less risk compared
to men (Barber & Odean, 2001). Similarly, behavioral differences between gen-
ders were found in other social domains, such as communication and negotiation
(Mazei et al., 2015), networking (Forret & Dougherty, 2004) and parenting (Yaffe,
2020), commonly claiming more self-assertive and dominating behaviors in men.
The data show that these behavioral differences are linked by several cognitive phe-
nomena inhibiting women’s success, such as fear of success, attribution of failure as
a lack of abilities, a decrease in self-efficacy (Mednick & Thomas, 2008) as well as
the stereotype threat effect — poorer performance out of fear of fulfilling a negative
stereotype (Nelson, 2009).
The socio-psychological view of the problem of gender involves the study of so-
cial representations of gender differences, gender stereotypes and their influence on
different spheres of human life. Stereotypes become social norms, prescribing ap-
propriate behavior for men and women, and simultaneously transforming gender
differences into gender inequality.
Research indicates that stereotypes, as a derivative of the social context and social
structures, influence the emergence and maintenance of sexism and gender inequal-
ity (Morgenroth & Ryan, 2018; Stewart et al., 2021). Human society has done a lot to
reduce the gender gap in healthcare and education, but it is still far from establishing
equal income for women and men (Shawn & Glenn, 2010). Psychologists describe
several mechanisms of discrimination persistence. Firstly, according to gender-role
theory (Eagly & Wood, 1991), women and men are represented differently in differ-
ent social roles. The biological ability of women to bear children leads to the percep-
tion of them as vulnerable, weak and in need of protection and, as a result, men are
perceived as strong and responsible for them (Hollander, 2001; Koening, 2018). Sec-
ondly, the nature of intergroup relations, that is, relations between men and women
as social groups, plays a role. Relations between any groups are characterized by two
basic criteria: the distribution of power and the valence of the relationship (hostility
or benevolence). According to the theory of ambivalent sexism (Glick & Fiske, 2001;
Connor, Glick & Fiske, 2017), gender discrimination contains both negative and
positive prejudices against men and women. Women, for example, may be perceived
as requiring nurturing and patronage (a phenomenon of “protective paternalism”)
 Social Perceptions of Gender Differences and the Subjective Significance…  67

(Salomon et al., 2020) and this fact has both desirable and undesirable consequences
for women, because it essentially demonstrates gender inequality.
However, most socio-psychological models emphasize how gender-specific be-
havioral patterns emerge, are shaped, and supported (Table 1). Thus, for example,
biological models (Hutt, 1972; Wilson, 2000) argue that genetic, hormonal, and phys-
iological factors influence gender differences; meanwhile psychoanalytic theory, the
theory of social learning and the theory of cognitive development suggest that early
learning fully defines the differences in adult gendered behavior. Sociological mod-
els such as social role theory (Eagly & Sczesny, 2019; Eagly & Wood, 1991; Thang,
2002) and expectation states theory (Berger, Rosenholtz, & Zelditch, 1980) suggest
that specific aspects of social structure, such as the distribution of women and men
into different social roles, contribute to persistent behavioral differences between
women and men. The existence of gender stereotypes and restrictions for women in
the professional sphere has been described in many works (Abraham, 2020; Acker,
1990; 2006; Benschop, 2009; Cohen et al., 2009; Coleman, 1988; Gurieva et al., 2016;
Gurieva & Udavikhina, 2015). The main manifestations of gender segregation in em-
ployment are the traditional divisions of professions into “female” and “male” ones,
the difference in wages and unemployment rates. The theoretical perspective takes
a cross-cultural approach, claiming that gender behavior is conditioned by cultural
and historical context (Lytton & Romney, 1991; Rudman & Fairchild, 2004; Rudman
& Phelan, 2008; Vandello & Bosson, 2013).

Table 1
Theoretical approaches to studying gender behavior

Theoretical approaches Content Sources

Biological approaches. Arguments for genetic, hormonal, Hutt (1972); Wilson

and physiological factors of behav- (2000).
ior.
The theory of social learning, the Early learning fully defines the dif- Maccoby (1990);
theory of cognitive development ferences in adult gendered behavior. Maccoby & Jacklin
and psychoanalytic theory. (1987).

Sociological/ socio-psychological Aspects of social structure, the Berger et al. (1980);

theories: The expectation states distribution of women and men in Eagly & Wood (1991).
theory and the social roles theory. different social roles, contribute to
sustained behavioral differences.
The cross-cultural approach. Gender behavior is shaped and Lytton and Romney,
anchored in the process of socializa- (1991); Rudman and
tion and is conditioned by culture Fairchild (2004);
and history. Rudman & Phelan
(2008); Vandello &
Bosson (2013).

Studies show that gender stereotypes also exist in modern Russia (including
within the professional sphere) and that these stereotypes have specific cultural fea-
tures (Mararitsa, Kazantseva, & Gurieva, 2019; Uryvaev, 2018). According to the
68  Gurieva, S.D., Kazantseva, T.V., Mararitsa, L.V., Gundelakh, O.E.

Global Gender Gap Report (WEF, 2021), in 2021 Russia ranked 81st among 156
countries on gender parity, that is 32 positions lower than 15 years ago. At the mo-
ment, Russia is performing well in education and health equality, ranking 1st, with
the largest gap observed in the domains of politics and economic participation /
career opportunities. Russian social policy is currently characterized by domestic
researchers as pro-natalist, aimed at solving demographic problems (Ryabova &
Ovcharova, 2016). Ideas regarding the “natural” mission of the sexes and conserva-
tive ideas about male and female roles are making a comeback in Russia (Voronina,
2013), configuring gender relations as rooted in power and subordination. Since the
situation has recently worsened for Russia, the research described in this study is of
high relevance.
Works that address the problem of gender inequality in the professional domain
mostly describe career building by female leaders and social-role mechanisms that
maintain inequality in organizations (Mararitsa et al., 2019). Most of the research is
conducted from the role approach perspective and does not employ a poly-theoreti-
cal approach. We were interested in how social representations of gender differences
influence the formation of gender inequality in various spheres of life. In fact, we
investigated the subjective dimension of gender inequality. In order to study social
perceptions of gender differences, the questionnaire was developed and probed. We
identified four areas of life in which gender inequalities mostly manifest themselves:
family, professional, politics and everyday interaction. Each scale of the question-
naire had its own theoretical foundation, since different spheres of social life were ex-
plained by specific theoretical approaches or conceptions, for example, professional
issues — by structural (“glass”) phenomena (Folke & Rickne, 2016), family interac-
tion — by the gender-role approach (Eagly & Wood, 1991), everyday interaction —
by the phenomenon of “doing gender” (West & Zimmerman, 1987) and gender ste-
reotypes in interpersonal interaction (Stewart et al., 2021).
Based on contemporary research, it is believed that individuals differ a lot in their
perceptions of gender inequality ranging from gender blindness, in other words, not
taking gender aspects under consideration when it is relevant (Verdonk et al., 2009),
to gender awareness, that is awareness of gender-based discrimination and sensitivity
to such cases (Morrison, Bourke & Kelley, 2005). The possible correlations of such
variability remain under-investigated. It could be a kind of cognitive bias: informa-
tion that women’s social status is getting better inspires women with an illusion of
getting rid of gender prejudice (Spoor & Schmitt, 2011). One could hypothesize that
life experience may account for gender awareness, since it grows with age (Neff, Coo-
per & Woodruff, 2007). Meanwhile, women that have experienced gender discrimi-
nation themselves tend to show reluctance to recognize and articulate these events as
discrimination (Morrison, Bourke & Kelley, 2005).
The data regarding the positive and negative effects of both polarities in percep-
tions of gender inequality seem contradictory. Some studies show gender blindness
was related to actions — such as risk-taking and negotiation — necessary for reduc-
ing gender disparities (Martin & Phillips, 2017), others claim that only recognition
of gender differentiation may help to combat gender inequality (Morrison, Bourke
& Kelley, 2005).
 Social Perceptions of Gender Differences and the Subjective Significance…  69

Driven by inconsistency of empirical studies, the presented research was con-

ducted with an objective to study social perceptions of gender differences in relation
to the subjective significance of the gender inequality issue (which includes 4 criteria:
gender awareness, frequency of gender inequality witnessing, personal experience of
gender discrimination and emotional significance of the experience).
Research question: How does experience and perceptions of gender inequality
manifest itself in the content of social perceptions of gender differences? We have
focused on the following issues in particular:
Hypothesis 1. Social perceptions of gender differences in various spheres are in-
terrelated with the subjective significance of the gender inequality issue.
Hypothesis 2. People who articulate their personal experience of gender inequal-
ity more readily agree with the idea that gender differences exist in the professional/
career opportunities sphere.

Methods
Participants
106 people aged 18 to 68 years participated in the study (M = 30.2, σ = 10.5). The
respondents were men (54) and women (52) living in megacities (St. Petersburg and
Moscow). Most of our respondents had a full-time day job (as they mentioned in the
survey). The absence of statistically significant differences between the samples of
men and women in terms of demographic characteristics allowed further compara-
tive analysis.

Procedure
The study was conducted through an online survey in February–September 2019.
The sample was formed by the “snowball” technique within social networks. The time
taken to complete the questionnaires was 25–35 minutes. The survey was anony-
mous.

Measures
“Social perceptions of gender differences” questionnaire.
The questionnaire consisted of two parts and each part was comprised of four
scales. There were two versions of the measure. The first version contained 38 items
formulated according to the criteria of gender inequality in various spheres of life.
After an expert’s evaluation, 10 items with duplicating content were eliminated, and
the wording of the remaining items was corrected. In the 2019 survey, this revised
28-item questionnaire was tested. Respondents were asked to evaluate their agree-
ment with the items on a 5-point scale, where 1 signified “absolutely disagree” and
5 “absolutely agree”. Both direct and reverse items were used, where a greater degree
of agreement meant less agreement with gender differences. When calculating the
resulting score, the points of reverse items were converted.
The first part of the questionnaire (items 1-20) included four scales concern-
ing gender relations in four spheres of life. We have conditionally named the scales
“­Family” (e.g. “The main task of a woman is housekeeping and caring for her husband
70  Gurieva, S.D., Kazantseva, T.V., Mararitsa, L.V., Gundelakh, O.E.

and children”), “Work” (e.g. “It is more difficult for a woman to stay in a managerial
position than for a man”), “Politics” (e.g. “A woman is able to succeed in politics”) and
“Everyday life” (e.g. “Men are better drivers than women”). The second part of the
questionnaire (items 21–28) aimed to define social perceptions of gender inequality
in an organization where the respondent currently works, according to the criteria
of the organizational “glass ceiling” (Folke & Rickne, 2016). The second part also in-
cluded four scales: “Conditional Vertical Inequality” (e.g. “There are more male lead-
ers than female leaders in organizations”), “Bottom-to-top Inequality Acceleration”
(e.g. “In business, there are far more female middle managers than female top man-
agers”), “Career Advancement Inequality” (e.g. “A man moves up the career ladder
faster than a woman of the same professional level”), “Diverging Career Trajectories”
(e.g. “The career paths of women and men in business differ”). For the scales of the
first part of the questionnaire (“Work”, “Family”, “Politics”, “Everyday life”) the mini-
mum possible score was 5 points and the maximum possible score was 20 points. For
the scales of the second part of the questionnaire, the minimum possible score was
2 points and the maximum possible was 10 points. The higher the score, the more
pronounced the perceptions of gender differences in a particular area.

“Gender Inequality” Questionnaire.

The questionnaire included four direct questions aimed at identifying the respond-
ents’ perceptions of gender inequality and describing their life experiences related to
this phenomenon. The questionnaire was also used to identify the degree of subjec-
tive significance of the gender inequality issue. The questionnaire included the fol-
lowing questions:
1) Free description of manifestations of gender inequality: “In your opinion,
what manifestations/confirmations of gender inequality are there in society?
Please list them.” Received responses were classified according to the four cat-
egories considered in the first part of the “Social perceptions of gender differ-
ences” questionnaire, and the number of mentioned situations was used as a
measure of gender awareness.
2) A question about the frequency of observation of such situations: “How often
have you observed and heard about such situations?” The question had pos-
sible answers rated on a 5-point scale: “never”, “very rarely”, “rarely”, “some-
times”, “often”.
3) A description of the situation of gender inequality in their own life experi-
ences, case studies: “Describe the last unpleasant or offensive situation of
manifestation of gender inequality/discrimination that affected you the most.”
When coding the data, it was taken into account whether the respondent has
described the situation or not; the situations described by the respondents
were classified into one of the four categories outlined above (family, work,
politics and everyday life).
4) A question aimed to assess the emotional significance of situations of gender
inequality: “How upset would you be if you were in this situation?” The ques-
tion had possible answers rated on a 5-point scale: “not at all”, “a little”, “dif-
ficult to answer”, “very”, “extremely”.
 Social Perceptions of Gender Differences and the Subjective Significance…  71

Thus, the subjective significance for respondents of the gender inequality issue
was assessed by the following 4 indicators used in data processing independently:
the number of known manifestations of gender inequality listed by the respondent
(gender awareness); the frequency of gender inequality observation (witnessing fre-
quency); the presence or absence of a description of the gender inequality situation
in their own life (articulated personal experience) and the degree of unpleasant emo-
tions felt in situations of inequality and discrimination (emotional significance).
Social and Demographic Characteristics.
This questionnaire contained questions about the age, employment, gender, and
city of residence of the respondents.

Mathematical and Statistical Methods of Data Analysis

The assessment of the internal consistency of the scales was carried out using Cron-
bach’s alpha. When analyzing the reliability of differences between samples, we used
the Mann–Whitney U test. Correlation analysis was used to assess the relationships
between quantitative variables (indicators of the subjective significance of the gender
inequality problem and the degree of agreement with ideas about gender differences
in various spheres of life). Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was used. Factor
analysis was employed to analyze the possibility of reducing the eight scales of the
questionnaire, which describe ideas about gender differences in various spheres of
life, to a smaller number of latent variables. Data analysis was carried out using the
SPSS Statistics.

Results
Social perceptions of gender differences in various spheres of life
Reliability scores, calculated for the scales included in the “Social perception of gen-
der differences” questionnaire, are presented in Table 2. The results of the study con-
firm the reliability of the following scales: “Work”, “Politics”, “Everyday life”, “Career
Advancement Inequality” (Cronbach’s alpha > 0.7 (Furr, 2021; Nasledov, 2011)).
Other scales required item corrections (“Family”, “Bottom-to-top Inequality Accel-
eration”, “Diverging Career Trajectories”; “Conditional Vertical Inequality”).
Skewness, kurtosis, mean and standard deviation were calculated for each item.
This was done in order to test item discrimination of each item and to sift out unfit
items. Since the questionnaire is gender-sensitive, descriptive statistics were obtained
separately for women and men. This made it possible to identify significant differ-
ences in the responses of men and women and meaningfully interpret these differ-
ences. According to the indicators of skewness and kurtosis (module of indicators of
skewness and kurtosis do not exceed 2 (Furr, 2021; Nasledov, 2011)), the distribution
of answers to all the items except item 1 (“A person, regardless of gender, can be
successful in any profession”) and item 10 (“A man and a woman should participate
equally in the upbringing of children”) can be considered close to normal. The major-
ity of respondents fully agreed that a person, regardless of gender, can be successful
in any profession (60.4%) and that a man and a woman should take equal part in the
upbringing of children (78.3%).
72  Gurieva, S.D., Kazantseva, T.V., Mararitsa, L.V., Gundelakh, O.E.

For each scale of the questionnaire, mean values were calculated both for the
sample as a whole and separately for men and women. Differences in the average
scores of men and women were assessed using the U-test (Table 2).

Table 2
Average scores obtained from the questionnaires and the reliability of scales

Total Female Male

Scale Cronbach`s
M SD M SD M SD
alpha

“Work” 11.81 3.74 0.711 13.24 3.62 10.33 3.29

“Family”** 14.65 4.64 0.678 16.78 4.20 12.44 4.04
“Politics”** 7.32 1.87 0.719 7.22 1.60 7.42 2.13
“Everyday life”** 6.81 1.87 0.769 6.46 1.76 7.17 1.93
“Conditional Vertical Inequality” 6.39 2.20 0.526 5.87 1.91 6.92 2.37
“Bottom-to-top Inequality 6.54 2.08 0.605 6.26 1.91 6.83 2.23
Acceleration”
“Career Advancement Inequality”* 11.81 3.74 0.841 13.24 3.62 10.33 3.29
“Diverging Career Trajectories” 14.65 4.64 0.690 16.78 4.20 12.44 4.04

Note. * — p < 0.05; ** — p < 0.01, U-test.

It can be concluded that the most pronounced spheres where perceptions about
gender differences are varied to a greater extent between men and women can be con-
sidered the spheres of politics, family and everyday interaction. There is a dissimilar-
ity in the views of men and women about gender differences in career advancement.

Table 3
Factor loadings of questionnaire scales
Factor loading
Scale
1 2

“Work” .842 –.021

“Family” –.014 .847
“Politics” –.091 .816
“Leisure” .029 .862
“Conditional Vertical Inequality” .862 .037
“Bottom-to-top Inequality Acceleration” .866 –.084
“Career Advancement Inequality” .923 –.145
“Diverging Career Trajectories” .869 .062

In order to study psychological factors of gender inequality and to analyze the

possibility of reducing the eight scales of the questionnaire to a smaller number of
 Social Perceptions of Gender Differences and the Subjective Significance…  73

not-directly-measurable spheres of representation, exploratory factor analysis was

performed (Table 3).
The first factor in the manifestation of the socio-psychological phenomenon of
gender inequality is characterized by a high degree of expression of ideas about mani-
festations of gender inequality in the professional sphere. This can concern career ad-
vancement, career trajectories, or vertical gender inequality and its increase in higher
positions. We named this factor “Career Inequality”.
The second factor in the manifestation of the phenomenon of gender inequality
is characterized by a higher expression of perceptions about gender differences in the
family, politics and everyday life. We called the second factor “Differences in Social
Spheres”. It implies a comprehensive assessment of the perceptions of gender differ-
ences in various social contexts that are not related to employment.

Social perceptions of gender inequality

When answering the question “In your opinion, what manifestations/confirmations
of gender inequality are there in society?” respondents listed 0 to 11 different mani-
festations, M = 1.79, SD = 2.03. According to the χ2-Pearson criterion, men signifi-
cantly more often did not indicate any manifestation (they gave answers like “I don’t
know”, “didn’t notice” or refused to answer) (χ2 = 15.63, p < 0.001). Comparative anal-
ysis (Mann–Whitney U test) showed that women, on average, described more mani-
festations of gender inequality known to them (p < 0.001).

Table 4
Manifestations of gender inequality in the perceptions of respondents

Fre-
Category Example Percent
quency
Family “Family life, ideas about the duties of a woman”, “men take less 25 13.2
part in raising children”, “a clear distribution of roles: a woman
gives birth and cleans, a man earns money”.
Professional “Unequal pay”, “women find it harder to succeed in their careers”, 48 25.2
sphere “employers’ fear of hiring young married women.”
Politics “List of professions prohibited for women”, “different retirement 32 16.8
ages”, “attitude towards women in politics”.
Everyday life “Men often criticize female drivers”, “shaking hands only with 48 25.3
men”, “different standards of beauty”, “domestic violence”.
General “Stereotypes”, “attitude towards male as the norm, and female as a 27 14.2
descriptions deviation from it”, “sexism”.
of inequality
Other “Prostitution”, “religion”, “ignorance”, “Rallies, processions of 10 5.3
LGBT”.

We analyzed 190 different manifestations of gender inequality in society de-

scribed by the respondents and divided them into several categories (Table 4). The
first four categories corresponded to the four areas of life that we identified when
74  Gurieva, S.D., Kazantseva, T.V., Mararitsa, L.V., Gundelakh, O.E.

creating the questionnaire “Social perceptions of gender differences”: traditional dis-

tribution of roles in family, gender inequality in the professional sphere, gender in-
equality in politics, and gender inequality and sexism in everyday life. The category
“General descriptions of inequality” included descriptions of inequality and sexism
that were not related to any specific sphere. The category “Other” included obscure
or ambiguous descriptions that could not be assigned to any category without further
clarification.
The frequency of observed situations of gender inequality is presented in Table 5.

Table 5
Frequency of encountering situations of gender inequality

Option Total (%) Male (%) Female (%)

Often 40.6 20.4 61.5
Sometimes 33.0 42.6 23.1
Rarely 6.6 7.4 5.8
Very rarely 6.6 9.3 3.8
Never 13.2 20.4 5.8

If we consider the response options as an ordinal scale (from 0 — “never”

to 4 — “often”), then according to the Mann-Whitney U-test, the women in the
study experienced manifestations of gender inequality more often than the men
(p < 0.001).
The experienced situation was described by 54.7% of respondents (73.1% of
women and 35.7% of men), the rest refused to answer or answered that they did not
remember / did not notice such situations. In some cases, respondents described
situations that affected their acquaintances, and we considered these situations in
the same way as those that happened to the respondent personally, since we were
interested in all situations that the respondents considered as a part of their experi-
ence.
Men described a total of 20 situations (Table 6). We were not able to classify
3 situations into any of the four categories without clarification (these were placed in
the category “Other”). Men most often described situations related to gender-based
injustice and the pressure of male gender norms and did not describe a single situ-
ation regarding family interaction. Women described 38 situations (Table 6). Four
situations were not classified in any of the four categories considered (“Other”).
Women most often described situations of gender inequality related to the perfor-
mance of traditional female roles in the family, situations of inequality in the profes-
sional sphere and manifestations of sexism in everyday life. Women did not describe
a single situation regarding inequality in politics.
For both men and women, situations of gender inequality were most promi-
nently encountered in everyday life. However, for women, manifestations of gender
inequality such as the performance of a traditional female role in the family and situ-
ations of gender inequality in the professional sphere were also relevant.
 Social Perceptions of Gender Differences and the Subjective Significance…  75

Table 6
Situations of gender inequality in respondents` experience

Category Example Frequency Percent

Male

Professional “Some colleagues think that women are not good at their 4 20.0
sphere jobs”.
“I was falsely accused of harassment at work”.
Politics “Unequal increase in the retirement age for men and 2 10.0
women”.
Everyday life “In public transport, all seats are occupied by women, 11 55.0
men ride standing up”.
“People are surprised that I like pink clothes (like sweat-
shirts) even though I’m a man”.
Other “Condemnation of 8 years for a young man”. 3 15.0
“The cleaner kicked everyone out of the office”.
Female
Family “Every time a friend’s mom makes her do something 8 21.0
around the house, saying that her father can’t do it, be-
cause he is a man, his job is to sit on the couch and watch
TV, but women should flutter around him”
Professional “A colleague was not hired for a managerial position 8 21.0
sphere because she could become pregnant and go on maternity
leave. Unreliable”
“Former boss asked me to write a letter of resignation
instead of issuing a formal decree when I was pregnant”
Everyday life “Woman forced man to give up his seat on the subway 18 47.5
and hit him with a bag”
“I was told that I should grow my hair to be feminine”
Other “Imposed repairs, crushing material advantage and 4 10.5
selfishness”

The emotional significance of situations of gender inequality was assessed by the

answers to the question “How upset would you be if you were in this situation?”
(Table 7).

Table 7
Emotional significance of situations of gender inequality

Option Total (%) Female (%) Male (%)

Extremely 15.1 23.1 7.4
Very 26.4 26.9 25.9
A little 32.1 32.7 31.5
Not at all 17.9 9.6 25.9
Difficult to answer 8.5 7.7 9.3
76  Gurieva, S.D., Kazantseva, T.V., Mararitsa, L.V., Gundelakh, O.E.

High emotional significance of situations of manifestation of gender inequality

was found in 50.0% of women and 33.3% of men.
Social perceptions of gender differences and the subjective significance of the
gender inequality issue
The first hypothesis was that social perceptions of gender differences in various
spheres are interrelated with the subjective significance of the gender inequality issue.
The number of known manifestations of gender inequality listed by the re-
spondents (gender awareness) was positively correlated with the “Career Inequal-
ity” factor (scale “Work” (r = 0.364, p < 0.001) and scales of the second part of the
questionnaire: “Conditional Vertical Inequality” (r = 0.210, p = 0.024), “Bottom-to-
top Inequality Acceleration” (r = 0.229, p = 0.018), “Career Advancement Inequal-
ity” (r = 0.251, p = 0.009), “Diverging Career Trajectories” (r = 0.216, p = 0.026)); and
negatively correlated with the “Differences in Social Spheres” factor (scales: “Family”
(r = –0.425, p < 0.001), “Politics” (r = –0.470, p < 0.001), “Everyday life” (r = –0.406,
p < 0.001)).
Similar interrelations have been found for the frequency of witnessing gender
inequality situations and the emotional significance of such situations.
Consistently, the frequency of observations of gender inequality situations was
positively correlated with the factor of “Career Inequality” (scales: “Work” (r = 0,286,
p = 0,003), “Bottom-to-top Inequality Acceleration” (r = 0, 295, p = 0.002), “ Career
Advancement Inequality” (r = 0.309, p = 0.001)) and negatively correlated with the
factor of “Differences in Social Spheres” (scales: “Family” (r = –0.397, p < 0.001), “Po­
litics” (r = –0.362, p < 0.001), “Everyday life” (r = –0.370, p < 0.001)).
The emotional importance of gender inequality situations was positively cor-
related with the factor of “Career Inequality” (scales: “Work” (r = 0.305, p = 0.002),
“Conditional Vertical Inequality” (r = 0.284, p = 0.005), “Bottom-to-top Inequal-
ity Acceleration” (r = 0.331, p = 0.001), “Career Advancement Inequality” (r = 0.327,
p = 0.001)); and negatively correlated with the factor of “Differences in Social Spheres”
(scales “Family” (r = –0.371, p < 0.001), “Politics” (r = –0.227, p = 0.025), “Everyday
life” (r = –0.284, p = 0.005)).
Perceptions of gender differences in respondents with and without personal ex-
perience of gender inequality
According to the second hypothesis, we expected that people who articulate their
personal experience of gender inequality more readily agree with the idea of gender
differences in the professional career opportunities.
Using the U-test, significant differences were found in the responses of respon-
dents who described the situation of gender inequality in their own experience and
those who did not, the results are shown in Table 8. They showed distinctions in
perceived degree of gender differences on the factor of “Career Inequality” (scales:
“Work” (p = 0.001), “Conditional Vertical Inequality” (p = 0.017), “Bottom-to-top
Inequality Acceleration” (p = 0.048), “Career Advancement Inequality”, (p = 0.004),
“Diverging Career Trajectories” (p = 0.009)). People with personal experience of
inequality scored higher on perceptions of large differences in career opportunities
for men and women compared to people who did not mention such experiences
(Table 8).
 Social Perceptions of Gender Differences and the Subjective Significance…  77

Table 8
Average scores obtained on scales for respondents who described and did not describe the
situation of gender inequality in their experience

Scale Respondents articulated Respondents did not

an experience of gender articulate an experience of
inequality (n = 58) gender inequality (n = 48)
M SD M SD

Factor 1 “Career Inequality”

Work** 14.55 4.18 11,98 3.55
Conditional Vertical Inequality * 7.72 1.84 6.80 1.80
Bottom-to-top Inequality Accelera- 7.10 2.06 6.43 1.53
tion*
Career Advancement Inequality** 6.97 2.29 5.63 1.85
Factor 2 “Differences in Social Spheres”
Family* 10.23 3.84 11.87 3.73
Politics 11.35 3.91 12.35 3.49
Everyday life 14.25 4.86 15.17 4.34

Note. * — p < 0.05; ** — p < 0.01; U-test.

Personal experience of inequality also affects factor 2 “Differences in Social

Spheres”, but only in the family relationships domain, where people with personal
experience of inequality scored significantly lower compared to those who did not
mention such experiences (p = 0.025) (Table 8).

Discussion
The first hypothesis tested was whether social perceptions of gender differences in
various spheres would be related to the subjective significance of the gender inequal-
ity issue. To this end, we developed two questionnaires within the framework of a
poly-theoretical approach: one measure for assessing social perceptions of gender
differences in various social domains (family life, professional sphere, politics and
everyday interaction) and the other for assessing the subjective significance of the
gender inequality issue. The concept of the subjective significance of the gender in-
equality issue was operationalized through four criteria: gender inequality awareness;
frequency of witnessing inequality; articulated personal experience and emotional
significance (the degree of unpleasant emotions felt in situations of inequality and
discrimination).
Two latent factors were identified to reflect two aspects of gender perceptions:
perceptions of gender differences regarding career opportunities (“Career Inequal-
ity”) and perceptions of the existence of differences related to gender in various social
domains (“Differences in Social Spheres”). Interestingly, the most significant differ-
ences in the responses of men and women were found in the second factor: the de-
78  Gurieva, S.D., Kazantseva, T.V., Mararitsa, L.V., Gundelakh, O.E.

gree of men’s consent to the existence of gender differences in these areas was higher
than that of women.
Significant differences between men and women suggest that perceptions that
support the idea of essential differences between genders and expect men to ex-
hibit masculine behavior and women to play a feminine role in family interaction,
politics and everyday life, are more pronounced in men. Some perceptions among
men of whether gender differences exist are contradictory, which could be a sign of
a propensity for hidden forms of sexism. The domain of power (i.e., political and
leadership positions) was the most sensitive in terms of confrontational perceptions
of gender differences. The revealed gender differences may indicate that women’s
perceptions are characterized by greater adherence to perceptions of the absence
of essential gender differences in various social domains and by sensitivity to gen-
der inequality. This finding is consistent with other studies that have shown greater
male adherence to traditional attitudes and beliefs about masculinity and femininity
(Kletsina, 2020).
We have obtained data that fully support Hypothesis 1. All indicators of subjec-
tive significance of gender issues were found to be intercorrelated with the two main
factors of social perceptions of gender differences (“Career Inequality” and “Differ-
ences in Social Spheres”), but in opposing ways. Subjective significance of gender had
positive correlations to perceptions of gender differentiation within career oppor-
tunities, and negative correlations to the perceptions of crucial differences between
men and women. These results support the “gender awareness” proponents claiming
that the first step in combating inequality is to be aware of gender-based discrimina-
tion and be sensitive to such cases (Morrison, Bourke & Kelley, 2005).
The diversity in the understanding of gender differences in everyday life and in te
perceptions of family role distribution can contribute to the “justification” of inequal-
ity and to exacerbating conflicts in close relationships. Sexist tendencies are formed
and maintained in intimate relationships and the belief in the existence of gender
differences functions as a way of controlling closeness in interpersonal relationships.
Thus, the basic need for security is fulfilled (Fisher & Hammond, 2019).
Hypothesis 2 was formulated to test the expectation that people who articulate
their personal experience of gender inequality more readily agree with the idea of
gender differences in the professional career opportunities. We used the term “articu-
lating personal experience” while bearing in mind that certain experiences of gender
inequality may be of high emotional significance and thus may be denied, rejected, or
hidden (Morrison, Bourke & Kelley, 2005). The results of our study show that when
assessing their experience of gender inequality, participants tended to give polarized
evaluations to the negative emotions felt in such situations (Table 7) with 25.9% of
males totally rejecting negative emotions, and 23.1% of females demonstrating high
sensitivity to these kinds of situations.
Hypothesis 2 was also supported by the obtained data. Respondents who de-
scribed their experiences of gender inequality noticed more gender differences in
professional opportunities and career growth, and had an egalitarian perspective
about gender differences in the family sphere. We can see now that the elaborated
questionnaire “Social perceptions of gender differences” assesses not only percep-
 Social Perceptions of Gender Differences and the Subjective Significance…  79

tions of gender differences (traditionalist or egalitarian in the first part of the mea-
sure), but also gender inequality awareness (inequality blindness or sensitivity in
the second part). The persistence of gender inequality may be due to interconnected
social-psychological mechanisms i.e. traditionalist perceptions of gender differences
as essential and inevitable, as well as an inability to detect gender inequality (gender
inequality blindness).

Conclusion
It can be concluded that the subjective significance of the gender inequality issue is
interrelated with the social perceptions of gender differences in various spheres of
life: for people more committed to the idea of gender differences (rather than simi-
larities) within the family, politics, and everyday life, the problem of gender inequal-
ity is less significant; at the same time, they are not aware of gender inequality in the
professional sphere, especially when it comes to career opportunities.
The described features of social perceptions of gender differences can become the
basis for the formation of hypotheses about their role in the reproduction of the phe-
nomenon of gender inequality. It is possible to formulate hypotheses related to the
mechanisms of social cognition and the influence of gender socialization on gender
perceptions.
The potential zones of gender conflict were revealed to be the sphere of power,
politics and leadership in particular, as well as the sphere of confrontation of ideas
about gender differences. This suggests that the hierarchy of gender relations en-
shrined within culture can be a potential target for social programs to reduce the
manifestation of gender inequality in various spheres.

Limitations
A limitation of the study is the complexity of the validation of non-metric data. Sev-
eral items of the questionnaire “Social perceptions of gender differences” need revi-
sion to increase the reliability of scales. Also, it is necessary to take into account the
latent factors identified in this questionnaire and collect a larger dataset to perform
confirmatory factor analysis. Further verification of the psychometric properties of
the measure is expected to be carried out (validity, social desirability etc.).

Ethics Statement
The project was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Herzen State Pedagogical
University of Russia (IRB00011060 Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia
IRB #1). Participants gave informed consent before taking part.

Author Contributions
Svetlana Gurieva and Larisa Mararitsa conceived the idea and developed the design.
Tatiana Kazantseva contributed to theoretical review, Olga Gundelakh performed the
calculations and described the results. All authors contributed to the development of
80  Gurieva, S.D., Kazantseva, T.V., Mararitsa, L.V., Gundelakh, O.E.

the questionnaire, provided data collection, discussed the results and contributed to
the final manuscript.

Conflict of Interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgements
This research was supported by Grant No 22-18-00452 ‘‘Psychosocial design of the
workspace as a factor in the employee subjective well-being and the innovative po-
tential of the organization’’ from the Russian Scientific Foundation.

References
Abraham, M. (2020). Gender-role incongruity and audience-based gender bias: an examination of
networking among entrepreneurs. Administrative science quarterly, 65(1), 151–180. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0001839219832813
Acker, J. (1990). Jobs, hierarchies and sexuality: Some further thoughts on gender and organizations.
Gender & Society, 4, 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124390004002002
Acker, J. (2006). Inequality regimes: Gender, class and race in organizations. Gender & society, 20(4),
441–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243206289499
Andresen, M., Biemann T. & Pattie, M.W. (2015). What makes them move abroad? Reviewing and
exploring differences between self-initiated and assigned expatriation. The International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 26(7), 932–947. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.669780
Barber, B.M., & Odean, T. (2001). Boys will be boys: Gender, overconfidence and common stock invest-
ment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1), 261–292. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.139415
Benschop, Y. (2009). The micro‐politics of gendering in networking. Gender, Work & Organization,
16(2), 217–237. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2009.00438.x
Berger, J., Rosenholtz, S.J., & Zelditch Jr, M. (1980). Status organizing processes. Annual Review of Soci-
ology, 6(1), 479–508. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.06.080180.002403
Charness, G., & Gneezy, U. (2018). Complexity in risk elicitation may affect the conclusions: a dem-
onstration using gender differences. Journal of risk and uncertainty, 56(1), 1–17. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11166-018-9274-6
Charness, G., & Gneezy, U. (2012). Strong evidence for gender differences in risk taking. Journal of Eco-
nomic Behavior & Organization, 83(1), 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2011.06.007
Cohen, P.N., Huffman, M.L., & Knauer, S. (2009). Stalled progress? Gender segregation and wage
inequality among managers, 1980–2000. Work and Occupations, 36(4), 318–342. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0730888409347582
Coleman, J.S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94,
S95–S120. https://doi.org/10.1086/228943
Connor, R.A., Glick, P., & Fiske, S.T. (2017). Ambivalent sexism in the twenty-first century. In C.G.
Sibley & F.K. Barlow (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice (pp. 295–320).
Cambridge University press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161579.013
Eagly, A.H., & Wood, W. (1991). Explaining sex differences in social behavior: A meta-ana-
lytic perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(3), 306–315. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0146167291173011
Eagly, A.H., & Sczesny, S. (2019). Editorial: gender roles in the future? Theoretical foundations and fu-
ture research directions. Frontiers in Psychology, 10:1965. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01965
Fisher, M.I., & Hammond, M.D. (2019). Personal ties and prejudice: A meta-analysis of romantic attach-
ment and ambivalent sexism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(7), 1084–1098. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0146167218804551
 Social Perceptions of Gender Differences and the Subjective Significance…  81

Folke, O., & Rickne, J. (2016). The glass ceiling in politics: Formalization and empirical tests. Compara-
tive Political Studies, 49(5), 567–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414015621073
Forret, M.L., & Dougherty, T.W. (2004). Networking behaviors and career outcomes: differences for men
and women? Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupa-
tional and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 25(3), 419–437. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.253
Furr R.M. (2021). Psychometrics: an introduction. SAGE publications.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S.T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as comple-
mentary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109–118. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.109
Gurieva, S., Borisova, M., Mikhalyuk, O., Dmitrieva, V., Odintsova, V., & Kawabata, T. (2016). Trust as
a mechanism of social regulation of the modern youth’s behavior. American Journal of Applied Sci-
ences, 13(1), 100–110. https://doi.org/10.3844/ajassp.2016.100.110
Gurieva, S.D., & Udavikhina, U.A. (2015). Negotiating Styles in Situation of Limited Resources and
Ambiguity: “Short” and “Long” Communications. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(4),
109. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n4s2p109
Hollander, J.A. (2001). Vulnerability and dangerousness: The construction of gender through conversa-
tion about violence. Gender & society, 15(1), 83–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124301015001005
Hutt, C. (1972). Sex differences in human development. Human Development, 15(3), 153–170. https://
doi.org/10.1159/000271239
Kletsina, I.S. (2020). Gender socialization at senior age. Social Psychology and Society, 11(3), 22–34.
https://doi.org/10.17759/sps.2020110302
Koening, A.M. (2018). Comparing prescriptive and descriptive gender stereotypes about children,
adults, and the elderly. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 1086. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01086
Lytton, H., & Romney, D.M. (1991). Parents’ differential socialization of boys and girls: A meta-analysis.
Psychological bulletin, 109(2), 267–296. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.267
Maccoby, E.E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A developmental account. American psychologist,
45(4), 513–520. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.4.513
Maccoby, E.E., & Jacklin, C.N. (1987). Gender segregation in childhood. Advances in Child Development
and Behavior, 20, 239–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2407(08)60404-8
Mararitsa, L.V., Kazantseva, T.V., & Gurieva, S.D. (2019). The phenomenon of gender inequality as a
factor of women’s career capital: Problem definition. Psychology in Education, 1(1), 44–52. https://
doi.org/10.33910/2686-9527-2019-1-1-44-52
Martin, A.E., & Phillips, K.W. (2017). What “blindness” to gender differences helps women see and do:
Implications for confidence, agency, and action in male-dominated environments. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 142, 28–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.07.004
Mazei, J., Hüffmeier, J., Freund, P.A., Stuhlmacher, A.F., Bilke, L., & Hertel, G. (2015). A meta-analysis
on gender differences in negotiation outcomes and their moderators. Psychological bulletin, 141(1),
85–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038184
Mednick, M., & Thomas, V. (2008). Women and achievement. Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publish-
ing Group.
Morrison, Z., Bourke, M., & Kelley, C. (2005). “Stop making it such a big issue”: Perceptions and experi-
ences of gender inequality by undergraduates at a British University. Women’s Studies International
Forum, 28(2–3), 150–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2005.04.020
Morgenroth, T., & Ryan, M.K. (2018). Gender trouble in social psychology: How can Butler’s work
inform experimental social psychologists’ conceptualization of gender? Frontiers in Psychology, 9:
1320. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01320
Nasledov A. (2011). SPSS 19: Professional’nyi statisticheskii analiz dannykh [Professional statistical data
analysis]. Piter.
Neff, K.D., Cooper, C.E., & Woodruff, A.L. (2007). Children’s and adolescents’ developing percep-
tions of gender inequality. Social development, 16(4), 682–699. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9507.2007.00411.x
Nelson, T.D. (2009). Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination. Psychology Press. https://
doi.org/10.4324/9781841697772
82  Gurieva, S.D., Kazantseva, T.V., Mararitsa, L.V., Gundelakh, O.E.

Rudman, L.A., & Fairchild, K. (2004). Reactions to Counterstereotype Behavior: The Role of Backlash
in Cultural Stereotype Maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 157–176.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.157
Rudman, L.A., & Phelan, J.E. (2008). Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organi-
zations. Research in organizational behavior, 28, 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.003
Ryabova, T.B., & Ovcharova, O.G. (2016). Gender Studies in Russian Political Sciences. Current sta-
tus, issues and prospects. Woman in Russian Society, 1, 3–14. https://womaninrussiansociety.ru/
article/t-b-ryabova-o-g-ovcharova-gendernaya-politologiya-v-rossii-dostizheniya-problemy-i-
perspektivy-str-3-23/
Salomon, K., Bosson, J.K., El-Hout, M., Kiebel, E., Kuchynka, S.L., & Shepard, S.L. (2020). The Ex-
periences with Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (EASI). Basic and applied social psychology, 42(4),
235–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2020.1747467
Shawn, F.D., & Glenn, F. (2010). Trends in global gender inequality. Social Forces, 88(5), 1941–1968.
https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2010.0040
Spoor, J.R., & Schmitt, M.T. (2011). “Things are getting better” isn’t always better: Considering women’s
progress affects perceptions of and reactions to contemporary gender inequality. Basic and Applied
Social Psychology, 33(1), 24–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2010.539948
Stewart, R., Wright, B., Smith, L., Roberts, S., Russell, N. (2021). Gendered stereotypes and norms: A sys-
tematic review of interventions designed to shift attitudes and behavior. HELIYON, 7(4). https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06660
Thang, L.L. (2002). Expatriate on the margins: A study of Japanese women working in Singapore. Geo-
forum, 33(4), 539–551. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7185(02)00042-8
Uryvaev, V. (2018). Perestroika and personality: Transformation of gender stereotypes amongst the
youngsters in Russia. SHS Web of Conferences, 51. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20185101006
Vandello, J.A., & Bosson, J.K. (2013). Hard won and easily lost: A review and synthesis of theory
and research on precarious manhood. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14(2), 101. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0029826
Verdonk, P., Benschop, Y.W.M., de Haes, H.C.J.M. et al. (2009). From gender bias to gender awareness
in medical education. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 14, 135–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10459-008-9100-z
Voronina, O.A. (2013). Gender equality policy in modern Russia: Problems and contradictions. Woman
in Russian Society, 3, 12–20. https://womaninrussiansociety.ru/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/voro-
nina.pdf
West, C., & Zimmerman, D.H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & society, 1(2), 125–151. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0891243287001002002
World Economic Forum: The Global Gender Gap Report (2021). https://www.weforum.org/reports/
global-gender-gap-report-2021
Wilson E.O. (2000). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.
ctvjnrttd
Yaffe, Y. (2020). Systematic review of the differences between mothers and fathers in parenting styles and
practices. Current Psychology, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-01014-6

Original manuscript received July 7, 2021

Revised manuscript accepted June 20, 2022
First published online June 30, 2022

To cite this article: Gurieva, S.D., Kazantseva, T.V., Mararitsa, L.V., Gundelakh, O.E. (2022). Social
Perceptions of Gender Differences and the Subjective Significance of the Gender Inequality Issue. Psy-
chology in Russia: State of the Art, 15(2), 65–82. DOI: 10.11621/pir.2022.0205