umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Presumption and prejudice: Quotas may solve some problems, but create many more
Umeå University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-5366-1169
2017 (English)In: Mankind Quarterly, ISSN 0025-2344, Vol. 58, no 1, 117-138 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Some Western countries contemplate, or have already implemented, legislative means to counter group differences. Here, I consider the arguments for, and consequences of, sex quotas. I find that it is logically incoherent to impose selection based on group membership, such as quotas, unless one acknowledges that there is a group difference in some trait that affects the outcome in the domain in which the selection takes place. If such a group difference is acknowledged, however, a quota might decrease the proportion of individuals who are more likely to have undesirable traits that are difficult to measure. However, the fact that traits are normally distributed and overlap across groups means that it is more effective to select for desirable traits than for group membership. Also, quotas inevitably entail negative consequences that should be weighed in. From the perspective of the individual, it is fairer to be selected on the basis of traits one actually has, rather than a stereotype of the group one belongs to. From the perspective of society as a whole, focussing on group differences and selecting based on group membership is divisive and conflict-driving, and stirs hostility based on competition over resources and social status. These arguments and conclusions are applicable to other groups and group differences in general.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2017. Vol. 58, no 1, 117-138 p.
Keyword [en]
quotas, sex, equality, sex differences
National Category
Social Sciences
Research subject
Psychology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-139851OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-139851DiVA: diva2:1143985
Available from: 2017-09-24 Created: 2017-09-24 Last updated: 2017-09-24

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Madison, Guy
By organisation
Department of Psychology
In the same journal
Mankind Quarterly
Social Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Total: 81 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf