Women Quotas vs. Men Quotas in Academia: Students Perceive Favoring Women as Less Fair Than Favoring Men.

In this study, we analyze the free verbal associations to the stimuli women quotas and men quotas of 327 medical students. Women and men quotas are characterized by the same modus operandi (i.e., preferential treatment based on sex/gender). However, women quotas help a low-status group, whereas men quotas help a high-status group. In line with a support paradox, that is, the perception that support for women is less fair and less legitimate than support for men, we expected that students would reject women quotas in academia more vehemently than men quotas. Specifically, we hypothesized that students would have more negative and more emotional associations with women quotas than men quotas. As predicted, students had more negative associations with women quotas than with men quotas. However, students did not have more emotional associations with women quotas than with men quotas. In addition, we explored the semantic content of the free associations to identify specific concerns over each quota. Students perceived women quotas as counterproductive, derogatory, and unfair, whereas they perceived men quotas as beneficial and fair. Concerns over the negative perceptions of quota beneficiaries were associated more frequently with women quotas than men quotas. Potential factors underlying students' perceptions of both quotas are discussed.