Notions of Care Labor Are Antithetical to Profitable Labor

Abstract

We argue that women in the care workforce face a wage penalty because care work is perceived as something that people, especially women, are meant to do out of love (and for free). We focus on care labor, which is aligned with stereotypes about women's natural abilities as caregivers, to show that low wages cannot be explained by counter-stereotypic behavior alone. Instead, low wages in care labor can be explained by a perceived love versus money tradeoff. This tradeoff exists not only because of intrinsic rewards and fears of commodifying care but because of the idea that trading love for money amounts to trading the sacred for the profane. In other words, care workers are underpaid because many people, either implicitly or explicitly, perceive the very act of making money as counter to care, a stereotypically-feminine form of work. This stereotypical association contributes to the gender pay gap more generally because it implies that the work women are suited for is work that should be done for free. We expand on this idea with future directions and practice implications, which include building communal spaces for care workers to facilitate communication and organizing around higher pay and better working conditions.

Keywords

care work labor sacred values low wages taboo tradeoffs gender pay gap stereotyping and prejudice

Despite the steady growth of women's labor force participation in the United States (U.S.; 57% in 2016 compared to 20% in 1900; Blau & Winkler, 2017), the gender pay gap persists. One theme that emerges from research on the gender pay gap is that leadership, ambition, self-interest, and competence—traits put forward as essential for success in the workplace—are associated with men over women (e.g., Diekman et al., 2010; Eagly & Steffen, 1984; Heilman, 2001). In other words, there is a “lack of fit” between the attributes women are thought to possess and the attributes necessary to obtain male-typed positions (Heilman, 2012). This incongruity creates the perception that women are not well-suited for male-typed tasks and creates negative expectations about their performance in them. One might thus expect that in female-typed professions (i.e., jobs that involve stereotypically feminine traits like communality, care, and self-sacrifice), women would not experience the same disparities in pay or would even be valued more highly. Yet, that is not the case: Women experience low wages even when they “match” the traits workers are expected to have (e.g., Potera, 2015).

In this article, we seek to explain low wages in care labor, which is labor that involves meeting the emotional, psychological, developmental, and/or physical needs of others in a face-to-face interaction (England et al., 2002). We focus on care labor because it aligns with stereotypes about women (Prentice & Miller, 2006)—and is often, but not always, feminized labor (i.e., labor done primarily by females; Akorsu, 2016). We begin by reviewing research showing that low wages in care labor can be meaningfully explained by a perceived love versus money tradeoff in the work (e.g., Claassen, 2011; England et al., 2002; Filer, 1990). To further this analysis, we introduce research in moral psychology to show that trading something sacred (love) for something profane (money) amounts to a potential taboo tradeoff (e.g., Tetlock et al., 2000). The presence of this tradeoff highlights a deep problem in how people understand women at work, both in the care workforce and more generally. We propose that people's notions of stereotypically-feminine care work, and perhaps in some sense all work that women do, are antithetical to ideas of making money.

This article brings to light this deep psychological barrier to equal pay for women. It also integrates and extends the growing literature in sociology, psychology, and feminist economics on the care pay penalty in three important ways. First, in exploring low wages in care labor, this research helps better understand the barriers that preclude women from making the same money as men, even in careers where stereotypes of women match their jobs (i.e., without perceived lack of fit; Heilman, 2012). Second, this article is the first to integrate theories in moral psychology—by proposing that care workers face a perceived taboo tradeoff between love and money inherent in their work (Tetlock et al., 2000)—with existing multidisciplinary scholarship on care labor (e.g., England et al., 2002; Gilligan, 1987; Kittay, 2011) to understand the pay penalty that care workers face. Finally, this research grounds care work in an intersectional framework to show that there is a fine line between naturalizing women's socialized identities as caregivers and exploiting them (Walker, 2007). We end with novel practical implications and avenues for future research to reduce the pay penalty for the care labor workforce.

Barriers to Equal Pay that Women Face at Work

Gender Stereotypes at Work

At the individual and societal level, a barrier that women face at work is the belief that not all jobs are suited for women. Beliefs about the types of jobs women should take stem from stereotypes about what women and men are like (i.e., descriptive gender stereotypes) or should be like (i.e., prescriptive gender stereotypes). Descriptively, women are characterized as more communal (e.g., caring, warm) than men, who tend to be characterized as more agentic (e.g., task-oriented, instrumental, assertive; Diekman et al., 2010; Eagly & Steffen, 1984; Heilman, 2001). These stereotypes influence how women and men perceive themselves and influence the careers that women and men pursue—even at a young age (e.g., Tellhed et al., 2023). Women are more likely to cite “opportunities to be helpful to others” as important in selecting a career (Fortin, 2008) and are more likely to pursue careers that serve the greater good (e.g., Roberts & Robins, 2000; Tellhed et al., 2018; Wegemer & Eccles, 2019). To demonstrate, women enter nursing (87%) and teaching (79%) careers at higher rates than men (13% and 21%, respectively; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2023). In other words, women enter roles that “fit” with gendered stereotypes of being good caregivers.

If a woman decides to pursue an occupation associated with more masculine traits (e.g., stockbroker), which tends to be higher status compared to occupations associated with more feminine traits (e.g., teacher; Conway et al., 1996; Latu et al., 2011; Ridgeway & Correll, 2004), she will likely face significant barriers. The perceived lack of fit between a woman's attributes and the presumed nature of a job can result in inequities in recruitment efforts (e.g., Gaucher et al., 2011; Heilman & Caleo, 2018), evaluations of leadership performance (e.g., Eagly et al., 1992), and evaluations of the work itself. Thus, gender stereotypes dictate whether women “fit” in a job and can influence how they are evaluated within those jobs.

Backlash Against Gender Norm Violators

Just as women and men are expected to enter jobs that fit their gender stereotypes, they are also expected to behave in ways that align with their stereotypes. For example, women are expected to be cooperative and mindful of others’ feelings at work and are evaluated negatively when they fail to do so (Chen, 2008; Heilman et al., 2010). Importantly, women do not have to explicitly violate prescriptive stereotypes to be penalized; they can be penalized simply for showing competence in male-typed positions or for seeking power and advancement (Rudman et al., 2012). For example, a study examining the advancement of 30,000 managers found that promotion became increasingly difficult for women as they moved up the organizational ladder (Lyness & Judiesch, 1999). Advancement becomes increasingly difficult for women because they face negative social evaluations—or backlash (Rudman & Phelan, 2008)—when they advocate for higher pay. Indeed, women who negotiate assertively are evaluated more negatively (e.g., as less likeable) than men displaying similar behavior (Bowles et al., 2007; Shan et al., 2019; Tinsley et al., 2009) and, as a result, fare worse in salary negotiations than men (e.g., Amanatullah & Morris, 2010; Bowles et al., 2007; Mazei et al., 2015; Toosi et al., 2019). This suggests that it is not just advancing at work that is counter-stereotypic for women, but, specifically, asking for more money is counter-stereotypic for women.

Importantly, men do not face the same penalties for violating gender norms at work. For example, teaching performance (a stereotypically communal and feminine form of care labor) is rated higher when associated with a male name versus a female name in the U.S. (MacNell et al., 2015). Even male nurses (a similarly stereotyped care occupation) get paid $10,000 more than female nurses on average in the U.S. (Potera, 2015). This suggests that work is evaluated differently for men and women in both male and female-dominated roles: Men are valued more for doing masculine labor than women and they are valued more for doing stereotypically feminine care labor than women. This suggests that there is something deeper at play than a lack of fit between gender stereotypes and the nature of work. Here, we suggest that there is a lack of fit between gender stereotypes about women and the very notion of personal profit from work.

Penalties for Parenthood and Marriage

The link between care and women's unpaid and underpaid labor is made especially clear by the motherhood penalty (i.e., a wage penalty in which employed mothers earn less than both men and childless women). Indeed, research demonstrates that mothers in the U.S. experience, on average, a 5% wage penalty per child (whereas men earn a wage bonus per child), even after controlling for other factors that affect wages, such as the number of hours worked (Budig & England, 2001; Glauber, 2008; Lundberg & Rose 2002; see Luo & Schleifer, 2020 for motherhood effects in policing). This wage penalty is not unique to the U.S.; the motherhood penalty persists across countries, though the highest motherhood penalty exists in countries with less parental leave and public childcare options, and, critically, in countries with greater endorsement of the male breadwinner/female caregiver model (Budig et al., 2012; Gao & Tian, 2023). The more that society perceives women as “meant for” caregiving, the more likely mothers are to be paid less for the work they do outside the home.

In thinking about how motherhood reduces earnings for women, it is also necessary to think about how mothers work a “second shift” (also known as a “double burden”) that involves completing unpaid household and childcare duties following their regular day at work (Hochschild & Machung, 2012). Because mothers work this second shift, they may seek part-time work or reduce their hours, which in turn reduces opportunities for workplace promotion and may increase backlash from evaluators who stereotype motherhood (but not fatherhood) as incompatible with promotions (Lips & Lawson, 2009; Morgenroth et al., 2020). And there is evidence that this penalty is specific to women, not parents of other genders. For example, fatherhood is generally interpreted by employers as a signal of loyalty or dependability (Budig & Hodges, 2010) while motherhood is interpreted as a signal of lower competence (Correll et al., 2007; Ridgeway & Correll, 2004). Even when mothers are evaluated as having similar competence and commitment to work as men, they are evaluated with more negative interpersonal qualities (i.e., less warm or likeable; Benard & Correll, 2010). Finally, marriage differentially impacts men’s and women's wages. Research suggests that marriage is associated with a significant wage premium for men, but a wage penalty for women (Budig & England 2001; Cheng, 2016).

Certainly, the motherhood penalty results partly from a woman's need to spend more time away from work to care for their family (Budig & England, 2001). This expectation, which tends to fall to women (sometimes by choice, sometimes not) also further emphasizes the link between the care labor that women do at home and the un- and underpaid labor they often do at work. Women's care responsibilities net them less income while men's care responsibilities do just the opposite (e.g., Glauber, 2008). Mothers specifically embody the stereotype of selfless communal labor that people associate with women, and they face the greatest barriers to equal pay with men.

One might expect that when women perform care labor for pay, they are rewarded because in these occupations there is a perceived fit between women and the type of attributes required for the work. Yet, as we will see, when women engage in paid care work, an occupational category that involves being paid to meet the needs of others (much like the unpaid labor performed by mothers), we still see pay penalties. We focus our analysis on the U.S. but where possible, also include data from around the world to highlight that low wages in care labor are a global issue.

What Is Care Labor?

In every society, people need to be raised (e.g., by parents) and taken care of when they are sick (e.g., by healthcare professionals). Indeed, every society relies on care workers to meet their population's basic needs. Care workers are responsible for meeting the emotional, psychological, developmental, and/or physical needs of others in a face-to-face interaction (England et al., 2002). By this definition, care work can include a variety of healthcare professionals (e.g., nurses, doctors, therapists) and a variety of education professionals (e.g., teachers, professors).

Women in the U.S. have long been expected to care for others. It is no surprise, then, that these gendered expectations of care are reflected in the labor market. In 2021, women accounted for 78% of workers in the healthcare and social assistance industries in the U.S. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2022). These industries also fulfill the criteria discussed above for female-typed (i.e., stereotype-congruent) labor. Care labor is communal (Eagly & Steffen, 1984; Heilman, 2001); it involves making sure that all members of the community have their needs met. It is certainly an opportunity to help others (Fortin, 2008) and is tied to moral values, including care itself (Gilligan, 1987). Given that care work meets all of these criteria as a profession that “matches” feminine stereotypes, when we interrogate barriers to higher wages in care work (which is paid less than equivalently skilled labor; Duffy, 2015) we can better understand the barriers that preclude women from making the same money as men, putting aside concerns that stereotypes of women do not match their jobs (i.e., lack of fit).

Understanding Low Wages in Care Work

Working in occupations involving care reduces earnings for both women and men. An examination of U.S. Census data found that workers in occupations involving care were paid 6% less than people in other types of occupations, even when accounting for job characteristics, including education and skill (England et al., 2002). Evidence of this wage penalty (also referred to as a “care penalty”) has been found within the private and public sectors and across several countries (Budig & Misra, 2010). It is present in nurturant and reproductive occupations (Barron & West, 2013; Budig & Misra, 2010; Duffy, 2007) and in occupations with higher levels of emotional labor demands (Glomb et al., 2004). Analyses of interactive service work (a broader category that subsumes care work, such as waitressing) find that both men and women earn less in occupations in this broad category of work compared to jobs with similar skills, but no service responsibilities (England et al., 2002). Similarly, jobs associated with nurturance (measured by skillset and independently rated by undergraduates) carry a net wage penalty, even after controlling for skill and educational requirements, cognitive demands, and type of occupation (e.g., Duffy, 2015; Folbre, 2017).

Although most of our theorizing about care labor is restricted to the U.S., care penalties can also be found in countries with different levels of market development (postindustrial capitalist, postsocialist capitalist, and developing market economies). A cross-national survey of care penalties across 12 countries (including Nordic, continental European, Post-socialist, Liberal, and Developing countries) found that working in care occupations generally results in a wage penalty, though the extent of the penalty varies. For example, care employment more consistently has negative effects on earnings among men, except in the Nordic countries (Budig & Misra, 2010). For women, employment in care work has mixed wage effects, but the wage penalties are more likely to be incurred where the labor market context is less egalitarian, features less public-sector employment, and features lower public spending on care. This suggests that the care penalty cannot be explained by the gender of the worker alone; both men and women are economically disadvantaged for performing care work—and this is generally found globally. A leading theory of the care penalty is that gender is the key explanatory factor: Care is devalued in economic, political, and ethical terms because it is an activity undertaken by women (Folbre, 2017).

The Devaluation of Feminized Labor Versus Care Labor

Occupations with a higher percentage of women in them (i.e., feminized occupations), pay less than occupations with a lower percentage of women in them, even after adjusting for educational requirements and working conditions (Cohen & Huffman 2003; Dill et al., 2016; England et al., 2002). A devaluation view assumes that gendered cultural beliefs stereotype women's work as requiring less competence and being lower in status, and thus, less worthy of pay. Given that care occupations are typically female-dominated, it is unsurprising in this view that they are also devalued. Yet, research has shown that workers in care occupations experience an even greater wage penalty than feminized occupations that do not include care; jobs involving care work pay less than other feminized jobs of similar skill levels that do not involve care (e.g., apparel sales workers, waitresses, cosmetologists; England et al., 2002).

Though many care occupations are made up predominantly of women (and are thereby appropriately characterized as feminized labor), we focus on care labor because it involves performing tasks that many people associate with mothering or work that women are stereotyped to be “naturally good at” and expected to do for free and out of love (Eagly & Steffen, 1984; Prentice & Miller, 2006). We recognize that not all feminized labor involves care and that not all care is feminized (most doctors, e.g., are male). However, importantly, even within care occupations that are not feminized, we still see that carrying out care labor incurs wage penalties for both women and men within the profession. For example, when men enter feminized occupations (e.g., healthcare), they receive lower earnings if their work involves more direct care (high degree of patient interaction), even after controlling for demographic characteristics (Dill et al., 2016). Thus, occupations most strongly associated with “women's work”—anything that involves stereotypes about communality, warmth, and care—experience a wage penalty.

Differences Within Care Work

Care labor is not monolithic. Paid care is stratified; it contains well-paid professions (e.g., doctors, $208,000 median salary; professors, $112,962 mean salary), moderately paid professions (e.g., registered nurses, $77,600 median salary; middle school teachers, $61,320 median salary), and some of the lowest paid professions in the economy (e.g., nursing assistants, $30,290 median salary; teaching assistants, $29,360 median salary; childcare workers, $27,490 median salary; American Association of University Professors, 2022; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021). Some of this stratification stems from the type of care work involved. For example, nurturant care, which requires more face-to-face contact, generally requires postsecondary licensure or certification (as is the case for doctors and professors). By contrast, nonnurturant reproductive care labor, which includes impersonal services necessary for maintaining the personal and physical needs of the labor force (e.g., home care and food services), generally has lower entry requirements (e.g., Barron & West, 2013; Duffy, 2015; Dwyer, 2013). Thus, women from lower socioeconomic backgrounds (generally with lower education) tend to perform more nonnurturant reproductive care labor.

Differences by Race and Immigration Status

The stratification within care work is linked to gender, race, and immigration status. Women of color and immigrants have historically been (and continue to be) overrepresented in lower-paid and more menial care work. For example, Black women make up 30% of home health aides and only 6% of the U.S. labor force (Goubert et al., 2021). Hispanic women make up 23% of home health aides, but only 8% of the labor force. White women, by comparison, are not overrepresented in home-health occupations: White women account for 27% of home health aides and 29% of the U.S. labor force. Immigration status is also linked to low-paid care work. More than a third (35%) of domestic care workers are foreign-born, compared with just 17% of the rest of the workforce (Wolfe et al., 2020).

Although Black, Latina, and immigrant women are overrepresented in lower-paid care work, they remain underrepresented in more professionalized care work, as White women account for 73% of nurses and 79% of teachers (U.S. Department of Education, 2020; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2019). These demographic trends suggest that, as care labor increasingly moved from the private (i.e., household) to the public (i.e., formalized care institutions) sphere, more strenuous work was placed on poor women, women of color, and immigrants (Branch & Wooten, 2012; Duffy, 2007). These trends reflect greater stratification in the labor market; like much of care labor, “good jobs” and “bad jobs” in the labor market were organized around social inequalities of gender, race, and economic class—leaving women with multiple marginalized identities in the lowest paid jobs compared to White women and men of color. Studies of domestic work in particular (see Duffy, 2007) show how segmented labor facilitates the exploitation of women and men of color. Given that inequality in care labor is not linked to gender alone, it is important to examine how other identities (e.g., race, class, immigration status) and systems (e.g., a racialized labor market) intersect to impact low wages and difficult conditions for care workers.

Gendered Differences in Labor Within Care Work

Even within higher-paid and higher-status care professions, where there tend to be more equal levels of men and women (and racial homogeneity, as in teaching), labor is not divided uniformly. Women appear to take on more of the “care” in “care labor.” For example, compared to male faculty, female faculty experience higher teaching and service loads and take on more nonpromotable tasks (e.g., Babcock et al., 2017; Domingo et al., 2022; Misra et al., 2021) and female physicians spend more time with their patients than male physicians (Bertakis, 2009). In contrast, males often take on more leadership roles within care work; 77% of male healthcare professionals are in supervisory roles (Pérez-Sánchez et al., 2021) and 72% of school superintendents are male (Zippia, 2022). This suggests that, in care occupations, disparities exist that replicate gendered burdens at work in other domains (Blau & Kahn, 2017). Even within stereotypically feminine care labor, the most care-intensive and the most female-typed labor is nonpromotable.

Explaining Low Wages in Care Work

We have reviewed the multiple ways that care-intensive labor is underpaid. Now, we turn to theories that attempt to explain why these wage penalties persist in care work. Feminist economists suggest that there is a perceived tradeoff between love and money inherent in care work that justifies lower pay (see Table 1 for an overview of relevant theories). Specifically, there are two dominant perspectives: the theory of compensating wage differentials (Filer, 1990) and the commodification argument (e.g., Claassen, 2011), which explain low wages in care work through a perceived love versus money tradeoff. After we review these perspectives, we propose that the sacred values protection model (Tetlock et al., 2000)—a psychological theory that emphasizes a tradeoff between love and money as taboo—provides an additional, novel lens to better understand the persistence of low wages in care work. From here, we raise the possibility that there is another barrier, at least in some places, to women earning what men do. Specifically, we propose that people believe the work that women are “suited for” is work that should not be paid.

Table 1.
Summary of Frameworks Highlighting Tensions of Love and Money in Care Work.

Framework Hypothesis Relevance for understanding low wages in care work Empirical evidence related to care work

Devaluation hypothesis Occupations experiencing a significant inflow of female workers are devalued. Care is devalued in economic, political, and ethical terms because it is an activity undertaken by women. Evidence of low wages in care labor workforce, which is predominantly female (Barron & West, 2013; Budig & Misra, 2010; Duffy, 2007, England et al., 2002)
Lower interest in health and education careers compared to science careers, particularly among men (Block et al., 2018)
Lower perceived worth to society for care occupations (Block et al., 2018)

Compensating wage differentials Higher wages are offered to offset the undesirability of a job. Lower wages are offered when a job is desirable. Because care work offers intrinsic rewards, employers are able to offer lower wages to care workers. Legitimization of exploitation for workers presumed to be passionate about their work (Kim et al., 2020)
Evidence of care penalties (Barron & West, 2013; Budig & Misra, 2010; Duffy, 2007; England et al., 2002)
Low wage rates for jobs high in emotional labor demands (Glomb et al., 2004)

Fears of commodification Some goods, by their very nature, should not be commodified. People believe that low wages protect the quality and authenticity of care. Moral limits to markets (Satz, 2010)
Asymmetry thesis—women's reproductive labor is intrinsically not a commodity (Anderson, 1993)

Sacred values protection model If you put a sacred value against a secular one, it will result in moral outrage. Care workers are paid to provide love and affection to others—and are essentially engaging in taboo tradeoffs every day. Selling unwanted children to the highest bidder, or selling love, care, and sex, are perceived as taboo tradeoffs (Atran & Axelrod, 2008; Schoemaker & Tetlock, 2012)
Nurses face a moral dilemma when going on strike (Huget, 2020)

Compensating Wage Differentials

One way that scholars have attempted to understand low wages is by looking at how wages are offset by nonmonetary advantages and disadvantages in occupations (i.e., compensating wage differentials; Filer, 1990). These characteristics influence how many people are willing to work at a job at any given time. If, for example, two occupations are similar in their skill requirements and wages, but one involves more physical discomfort, individuals will gravitate toward the occupation with fewer physical demands. Thus, employers may have to compensate with higher pay for jobs with unfavorable job characteristics in order to fill vacancies in the occupation. On the other hand, if a job provides workers with nonmonetary advantages, such as intrinsic rewards, employers may be able to provide lower wages. Employers may also avoid raising wages if their workforce is vulnerable to exploitation. We assume that employers must compensate less, for example, when the workforce is made up of immigrant populations or people with multiple marginalized identities. Yet at the heart of the theory is the idea that low wages (outside of exploitation) may be made up for by the intrinsic fulfillment of the jobs. This argument is central to understanding low wages in care work as care occupations provide many intrinsic rewards, like enjoying the successes of those in their care and making a difference in the world.

A growing number of employers have used compensating differentials to hire a cheap workforce (e.g., interns who make little or no pay to make inroads at a job they want; Paz-Fuchs, 2021). This is because most employers believe that if a worker has enough passion, they will be willing to endure poor working conditions, including no pay. Relatedly, some employees are expected to work extra hours for no pay to demonstrate their enthusiasm for their occupation (Yoon et al., 2019). When passion is used to justify low wages, it can easily lead to exploitation (Kim et al., 2020) The nature of care work allows for compensation outside of monetary rewards: forming relationships with others, helping those in need, and contributing to the greater good. Several key findings shed light on a potential wage differential in care work, referred to as a care penalty (England et al., 2002). These intrinsic rewards “compensate” for relatively low wages.

Indeed, persisting attitudes toward nursing and teaching as occupations that provide their own rewards justify a perceived wage differential in care work (e.g., Bullough & Hall-Kenyon, 2012). Holding all else equal, working in occupations involving care reduces earnings for both women and men. Many accept this wage differential because, for care workers, the work comes with nonmonetary compensation (England et al., 2002; Filer, 1990; Kim et al., 2020).

The Commodification Argument

Another way that scholars have tried to understand why low wages persist in care work is by exploring the market value of care. Many of the views surrounding paid care emerge from dualistic views about gender; because males and females are “opposite,” beliefs about “women, family, love, and altruism” are distinct from beliefs about “men, rationality, and market-exchange” (Nelson & England, 2002). This dichotomy suggests that it is not possible for love and money to exist in the same place (just as men and women cannot exist in the same body) or that waged labor can only erode or contaminate the value of love (Tetlock et al., 2000). What these views are essentially debating is the boundaries that exist between objects that can be commodified and those that cannot.

Proponents of economic imperialism (Boulding, 1969) favor the idea that everything can be explained in terms of a market transaction. Commodification is the process by which skills are represented in terms of market transactions, particularly through an exchange of money (Carvalho & Rodrigues, 2015). Some scholars argue that boundaries exist between objects that can be commodified and those that cannot. In other words, there are moral limits to commodification, as justified by concerns regarding coercion and corruption. For example, Sandel (2012) argues that market exchanges are not always voluntary, suggesting that the mere existence of commodification does not mean that people support it. Consider an individual who chooses to sell their organs. Although the individual may consent to selling their organs, they may be constrained by economic inequality (e.g., the need to buy food for their family). That is, even where there appears to be consent in a market transaction, they may be constrained in their decision-making due to unfair conditions. Second, Sandel (2012) argues that moral and civic goods can be corrupted if they are given market values. As another example, imagine someone paying their best friend to spend time with them—the exchange of money changes the intrinsic nature of their relationship; it corrupts its original meaning (Anderson, 1993).

Not only does paying money for a moral good change its original meaning, but it can also “crowd out” or undermine the desire to perform the good altogether (Rode et al., 2015). For example, monetary rewards crowd out intrinsic motivation (i.e., worker morale; Deci et al., 1999; Frey, 1997); when parents can pay to compensate for being late (in addition to feeling guilty) to pick up their children from daycare, they are late more often (Gneezy & Rustichini, 2000), and when people get paid to donate blood (in addition to feeling good about having done it), they donate less often (Mellström & Johannesson, 2008; see Bowles & Polanía-Reyes, 2012 for a review of crowding effects across other domains). Extending this to care labor, people might think that paying for care may crowd out the motivation to perform care out of love, which elicits a fear that this will in turn reduce its quality (i.e., because people may be doing it only for money; Claassen, 2011). Taken together, this suggests that there are certain goods that cannot be given market values without significantly changing them and the people who interact with them (Atran & Axelrod, 2008). We reference these concerns within care work as the “fear of commodification” because they revolve around a fear that market-based care undermines the caring motives essential to effective care, either because of its reliance on contracts or because of the corrupting influence of payment on motivation (Claassen, 2011).

Some scholars suggest that certain types of labor (e.g., women's reproductive labor in surrogacy, women's sexual labor, child labor) should also exist outside of current labor markets because they are essentially something that should not be bought and sold (Satz, 2010). According to this essentialist approach, extending the market to include the personal and private spheres, as in surrogacy or sex work, is improper because it fails to respect the intrinsic nature of reproductive or sexual labor by female bodies. Instead, many argue that reproductive labor should exist outside of other forms of human labor because reproductive labor is fundamentally different, either because of the biological features of the female bodies involved in the work (Satz, 2010) or because it is more central to a woman's identity than nonreproductive labor (Pateman, 1988). As Carole Pateman puts it, “When a prostitute contracts out her body, she is thus selling herself in a very real sense. Women's selves are involved in prostitution in a different manner from involvement of the self in other occupations” (Pateman, 1988, p. 207). In short, arguments against the commodification of care rest on two key points: (a) that certain goods would lose their intrinsic values if they were commodified and (b) that care labor is intrinsically different from other forms of productive labor because it represents essential differences between women and men.

Does Care Labor Exist Within or Outside of the Market?

Can care be a commodity? On the one hand, scholars suggest that care could be proposed to exist outside of the market because it is viewed as within the domain of the sacred, that is the realm of beliefs and behaviors that one cannot easily put a price on (e.g., Tetlock et al., 2000). On the other hand, care is already a commodity, as millions of people already engage in paid care labor. We discuss each of these perspectives in turn.

Sacred Values and Taboo Tradeoffs

A sacred value is a value or moral principle that is seen as absolute, nonnegotiable, and impossible to trade for a secular value like money (e.g., Atran & Axelrod, 2008; Tetlock et al., 2000). The sanctity of human life, the need to protect children, and the need to preserve love and care are just some examples of sacred values. Trading those values against secular values is considered taboo. For instance, sanctioning an economic market for human organs, selling unwanted children to the highest bidder, and critically, selling love, care, and sex, are all seen as taboo tradeoffs because they put a finite value on things that have moral (and in a sense, infinite) importance (Schoemaker & Tetlock, 2012). These tradeoffs are highly consequential in political conflicts involving sacred land (Ginges & Atran, 2014) and can explain why it is uncomfortable to sell one's soul, even for people who do not believe they have one (Berns et al., 2012).

According to the sacred values protection model, when observers believe a decision maker has entertained a taboo tradeoff (i.e., trading money for something sacred), they respond with moral outrage (e.g., contempt, anger, disgust; Tetlock et al., 2000). It is possible that for some, care work can be perceived as a taboo tradeoff because it straddles the divide between activities performed out of love and those performed for pay. When this tradeoff is made salient, as when care workers organize for higher pay, they may be more likely to experience moral outrage. Indeed, previous research has found that endorsement of taboo tradeoffs is associated with lower support for care workers’ labor organizing (Flores-Robles & Gantman, 2023).

Care Is a Sacred Value

There is also significant consensus that harm and care are integral features of morality and thus likely to be within the sacred domain. Although there are many competing perspectives that seek to characterize human moral psychology, the vast majority agree that concerns about harm (and its inverse: care) are a basic feature. Some theories, like the moral dyad model, propose that harm is the most basic moral concern underlying all others and that all other concerns essentially reduce to concerns of harm (Gray et al., 2012). Others, like moral foundations theory (Graham et al., 2011), the model of moral motives (Janoff-Bulman & Carnes, 2013), and relationship regulation theory (Rai & Fiske, 2011), have a pluralistic view of moral concerns but still suggest that preventing harm and caring for others is a basic component of human moral judgment (though for whom the circle of concern is extended varies; Waytz et al., 2019). In other words, even when people disagree about the relevance of other moral concerns (like deference to authority, loyalty, and purity), they tend to agree that harm and care are core to their understanding of right and wrong (Graham et al., 2011). Other accounts of moral psychology foreground the importance of communal sharing, motivated by care for in-group members based on need rather than on merit or expectations of reciprocity (Rai & Fiske, 2011) and family values (Curry et al., 2019). Concerns for harm and care emerge early. Even infants prefer people who help versus hinder (Hamlin et al., 2011).

Feminist scholars have long emphasized an ethic of care—which takes responsibilities, relationships, and dependencies into account in moral reasoning (Gilligan & Attanucci, 1988; Kittay, 2011; Noddings, 2012)—and have recognized care as a widespread moral concern, even when regarded as a step on the way to a “higher” level of reasoning about justice (Kohlberg, 1971). This understanding of care underscores the notion of care as inherently relational. To this point, some work has examined the importance of harm and care in the context of relationships. One study using a sample representative of the U.S. in terms of age and ethnicity had people report how obligated a person they had a relationship with was to care for them. People expected their romantic partners, parents, teachers, close friends, teammates, and extended family to care for them the most. People also expected doctors to care for their patients and teachers to care for their students (Earp et al., 2021). The moral obligation to care for others is inherently relational, in our daily lives, and is present in some professions. In short, people think that care is both a universal right that should be afforded to everyone, but also especially obligatory for those we are closest to and depend on. Although the importance of care on its own seems to have been underappreciated by contemporary scholarship in moral psychology (Govrin, 2014), the moral importance of caring for others is present, or at least implicit, in most prominent theorizing. Taken together, we have good reason to suspect that care (and its inverse: harm) is a moral value, and likely also a sacred one, which must be upheld even when some other value (like money or status) could be gained (Atran & Axelrod, 2008).

Is Paid Care Work Really a Taboo Tradeoff?

Care work is extremely common, with roughly 4 million registered nurses (National Council of State Boards of Nursing, 2020) and 4 million teachers in the U.S. (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2021). Perhaps the banality of care work has obviated the potential taboo tradeoff (trading love for money) in the work. Although it is likely that people may not always remember that nurses and teachers are paid to provide love and care to others, the tension between love and money in care labor becomes salient when care workers advocate for better conditions, especially for the workers themselves (Flores-Robles & Gantman, 2023). For example, care workers often experience complex moral emotions (e.g., of guilt) when choosing between withstanding intolerable working conditions versus abandoning those in their care to advocate for better conditions (Huget, 2020). Thus, although the tension between love and money is not ever-present in care labor, it may nevertheless lurk under the surface of the low wages that persist in care work. It may come to the fore when pay for care labor is made salient, as when care workers negotiate, or advocate collectively for increased pay and better working conditions.

Additional evidence of this tension is found in how care workers organize for higher pay—turning what could be construed as a taboo tradeoff (trading love for money) into a tragic one (trading between moral values). For example, a majority of childcare workers mobilize only if they could advocate on behalf of the children and preserve their sense of being good care providers (i.e., by saying high turnover rates were reducing the quality of care for children; MacDonald & Merril, 2002). Similarly, teachers will often go on strike to protest inadequate funding for public education (e.g., resulting in crumbling facilities, out-of-date textbooks, and crowded classrooms), which they feel compromises the quality of education they are able to provide (Huget, 2020). In line with the sacred values protection model, which suggests that people seek moral cleansing following contemplation of a taboo tradeoff (i.e., by demonstrating their commitment to a sacred value), when tradeoffs are unavoidable, workers may resort to reframing taboo tradeoffs as tragic tradeoffs (a tradeoff between two sacred values). We see this in how care workers frame labor organizing as necessary in order to protect patient care. In using this framing, workers are affirming their commitment to care as a sacred value and avoid making their own pay salient. This difficulty in organizing and the need for reframing as a tragic tradeoff highlights the latent taboo tradeoff that some see in care labor.

Women's Labor Is Antithetical to Profitable Labor

In this article, we sought to explain low wages in care labor. We began with a discussion of the way that work (outside the home) is perceived as counter-stereotypic for women. We then examined the conditions of care labor, which is congruent with stereotypes about women's “natural ability” and social role to care for others (Eagly & Steffen, 1984; Prentice & Miller, 2006). Here, we found that women tend to take on nonpromotable and care-intensive tasks even within care professions and that care labor comes with a wage penalty compared to comparable work. We sought to understand this care penalty in the context of theories that tap into tensions between love and money. Specifically, we argued that care labor may highlight a worry that money taints the moral value of care (i.e., elicits fears of commodification; Sandel, 2012) and that giving care is a reward in and of itself (i.e., is subject to compensating wage differentials; Filer, 1990). We then introduced the possibility of a perceived taboo tradeoff inherent in care work (sacred values protection model; Tetlock et al., 2000). Once we perceive paid care work (i.e., feminine-stereotyped labor) through the lens of the sacred values protection model, we can see that female-typed labor, as it is concerned with sacred values of community, care, and self-sacrifice, is construed per se to be antithetical to making money. This can help us understand why women are still underpaid for this work. If fit were the sole explanation for women's comparatively lower earnings, then we might expect that when women perform female-typed labor, they would earn equal or more money as compared to men. Instead, most women in female-typed labor earn less than men performing the same labor, although there are a few countries that are exceptions (Budig & Misra, 2010).

We can now see that there is another barrier, at least in some places, to women earning what men do. Some may see a taboo tradeoff inherent in women's labor, that the work women are “suited for” is work that should not be paid. By examining paid care labor through the novel lens of the sacred values protection model—an approach that extends previous theorizing about tensions between love and money in care work (England, 2005)—we find notions that the feminine and the financials are not meant to mix. There are not only intrinsic rewards in care, and worries that commodifying care reduces its efficacy, but also a perception that paid care labor may be construed as a taboo tradeoff. There is, then, a perceived contradiction between stereotypes of female-typed care labor and notions of personal profit. At the heart of the stereotypes women face in the workforce, both in paid care and in general, is a belief that the work women are “suited for” is work that should be done out of love and for free. Notions of women at work are antithetical to notions about personal profit.

Limitations

In the present article, we sought to explain low wages in female-stereotyped care labor. We focused on two theories highlighting tensions of love and money in care work: namely, the theory of compensating wage differentials (Filer, 1990) and the fears of commodification argument (e.g., Claassen, 2011). We also introduced the sacred values protection model to highlight that people may see care labor as a taboo tradeoff, trading the sacred (care) for the profane (money), and in doing so, see care labor as work that should not be done for money (Tetlock et al., 2000). However, there are many other ways to think about why low wages persist in care work, including supply-side explanations (i.e., focusing on the nature of individuals supplying labor; human capital theory and work effort, Kaufman, 2010), demand-side explanations (i.e., the gendered segregation of occupations; Cohen & Huffman, 2003), and historical explanations (e.g., enforcement of unpaid reproductive labor to satisfy the needs of capitalism; Federici, 2004; the social construction of caregiving roles; Butler, 1990).

We also focused on low wages as one consequence of the devaluation of care labor, but the devaluation of care can also impact the physical and mental health of care workers. For example, caring for others, especially in demanding and underresourced environments, can be emotionally and physically draining, leading to stress-related illnesses (e.g., hypertension, cardiovascular problems, and chronic pain; e.g., Chang et al., 2021). Care workers may also experience greater burnout and compassion fatigue, given the emotional intensity of their work (e.g., Sabo, 2006). Finally, experiencing gender-based discrimination in the workplace (e.g., low wages) can lead to feelings of frustration, anger, and powerlessness for care workers (Rutman, 1996).

Future Research

As we demonstrated throughout this article, there is a perception that women's work is not meant to be commodified, and this poses a barrier to higher pay in care work. We propose that commodification, though seemingly in conflict with ideas about the sacred value of care, is one mechanism through which care workers can be protected. Below, we suggest potential avenues for research and policy change to help shift this perception at multiple levels: the individual level (i.e., the worker), organizational level (i.e., care agencies), societal level (i.e., collective representations of care work), and systemic level (i.e., care infrastructure).

Individual Level

At the individual level, many of the barriers care workers face involve navigating how to advocate for higher pay themselves. One strategy is to shift the language care workers use to describe their work. Future research can examine whether using a vocabulary of skill (i.e., highlighting technical skills) versus a vocabulary of virtue (i.e., highlighting the relational components of care work) increases support for higher pay in care work, including examining average salaries of care workers in the U.S. over time.

In addition, care workers may struggle to advocate for higher pay because their relationship with their clients can feel more like a family than an employee relationship (England, 2005). Future research can examine whether attachment to clients facilitates the exploitation of care workers, and similarly, how expectations stemming from different modes of relations (e.g., communal vs. market exchange; Fiske & Haslam, 2005) can increase the pay gap between care and noncare workers. Researchers can also examine whether the occupational identity of care workers (i.e., the degree to which care workers’ self-image is attached to their career and sense of being good caregivers) interferes with care workers’ abilities to advocate for better working conditions or leave exploitative work relationships.

Care workers may also struggle to advocate for higher pay as a group—through labor organizing (i.e., collectively bargaining with employers, usually in unions, to improve working conditions)—because they have no centralized workplace or opportunities to create workplace culture (Stacey, 2011). Home care aides, in particular, are employed by several clients and often have very little contact with other caregivers. Future research can examine whether increased contact with other caregivers shifts workers’ willingness to engage in labor organizing, and future policy can provide care workers with communal spaces and other ways of facilitating care worker negotiation.

Organizational Level

One way to facilitate worker contact is for organizations to provide a physical space for workers to interact with one another (this can also be an organizing demand for care workers themselves). Care agencies can do this by creating break rooms or dedicating common spaces in people's homes for workers. Future research can examine whether the presence or absence of a communal space (e.g., a break room) helps shift workplace culture for care workers.

Organizations can also shift the language they use to recruit workers. Researchers can examine whether the type of language used in job listings (e.g., male-typed vs. female-typed) shifts the number of applicants for care jobs. Finally, care agencies can engage in “institutional courage” (Smidt et al., 2023). Specifically, they can demonstrate to care workers that they are committed to the well-being of their workers, and in doing so, help reduce turnover in care work.

Societal Level

Future research can also further investigate and intervene on a societal level understanding of women and care. For example, the research could investigate the regional-level association between women and care or women and the home on the one hand, and men and work on the other (e.g., via the Implicit Association Test) and investigate whether the strength of this relation is associated with greater care wage penalties in those regions of the U.S. (analogous to the relationship between implicit racial bias and lethal use of force by police; Hehman et al., 2018). Research can also investigate interventions to reduce the association between care labor as selfless or as female-typed or both. Possible intervention strategies could include highlighting prominent exemplars of male caregivers and publicizing the contributions of caregivers to the successes of those in their care. We suggest a greater allocation of research money toward these ends.

Systemic Level

The last, and perhaps most meaningful way that researchers can think about shifting the value of care is by examining how current care infrastructures (or lack thereof) facilitate the exploitation of workers. For example, the lack of parental leave and childcare policies in the U.S. often means that women will perform a majority of care labor without pay. Researchers can examine how systems of power and oppression perpetuate disparities in access to care by examining who is most impacted by the low wages, high rates of turnover, and burnout in care work (people of color, immigrants, and people from low socioeconomic backgrounds) and who is most impacted by a lack of care workers (the disabled, ill, young, and old). In the future, we can not only advocate for these policies but analyze their impact on the salaries of care workers and even working mothers in general. We look forward to future work (and funding opportunities to do it) that intervenes on these pervasive ideas and tests the efficacy of these interventions in the short and long term.

Practice Implications

There is a care shortage in the U.S. Increased demands for care, high turnover rates, and an inability to fill vacancies in care work have contributed to this growing shortage. One reason for the undervaluation of care work, as we have established throughout this article, is the struggle to give monetary value to care. So, how can we make care count?

Perhaps the most important way that scholars can increase public recognition of care work is by building a vocabulary that adequately captures the whole of care work—the interpersonal relationships, skilled interventions, and technical expertise involved in the work—and does not invite thinking in terms of a taboo tradeoff. One way care workers can do this is by framing their work using a vocabulary of skill (i.e., highlighting technical skills) and virtue (i.e., highlighting the relational components of care work) to highlight the complexity of their work (MacDonald & Merrill, 2002). In the language of the sacred values protection model, this reframes the taboo tradeoff into a “routine consumption-good tradeoff,” so that care workers are exchanging labor for money. Second, scholars can reframe our understanding of care work so that we understand that without it, harm to dependents (e.g., children and the elderly) is unavoidable. In other words, we could remind people that dependents rely on care workers to meet their needs and would not survive without them (Kittay, 2011). Research suggests that when harm is unavoidable, decision-makers become increasingly willing to entertain costs and benefits and choose among the best options (rather than seek to avoid harm at all costs; Berman & Kupor, 2020). Extending this to care work, acknowledging that harm is unavoidable for dependents (Kittay, 2011) might allow for entertaining costs and benefits (rather than worrying about putting a price on care, see Berman & Kupor, 2020) and create avenues for higher pay and better working conditions for care workers. In the language of the sacred values protection model, this reframes the taboo tradeoff between love and money as a “tragic tradeoff” (Tetlock, 2005), highlighting that putting a price on care is inevitable, but without doing so, harm will come to both dependents (if they do not receive care) and caregivers (if they are exploited). Notably, care workers already use these strategies. Many care workers will go on strike to improve the conditions for those in their care (e.g., health professionals going on strike for more staff to treat the growing number of patients; see Huget, 2020). People and policymakers can adopt this same framing to better advocate for care workers.

There is a fine line between naturalizing women's socialized identities as caregivers and exploiting them. One challenge in increasing the value of care labor is that women are stereotyped to be “naturally good at” providing care, and are therefore expected to do it for free, out of love (Eagly & Steffen, 1984; Prentice & Miller, 2006). To prevent exploitation, public policies must recognize that many people have social identities that make care and work interconnected and focus on balancing the responsibilities of the two (Robinson, 2006). We hope this research challenges the way that scholars talk about care work, and “women's work” more broadly. We propose that commodification (i.e., paying for care), though it is seemingly in conflict with ideas about the sacred value of care, is actually one mechanism through which care workers can be protected if the policy is aimed at doing so.

Conclusion

In this article, we argued that care workers face barriers in their work because of notions at the individual and societal level that earning money is antithetical to stereotypically feminine labor. We began with a brief review of the vast scholarship highlighting the individual- and societal-level barriers that women face at work. These barriers include gendered stereotypes that punish women who advocate for higher pay and the motherhood penalty, which foreshadowed the apparent tension people perceive between caring for others and pay. Then, we turned to care work, a stereotypically feminine form of labor) to show that low wages in these stereotypically feminine jobs can be meaningfully explained by a perceived love versus money tradeoff (e.g., Claassen, 2011; England et al., 2002; Filer, 1990). Finally, we brought in the sacred values protection model (Tetlock et al., 2000), a theory seeking to explain outrage directed at tradeoffs between secular and sacred realms, to further understand low wages for care workers, especially women in care labor. We argued that paid care work might invite thinking in terms of taboo tradeoffs—that is, the work that women are “suited for” is work that should not be paid. We suggest that this tension between femininity and personal profitability may be latent in all paid work that women do. We ended by calling for additional research that aims to understand and challenge these perceptions. We also outlined practical implications for how care workers can use other forms of tradeoffs (routine consumption-good tradeoffs and tragic tradeoffs) to advocate for higher pay while minimizing social backlash. In sum, tensions between love and money in care labor highlight a latent and entrenched barrier for women seeking commensurate and equal pay at work: people conceptualize the very act of making money as a counter to stereotypically feminine labor, the labor of care.

Framework	Hypothesis	Relevance for understanding low wages in care work	Empirical evidence related to care work
Devaluation hypothesis	Occupations experiencing a significant inflow of female workers are devalued.	Care is devalued in economic, political, and ethical terms because it is an activity undertaken by women.	Evidence of low wages in care labor workforce, which is predominantly female (Barron & West, 2013; Budig & Misra, 2010; Duffy, 2007, England et al., 2002) Lower interest in health and education careers compared to science careers, particularly among men (Block et al., 2018) Lower perceived worth to society for care occupations (Block et al., 2018)
Compensating wage differentials	Higher wages are offered to offset the undesirability of a job. Lower wages are offered when a job is desirable.	Because care work offers intrinsic rewards, employers are able to offer lower wages to care workers.	Legitimization of exploitation for workers presumed to be passionate about their work (Kim et al., 2020) Evidence of care penalties (Barron & West, 2013; Budig & Misra, 2010; Duffy, 2007; England et al., 2002) Low wage rates for jobs high in emotional labor demands (Glomb et al., 2004)
Fears of commodification	Some goods, by their very nature, should not be commodified.	People believe that low wages protect the quality and authenticity of care.	Moral limits to markets (Satz, 2010) Asymmetry thesis—women's reproductive labor is intrinsically not a commodity (Anderson, 1993)
Sacred values protection model	If you put a sacred value against a secular one, it will result in moral outrage.	Care workers are paid to provide love and affection to others—and are essentially engaging in taboo tradeoffs every day.	Selling unwanted children to the highest bidder, or selling love, care, and sex, are perceived as taboo tradeoffs (Atran & Axelrod, 2008; Schoemaker & Tetlock, 2012) Nurses face a moral dilemma when going on strike (Huget, 2020)

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We thank Virginia Valian, Yana Kuchirko, Rachel Fikslin, Matthew Lindauer, and members of the Gantman Lab for their valuable feedback on earlier drafts of this manuscript. We would also like to thank Polina Lerman for her help in this research. Finally, we would like to thank our anonymous reviewers for their thoughtfulness. This paper is much better for it.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Grace Flores-Robles

References

Akorsu

(2016). Feminization of labor. In Naples

N. A.

Hoogland

R. C.

Wickramasinghe

Wong

W.-C. A.

(Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell encyclopedia of gender and sexuality studies (pp. 1–3). John Wiley & Sons.

Amanatullah

E. T.

Morris

M. W.

(2010). Negotiating gender roles: Gender differences in assertive negotiating are mediated by women’s fear of backlash and attenuated when negotiating on behalf of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 256–267. https://doi.org/https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0017094

American Association of University Professors. (2022). Faculty Compensation Survey. https://www.aaup.org/2020-21-faculty-compensation-survey-results

Anderson

(1993). Value in ethics and economics. Harvard University Press.

Atran

Axelrod

(2008). Reframing sacred values. Negotiation Journal, 24(3), 221–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2008.00182.x

Babcock

Recalde

M. P.

Vesterlund

Weingart

(2017). Gender differences in accepting and receiving requests for tasks with low promotability. American Economic Review, 107(3), 714–747. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20141734

Barron

D. N.

West

(2013). The financial costs of caring in the British labour market: Is there a wage penalty for workers in caring occupations? British Journal of Industrial Relations, 51(1), 104–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.2011.00884.x

Benard

Correll

S. J.

(2010). Normative discrimination and the motherhood penalty. Gender & Society, 24(5), 616–646. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243210383142

Berman

J. Z.

Kupor

(2020). Moral choice when harming is unavoidable. Psychological Science, 31(10), 1294–1301. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620948821

10.

Berns

G. S.

Bell

Capra

C. M.

Prietula

M. J.

Moore

Anderson

Ginges

Atran

(2012). The price of your soul: Neural evidence for the non-utilitarian representation of sacred values. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367(1589), 754–762. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0262

11.

Bertakis

K. D.

(2009). The influence of gender on the doctor–patient interaction. Patient Education and Counseling, 76(3), 356–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2009.07.022

12.

Blau

F. D.

Kahn

L. M.

(2017). The gender wage gap: Extent, trends, and explanations. Journal of Economic Literature, 55(3), 789–865. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20160995

13.

Blau

F. D.

Winkler

A. E.

(2017). Women, work, and family (No. w23644). National Bureau of Economic Research.

14.

Block

Croft

Schmader

(2018). Worth less?: Why men (and women) devalue care-oriented careers. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article1353. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01353

15.

Boulding

K. E.

(1969). Economics as a moral science. The American Economic Review, 59(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/1811088

16.

Bowles

H. R.

Babcock

Lai

(2007). Social incentives for gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations: Sometimes it does hurt to ask. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(1), 84–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.09.001

17.

Bowles

Polania-Reyes

(2012). Economic incentives and social preferences: Substitutes or complements? Journal of Economic Literature, 50(2), 368–425. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.50.2.368

18.

Branch

E. H.

Wooten

M. E.

(2012). Suited for service: Racialized rationalizations for the ideal domestic servant from the nineteenth to the early twentieth century. Social Science History, 36(2), 169–189. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0145553200011743

19.

Budig

M. J.

England

(2001). The wage penalty for motherhood. American Sociological Review, 66(2), 204–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240106600203

20.

Budig

M. J.

Hodges

M. J.

(2010). Differences in disadvantage: Variation in the motherhood penalty across white women’s earnings distribution. American Sociological Review, 75(5), 705–728. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122410381593

21.

Budig

M. J.

Misra

(2010). How care-work employment shapes earnings in cross-national perspective. International Labour Review, 149(4), 441–460. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2010.00097.x

22.

Budig

M. J.

Misra

Boeckmann

(2012). The motherhood penalty in cross-national perspective: The importance of work–family policies and cultural attitudes. Social Politics, 19(2), 163–193. https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxs006

23.

Bullough Jr

R. V.

Hall-Kenyon

K. M.

(2012). On teacher hope, sense of calling, and commitment to teaching. Teacher Education Quarterly, 39(2), 7–27. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/23479669

24.

Butler

(1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of Identity. Routledge.

25.

Carvalho

L. F.

Rodrigues

(2015). Are markets everywhere? Understanding contemporary processes of commodification. In Davis

J. B.

Dolfsma

(Eds.), The Elgar companion to social economics (2nd ed., pp. 293–313). Edward Elgar Publishing.

26.

Chang

P. Y.

Chiou

S. T.

W. Y.

Huang

Chien

L. Y.

(2021). Stressors and level of stress among different nursing positions and the associations with hyperlipidemia, hyperglycemia, and hypertension: A national questionnaire survey. BMC Nursing, 20(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-021-00777-y

27.

Chen

J. J.

(2008). Ordinary vs. extraordinary: Differential reactions to men’s and women’s prosocial behavior in the workplace [Doctoral dissertation, New York University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

28.

Cheng

(2016). The accumulation of (dis) advantage: The intersection of gender and race in the long-term wage effect of marriage. American Sociological Review, 81(1), 29–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122415621263

29.

Claassen

(2011). The commodification of care. Hypatia, 26(1), 43–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2010.01146.x

30.

Cohen

P. N.

Huffman

M. L.

(2003). Occupational segregation and the devaluation of women's work across US labor markets. Social Forces, 81(3), 881–908. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2003.0027

31.

Conway

Pizzamiglio

M. T.

Mount

(1996). Status, communality, and agency: Implications for stereotypes of gender and other groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.25

32.

Correll

S. J.

Benard

Paik

(2007). Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty? American Journal of Sociology, 112(5), 1297–1338. https://doi.org/10.1086/511799

33.

Curry

O. S.

Chesters

M. J.

Van Lissa

C. J.

(2019). Mapping morality with a compass: Testing the theory of ‘morality-as-cooperation’ with a new questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality, 78, 106–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.10.008

34.

Deci

E. L.

Koestner

Ryan

R. M.

(1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(3), 627–668. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627

35.

Diekman

A. B.

Brown

E. R.

Johnston

A. M.

Clark

E. K.

(2010). Seeking congruity between goals and roles: A new look at why women opt out of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. Psychological Science, 21(8), 1051–1057. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610377342

36.

Dill

J. S.

Price-Glynn

Rakovski

(2016). Does the “glass escalator” compensate for the devaluation of care work occupations? The careers of men in low-and middle-skill health care jobs. Gender & Society, 30(2), 334–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243215624656

37.

Domingo

C. R.

Gerber

N. C.

Harris

Mamo

Pasion

S. G.

Rebanal

R. D.

Rosser

S. V.

(2022). More service or more advancement: Institutional barriers to academic success for women and women of color faculty at a large public comprehensive minority-serving state university. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 15(3), 365–379. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000292

38.

Duffy

(2007). Doing the dirty work: Gender, race, and reproductive labor in historical perspective. Gender & Society, 21(3), 313–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243207300764

39.

Duffy

(2015). Beyond outsourcing: Paid care work in historical perspective. In Duffy

Armenia

Stacey

C. L.

(Eds.), Caring on the clock (pp. 14–26). Rutgers University Press.

40.

Dwyer

R. E.

(2013). The care economy? Gender, economic restructuring, and job polarization in the US labor market. American Sociological Review, 78(3), 390–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122413487197

41.

Eagly

A. H.

Makhijani

M. G.

Klonsky

B. G.

(1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.111.1.3

42.

Eagly

A. H.

Steffen

V. J.

(1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(4), 735–754. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.4.735

43.

Earp

B. D.

McLoughlin

K. L.

Monrad

J. T.

Clark

M. S.

Crockett

M. J.

(2021). How social relationships shape moral wrongness judgments. Nature Communications, 12(1), 5776. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26067-4

44.

England

(2005). Emerging theories of care work. Annual Review of Sociology, 31, 381–399. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.31.041304.122317

45.

England

Budig

Folbre

(2002). Wages of virtue: The relative pay of care work. Social Problems, 49(4), 455–473. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2002.49.4.455

46.

Federici

(2004). Caliban and the witch: Women, the body, and primitive accumulation. Autonomedia.

47.

Filer

R. K.

(1990). Compensating differentials and the male-female wage gap: A comment. Social Forces, 69(2), 469–473. https://doi.org/10.2307/2579668

48.

Fiske

A. P.

Haslam

(2005). The four basic social bonds: Structures for coordinating interaction. In Baldwin

M. W.

(Ed.), Interpersonal cognition (pp. 267–298). Guilford Press.

49.

Flores-Robles

Gantman

A. P.

(2023). Love vs. money: Understanding unique barriers to care workers’ labor organizing. In Lindauer

(Ed.), Advances in experimental political philosophy (pp. 215–236). Bloomsbury Publishing.

50.

Folbre

(2017). The care penalty and gender inequality. In Averett

S. L.

Argys

L. M.

Hoffman

S. D.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of women and the economy (pp. 749–766). Oxford University Press.

51.

Fortin

N. M.

(2008). The gender wage gap among young adults in the United States: The importance of money versus people. Journal of Human Resources, 43(4), 884–918. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.43.4.884

52.

Frey

B. S.

(1997). On the relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic work motivation. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 15(4), 427–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-7187(96)01028-4

53.

Gao

Tian

(2023). The effect of motherhood on wages: Are women’s wage penalties due to lack of career aspirations? Applied Economics, 55(54), 6410–6426. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2022.2156469

54.

Gaucher

Friesen

Kay

A. C.

(2011). Evidence that gendered wording in job advertisements exists and sustains gender inequality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(1), 109–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022530

55.

Gilligan

(1987). Moral orientation and moral development. In Kittay

Meyers

(Eds.), Women and moral theory (pp. 19–33). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

56.

Gilligan

Attanucci

(1988). Two moral orientations: Gender differences and similarities. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 34(3), 223–237. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/23086381

57.

Ginges

Atran

(2014). Sacred values and cultural conflict. In Gelfand

M. J.

Chiu

C.-Y.

Hong

Y.-Y.

(Eds.), Advances in culture and psychology (pp. 273–301). Oxford University Press.

58.

Glauber

(2008). Race and gender in families and at work: The fatherhood wage premium. Gender & Society, 22(1), 8–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243207311593

59.

Glomb

T. M.

Kammeyer-Mueller

J. D.

Rotundo

(2004). Emotional labor demands and compensating wage differentials. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 700–714. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.700

60.

Gneezy

Rustichini

(2000). A fine is a price. The Journal of Legal Studies, 29(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1086/468061

61.

Goubert

Cai

J. Y.

Appelbaum

(2021). Home health care: Latinx and Black women are overrepresented, but all women face heightened risk of poverty. Center for Economic and Policy Research. https://cepr.net/home-health-care-latinx-and-black-women-are-overrepresented-but-all-women-face-heightened-risk-of-poverty/

62.

Govrin

(2014). From ethics of care to psychology of care: Reconnecting ethics of care to contemporary moral psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article1135. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01135

63.

Graham

Nosek

B. A.

Haidt

Iyer

Koleva

Ditto

P. H.

(2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366–385. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021847

64.

Gray

Waytz

Young

(2012). The moral dyad: A fundamental template unifying moral judgment. Psychological Inquiry, 23(2), 206–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2012.686247

65.

Hamlin

J. K.

Wynn

Bloom

Mahajan

(2011). How infants and toddlers react to antisocial others. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(50), 19931–19936. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1110306108

66.

Hehman

Flake

J. K.

Calanchini

(2018). Disproportionate use of lethal force in policing is associated with regional racial biases of residents. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(4), 393–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617711229

67.

Heilman

M. E.

(2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women's ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 657–674. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00234

68.

Heilman

M. E.

(2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 113–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2012.11.003

69.

Heilman

M. E.

Caleo

(2018). Combatting gender discrimination: A lack of fit framework. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(5), 725–744. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430218761587

70.

Heilman

M. E.

Caleo

Halim

M. L.

(2010). Just the thought of it!: Effects of anticipating computer-mediated communication on gender stereotyping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(4), 672–675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.02.005

71.

Hochschild

Machung

(2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home. Penguin.

72.

Huget

(2020). Care workers on strike. Feminist Philosophy Quarterly, 6(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.5206/fpq/2020.1.8063

73.

Janoff-Bulman

Carnes

N. C.

(2013). Surveying the moral landscape: Moral motives and group-based moralities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(3), 219–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868313480274

74.

Kaufman

R. L.

(2010). Race, gender, and the labor market: Inequalities at work. Lynne Rienner Publishers.

75.

Kim

J. Y.

Campbell

T. H.

Shepherd

Kay

A. C.

(2020). Understanding contemporary forms of exploitation: Attributions of passion serve to legitimize the poor treatment of workers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(1), 121–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000190

76.

Kittay

E. F.

(2011). The ethics of care, dependence, and disability. Ratio Juris, 24(1), 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9337.2010.00473.x

77.

Kohlberg

(1971). Stages of moral development. Moral Education, 1(51), 23–92. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442656758-004

78.

Latu

I. M.

Stewart

T. L.

Myers

A. C.

Lisco

C. G.

Estes

S. B.

Donahue

D. K.

(2011). What we “say” and what we “think” about female managers: Explicit versus implicit associations of women with success. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35(2), 252–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684310383811

79.

Lips

Lawson

(2009). Work values, gender, and expectations about work commitment and pay: Laying the groundwork for the “motherhood penalty”? Sex Roles, 61(9), 667–676. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9670-0

80.

Lundberg

Rose

(2002). The effects of sons and daughters on men's labor supply and wages. Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(2), 251–268. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465302317411514

81.

Luo

X. I.

Schleifer

(2020). Is there a marriage or parenthood effect on police income? Policing: An International Journal, 43(4), 559–574. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-12-2019-0195

82.

Lyness

K. S.

Judiesch

M. K.

(1999). Are women more likely to be hired or promoted into management positions? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54(1), 158–173. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1998.1646

83.

MacDonald

C. L.

Merrill

D. A.

(2002). It shouldn't have to be a trade: Recognition and redistribution in care work advocacy. Hypatia, 17(2), 67–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2002.tb00766.x

84.

MacNell

Driscoll

Hunt

A. N.

(2015). What’s in a name: Exposing gender bias in student ratings of teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 40(4), 291–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-014-9313-4

85.

Mazei

Hüffmeier

Freund

P. A.

Stuhlmacher

A. F.

Bilke

Hertel

(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

86.

Mellström

Johannesson

(2008). Crowding out in blood donation: Was Titmuss right? Journal of the European Economic Association, 6(4), 845–863. https://doi.org/10.1162/JEEA.2008.6.4.845

87.

Misra

Kuvaeva

O'meara

Culpepper

D. K.

Jaeger

(2021). Gendered and racialized perceptions of faculty workloads. Gender & Society, 35(3), 358–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243221100138

88.

Morgenroth

Kirby

T. A.

Ryan

M. K.

Sudkämper

(2020). The who, when, and why of the glass cliff phenomenon: A meta-analysis of appointments to precarious leadership positions. Psychological Bulletin, 146(9), 797–829. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000234

89.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2021). Characteristics of public school teachers. Annual reports and information staff (Annual reports). https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/clr

90.

National Council of State Boards of Nursing. (2020). NCSBN’s environmental scan: A portrait of nursing and healthcare in 2020 and beyond. Journal of Nursing Regulation, 10(4), S1–S35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2155-8256(20)30022-3

91.

Nelson

J. A.

England

(2002). Feminist philosophies of love and work. Hypatia, 17(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2002.tb00762.x

92.

Noddings

(2012). The language of care ethics. Knowledge Quest, 40(5), 52–56.

93.

Pateman

(1988). The sexual contract. Stanford University Press.

94.

Paz-Fuchs

(2021). Trainees-the new army of cheap labour: Lessons from workfare. In Stewart

Owens

O'Higgins

Hewitt

(Eds.), Internships, employability and the search for decent work experience (pp. 255–268). Edward Elgar Publishing.

95.

Pérez-Sánchez

Madueño

S. E.

Montaner

(2021). Gender gap in the leadership of health institutions: The influence of hospital-level factors. Health Equity, 5(1), 521–525. https://doi.org/10.1089/heq.2021.0013

96.

Potera

(2015). In nursing it still pays more to be a man. AJN The American Journal of Nursing, 115(6), 14. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000466300.61755.7d

97.

Prentice

D. A.

Miller

D. T.

(2006). Essentializing differences between women and men. Psychological Science, 17(2), 129–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01675.x

98.

Rai

T. S.

Fiske

A. P.

(2011). Moral psychology is relationship regulation: Moral motives for unity, hierarchy, equality, and proportionality. Psychological Review, 118(1), 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021867

99.

Ridgeway

C. L.

Correll

S. J.

(2004). Motherhood as a status characteristic. Journal of Social Issues, 60(4), 683–700. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00380.x

100.

Roberts

B. W.

Robins

R. W.

(2000). Broad dispositions, broad aspirations: The intersection of personality traits and major life goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(10), 1284–1296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200262009

101.

Robinson

(2006). Beyond labour rights: The ethics of care and women's work in the global economy. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 8(3), 321–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616740600792871

102.

Rode

Gómez-Baggethun

Krause

(2015). Motivation crowding by economic incentives in conservation policy: A review of the empirical evidence. Ecological Economics, 117(C), 270–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.11.019

103.

Rudman

L. A.

Moss-Racusin

C. A.

Glick

Phelan

J. E.

(2012). Reactions to vanguards: Advances in backlash theory. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 45, pp. 167–227). Academic Press.

104.

Rudman

L. A.

Phelan

J. E.

(2008). Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28(3), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.003

105.

Rutman

(1996). Child care as women's work: Workers’ experiences of powerfulness and powerlessness. Gender & Society, 10(5), 629–649. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124396010005008

106.

Sabo

B. M.

(2006). Compassion fatigue and nursing work: Can we accurately capture the consequences of caring work? International Journal of Nursing Practice, 12(3), 136–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-172X.2006.00562.x

107.

Sandel

M. J.

(2012). What money can't buy: The moral limits of markets. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

108.

Satz

(2010). Why some things should not be for sale: The moral limits of markets. Oxford University Press.

109.

Schoemaker

P. J.

Tetlock

P. E.

(2012). Taboo scenarios: How to think about the unthinkable. California Management Review, 54(2), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2012.54.2.5

110.

Shan

Keller

Joseph

(2019). Are men better negotiators everywhere? A meta-analysis of how gender differences in negotiation performance vary across cultures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(6), 651–675. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2357

111.

Smidt

A. M.

Adams-Clark

A. A.

Freyd

J. J.

(2023). Institutional courage buffers against institutional betrayal, protects employee health, and fosters organizational commitment following workplace sexual harassment. Plos One, 18(1), Article e0278830. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278830

112.

Stacey

C. L.

(2011). The caring self: The work experiences of home care aides. Cornell University Press.

113.

Tellhed

Bäckström

Björklund

(2018). The role of ability beliefs and agentic vs. communal career goals in adolescents’ first educational choice. What explains the degree of gender-balance? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 104, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.09.008

114.

Tellhed

Björklund

Kallio Strand

(2023). Tech-savvy men and caring women: Middle school students’ gender stereotypes predict interest in tech-education. Sex Roles, 88(7-8), 307–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-023-01353-1

115.

Tetlock

P. E.

(2005). Expert political judgment: How good is it? How can we know? Princeton University Press.

116.

Tetlock

P. E.

Kristel

O. V.

Elson

S. B.

Green

M. C.

Lerner

J. S.

(2000). The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 853–870. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.5.853

117.

Tinsley

C. H.

Cheldelin

S. I.

Schneider

A. K.

Amanatullah

E. T.

(2009). Women at the bargaining table: Pitfalls and prospects. Negotiation Journal, 25(2), 233–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2009.00222.x

118.

Toosi

N. R.

Mor

Semnani-Azad

Phillips

K. W.

Amanatullah

E. T.

(2019). Who can lean in? The intersecting role of race and gender in negotiations. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 43(1), 7–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684318800492

119.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2021). Occupational outlook handbook .

120.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2022). Over 16 million women worked in health care and social assistance in 2021. https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2022/over-16-million-women-worked-in-health-care-and-social-assistance-in-2021.htm

121.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2023). Women in the labor force: A databook. https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/womens-databook/2022/home.htm

122.

U. S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2020). Race and ethnicity of public school teachers and their students. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2020/2020103.pdf

123.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, National Center for Health Workforce Analysis. (2019). Brief summary results from the 2018 National Sample Survey of Registered Nurses. https://bhw.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/bureau-health-workforce/data-research/nssrn-summary-report.pdf

124.

Walker

M. U.

(2007). Moral understandings: A feminist study in ethics. Oxford University Press.

125.

Waytz

Iyer

Young

Haidt

Graham

(2019). Ideological differences in the expanse of the moral circle. Nature Communications, 10(1), 1–12. https://€doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12227-0

126.

Wegemer

C. M.

Eccles

J. S.

(2019). Gendered STEM career choices: Altruistic values, beliefs, and identity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 110(Part A), 28–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.10.020

127.

Wolfe

Kandra

Engdahl

Shierholz

(2020, May 14). Domestic workers chartbook: A comprehensive look at the demographics, wages, benefits, and poverty rates of the professionals who care for our family members and clean our homes. Economic Policy Institute. 7–12. https://www.epi.org/publication/domestic-workers-chartbook-a-comprehensive-look-at-the-demographics-wages-benefits-and-poverty-rates-of-the-professionals-who-care-for-our-family-members-and-clean-our-homes/

128.

Yoon

K. H.

Kim

B. Y.

Eom

J. G.

(2019). The effects of job crafting on career success of multinational corporations’ employees. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 6(4)€€, 213–225. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2019.vol6.no4.213

129.

Zippia. (2022). Superintendent demographics and statistics in the U.S. https://www.zippia.com/superintendent-jobs/demographics/