English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Analyses of political, economic, and social actors’ discourses in favour or against gender quotas are extensive but, to date, only a handful of opinion studies have examined support for such a controversial policy whose enactment does not necessarily dissolve opposition. This is particularly the case of citizens holding modern sexism attitudes who dismiss or resent quotas using the language of equality. This article examines how support for this policy can be shaped through legitimacy cues and question wording. The empirical analysis builds on two framing experiments embedded in a representative survey fielded in Catalonia (Spain), where gender quotas in politics and private businesses were introduced over a decade ago. Our results show that, even among respondents holding modern sexism attitudes, priming the legal framework yields positive effects on support for electoral quotas, whilst the endorsement of gender balance in corporate boards increases when the question does not mention the word quotas.

Shaping support for public policies: legitimacy cues and question wording effects in the case of gender quotas