If you're going to be a leader, at least act like it! Prejudice towards women who are tentative in leader roles

University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
British Journal of Social Psychology (Impact Factor: 1.76). 03/2013; 53(2). DOI: 10.1111/bjso.12032
Source: PubMed


Role congruity theory predicts prejudice towards women who meet the agentic requirements of the leader role. In line with recent findings indicating greater acceptance of agentic behaviour from women, we find evidence for a more subtle form of prejudice towards women who fail to display agency in leader roles. Using a classic methodology, the agency of male and female leaders was manipulated using assertive or tentative speech, presented through written (Study 1, N = 167) or verbal (Study 2, N = 66) communications. Consistent with predictions, assertive women were as likeable and influential as assertive men, while being tentative in leadership reduced the likeability and influence of women, but not of men. Although approval of agentic behaviour from women in leadership reflects progress, evidence that women are quickly singled out for disapproval if they fail to show agency is important for understanding how they continue to be at a distinct disadvantage to men in leader roles.

Download full-text


Available from: Renata Bongiorno, Mar 31, 2015
140 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Describes the development of a new sex-role inventory that treats masculinity and femininity as 2 independent dimensions, thereby making it possible to characterize a person as masculine, feminine, or "androgynous" as a function of the difference between his or her endorsement of masculine and feminine personality characteristics. Normative data, provided by 561 male and 356 female college and junior college students, are presented, as well as the results of various psychometric analyses. Findings indicate that: (a) The dimensions of masculinity and femininity are empirically and logically independent. (b) The concept of psychological androgyny is a reliable one. (c) Highly sex-typed scores do not reflect a general tendency to respond in a socially desirable direction, but rather a specific tendency to describe oneself in accordance with sex-typed standards of desirable behavior for men and women. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
    Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 05/1974; 42(2):155-62. DOI:10.1037/h0036215 · 4.85 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Three experiments tested and extended recent theory regarding motivational influences on impression formation (S. T. Fiske & S. L. Neuberg, 1990; J. L. Hilton & J. M. Darley, 1991) in the context of an impression management dilemma that women face: Self-promotion may be instrumental for managing a competent impression, yet women who self-promote may suffer social reprisals for violating gender prescriptions to be modest. Experiment 1 investigated the influence of perceivers' goals on processes that inhibit stereotypical thinking, and reactions to counterstereotypical behavior. Experiments 2-3 extended these findings by including male targets. For female targets, self-promotion led to higher competence ratings but incurred social attraction and hireability costs unless perceivers were outcome-dependent males. For male targets, self-effacement decreased competence and hireability ratings, though its effects on social attraction were inconsistent.
    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 03/1998; 74(3):629-45. DOI:10.1037//0022-3514.74.3.629 · 5.08 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Stereotypes may influence judgment via assimilation, such that individual group members are evaluated consistently with stereotypes, or via contrast, such that targets are displaced from the overall group expectation. Two models of judgment--the shifting standards model and status characteristics theory--provide some insight into predicting and interpreting these apparently contradictory effects. In 2 studies involving a simulated applicant-evaluation setting, we predicted and found that participants set lower minimum-competency standards, but higher ability standards, for female than for male and for Black than for White applicants. Thus, although it may be easier for low- than high-status group members to meet (low) standards, these same people must work harder to prove that their performance is ability based.
    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 04/1997; 72(3):544-57. DOI:10.1037//0022-3514.72.3.544 · 5.08 Impact Factor
Show more