I Don’t Know Anything About Soccer: How Personal Weaknesses and Strengths Guide Inferences About Women’s Qualification in Sex-Typed Jobs

Abstract

A great deal of research has been dedicated to the difficulties women face in business management domains because they lack the required "masculinity" in terms of masculine skills and traits. Previous work has shown that when males are judged, failures in typical feminine tasks can signal high masculinity and can therefore become an asset in terms of attributed occupational success in a typical masculine job (i.e., manager position). However, jobs at lower levels of organizational hierarchies differ in their trait requirements, with some jobs requiring mostly typical feminine traits and others mostly typical masculine traits. The present study therefore tested and found support for the hypothesis that personal weaknesses and strengths in a feminine or masculine domain guide recruiters’ inferences about a candidate’s gender prototypicality. These inferences, in turn, predict job-suitability ratings for sex-typed jobs. It is shown that for women, too, stating weaknesses can sometimes be more advantageous than stating strengths.

Full text

M.-A. Reinhard et al.: Inferences About Women ’s Qualification in Sex-Typed JobsSwissJ. Psychol. 70 (3) © 2011 by Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
Original Communication
“I Don’t Know Anything About Soccer”
How Personal Weaknesses and Strengths Guide
Inferences About Women’s Qualification in Sex-Typed Jobs
Marc-André Reinhard, Simon Schindler, Dagmar Stahlberg,
Matthias Messner, and Nadine Mucha
University of Mannheim, Germany
Swiss Journal of Psychology, 70 (3), 2011, 149–154
DOI 10.1024/1421-0185/a000050
Abstract. A great deal of research has been dedicated to the difficulties women face in business management domains because they lack
the required “masculinity” in terms of masculine skills and traits. Previous work has shown that when males are judged, failures in typical
feminine tasks can signal high masculinity and can therefore become an asset in terms of attributed occupational success in a typical
masculine job (i.e., manager position). However, jobs at lower levels of organizational hierarchies differ in their trait requirements, with
some jobs requiring mostly typical feminine traits and others mostly typical masculine traits. The present study therefore tested and found
support for the hypothesis that personal weaknesses and strengths in a feminine or masculine domain guide recruiters’ inferences about
a candidate’s gender prototypicality. These inferences, in turn, predict job-suitability ratings for sex-typed jobs. It is shown that for women,
too, stating weaknesses can sometimes be more advantageous than stating strengths.
Keywords: stereotypes, gender typicality, personal weaknesses and strengths, job suitability, sex-typed jobs
In most organizations, selection interviews are an impor-
tant instrument for screening and hiring job candidates.
One of the most frequent questions interviewers ask is
about personal strengths and weaknesses (e.g., Püttjer &
Schnierda, 2008). In this study, we want to investigate what
kinds of strengths and weaknesses result in higher levels of
perceived job suitability and, further, whether stating a
weakness can sometimes be more advantageous than stat-
ing a strength.
Past research has led us to conclude that interviewers’
hiring decisions are affected by stereotypical beliefs about
the job requirements and stereotypical beliefs about the at-
tributes of the applicant. The lack-of-fit model (Heilman,
1983, 2001) postulates that typical masculine skills or
agentic traits (e.g., Eagly, 1987; Madera, Hebl, & Martin,
2009) are essential for performing a typical masculine job,
while typical feminine skills or communal traits are more
important for typical feminine jobs (e.g., Heilman, 2001;
Stahlberg & Sczesny, 2001). Correspondingly, research has
also demonstrated that if people are asked to predict the
occupational success of others in gender-typical domains,
differences based on a target’s gender typicality can be ex-
pected (e.g., Glick, Zion, & Nelson, 1988; Hareli, Klang,
& Hess, 2008; Ward, 1991). Hareli et al. (2008), for exam-
ple, found that hiring decisions were influenced by the de-
gree of femininity and masculinity attributed to male and
female candidates as inferred from their career history.
Whereas the presence of gender-typical traits seems to
be associated with proposed success in gender-appropriate
occupations, the absence of gender-atypical traits might
also foster perceptions of gender typicality (Hogg, 2006;
Reinhard, Stahlberg, & Messner, 2008). According to so-
cial identity theory, perceiving someone as a prototypical
exemplar of a group depends on meta-contrast-based per-
ceptions (e.g., Hogg, 2006). The more a person’s charac-
teristics fit the ingroup prototype, and the less they fit the
outgroup prototype, the more prototypical the person
seems to be for his or her ingroup. This means, for example,
that a man is likely to be evaluated as prototypically mas-
culine if he possesses typical masculine traits while simul-
taneously lacking typical feminine traits. This led to the
suggestion by Reinhard and colleagues (2008) that, while
successes and personal strengths might normally be evalu-
ated positively (e.g., Weiner & Kukla, 1970; Yarkin, Town,
& Wallston, 1982), failures or personal shortcomings can
sometimes serve equally positive evaluative functions.
This was expected to be true when personal shortcomings
(e.g., in skills, traits, knowledge) would indicate high group
prototypicality that, in turn, would be indicative for success
in certain domains. An interesting consequence of this rea-
soning is that men actually profit from being deficient in
feminine domains in terms of future career prospects (i.e.,
manager position) because failure in these domains renders
them highly masculine (failure-as-an-asset [FA] effect, see
Swiss J. Psychol. 70 (3) © 2011 by Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern

Reinhard et al., 2008). There is strong theoretical as well
as empirical consensus that typical masculine traits are
highly recommended for advancing in organizational hier-
archies (see the so-called “think-manager-think-male” ste-
reotype; Heilman, Martell, & Simon, 1988; Schein, 2001;
Stahlberg & Sczesny, 2001).
The current research focuses on the effect for feminine
targets, going beyond previous findings demonstrating an FA
effect for masculine targets concerning the global evaluation
of future career success. Based on the lack-of-fit framework
(Heilman, 1983, 2001), the prototypicality assumptions
(Hogg, 2006), and recent empirical evidence regarding the
FA concept (Reinhard et al.,2008), we suggest the following:
If,for example, feminine traits ratherthanmasculinetraits are
predictive of success in certain occupational domains (e.g.,in
a typical feminine job), it should be more advantageous for
women to state a masculine weakness than a masculine
strength. We assume this because a masculine weakness ren-
ders them highly feminine, which is in turn indicative for
success in female domains. This should be true especially in
the case of entry-level jobs, given that those jobs differ with
respect to required typical feminine or typical masculine
traits (see Matlin, 2003). Thus, we had two main hypotheses
(H1 & H2): First, women will be rated as more suitable for a
female-typed job (e.g., secretary) when they (a) have a
strength (vs. weakness) in a typical feminine domain (H1a;
e.g., very knowledgeable about interior decorating) or when
they (b) have a weakness (vs. strength) in a typical masculine
domain (H2b; e.g., uninformed about soccer). Second, wom-
en will be rated as being more suitable for a male-typed job
(e.g., car mechanic) when they (a) have a strength (vs. weak-
ness) in a typical masculine domain (H2a; e.g., expert in soc-
cer) or when they (b) have a weakness (vs. strength) in a
typical feminine domain (H2b; e.g., uninformed about interi-
or decorating). The perception of female prototypicality
should mediate suitability ratings for the typical feminine job
(H3a). Moreover, the perception of male prototypicality
should mediate suitability ratings for the typical male job
(H3b; see Reinhard et al., 2008). This is because femininity
should be more important than masculinity for the proper
execution of female-typed jobs, and, in turn, masculinity
shouldbe moreimportant thanfemininityfor male-typed jobs
(e.g., Glick et al., 1988; Hareli et al., 2008; Ward, 1991). The
crucial point is thatfemale (ormale) prototypicality isexpect-
ed to result not only from the presence of typical feminine (or
masculine) knowledge, but also from the absence of typical
masculine (or feminine) knowledge.
Method
Subjects and Design
According to the research assumption that experienced re-
cruiters are not superior to inexperienced recruiters, the de-
cision to use a student population is justified (Dipboye &
Jackson, 1999). Thus, subjects were 74 students (39 wom-
en, 35 men, M
age
= 23.96, SD = 3.07) at one of the leading
German universities for economics. Participation took 15
minutes, was paid, and voluntary. The experiment was con-
ducted in single sessions and followed a 2 (Sex type of job:
masculine vs. feminine) × 2 (Sex type of knowledge: fem-
inine vs. masculine) × 2 (Statement quality: personal weak-
ness vs. strength) between-subjects factorial design. Partic-
ipants were randomly assigned to experimental conditions.
Participant’s sex was controlled by assigning an equal
number of females and males to each condition.
Procedure
Depending on the experimental condition, participants eval-
uated a female candidate (named Petra S.) for an entry-level
position in public relations versus IT/software engineering
(i.e., feminine vs. masculine job) in an anonymous German
firm. Participants’ evaluations of Petra S. were based on an
alleged excerpt from the hiring interviewthathad supposedly
been conducted by the personnel manager after Petra S. had
applied for the job. The excerpt contained a question that is
one of the most frequent questions in selection interviews
(Püttjer & Schnierda, 2008): “Outside of the occupational
context, what personal weakness/strength do you have?” De-
pending on the experimental condition, Petra S. discussed
either a personal weakness or a strength concerning a femi-
nine or a masculine domain. After reading the excerpt, par-
ticipants were to evaluate Petra S. on several dimensions,
including her suitability for the job, her femininity, and her
masculinity. This procedure was successfully used in prior
research (Reinhard et al., 2008). Finally, all participants were
carefully debriefed and thanked for their participation.
Material
Job Descriptions
The masculine job was described as an entry-level position
in the field of information technology (IT)/software engi-
neering. The job posting introduced the announced position
as requiring typical masculine characteristics (e.g., inter-
ested and skilled in technical work, analytically skilled, de-
cisive) in a typically masculine work environment. By con-
trast, the feminine job was described as an entry-level po-
sition in the field of public relations. The job posting
introduced the position as requiring typically feminine
characteristics (e.g., interested in public affairs, communi-
cative, verbally skilled) in a female-dominated occupation-
al field. A pretest with 24 participants showed that these
job postings significantly differed in their perceived re-
quirements. The masculine job was evaluated on a 9-point
scale (1 = feminine to 9 = masculine) as requiring more
masculine traits (M = 6.79), whereas the feminine job was
perceived as requiring more feminine traits (M = 3.27),
150 M.-A. Reinhard et al.: Inferences About Women’s Qualification in Sex-Typed Jobs
Swiss J. Psychol. 70 (3) © 2011 by Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern

F(1, 22) = 53.37, p < .001. Both means differed signifi-
cantly from the scale midpoint of 5; masculine job: t(11) =
5.15, p < .001; feminine job: t(11) = –5.16, p < .001.
Candidates’ Job Interview Statements
Four standardized responses to the interviewer question were
constructed to manipulate the factors Statement quality (per-
sonal weakness vs. strength) and Sex type of knowledge
(feminine vs. masculine knowledge). Petra S. responded that
she was good (personal strength) or bad (personal weakness)
in a feminine (knowledge about interior decorating) or mas-
culine domain (knowledge about soccer). For example, the
statement concerning a personal weakness in a typical mas-
culine domain was: “I don’t know anything at all about soc-
cer. When I watch soccer games, I cannot recognize the tac-
tical approaches of the teams. I believe that I am very badly
informed about the German soccer league and about foreign
soccer leagues as well. If you were to ask me about a soccer
game, I would not be able to tell you who won.” A pretest
with 27 participants showed that, compared with the scale
midpointof 4, beingknowledgeable about interiordecorating
wasseenasa typicalfeminine knowledgedomain(M =2.46),
t(26) = –6.16, p < .001, whereas being knowledgeable about
soccer was perceived as a typical masculine knowledge do-
main (M = 5.56), t(26) = 7.00, p < .001. Thus, the two knowl-
edge domains were perceived as feminine or masculine to a
similar extent.
Measures
Participants evaluated the female candidate on the dimen-
sions job suitability, masculinity, and femininity. Using bipo-
lar scales ranging from –5 (extremely unlikely)to+5(ex-
tremely likely), participants indicated the likelihood (1) that
the candidate is qualified for the announced position, and (2)
that they would personally hire the candidate for the an-
nouncedposition. Participantsresponded to all otheritems on
9-point scales rangingfrom 1 (strongly disagree)to9(strong-
ly agree). We assessed candidate’s perceived femininity with
three items taken from Bem’s Sex-Role Inventory (1974;
Schneider-Düker & Kohler, 1988): “Petra S. is very femi-
nine, compassionate, does not use harsh language.” Per-
ceivedmasculinity wasinferredfromresponsestothreeitems
out of Bem’s sex-role inventory: “Petra S. is very masculine,
competitive, assertive.” Finally, manipulations were
checked.
Results
Overview
Unless noted otherwise, responses to all measures were
analyzed using 2 (Sex type of job) × 2 (Sex type of
knowledge) × 2 (Statement quality) analyses of variance
(ANOVAs). No reliable effects were found for sex of par-
ticipants and therefore the data were pooled over this
variable.
Manipulation Checks
Analyses showed that participants evaluated the position in
IT/software engineering as requiring more masculine traits
(M = 7.47), whereas that in public relations was seen as re-
quiring more feminine traits (M =3.83),F(1, 66) = 159.58,
p < .001. Both means differed significantly from the scale
midpoint of 5; masculine job: t(37) = 12.49, p < .001; femi-
nine job: t(37) = –5.37, p <.001.
Job Suitability
Job suitability scores (index of qualification and hiring
items, α = .90) are summarized in Table 1 as a function of
sex type of job, sex type of knowledge, and statement qual-
ity. The analysis revealed a marginally significant main ef-
fect for sex type of knowledge, F(1, 66) = 3.73, p = .058,
indicating that having feminine knowledge led to higher
Table 1
Mean evaluation of candidate’s job suitability, masculinity, and femininity as a function of sex type of job, sex type of
knowledge, and statement quality (N = 74)
Feminine knowledge Masculine knowledge
Weakness Strength Weakness Strength
Job suitability Masculine job 0.40
a
(1.97) –1.67
b
(1.85) –1.72
b
(1.68) 0.39
a
(2.28)
Feminine job –0.20
a
(2.30) 1.06
ab
(2.44) –0.22
a
(2.59) –2.25
c
(1.25)
Femininity Masculine job 4.19
a
(1.94) 6.26
b
(1.45) 5.67
c
(1.94) 5.63
c
(1.63)
Feminine job 4.63
a
(1.22) 6.67
b
(1.11) 5.11
c
(1.57) 3.70
d
(1.25)
Masculinity Masculine job 5.00
a
(1.42) 4.33
b
(1.61) 4.33
b
(1.93) 6.96
c
(0.68)
Feminine job 5.60
a
(1.13) 5.41
a
(1.77) 4.56
b
(1.68) 6.23
c
(1.82)
Note. Participants per cell varied between 9 and 10. Standard deviations are in parentheses. Means within each row with different superscripts
differ significantly at p < .05. Job suitability ratings range from –5 to +5; higher means express higher perceived job suitability. Femininity/mas-
culinity ratings were measured on 9-point scales; higher means express higher perceived femininity/masculinity.
M.-A. Reinhard et al.: Inferences About Women’s Qualification in Sex-Typed Jobs 151
Swiss J. Psychol. 70 (3) © 2011 by Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern

job suitability ratings than having masculine knowledge
(Ms = –.03 vs. –1.01). Over and above this effect, the pre-
dicted three-way interaction was significant, indicating that
for different sex-typed jobs, sex type, and quality of knowl-
edge influence job suitability differently, F(1, 66) = 14.81,
p < .001. No other effect proved significant (ps > .13).
To analyze the predicted three-way interaction, supple-
mentary analyses were conducted to identify differences in
responses to the male-typed vs. female-typed job. First, fo-
cusing only on the female-typed job, planned comparisons
showed that, as expected (H1a), higher job suitability was
attributed to a candidate when a strength compared to a
weakness was stated in a feminine knowledge domain
(Ms = 1.06 vs. –0.20; t(34) = 1.31, p = .097). This differ-
ence failed to reach significance. Thus, H1a was not sup-
ported, although the means point in the predicted direction.
The reverse was true in the masculine knowledge condition
(H1b). Mentioning a weakness instead of a strength was
associated with higher job suitability (Ms=–0.22vs.
–2.25; t(34) = 2.12, p < .05). This led to a significant inter-
action of sex type of knowledge and statement quality in
case of the female-typed job, F(1, 34) = 5.33, p <.05.
However, only stating a strength in a masculine domain led
to significantly lower job suitability ratings compared to
the scale midpoint, t(8) = –5.68, p < .001, indicating that
the candidates in the other conditions were neither highly
suitable nor unsuitable.
Second, focusing only on the male-typed job, as expect-
ed (H2a), higher job suitability was attributed when a per-
sonal strength compared to a weakness was mentioned in
the masculine knowledge condition (Ms = 0.39 vs. –1.72),
t(34) = 2.15, p < .05, but a personal weakness in the femi-
nine knowledge condition (H2b), as compared to a personal
strength, was associated with higher job suitability (Ms=
0.40 vs. –1.67), t(34) = 2.10, p < .05. Thus, for the male-
typed job, the analysis also revealed a significant interac-
tion of sex type of knowledge and statement quality,
F(1, 34) = 10.22, p < .001. However, stating a strength in
a feminine domain as well as stating a weakness in a mas-
culine domain led to significantly lower ratings compared
to the scale midpoint (ts > 2.69, ps < .05).
Possession of Typical Feminine and
Masculine Knowledge
We proposed that a person’s strengths and weaknesses in
typical feminine versus masculine knowledge domains
would provide information about their gender prototypical-
ity. Thus, we predicted a two-way interaction between sex
type of knowledge and statement quality on both femininity
and masculinity ratings. This effect, however, should be
unaffected by the sex type of the job the person applied for.
ANOVAs provided support for the hypothesis that the
pattern of female prototypicality (three items, α = .62) re-
versed the pattern of male prototypicality (three items, α =
.71), contingent on the factors Sex type of knowledge and
Statement quality. First, the analysis involving the feminin-
ity scores revealed that higher femininity was ascribed to
the candidate when she mentioned a strength in a feminine
domain than when she mentioned a weakness in that do-
main (Ms = 6.46 vs. 4.41), t(70) = 3.91, p < .001. As a non-
significant trend, the reverse was true when a masculine
domain was mentioned (Ms = 4.67 vs. 5.39), t(70) = 1.49,
p = .07. This resulted in a significant Sex type of knowl-
edge × Statement quality interaction, F(1, 66) = 15.15, p <
.001. The three-way interaction was not significant (F < 1).
Second, the analysis involving the masculinity scores as
the dependent variable also revealed the predicted Sex type
of knowledge × Statement quality interaction, F(1, 66) =
12.76, p < .001. While mention of a strength in a masculine
attribute led participants to attribute higher masculinity to
the candidate than mention of a weakness (Ms = 6.60 vs.
4.44), t(70) = 4.18, p < .001, unexpectedly there was no
significant difference between conditions for feminine at-
tributes (strength: 4.87 vs. weakness: 5.30), t(70) = 0.87,
p = .180. Although the latter comparison was not signifi-
cant, the means point in the predicted direction. Again, this
effect was unaffected by the sex type of job (F < 1).
Mediation of Job Suitability Ratings by
Gender Prototypicality
H3a and H3b were tested using Baron and Kenny’s (1986)
mediation testing procedure. The analysis considering the
female-typed job first revealed the following results: The
two-way interaction (Sex type of knowledge × Statement
quality) predicted the candidate’s job suitability (b* = –.45,
p < .01) as well as the femininity attributed to the candidate
(b* = –.47, p < .01). The direct effect of the two-way inter-
action on job suitability ratings was reduced when attribut-
ed femininity was controlled for (b* = –.32, p = .061), in-
dicating a partial mediation. Sobel’s test (Sobel, 1982)
showed that attributed femininity carried the influence of
the two-way interaction on job suitability (z = –1.99, p <
.05). A reverse mediation was not found. Also, masculinity
attributed to the candidate did not mediate the effect of our
manipulations on job suitability.
Regarding the male-typed job, the two-way interaction
predicted job suitability ratings only marginally (b* = .28,
p = .093). The two-way interaction predicted the candi-
date’s masculinity in the same way as job suitability (b* =
.59, p = .001). However, the direct effect of the two-way
interaction on job suitability was further reduced when at-
tributed masculinity was controlled for (b* = –.16, p = .33).
Sobel’s test showed that attributed masculinity carried the
influence of the two-way interaction on job suitability (z =
2.12, p < .05). Again, a reverse mediation was not found.
Alternatively, mediational analyses involving attributed
femininity as the mediator revealed no reliable effects.
In sum, we found evidence that job suitability ratings
152 M.-A. Reinhard et al.: Inferences About Women’s Qualification in Sex-Typed Jobs
Swiss J. Psychol. 70 (3) © 2011 by Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern

contingent on a candidate’s stated weakness versus strength
in a feminine versus masculine domain were mediated by
the attribution of femininity when a feminine job was con-
sidered (H3a). However, masculinity less reliably ex-
plained differences in job suitability contingent upon our
manipulations when the masculine job was considered.
Thus, H3b was not clearly supported.
Discussion
We have stressed the idea that women might be favored for
female- or male-typed entry-level jobs when they are seen
as prototypically feminine or masculine, respectively.
While female prototypicality was expected to result from
the presence of typical feminine knowledge or – more in-
terestingly – from the absence of typical masculine knowl-
edge, the reverse was expected for male prototypicality.
Gender prototypicality based on both personal strengths
and weaknesses in sex-typed knowledge domains was
therefore predicted to lead to differences in job suitability
ratings for sex-typed entry-level jobs, which is why it can
sometimes be more advantageous to state a weakness in-
stead of a strength.
The results of the present experiment support these pre-
dictions. A female candidate’s perceived femininity pre-
dicted job-suitability ratings – but only if she had applied
for a “feminine” job. In contrast, for the “masculine” job,
participants tended to prefer a candidate who was perceived
as masculine. This finding is in line with past research. The
novel point here is that the female job candidate was per-
ceived as being more masculine – and therefore evaluated
as being more suitable for a masculine job – when she men-
tioned having a weakness instead of a strength in a typical
feminine domain as well as when she mentioned having a
strength rather than a weakness in a typical masculine do-
main. However, this effect was not mediated by the ascrip-
tion of typical masculine knowledge. A reversed pattern
occurred when participants were to decide how to fill a
vacancy for a feminine job. In this case, a candidate was
seen as being more suitable for the job when she stated that
she was bad instead of good in a masculine domain as well
as when she presented herself as being good instead of bad
in a feminine domain. This effect was – as theoretically
predicted by FA research – partially mediated by the as-
cription of typical feminine knowledge.
Although these results are almost consistent with our
predictions, there are also some anomalies that need to be
discussed further. First, and in contrast to a successful pre-
test, feminine knowledge was unexpectedly more strongly
associated with job suitability perceptions than masculine
knowledge – irrespective of the job type. This unexpected
effect, however, makes it difficult – if not impossible – to
compare the patterns of results across the factor sex type of
knowledge. Thus, concerning the feminine job, it is not sur-
prising that a weakness in a typical feminine knowledge
domain led to similar job suitability ratings compared to a
weakness in a typical masculine domain.
Second, most of the means for job suitability were either
below the midpoint or only just above, indicating that the
female candidates were seen as being either unsuitable or
less suitable for both jobs. Therefore, we don’t speak of a
failure-as-an-asset effect because there is no real asset in
terms of a significant positive suitability rating. Given that
the participants in this experiment received only minimal
information, namely, one personal statement from the can-
didate, to arrive at a judgment about her job suitability, it
may not be that surprising that the absolute scores were not
very high.
The findings also have practical implications for re-
search on sex discrimination in hiring decisions because
they demonstrate that not only one’s strengths, but also
one’s weaknesses, guide inferences about one’s gender typ-
icality. As long as people have weaknesses in cross-sexed
domains, they meet descriptive and prescriptive aspects of
gender stereotypes (e.g., Burgess & Borgida, 1999) that
will assist their chances of getting hired for jobs perceived
to be appropriate to their own sex. If, however, people have
weaknesses in domains in which they normally would have
to be good due to their sex, cross-sexed typicality is likely
to be inferred. Although we could show that cross-sex typ-
icality leads to better chances of getting hired for a cross-
sexed-typed job, there may be social reprisals based on the
violation of prescriptive stereotypes in these cases (e.g.,
Heilman, 2001; Heilman & Okimoto, 2007; Isaac, Lee, &
Carnes, 2009; Rudman & Glick, 1999).
In sum, our results indicate that, in job interviews, stated
weaknesses and strengths outside of the occupational con-
text can clearly guide inferences about one’s qualification
for a job. Furthermore, candidates may use this effect stra-
tegically for positive (true or deceptive) self-presentation
(Reinhard, Scharmach, & Müller, in press). Therefore, to
avoid being influenced by this information, interviewers
should refrain from asking questions that are not relevant
to the job requirements.
References
Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator
variable distinction in social psychological research: Concep-
tual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. doi: 10.1037/
0022-3514.51.6.1173
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.
doi: 10.1037/h0036215
Burgess, D., & Borgida, E. (1999). Who women are, who women
should be: Descriptive and prescriptive gender stereotyping in
sex discrimination. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5,
665–692. doi: 10.1037/1076-8971.5.3.665
Dipboye, R.L., & Jackson, S. L. (1999). Interviewer experience
and expertise effects. In R.W. Eder & M. M. Harris (Eds.), The
M.-A. Reinhard et al.: Inferences About Women’s Qualification in Sex-Typed Jobs 153
Swiss J. Psychol. 70 (3) © 2011 by Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern

employment interview handbook (pp. 259–278). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-
role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Glick, P., Zion, C., & Nelson, C. (1988). What mediates sex dis-
crimination in hiring decisions? Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 55, 178–186. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.55.
2.178
Hareli, S., Klang, M., & Hess, U. (2008). The role of career
history in gender based biases in job selection decisions.
Career Development International, 13, 252–269. doi: 10.1108/
13620430810870502
Heilman, M.E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit
model. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in
organizational behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 269–298). Greenwich,
CT: JAI.
Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender
stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational lad-
der. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 657–674. doi: 10.1111/0022-
4537.00234
Heilman, M. E., & Okimoto, T. G. (2007). Why are women pe-
nalized for success at male tasks? The implied communality
deficit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 81–92. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.81
Heilman, M. E., Martell, R., & Simon, M. (1988). The vagaries
of sex bias: Conditions regulating the undervaluation, equival-
uation and overvaluation of female job applicants. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41(1), 98–10.
doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(88)90049-0
Hogg, M. A. (2006). Social identity theory. In P. J. Burke (Ed.),
Contemporary social psychological theories (pp. 111–136).
Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Isaac, C., Lee, B., & Carnes, M. (2009). Interventions that affect
gender bias in hiring: A systematic review. Academic Medi-
cine, 84, 1440–1446. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181b6ba00
Madera, J. M., Hebl, M. R., & Martin, R.C. (2009). Gender and
letters of recommendation for academia: Agentic and communal
differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1591–1599. doi:
10.1037/a0016539
Matlin, M. W. (2003). The psychology of women (5th ed.). Bel-
mont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Püttjer, C., & Schnierda, U. (2008). Das überzeugende Bewer-
bungsgespräch für Hochschulabsolventen: Diplom – Magister
– Bachelor – Master – Staatsexamen – Promotion [The con-
vincing job interview for college graduates: Diploma – Bach-
elor – Master – State Examination – Conferral of a Doctorate].
Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Campus.
Reinhard, M.-A., Scharmach, M., & Müller, P. A. (in press). It’s
not what you are, it’s what you know: Experience, beliefs, and
the detection of deception in employment interviews. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology.
Reinhard, M.-A., Stahlberg, D., & Messner, M. (2008). Failure as
an asset for high-status persons: Relative group performance and
attributed occupational success. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 44, 501–518. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2007.07.006
Rudman, L.A., & Glick, P. (1999). Feminized management and
backlash toward agentic women: The hidden costs to women of
a kinder, gentler image of middle managers. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 77, 1004–1010. doi: 10.1037/0022-
3514.77.5.1004
Schein, V. E. (2001). A global look at psychological barriers to
women’s progress in management. Journal of Social Issues,
57, 675–688. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00235
Schneider-Düker, M., & Kohler, A. (1988). Die Erfassung von
Geschlechtsrollen: Ergebnisse zur deutschen Neukonstruktion
des Bem Sex-Role-Inventory [Assessment of sex roles: Re-
sults of a German version of the Bem Sex-Role Inventory].
Diagnostica, 34, 256–270.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect
effects in structural equations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), So-
ciological methodology 1982 (pp. 290–312). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Stahlberg, D., & Sczesny, S. (2001). Gender stereotypes and the
social perception of leadership.
European Bulletin of Social
Psychology, 13, 15–29.
Ward, N. J. (1991). Occupational suitability bias for full-time and
part-time employment in sex-typed jobs. Sex Roles, 25
(Nos. 1/2), 81–89. doi: 10.1007/BF00289318
Weiner, B., & Kukla, A. (1970). An attributional analysis of
achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 15(1), 1–20. doi: 10.1037/h0029211
Yarkin, K.L., Town, J.P., & Wallston, B. S. (1982). Blacks and
women must try harder: Stimulus persons’ race and sex attri-
butions of causality. Personality and Social Psychology Bul-
letin, 8(1), 21–30. doi: 10.1177/014616728281003
Marc-André Reinhard
Department of Social Science
University of Mannheim
A5
DE - 68131 Mannheim
Germany
reinhard@rumms.uni-mannheim.de
154 M.-A. Reinhard et al.: Inferences About Women’s Qualification in Sex-Typed Jobs
Swiss J. Psychol. 70 (3) © 2011 by Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern