Do Nice Guys-and Gals-Really Finish Last? The Joint Effects of Sex and Agreeableness on Income

Mendoza College of Business, University of Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Impact Factor: 5.08). 11/2011; 102(2):390-407. DOI: 10.1037/a0026021
Source: PubMed


Sex and agreeableness were hypothesized to affect income, such that women and agreeable individuals were hypothesized to earn less than men and less agreeable individuals. Because agreeable men disconfirm (and disagreeable men confirm) conventional gender roles, agreeableness was expected to be more negatively related to income for men (i.e., the pay gap between agreeable men and agreeable women would be smaller than the gap between disagreeable men and disagreeable women). The hypotheses were supported across 4 studies. Study 1 confirmed the effects of sex and agreeableness on income and that the agreeableness-income relationship was significantly more negative for men than for women. Study 2 replicated these results, controlling for each of the other Big Five traits. Study 3 also replicated the interaction and explored explanations and paradoxes of the relationship. A 4th study, using an experimental design, yielded evidence for the argument that the joint effects of agreeableness and gender are due to backlash against agreeable men.

Download full-text


Available from: Beth A. Livingston
  • Source
    • " 1987 ; Digman , 1990 ) . Agreeable individuals tend to help both supervisors and coworkers ( Kamdar and Van Dyne , 2007 ) and generally engage in organizational citizenship behaviors at work ( Ilies et al . , 2009 ; Chiaburu et al . , 2011 ) . Further , agreeable individuals tend to have lower income despite their profession ( Ng et al . , 2005 ; Judge et al . , 2012 ) . This lower income may be the result of poor bargaining tactics . Barry and Friedman ( 1998 ) found that Agreeableness is negatively related to distributive bargaining ( e . g . , for compensation ) because agreeable individuals place greater important on interpersonal relations and less on outcomes . In sum , previous research findi"
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The construct of equity sensitivity describes an individual’s preference about his/her desired input to outcome ratio. Individuals high on equity sensitivity tend to be more input oriented, and are often called “Benevolents”. Individuals low on equity sensitivity are more outcome oriented, and are described as “Entitleds”. Given that equity sensitivity has often been described as a trait, the purpose of the present study was to examine major personality correlates of equity sensitivity, so as to inform both the nature of equity sensitivity, and the potential processes through which certain broad personality traits may relate to outcomes. We examined the personality correlates of equity sensitivity across three studies (total N = 1170), two personality models (i.e., the Big Five and HEXACO), the two most common measures of equity sensitivity (i.e., the Equity Preference Questionnaire and Equity Sensitivity Inventory), and using both self and peer reports of personality (in Study 3). Although results varied somewhat across samples, the personality variables of Conscientiousness and Honesty-Humility, followed by Agreeableness, were the most robust predictors of equity sensitivity. Individuals higher on these traits were more likely to be Benevolents, whereas those lower on these traits were more likely to be Entitleds. Although some associations between Extraversion, Openness, and Neuroticism and equity sensitivity were observed, these were generally not robust. Overall, it appears that there are several prominent personality variables underlying equity sensitivity, and that the addition of the HEXACO model’s dimension of Honesty-Humility substantially contributes to our understanding of equity sensitivity.
    Preview · Article · Jan 2016 · Frontiers in Psychology
  • Source
    • "Indeed, four studies have shown that agreeable employees are more likely to be found in lowwage positions, as well as to report lower income levels (Heineck, 2011; Judge et al., 2012; Mueller & Plug, 2006; Nyhus & Pons, 2005). Two mechanisms may account for this (Bernerth, Armenakis, Feild, Giles, & Walker, 2008; Judge et al., 2012). First, agreeable employees are less likely to proactively voice (negotiate) wage-related concerns. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Status inconsistency is a situation in which there is an objective or subjective mismatch between, for example, a person’s education and his/her income. This mismatch may transform into status enhancement, wherein rewards exceed one’s human capital, or into status detraction, wherein one’s human capital exceeds one’s rewards. Although status inconsistency affects employees’ attitudes and behaviours, little is known about individual differences in this variable. The current study investigates whether the relationships of agreeableness and dominance—with objective and subjective status inconsistency vary by gender. We analysed objective and subjective input and return statuses among a sample of 375 employees. We found that men who expressed a gender-non-congruent trait, namely agreeableness, experienced an objective backlash effect compared with dominant men, whereas women who expressed a gender-non-congruent trait, namely dominance, did not experience a backlash effect compared with agreeable women. In addition, our results show that agreeable employees, both men and women, perceive themselves as status-enhanced when in fact they are not. Finally, we show that objective status inconsistency mediates the relationships of agreeableness and dominance with subjective status inconsistency.
    Full-text · Article · Nov 2015 · European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper focuses on the workplace consequences of both descriptive gender stereotypes (designating what women and men are like) and prescriptive gender stereotypes (designating what women and men should be like), and their implications for women's career progress. Its central argument is that gender stereotypes give rise to biased judgments and decisions, impeding women's advancement. The paper discusses how descriptive gender stereotypes promote gender bias because of the negative performance expectations that result from the perception that there is a poor fit between what women are like and the attributes believed necessary for successful performance in male gender-typed positions and roles. It also discusses how prescriptive gender stereotypes promote gender bias by creating normative standards for behavior that induce disapproval and social penalties when they are directly violated or when violation is inferred because a woman is successful. Research is presented that tests these ideas, considers specific career consequences likely to result from stereotype-based bias, and identifies conditions that exaggerate or minimize the likelihood of their occurrence.
    No preview · Article · Jan 2012 · Research in Organizational Behavior
Show more