"When" Versus "Whether" Gender/Sex Differences: Insights From Psychological Research on Negotiation, Risk-Taking, and Leadership.

We present a conceptual framework of situational moderators of gender/sex effects in negotiation, risk-taking, and leadership-three masculine-stereotypic domains associated with gender/sex gaps in pay and authority. We propose that greater situational ambiguity and higher relevance and salience of gender/sex increase the likelihood of gender/sex-linked behaviors in these domains. We argue that greater ambiguity increases the extent to which actors and audiences must search inwardly (e.g., mental schema, past experience) or outwardly (e.g., social norms) for cues on how to behave or evaluate a situation and thereby widens the door for gender/sex-linked influences. Correspondingly, we propose that gender/sex effects on behavior and evaluations in these domains will be more likely when gender/sex is more relevant and salient to the setting or task. We propose further that these two situational moderators may work jointly or interactively to influence the likelihood of gender/sex effects in negotiation, risk-taking, and leadership. We conclude by discussing applications of our conceptual framework to psychological science and its translation to practice, including directions for future research.

Are many sex/gender differences really power differences?

This research addresses the long-standing debate about the determinants of sex/gender differences. Evolutionary theorists trace many sex/gender differences back to natural selection and sex-specific adaptations. Sociocultural and biosocial theorists, in contrast, emphasize how societal roles and social power contribute to sex/gender differences beyond any biological distinctions. By connecting two empirical advances over the past two decades-6-fold increases in sex/gender difference meta-analyses and in experiments conducted on the psychological effects of power-the current research offers a novel empirical examination of whether power differences play an explanatory role in sex/gender differences. Our analyses assessed whether experimental manipulations of power and sex/gender differences produce similar psychological and behavioral effects. We first identified 59 findings from published experiments on power. We then conducted a P-curve of the experimental power literature and established that it contained evidential value. We next subsumed these effects of power into 11 broad categories and compared them to 102 similar meta-analytic sex/gender differences. We found that high-power individuals and men generally display higher agency, lower communion, more positive self-evaluations, and similar cognitive processes. Overall, 71% (72/102) of the sex/gender differences were consistent with the effects of experimental power differences, whereas only 8% (8/102) were opposite, representing a 9:1 ratio of consistent-to-inconsistent effects. We also tested for discriminant validity by analyzing whether power corresponds more strongly to sex/gender differences than extraversion: although extraversion correlates with power, it has different relationships with sex/gender differences. These results offer novel evidence that many sex/gender differences may be explained, in part, by power differences.