Breaking the glass ceiling: For one and all?

The current research challenges the assumption that the presence of women in leadership positions will automatically "break the glass ceiling" for other women. We contend that it is not just a female leader's presence, but also her performance, that influences evaluations of subsequent female candidates for leadership positions. We argue that the continued scarcity and perceived mismatch of women with high-level leadership increases gender salience, promoting perceptions of within-group similarity and fostering an evaluative generalization from the performance of a female leader to the evaluations of another, individual woman. In 5 studies, we demonstrate that the effect of exposure to a female leader on another woman's evaluations and leadership opportunities depends on whether she is successful or unsuccessful (Study 1) and whether she confirms or disconfirms stereotype-based expectations about women's leadership abilities (Study 2). Supporting the role of gender salience and shared group membership in the process, we show that this effect occurs only between women in male gender-typed leadership roles: Evaluative generalization does not occur between women in contexts that are not strongly male in gender type (Study 3) and is not observed between men in male-typed leadership (Study 4). We also explore whether there is evaluative generalization between male leaders in a female-typed context (Study 5). Our results suggest that overcoming gender imbalances in leadership may not be as simple as targeted placement, and that having women in high places should not induce complacency about the elimination of gender bias. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Belief in sexism shift: Defining a new form of contemporary sexism and introducing the belief in sexism shift scale (BSS scale).

The belief that the target of sexism has shifted from women to men is gaining popularity. Yet despite its potential theoretical and practical importance, the belief that men are now the primary target of sexism has not been systematically defined nor has it been reliably measured. In this paper, we define the belief in sexism shift (BSS) and introduce a scale to measure it. We contend that BSS constitutes a new form of contemporary sexism characterized by the perception that anti-male discrimination is pervasive, that it now exceeds anti-female discrimination, and that it is caused by women's societal advancement. In four studies (N = 666), we develop and test a concise, one-dimensional, 15-item measure of BSS: the BSS scale. Our findings demonstrate that BSS is related to, yet distinct from other forms of sexism (traditional, modern, and ambivalent sexism). Moreover, our results show that the BSS scale is a stable and reliable measure of BSS across different samples, time, and participant gender. The BSS scale is also less susceptible to social desirability concerns than other sexism measures. In sum, the BSS scale can be a valuable tool to help understand a new and potentially growing type of sexism that may hinder women in unprecedented ways.

The Multiple Dimensions of Gender Stereotypes: A Current Look at Men's and Women's Characterizations of Others and Themselves.

We used a multi-dimensional framework to assess current stereotypes of men and women. Specifically, we sought to determine (1) how men and women are characterized by male and female raters, (2) how men and women characterize themselves, and (3) the degree of convergence between self-characterizations and charcterizations of one's gender group. In an experimental study, 628 U.S. male and female raters described men, women, or themselves on scales representing multiple dimensions of the two defining features of gender stereotypes, agency and communality: assertiveness, independence, instrumental competence, leadership competence (agency dimensions), and concern for others, sociability and emotional sensitivity (communality dimensions). Results indicated that stereotypes about communality persist and were equally prevalent for male and female raters, but agency characterizations were more complex. Male raters generally descibed women as being less agentic than men and as less agentic than female raters described them. However, female raters differentiated among agency dimensions and described women as less assertive than men but as equally independent and leadership competent. Both male and female raters rated men and women equally high on instrumental competence. Gender stereotypes were also evident in self-characterizations, with female raters rating themselves as less agentic than male raters and male raters rating themselves as less communal than female raters, although there were exceptions (no differences in instrumental competence, independence, and sociability self-ratings for men and women). Comparisons of self-ratings and ratings of men and women in general indicated that women tended to characterize themselves in more stereotypic terms - as less assertive and less competent in leadership - than they characterized others in their gender group. Men, in contrast, characterized themselves in less stereotypic terms - as more communal. Overall, our results show that a focus on facets of agency and communality can provide deeper insights about stereotype content than a focus on overall agency and communality.

Motivated to penalize: women's strategic rejection of successful women.

Two studies tested the hypothesis that females penalize women who succeed in male gender-typed jobs to salvage their own self-views regarding competence. The authors proposed that women are motivated to penalize successful women (i.e., characterize them as unlikable and interpersonally hostile) to minimize the self-evaluative consequences of social comparison with a highly successful female target. Results supported the hypothesis. Whereas both male and female participants penalized successful women, blocking this penalization reduced female--but not male--participants' self-ratings of competence (Study 1). Moreover, positive feedback provided to female participants about their potential to succeed (Study 2) weakened negative reactions to successful women without costs to subsequent self-ratings of competence. These results suggest that the interpersonal derogation of successful women by other women functions as a self-protective strategy against threatening upward social comparisons.

Motherhood: a potential source of bias in employment decisions.

Results of 2 experimental studies in which job incumbents were said to be applying for promotions to traditionally male positions demonstrated bias against mothers in competence expectations and in screening recommendations. This bias occurred regardless of whether the research participants were students (Study 1) or working people (Study 2). Although anticipated job commitment, achievement striving, and dependability were rated as generally lower for parents than for nonparents, anticipated competence was uniquely low for mothers. Mediational analyses indicated that, as predicted, negativity in competence expectations, not anticipated job commitment or achievement striving, promoted the motherhood bias in screening recommendations; expected deficits in agentic behaviors, not in dependability, were found to fuel these competence expectations. These findings suggest that motherhood can indeed hinder the career advancement of women and that it is the heightened association with gender stereotypes that occurs when women are mothers that is the source of motherhood's potentially adverse consequences.

Why are women penalized for success at male tasks?: the implied communality deficit.

In 3 experimental studies, the authors tested the idea that penalties women incur for success in traditionally male areas arise from a perceived deficit in nurturing and socially sensitive communal attributes that is implied by their success. The authors therefore expected that providing information of communality would prevent these penalties. Results indicated that the negativity directed at successful female managers--in ratings of likability, interpersonal hostility, and boss desirability--was mitigated when there was indication that they were communal. This ameliorative effect occurred only when the information was clearly indicative of communal attributes (Study 1) and when it could be unambiguously attributed to the female manager (Study 2); furthermore, these penalties were averted when communality was conveyed by role information (motherhood status) or by behavior (Study 3). These findings support the idea that penalties for women's success in male domains result from the perceived violation of gender-stereotypic prescriptions.

When fit is fundamental: performance evaluations and promotions of upper-level female and male managers.

Using archival organizational data, the authors examined relationships of gender and type of position (i.e., line or staff) to performance evaluations of 448 upper-level managers, and relationships of performance evaluations to promotions during the subsequent 2 years. Consistent with the idea that there is a greater perceived lack of fit between stereotypical attributes of women and requirements of line jobs than staff jobs, women in line jobs received lower performance ratings than women in staff jobs or men in either line or staff jobs. Moreover, promoted women had received higher performance ratings than promoted men and performance ratings were more strongly related to promotions for women than men, suggesting that women were held to stricter standards for promotion.

Expressing pride: Effects on perceived agency, communality, and stereotype-based gender disparities.

Two experimental studies were conducted to investigate how the expression of pride shapes agency-related and communality-related judgments, and how those judgments differ when the pride expresser is a man or a woman. Results indicated that the expression of pride (as compared to the expression of happiness) had positive effects on perceptions of agency and inferences about task-oriented leadership competence, and negative effects on perceptions of communality and inferences about people-oriented leadership competence. Pride expression also elevated ascriptions of interpersonal hostility. For agency-related judgments and ascriptions of interpersonal hostility, these effects were consistently stronger when the pride expresser was a woman than a man. Moreover, the expression of pride was found to affect disparities in judgments about men and women, eliminating the stereotype-consistent differences that were evident when happiness was expressed. With a display of pride women were not seen as any more deficient in agency-related attributes and competencies, nor were they seen as any more exceptional in communality-related attributes and competencies, than were men. (PsycINFO Database Record

Same behavior, different consequences: reactions to men's and women's altruistic citizenship behavior.

In 2 experimental studies, the authors hypothesized that the performance of altruistic citizenship behavior in a work setting would enhance the favorability of men's (but not women's) evaluations and recommendations, whereas the withholding of altruistic citizenship behavior would diminish the favorability of women's (but not men's) evaluations and recommendations. Results supported the authors' predictions. Together with the results of a 3rd study demonstrating that work-related altruism is thought to be less optional for women than for men, these results suggest that gender-stereotypic prescriptions regarding how men and women should behave result in different evaluative reactions to the same altruistic behavior, depending on the performer's sex.

No credit where credit is due: attributional rationalization of women's success in male-female teams.

In 3 experimental studies, the authors explored how ambiguity about the source of a successful joint performance outcome promotes attributional rationalization, negatively affecting evaluations of women. Participants read descriptions of a mixed-sex dyad's work and were asked to evaluate its male and female members. Results indicated that unless the ambiguity about individual contribution to the dyad's successful joint outcome was constrained by providing feedback about individual team member performance (Study 1) or by the way in which the task was said to have been structured (Study 2) or unless the negative expectations about women's performance were challenged by clear evidence of prior work competence (Study 3), female members were devalued as compared with their male counterparts-they were rated as being less competent, less influential, and less likely to have played a leadership role in work on the task. Implications of these results, both theoretical and practical, are discussed.

Penalties for success: reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks.

A total of 242 subjects participated in 3 experimental studies investigating reactions to a woman's success in a male gender-typed job. Results strongly supported the authors' hypotheses, indicating that (a) when women are acknowledged to have been successful, they are less liked and more personally derogated than equivalently successful men (Studies 1 and 2); (b) these negative reactions occur only when the success is in an arena that is distinctly male in character (Study 2); and (c) being disliked can have career-affecting outcomes, both for overall evaluation and for recommendations concerning organizational reward allocation (Study 3). These results were taken to support the idea that gender stereotypes can prompt bias in evaluative judgments of women even when these women have proved themselves to be successful and demonstrated their competence. The distinction between prescriptive and descriptive aspects of gender stereotypes is considered, as well as the implications of prescriptive gender norms for women in work settings.

It had to be you (not me)!: Women's attributional rationalization of their contribution to successful joint work outcomes.

We investigated the tendency of women to undervalue their contributions in collaborative contexts. Participants, who believed they were working with another study participant on a male sex-typed task, received positive feedback about the team's performance. Results indicated that women and men allocated credit for the joint success very differently. Women gave more credit to their male teammates and took less credit themselves unless their role in bringing about the performance outcome was irrefutably clear (Studies 1 and 2) or they were given explicit information about their likely task competence (Study 4). However, women did not credit themselves less when their teammate was female (Study 3). Together these studies demonstrate that women devalue their contributions to collaborative work, and that they do so by engaging in attributional rationalization, a process sparked by women's negative performance expectations and facilitated by source ambiguity and a satisfactory "other" to whom to allocate credit.