1932

Abstract

Despite important advances, gender-based discrimination continues to hinder women's career progress. This review examines the role that gender stereotypes play in promoting gender bias and discrimination. After reviewing what is known about the content of gender stereotypes and examining both their descriptive and prescriptive aspects, we discuss two pathways through which stereotypes result in discrepant work outcomes for women and men. First, we consider how the characterization of women as communal but not agentic conflicts with the perceived demands of many male gender-typed jobs and fields, thus promoting perceptions of women's lack of competence in those areas. Second, we consider how norms about how women should and should not behave cause women to incur penalties when they exhibit counter-stereotypical attributes and behaviors at work. Our review further focuses on the conditions that foster or undercut gender bias and discrimination and uses this knowledge as a foundation for proposing strategies to promote more egalitarian organizational processes.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-110721-034105
2024-01-22
2024-04-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/organ/11/1/annurev-orgpsych-110721-034105.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-110721-034105&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abele AE, Hauke N, Peters K, Louvet E, Szymkow A, Duan Y. 2016. Facets of the fundamental content dimensions: agency with competence and assertiveness—communion with warmth and morality. Front. Psychol. 7: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01810
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Abele AE, Uchronski M, Suitner C, Wojciszke B 2008. Towards an operationalization of the fundamental dimensions of agency and communion: trait content ratings in five countries considering valence and frequency of word occurrence. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol 38:120217
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Allen TD. 2006. Rewarding good citizens: the relationship between citizenship behavior, gender, and organizational rewards. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 36:120–43
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Amanatullah ET, Morris MW. 2010. Negotiating gender roles: Gender differences in assertive negotiating are mediated by women's fear of backlash and attenuated when negotiating on behalf of others. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 98:256–67
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bailey AH, Dovidio JF, LaFrance M. 2022. Master” of none: institutional language change linked to reduced gender bias. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 28:237–48
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bakan D. 1966. The Duality of Human Existence: An Essay on Psychology and Religion Oxford, UK: Rand McNally
  7. Bauer NM, Harman M, Russell EB. 2022. Do voters punish ambitious women? Tracking a gendered backlash toward the 2020 democratic presidential contenders. Political Behav. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-022-09805-2
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Beckman CM, Phillips DJ. 2005. Interorganizational determinants of promotion: client leadership and the attainment of women attorneys. Am. Sociol. Rev. 70:678–701
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Berdahl JL, Cooper M, Glick P, Livingston RW, Williams JC. 2018. Work as a masculinity contest. J. Soc. Issues 74:422–48
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Blashill AJ, Powlishta KK. 2009. The impact of sexual orientation and gender role on evaluations of men. Psychol. Men Masc. 10:160–73
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bosak J, Eagly A, Diekman A, Sczesny S. 2018. Women and men of the past, present, and future: evidence of dynamic gender stereotypes in Ghana. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 49:115–29
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Botelho TL, Abraham M. 2017. Pursuing quality: how search costs and uncertainty magnify gender-based double standards in a multistage evaluation process. Adm. Sci. Q. 62:698–730
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bowles HR, Babcock L. 2012. How can women escape the compensation negotiation dilemma? Relational accounts are one answer. Psychol. Women Q. 37:80–96
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bowles HR, Babcock L, Lai L. 2007. Social incentives for gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations: Sometimes it does hurt to ask. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 103:84–103
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Braddy PW, Sturm RE, Atwater L, Taylor SN, McKee RA. 2020. Gender bias still plagues the workplace: looking at derailment risk and performance with self–other ratings. Group Organ. Manag. 45:315–50
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Breda T, Jouini E, Napp C, Thebault G. 2020. Gender stereotypes can explain the gender-equality paradox. PNAS 117:31063–69
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Brescoll VL. 2011. Who takes the floor and why: gender, power, and volubility in organizations. Adm. Sci. Q. 56:622–41
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Brescoll VL, Okimoto TG, Vial AC. 2018. You've come a long way…maybe: how moral emotions trigger backlash against women leaders. J. Soc. Issues 74:144–64
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Brescoll VL, Uhlmann EL. 2008. Can an angry woman get ahead? Status conferral, gender, and expression of emotion in the workplace. Psychol. Sci. 19:268–75
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Brett JF, Atwater LE, Waldman DA. 2005. Effective delivery of workplace discipline: Do women have to be more participatory than men?. Group Organ. Manag. 30:487–513
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Brosi P, Spörrle M, Welpe IM, Heilman ME. 2016. Expressing pride: effects on perceived agency, communality, and stereotype-based gender disparities. J. Appl. Psychol. 101:1319–28
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Broverman IK, Vogel SR, Broverman DM, Clarkson FE, Rosenkrantz PS. 1972. Sex-role stereotypes: a current appraisal. J. Soc. Issues 28:59–78
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Caleo S. 2016. Are organizational justice rules gendered? Reactions to men's and women's justice violations. J. Appl. Psychol. 101:1422–35
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Carli LL. 2001. Gender and social influence. J. Soc. Issues 57:725–41
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Carli LL, Alawa L, Lee Y, Zhao B, Kim E. 2016. Stereotypes about gender and science: women ≠ scientists. Psychol. Women Q. 40:244–60
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Carli LL, LaFleur SJ, Loeber CC. 1995. Nonverbal behavior, gender, and influence. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 68:1030–41
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Casciaro T, Lobo MS. 2005. Competent jerks, lovable fools, and the formation of social networks. Harv. Bus. Rev. 83:92–99 149
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Castilla EJ. 2015. Accounting for the gap: a firm study manipulating organizational accountability and transparency in pay decisions. Organ. Sci. 26:311–33
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Catalyst 2022. Women in management (quick take). Catalyst March 1. https://www.catalyst.org/research/women-in-management/
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Catalyst 2023. Women CEOs of the S&P 500 (list). Catalyst Febr. 3. https://www.catalyst.org/research/women-ceos-of-the-sp-500/
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Cejka MA, Eagly AH. 1999. Gender-stereotypic images of occupations correspond to the sex segregation of employment. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 25:413–23
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Chang EH, Milkman KL. 2020. Improving decisions that affect gender equality in the workplace. Org. Dynam. 49:100709
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Chatman JA, Sharps D, Mishra S, Kray LJ, North MS. 2022. Agentic but not warm: age-gender interactions and the consequences of stereotype incongruity perceptions for middle-aged professional women. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 173:104190
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Chen JJ. 2008. Ordinary vs. extraordinary: differential reactions to men's and women's prosocial behavior in the workplace. PhD Thesis New York Univ. New York:
  35. Chen-Xia XJ, Betancor V, Chas A, Rodríguez-Pérez A 2022. Gender inequality in incivility: Everyone should be polite, but it is fine for some of us to be impolite. Front. Psychol. 13: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.966045
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Cheryan S, Markus HR. 2020. Masculine defaults: identifying and mitigating hidden cultural biases. Psychol. Rev. 127:1022–52
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Cheryan S, Plaut VC, Davies PG, Steele CM. 2009. Ambient belonging: how stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 97:1045–60
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Cheryan S, Ziegler SA, Montoya AK, Jiang L. 2017. Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others?. Psychol. Bull. 143:1–35
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Cialdini RB, Trost MR 1998. Social influence: social norms, conformity and compliance. The Handbook of Social Psychology 2 ed. DT Gilbert, ST Fiske, G Lindzey 151–92 New York: McGraw-Hill, 4th ed.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Clabaugh A, Fields L, Duque JF, Brown E. 2023. Are you advocating for me? Social penalties toward teachers that (dis)confirm gender stereotypes during the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Soc. Psychol. 163:773–88
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Clark JK, Wegener DT. 2008. Unpacking outcome dependency: differentiating effects of dependency and outcome desirability on the processing of goal-relevant information. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 44:586–99
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Correll SJ, Weisshaar KR, Wynn AT, Wehner JD. 2020. Inside the black box of organizational life: the gendered language of performance assessment. Am. Sociol. Rev. 85:1022–50
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Cortina LM. 2008. Unseen injustice: incivility as modern discrimination in organizations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 33:55–75
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Cuddy AJC, Wolf EB, Glick P, Crotty S, Chong J, Norton MI. 2015. Men as cultural ideals: Cultural values moderate gender stereotype content. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 109:622–35
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Danbold F, Bendersky C. 2020. Balancing professional prototypes increases the valuation of women in male-dominated professions. Organ. Sci. 31:119–40
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Deaux K, Lewis LL. 1983. Assessment of gender stereotypes: methodology and components. Psychol. Doc. 13:1–23
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Derous E, Ryan AM, Serlie AW. 2015. Double jeopardy upon resumé screening: when Achmed is less employable than Aïsha. Pers. Psychol. 68:659–96
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Diekman AB, Eagly AH. 2000. Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: women and men of the past, present, and future. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 26:1171–88
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Dray KK, Smith VRE, Kostecki TP, Sabat IE, Thomson CR. 2020. Moving beyond the gender binary: examining workplace perceptions of nonbinary and transgender employees. Gend. Work Organ. 27:1181–91
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Duehr EE, Bono JE. 2006. Men, women, and managers: Are stereotypes finally changing?. Pers. Psychol. 59:815–46
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Dwivedi P, Misangyi VF, Joshi A. 2021. Burnt by the spotlight”: how leadership endorsements impact the longevity of female leaders. J. Appl. Psychol. 106:1885–906
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Eagly AH, Karau SJ. 2002. Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychol. Rev. 109:573–98
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Eagly AH, Makhijani MG, Klonsky BG. 1992. Gender and the evaluation of leaders: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 111:3–22
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Eagly AH, Nater C, Miller DI, Kaufmann M, Sczesny S. 2020. Gender stereotypes have changed: a cross-temporal meta-analysis of U.S. public opinion polls from 1946 to 2018. Am. Psychol. 75:301–15
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Ely RJ, Kimmel M. 2018. Thoughts on the workplace as a masculinity contest. J. Soc. Issues 74:628–34
    [Google Scholar]
  56. England P, Levine A, Mishel E. 2020. Progress toward gender equality in the United States has slowed or stalled. PNAS 117:6990–97
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Favero JL, Ilgen DR. 1989. The effects of ratee prototypicality on rater observation and accuracy. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 19:932–46
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Fisher AN, Stinson DA, Kalajdzic A. 2019. Unpacking backlash: individual and contextual moderators of bias against female professors. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 41:305–25
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Fiske ST. 2017. Prejudices in cultural contexts: shared stereotypes (gender, age) versus variable stereotypes (race, ethnicity, religion). Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 12:791–99
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Fiske ST, Bersoff DN, Borgida E, Deaux K, Heilman ME. 1991. Social science research on trial: use of sex stereotyping research in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. Am. Psychol. 46:1049–60
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Fiske ST, Taylor SE. 1991. Social Cognition New York: McGraw-Hill, 2nd ed.
  62. Gabriel AS, Butts MM, Yuan Z, Rosen RL, Sliter MT. 2018. Further understanding incivility in the workplace: the effects of gender, agency, and communion. J. Appl. Psychol. 103:362–82
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Galos DR, Coppock A. 2023. Gender composition predicts gender bias: a meta-reanalysis of hiring discrimination audit experiments. Sci. Adv. 9:eade7979
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Gaucher D, Friesen J, Kay AC. 2011. Evidence that gendered wording in job advertisements exists and sustains gender inequality. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 101:109–28
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Ghavami N, Peplau LA. 2013. An intersectional analysis of gender and ethnic stereotypes: testing three hypotheses. Psychol. Women Q. 37:113–27
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Gill MJ. 2004. When information does not deter stereotyping: Prescriptive stereotyping can foster bias under conditions that deter descriptive stereotyping. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 40:619–32
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Goldin C. 2014. A grand gender convergence: its last chapter. Am. Econ. Rev. 104:1091–119
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Gorman EH. 2005. Gender stereotypes, same-gender preferences, and organizational variation in the hiring of women: evidence from law firms. Am. Sociol. Rev. 70:702–28
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Haines EL, Deaux K, Lofaro N. 2016. The times they are a-changing…or are they not? A comparison of gender stereotypes, 1983–2014. Psychol. Women Q. 40:353–63
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Hall EV, Hall AV, Galinsky AD, Phillips KW. 2019. MOSAIC: a model of stereotyping through associated and intersectional categories. Acad. Manag. Rev. 44:643–72
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Haynes MC, Lawrence JS. 2012. Who's to blame? Attributions of blame in unsuccessful mixed-sex work teams. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 34:558–64
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Heilman ME. 1983. Sex bias in work settings: the lack of fit model. Res. Organ. Behav. 5:269–98
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Heilman ME. 2001. Description and prescription: how gender stereotypes prevent women's ascent up the organizational ladder. J. Soc. Issues 57:657–74
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Heilman ME. 2012. Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Res. Organ. Behav. 32:113–35
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Heilman ME, Blader SL. 2001. Assuming preferential selection when the admissions policy is unknown: the effects of gender rarity. J. Appl. Psychol. 86:188–93
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Heilman ME, Block CJ, Martell RF. 1995. Sex stereotypes: Do they influence perceptions of managers?. J. Soc. Behav. Personal. 10:237–52
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Heilman ME, Caleo S. 2018. Combatting gender discrimination: a lack of fit framework. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 21:725–44
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Heilman ME, Chen JJ. 2005. Same behavior, different consequences: reactions to men's and women's altruistic citizenship behavior. J. Appl. Psychol. 90:431–41
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Heilman ME, Haynes MC. 2005. No credit where credit is due: attributional rationalization of women's success in male-female teams. J. Appl. Psychol. 90:905–16
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Heilman ME, Haynes MC 2008. Subjectivity in the appraisal process: a facilitator of gender bias in work settings. Beyond Common Sense: Psychological Science in the Courtroom E Borgida, ST Fiske 127–55 Malden, MA: Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Heilman ME, Manzi F 2022. Revisiting Schein's think manager-think male study. Organisational Psychology: Revisiting the Classic Studies N Steffens, F Rink, M Ryan 221–40 London: Sage
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Heilman ME, Manzi F, Caleo S. 2019. Updating impressions: the differential effects of new performance information on evaluations of women and men. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 152:105–21
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Heilman ME, Okimoto TG. 2007. Why are women penalized for success at male tasks? The implied communality deficit. J. Appl. Psychol. 92:81–92
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Heilman ME, Okimoto TG. 2008. Motherhood: a potential source of bias in employment decisions. J. Appl. Psychol. 93:189–98
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Heilman ME, Stopeck MH. 1985. Attractiveness and corporate success: different causal attributions for males and females. J. Appl. Psychol. 70:379–88
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Heilman ME, Wallen AS, Fuchs D, Tamkins MM. 2004. Penalties for success: reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. J. Appl. Psychol. 89:416–27
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Hentschel T, Heilman ME, Peus CV. 2019. The multiple dimensions of gender stereotypes: a current look at men's and women's characterizations of others and themselves. Front. Psychol. 10: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00011
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Hideg I, Ferris DL. 2016. The compassionate sexist? How benevolent sexism promotes and undermines gender equality in the workplace. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 111:706–27
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Horvath LK, Sczesny S. 2016. Reducing women's lack of fit with leadership positions? Effects of the wording of job advertisements. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 25:316–28
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Hutson-Comeaux SL, Kelly JR. 2002. Gender stereotypes of emotional reactions: how we judge an emotion as valid. Sex Roles 47:1–10
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Jirjahn U, Stephan G. 2004. Gender, piece rates and wages: evidence from matched employer–employee data. Camb. J. Econ. 28:683–704
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Johnson SK, Murphy SE, Zewdie S, Reichard RJ. 2008. The strong, sensitive type: effects of gender stereotypes and leadership prototypes on the evaluation of male and female leaders. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 106:39–60
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Joshi A, Oh S, DesJardine MR. 2022. A new perspective on gender bias in the upper echelons: why stakeholder variability matters. Acad. Manag. Rev. In press. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2021.0131
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Joshi A, Son J, Roh H. 2015. When can women close the gap? A meta-analytic test of sex differences in performance and rewards. Acad. Manag. J. 58:1516–45
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Kanter RM. 1977. Some effects of proportions on group life: skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. Am. J. Sociol. 82:965–90
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Kanze D, Conley MA, Okimoto TG, Phillips DJ, Merluzzi J. 2020. Evidence that investors penalize female founders for lack of industry fit. Sci. Adv. 6:eabd7664
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Kim JK, Harold CM, Holtz BC. 2022. Evaluations of abusive supervisors: the moderating role of the abuser's gender. J. Organ. Behav. 43:465–82
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Klein FB, Hill AD, Hammond R, Stice-Lusvardi R. 2021. The gender equity gap: a multistudy investigation of within-job inequality in equity-based awards. J. Appl. Psychol. 106:734–53
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Koch AJ, D'Mello SD, Sackett PR 2015. A meta-analysis of gender stereotypes and bias in experimental simulations of employment decision making. J. Appl. Psychol. 100:128–61
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Koenig AM, Eagly AH. 2014. Evidence for the social role theory of stereotype content: observations of groups' roles shape stereotypes. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 107:371–92
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Koenig AM, Eagly AH, Mitchell AA, Ristikari T. 2011. Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychol. Bull. 137:616–42
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Kunda Z, Sinclair L, Griffin D. 1997. Equal ratings but separate meanings: stereotypes and the construal of traits. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 72:720–34
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Lawson MA, Martin AE, Huda I, Matz SC. 2022. Hiring women into senior leadership positions is associated with a reduction in gender stereotypes in organizational language. PNAS 119:e2026443119
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Livingston RW, Rosette AS, Washington EF. 2012. Can an agentic Black woman get ahead? The impact of race and interpersonal dominance on perceptions of female leaders. Psychol. Sci. 23:354–58
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Lyness KS, Heilman ME. 2006. When fit is fundamental: performance evaluations and promotions of upper-level female and male managers. J. Appl. Psychol. 91:777–85
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Lyness KS, Judiesch MK. 1999. Are women more likely to be hired or promoted into management positions?. J. Vocat. Behav. 54:158–73
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Ma A, Rosette AS, Koval CZ. 2022. Reconciling female agentic advantage and disadvantage with the CADDIS measure of agency. J. Appl. Psychol. 107:2115–48
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Madera JM, Hebl MR, Martin RC. 2009. Gender and letters of recommendation for academia: agentic and communal differences. J. Appl. Psychol. 94:1591–99
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Mai KM, Ellis APJ, Welsh DT. 2020. How perpetrator gender influences reactions to premeditated versus impulsive unethical behavior: a role congruity approach. J Bus. Ethics 166:489–503
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Manzi F, Heilman ME. 2021. Breaking the glass ceiling: for one and all?. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 120:257–77
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Mero NP, Motowidlo SJ, Anna AL. 2003. Effects of accountability on rating behavior and rater accuracy. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 33:2493–514
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Milkman KL, Akinola M, Chugh D. 2012. Temporal distance and discrimination: an audit study in academia. Psychol. Sci. 23:710–17
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Miller DI, Eagly AH, Linn MC. 2015. Women's representation in science predicts national gender-science stereotypes: evidence from 66 nations. J. Educ. Psychol. 107:631–44
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Morgenroth T, Ryan MK. 2021. The effects of gender trouble: an integrative theoretical framework of the perpetuation and disruption of the gender/sex binary. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 16:1113–42
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Moscatelli S, Menegatti M, Ellemers N, Mariani MG, Rubini M. 2020. Men should be competent, women should have it all: multiple criteria in the evaluation of female job candidates. Sex Roles 83:269–88
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Moss-Racusin CA, Dovidio JF, Brescoll VL, Graham MJ, Handelsman J. 2012. Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students. PNAS 109:16474–79
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Nandkeolyar AK, Bagger J, Ekkirala S. 2022. Damned if she does, damned if she doesn't: the interactive effects of gender and agreeableness on performance evaluation. J. Bus. Res. 143:62–71
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Nater C, Heilman ME, Sczesny S. 2023. Footsteps I would like to follow? How gender quotas affect the acceptance of women leaders as role models and inspirations for leadership. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 53:129–46
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Obioma IF, Hentschel T, Hernandez Bark AS. 2022. Gender stereotypes and self-characterizations in Germany and Nigeria: a cross-cultural comparison. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 52:764–80
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Okimoto TG, Brescoll VL. 2010. The price of power: power seeking and backlash against female politicians. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 36:923–36
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Paustian-Underdahl SC, Walker LS. 2016. Revisiting the beauty is beastly effect: examining when and why sex and attractiveness impact hiring judgments. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 27:1034–58
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Paustian-Underdahl SC, Walker LS, Woehr DJ. 2014. Gender and perceptions of leadership effectiveness: a meta-analysis of contextual moderators. J. Appl. Psychol. 99:1129–45
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Pazy A, Oron I. 2001. Sex proportion and performance evaluation among high-ranking military officers. J. Organ. Behav. 22:689–702
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Petsko CD, Rosette AS, Bodenhausen GV. 2022. Through the looking glass: a lens-based account of intersectional stereotyping. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 123:763–87
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Pew Res. Cent. 2019. 8 Facts about American dads. Pew Research Center June 12. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/06/12/fathers-day-facts/
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Pew Res. Cent. 2023. In a growing share of U.S. marriages, husbands and wives earn about the same. Pew Research Center April 13. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/04/13/in-a-growing-share-of-u-s-marriages-husbands-and-wives-earn-about-the-same/
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Plant EA, Hyde JS, Keltner D, Devine PG. 2000. The gender stereotyping of emotions. Psychol. Women. Q. 24:81–92
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Prentice DA, Carranza E. 2002. What women and men should be, shouldn't be, are allowed to be, and don't have to be: the contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychol. Women. Q. 26:269–81
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins 490 U.S. 228 1989.
  130. Quadlin N. 2018. The mark of a woman's record: gender and academic performance in hiring. Am. Sociol. Rev. 83:331–60
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Ragins BR, Winkel DE. 2011. Gender, emotion and power in work relationships. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 21:377–93
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Rosette AS, Tost LP. 2010. Agentic women and communal leadership: how role prescriptions confer advantage to top women leaders. J. Appl. Psychol. 95:221–35
    [Google Scholar]
  133. Ross MB, Glennon BM, Murciano-Goroff R, Berkes EG, Weinberg BA, Lane JI. 2022. Women are credited less in science than men. Nature 608:135–45
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Rudman LA. 1998. Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: the costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 74:629–45
    [Google Scholar]
  135. Rudman LA, Fairchild K. 2004. Reactions to counterstereotypic behavior: the role of backlash in cultural stereotype maintenance. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 87:157–76
    [Google Scholar]
  136. Rudman LA, Glick P. 2001. Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. J. Soc. Issues 57:743–62
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Sackett PR, DuBois CL, Noe AW. 1991. Tokenism in performance evaluation: the effects of work group representation on male-female and White-Black differences in performance ratings. J. Appl. Psychol. 76:263–67
    [Google Scholar]
  138. Sandberg S. 2013. Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead New York: Alfred A. Knopf
  139. Sarsons H. 2017. Recognition for group work: gender differences in academia. Am. Econ. Rev. 107:141–45
    [Google Scholar]
  140. Schaumberg RL, Flynn FJ. 2017. Self-reliance: a gender perspective on its relationship to communality and leadership evaluations. Acad. Manag. J. 60:1859–81
    [Google Scholar]
  141. Schein VE. 1973. The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. J. Appl. Psychol. 57:95–100
    [Google Scholar]
  142. Schein VE, Mueller R, Lituchy T, Liu J. 1996. Think manager—think male: a global phenomenon?. J. Organ. Behav. 17:33–41
    [Google Scholar]
  143. Scholten L, van Knippenberg D, Nijstad BA, De Dreu CKW. 2007. Motivated information processing and group decision-making: effects of process accountability on information processing and decision quality. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 43:539–52
    [Google Scholar]
  144. Sczesny S, Formanowicz M, Moser F. 2016. Can gender-fair language reduce gender stereotyping and discrimination?. Front. Psychol. 7: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00025
    [Google Scholar]
  145. Sesko AK, Biernat M. 2010. Prototypes of race and gender: the invisibility of Black women. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 46:356–60
    [Google Scholar]
  146. Spence JT, Helmreich RL, Holahan CK. 1979. Negative and positive components of psychological masculinity and femininity and their relationships to self-reports of neurotic and acting out behaviors. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 37:1673–82
    [Google Scholar]
  147. Storage D, Charlesworth TES, Banaji MR, Cimpian A. 2020. Adults and children implicitly associate brilliance with men more than women. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 90:104020
    [Google Scholar]
  148. Tetlock PE. 1983. Accountability and complexity of thought. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 45:74–83
    [Google Scholar]
  149. Toneva Y, Heilman ME, Pierre G. 2020. Choice or circumstance: When are women penalized for their success?. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 50:651–59
    [Google Scholar]
  150. Uhlmann EL, Cohen GL. 2005. Constructed criteria: redefining merit to justify discrimination. Psychol. Sci. 16:474–80
    [Google Scholar]
  151. UN Women 2023. Facts and figures: women's leadership and political participation. UN Women Sept. 18. https://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/leadership-and-political-participation/facts-and-figures
    [Google Scholar]
  152. UNDP (United Nations Dev. Programme) 2020. 2020 Gender Social Norms Index (GSNI): Tackling Social Norms: A Game Changer for Gender Inequalities. New York: UNDP
  153. US Bur. Labor Stat 2022. Labor force statistics from the current population survey Data, US Bur. Labor Stat. Washington, DC: https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm
  154. US Dep. Labor. 2021. Most common occupations for women in the labor force Data, US Dep. Labor Washington, DC: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/wb/data/occupations/most-common-occupations-women-labor-force
  155. Viswesvaran C, Ones DS, Schmidt FL. 1996. Comparative analysis of the reliability of job performance ratings. J. Appl. Psychol. 81:557–74
    [Google Scholar]
  156. Walfisch T, Van Dijk D, Kark R. 2013. Do you really expect me to apologize? The impact of status and gender on the effectiveness of an apology in the workplace. . J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 43:1446–58
    [Google Scholar]
  157. Williams MJ, Tiedens LZ. 2016. The subtle suspension of backlash: a meta-analysis of penalties for women's implicit and explicit dominance behavior. Psychol. Bull. 142:165–97
    [Google Scholar]
  158. World Bank 2022. Labor force, female (% of total labor force) World Dev. Indic. Database, World Bank Washington, DC: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.TOTL.FE.ZS
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-110721-034105
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-110721-034105
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error