The current study extends previous work on gendered workplace attitudes by manipulating the workplace gender composition (CEO gender, employee gender) of traditional male and female employment sectors. Participants reported general financial investment interest in purported male-role congruent (science laboratory) and female-role congruent (daycare) start-up companies, where CEO gender and employee gender were orthogonally manipulated. Participants had more favorable investment attitudes toward daycares when the CEO was a woman, and especially favorable investment attitudes when both the CEO and employees were women. These findings were stronger for participants higher in hostile sexism. For science laboratories, participants reported equivalent investment attitudes, regardless of CEO gender, as long as the employee gender composition matched the CEO gender (i.e., female CEO + female employees). These findings suggest that social role expectations influence investment attitudes in predictable ways for traditional female employment sectors, but in more nuanced ways for traditional male employment sectors.
AbeleA. E.WojciszkeB. (2014). Communal and agentic content in social cognition: A Dual Perspective Model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 195–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800284-1.00004-7
2.
BaduraK.GrijalvaE.NewmanD.Taiyi YanT.JeonG. (2018). Gender and leadership emergence: A meta-analysis and explanatory model. Personnel Psychology, 71(3): 337–340. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12266
3.
BakanD. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and communion in Western man. Rand McNally
4.
BellA. C.BurkleyM. (2014). ‘Women like me are bad at math’: The psychological functions of negative self-stereotyping.Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(12): 708–720. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12145
5.
BestD. L.WilliamsJ. E. (1993). A cross-cultural viewpoint. In A. E. Beall & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of gender (pp. 215–248). Guilford Press.
6.
BraunS.StegmannS.Hernandez BarkA. S.JunkerN. M.van DickR. (2017). Think manager—think male, think follower—think female: Gender bias in implicit followership theories. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 47(7), 377–388.
7.
CarliL. L.AlawaL.LeeY.ZhaoB.KimE. (2016). Stereotypes about gender and science: Women ≠ scientists. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40, 244–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684315622645
CeciS. J.GintherD. K.KahnS.WilliamsW. (2014). Women in academic science: A changing landscape. Psychological Science, 15(3), 75–141.
10.
CeciS. J.WilliamsW. M. (Eds.). (2007). Why aren’t more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence. APA Books. https://doi.org/10.1037/11546-000
11.
CorrellS. (2001). Gender and the career choice process: The role of biased self‐assessments. American Journal of Sociology, 106(6), 1691–1730. https://doi.org/10.1086/321299
DiehlM.OwenS. K.YoungbladeL. M. (2004). Agency and communion attributes in adults' spontaneous self-representations.International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250344000226
EaglyA. H.KarauS. J.MakhijaniM. G. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis.Psychological Bulletin, 117, 125–145.
16.
EaglyA. H.WoodW. (2016). Social role theory of sex differences. In N. Naples, R. C. Hoogland, M. Wickramasinghe, & W. C. A. Wong (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell encyclopedia of gender and sexuality studies 1–3. Malden, MA.
17.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, AG. et al. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods 39, 175–191 (2007). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
GawronskiB. (2003). On difficult questions and evident answers: Dispositional inference from role-constrained behavior.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1459–1475. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203256375
20.
GichevaD.LinkA. N. (2015). The gender gap in federal and private support for entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 45, 729–733. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-015-9664-y
21.
GilbertD. T. (1998). Ordinary personology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 89–150). McGraw-Hill.
22.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.
23.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109–118.
24.
HalperL.CowgillC.RiosK. (2019). Gender bias in caregiving professions: The role of perceived warmth. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 49: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12615
HillC.CorbettC.St. RoseA. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. American Association of University Women. https://doi.org/10.5195/jyd.2014.44
27.
IsaacC.LeeB.CarnesM. (2009). Interventions that affect gender bias in hiring: A systematic review.Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 84(10), 1440–1446. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181b6ba00
28.
KaplanS. N.StrombergP. (2001). Venture capitals as principals: Contracting, screening, and monitoring. American Economic Review, 91(2): 426–430. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.91.2.426
29.
KoI.KotrbaL.RoebuckA. (2015). Leaders as males?: The role of industry gender composition. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 72(7-8), 294–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0462-4
30.
KoenigA. M.EaglyA. H. (2014). Evidence for the social role theory of stereotype content: Observations of groups’ roles shape stereotypes.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(3), 371–392. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037215
31.
Li, Norman. (2007). Mate Preference Necessities in Long and Short-Term Mating: People Prioritize in Themselves What Their Mates Prioritize in Them. Acta Psychologica Sinica. 39.
32.
MartinC. L.RubleD. (2004). Children’s search for gender cues: Cognitive perspectives on gender development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(2), 67–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00276.x
33.
NeltonS. (1991, May). Men, women & leadership. Nation's Business, pp. 16–22.
SasslerS.GlassJ.LevitteY.MichelmoreK. M. (2017). The missing women in STEM? Assessing gender differentials in the factors associated with transition to first jobs.Social Science Research, 63, 192–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.09.014
38.
ScheinV. E. (2007). A global look at psychological barriers to women's progress in management. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 675–688. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00235
39.
ScheinV. E. (1973). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics.Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(2), 95–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037128
40.
SibleyC. G.WilsonM. S. (2004). Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexist attitudes toward positive and negative sexual female subtypes. Sex Roles, 51, 687–696. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-004-0718-x
41.
Triandis H. (1988) Collectivism v. Individualism: A Reconceptualisation of a Basic Concept in Cross-cultural Social Psychology. In: Verma G.K., Bagley C. (eds) Cross-Cultural Studies of Personality, Attitudes and Cognition. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-08120-2_3
42.
WangM. T.DegolJ. L. (2017). Gender gap in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): Current knowledge, implications for practice, policy, and future directions.Educational Psychology Review, 29(1), 119–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9355-x
