Across three studies, we investigate men’s reactions to women in superior roles. Drawing from precarious manhood theory, we hypothesize that when a woman occupies a superior organizational role, men in subordinate positions experience threat, which leads them to behave more assertively toward her and advocate for themselves. In Studies 1 and 2, we demonstrate that men feel more threatened (relative to women) by women in superior roles (relative to men in superior roles) and, as a result, engage in more assertive behaviors toward these women. In Study 3, we investigate a boundary condition to this effect and demonstrate that a woman in a superior role who displays qualities associated with administrative agency (e.g., directness, proactivity) rather than ambitious agency (e.g., self-promotion, power-seeking) elicits less assertive behavior from men. We conclude by discussing implications as well as directions for future research.
AmanatullahE. T.MorrisM. W. (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. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 256-267.
2.
AndersonC.JohnO. P.KeltnerD. (2012). The personal sense of power. Journal of Personality, 80, 313-344.
3.
BemS. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.
4.
BerdahlJ. L. (2007a). Harassment based on sex: Protecting social status in the context of gender hierarchy. Academy of Management Review, 32, 641-658.
5.
BerdahlJ. L. (2007b). The sexual harassment of uppity women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 425-437.
6.
BossonJ. K.VandelloJ. A.BurnafordR.WeaverJ.WastiA. (2009). The links between precarious manhood and physical aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 623-634.
7.
BowlesH. R.BabcockL.LaiL. (2007). Social incentives for gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations: Sometimes it does hurt to ask. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 84-103.
8.
BrannonR.DavidD. (1976). The male sex role: Our culture’s blueprint for manhood, and what it’s done for us lately. In DavidD.BrannonR. (Eds.), The forty-nine percent majority: The male sex role (pp. 1-48). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
9.
BrescollV. L.UhlmannE. L.Moss-RacusinC. A.SarnellL. (2012). Masculinity, status and subordination: Why working for a stereotype violator causes men to lose status. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 354-357.
10.
BrovermanI. K.VogelS. R.BrovermanD. M.ClarksonF. E.RosenkrantzP. S. (1972). Sex-role stereotypes: A current appraisal. Journal of Social Issues, 28, 59-78.
CaswellT. A.BossonJ. K.VandelloJ. A.SellersJ. G. (2014). Testosterone and men’s stress responses to gender threats. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 15, 4-11.
ConnellR. W. (1985). Masculinities. Berkley: University of California Press.
15.
ConnellR. W. (1987). Gender and power. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
16.
CorrellS. J.BenardS.PaikI. (2007). Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty?American Journal of Sociology, 112, 1297-1338.
17.
CuddyA. J.FiskeS. T.GlickP. (2004). When professionals become mothers, warmth doesn’t cut the ice. Journal of Social Issues, 60, 701-718.
18.
DeMarreeK. G.WheelerS. C.PettyR. E. (2005). Priming a new identity: Self-monitoring moderates the effects of non-self stereotype primes on self-judgments and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 657-671.
19.
DesaiS.ChughD.BriefA. (2014). The implications of marriage structure for men’s workplace attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors toward women. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59, 330-365.
20.
DoyleJ. A. (1989). The male experience. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown Communications.
21.
EaglyA. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22.
EaglyA. H.KarauS. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573-598.
23.
FreudS. (1937). Analysis terminable and interminable. In RieffP. (Ed.), Freud: Therapy and techniques (pp. 233-271). New York, NY: Macmillan.
24.
GoodwinG. P.PiazzaJ.RozinP. (2014). Moral character predominates in person perception and evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 148-168.
25.
HallE. V.PhillipsK. W.RudmanL. A.GlickP.LivingstonR. W.RosetteA. S.WashingtonE. F. (2012). [Descriptive and prescriptive stereotypes as a function of race and gender]. Unpublished raw data.
26.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
27.
HeilmanM. E.BlockC. J.MartellR. F. (1995). Sex stereotypes: Do they influence perceptions of managers?Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 237-252.
28.
HeilmanM. E.BlockC. J.MartellR. F.SimonM. C. (1989). Has anything changed? Current characterizations of men, women, and managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 935-942.
29.
HeilmanM. E.OkimotoT. G. (2007). Why are women penalized for success at male tasks? The implied communality deficit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 81-92.
30.
HeilmanM. E.WallenA. S.FuchsD.TamkinsM. M. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 416-427.
31.
HorneyK. (1932). The dread of women. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 13, 348-360.
32.
JostJ. T.KayA. C. (2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: Consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 498-509.
33.
KasofJ. (1993). Sex bias in the naming of stimulus persons. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 140-163.
KimmelM. S. (2006). Manhood in America: A cultural history (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
36.
KonradA. M.RitchieJ. E.Jr.LiebP.CorrigallE. (2000). Sex differences and similarities in job attribute preferences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 593-641.
37.
KouchakiM.DesaiS. (2015). Anxious, threatened, and also unethical: How anxiety makes individuals feel threatened and commit unethical acts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 360-375.
38.
LevantR. F.KopeckyG. (1995). Masculinity reconstructed: Changing the rules of manhood at work, in relationships and in family life. New York, NY: Dutton.
39.
LivingstonR. W.WashingtonE. F. (2013, April). The agency penalty revisited: Agency as a multifaceted concept. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology in Houston, TX.
40.
MaassA.CadinuM.GuarnieriG.GrasselliA. (2003). Sexual harassment under social identity threat: The computer harassment paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 853-870.
41.
Parks-StammE. J.HeilmanM. E.HearnsK. A. (2008). Motivated to penalize: Women’s strategic rejection of successful women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 237-247.
42.
PreacherK. J.RuckerD. D.HayesA. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185-227.
43.
RaiffaH. (1982). The art and science of negotiation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
44.
RudmanL. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 629-645.
45.
RudmanL. A.Moss-RacusinC. A.PhelanJ. E.NautsS. (2012). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice toward female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 165-179.
46.
ScheinV. E. (1975). Relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics among female managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 340-344.
47.
ScheinV. E. (2001). A global look at psychological barriers to women’s progress in management. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 675-688.
SpenceJ. T.SawinL. L. (1985). Images of masculinity and femininity: A reconceptualization. In O’LearyV. E.UngerR. K.WallstonB. S. (Eds.), Women, gender, and social psychology (pp. 35-66). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
50.
SymonsD. (1995). On the use and misuse of Darwinism in the study of human behavior. In BarkowJ.CosmidesL.ToobyJ. (Eds.), The adapted mind (pp. 137-162). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
51.
VandelloJ. A.BossonJ. K. (2013). Hard won and easily lost: A review and synthesis of theory and research on precarious manhood. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14, 101-113.
52.
VandelloJ. A.BossonJ. K.CohenD.BurnafordR.WeaverJ. (2008). Precarious manhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1325-1339.
53.
VandelloJ. A.HettingerV. E.BossonJ. K.SiddiqiJ. (2013). When equal isn’t really equal: The masculine dilemma of seeking work flexibility. Journal of Social Issues, 69, 303-321.
54.
van der ToornJ.TylerT. R.JostJ. T. (2011). More than fair: Outcome dependence, system justification, and the perceived legitimacy of authority figures. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 127-138.
55.
WeaverJ.VandelloJ. A.BossonJ. K. (2013). Intrepid, imprudent, or impetuous? The effects of gender threats on men’s financial decisions. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14, 184-191.
56.
WilliamsJ. E.BestD. L. (1990). Sex and psyche: Gender and self-viewed cross-culturally. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
57.
WillisG. B.GuinoteA.Rodríguez-BailónR. (2010). Illegitimacy improves goal pursuit in powerless individuals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 416-419.
58.
WoodW.EaglyA. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 699-727.
59.
WoodW.EaglyA. H. (2010). Gender. In FiskeS. T.GilbertD. T.LindzeyG. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (5th ed., pp. 629-667). New York, NY: John Wiley.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
