Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025-8
Racialized Sexism: Nonverbal Displays of Power in Workplace Settings are Evaluated as More Masculine When Displayed by White (vs. Black) Women With Implications for the Expression of Ambivalent Sexism
We hypothesized that White (vs. Black) women in high- (vs. low-) power poses would be evaluated as particularly masculine and unfeminine due to greater perceived violations of gendered racial stereotypes. As predicted, White (vs. Black) women in high- (but not low-) power poses were evaluated as more masculine and less feminine (Studies 1-3). Moreover, greater perceived masculinity of White (vs. Black) women in high-power poses predicted more hostile sexism; and, lesser perceived femininity of White (vs. Black) women predicted less benevolent sexism. Finally, these associations between masculinity/hostile sexism and femininity/benevolent sexism serially mediated reduced hiring desirability of White (vs. Black) women (Study 2). Study 3 replicated these serial indirect effects and found that these effects emerged regardless of job status and even when controlling for socially desirable responding. We conclude that gendered racism leads sexism to be expressed toward White and Black women embodying power in distinct ways.
BaileyA.LaFranceM.DovidioJ. (2017). Could a woman be superman? Gender and the embodiment of power postures. Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology, 2(1), 6–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/23743603.2016.1248079
2.
BaileyA. H.LambertR.LaFranceM. (2020). Implicit reactions to women in high power body postures: Less wonderful but still weaker. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 44(2), 329–350.
3.
BemS. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42(2), 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036215
4.
BertrandM.MullainathanS. (2004). Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. American Economic Review, 94(4), 991–1013. https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828042002561
5.
BrescollV. L.UhlmannE. L. (2008). Can an angry woman get ahead? Status conferral, gender, and expression of emotion in the workplace. Psychological Science, 19(3), 268–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02079.x
6.
Brown-IannuzziJ. L.CooleyE.CipolliW.MehtaS. (2022). Race, ambivalent sexism, and perceptions of situations when police shoot Black women. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(1), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620987659
7.
CarneyD. R.CuddyA. J. C.YapA. J. (2010). Power posing: Brief nonverbal displays affect neuroendocrine levels and risk tolerance. Psychological Science, 21(10), 1363–1368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610383437
8.
CooleyE.WinslowH.VojtA.SheinJ.HoJ. (2018). Bias at the intersection of identity: Conflicting social stereotypes of gender and race augment the perceived femininity and interpersonal warmth of smiling Black women. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 74, 43–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.08.007
DonovanR. A.WestL. M. (2015). Stress and mental health: Moderating role of the strong Black woman stereotype. Journal of Black Psychology, 41(4), 384–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798414543014
12.
EaglyA. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
EaglyA. H.KarauS. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), Article 573.
14.
GaddisS. M. (2017). How black are Lakisha and Jamal? Racial perceptions from names used in correspondence audit studies. Sociological Science, 4, 469–489.
15.
GalinskyA. D.MageeJ. C.GruenfeldD. H.WhitsonJ. A.LiljenquistK. A. (2008). Power reduces the press of the situation: Implications for creativity, conformity, and dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1450–1466. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012633
16.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
17.
GoffP. A.ThomasM. A.JacksonM. C. (2008). “Ain’t I a woman?”: Towards an intersectional approach to person perception and group-based harms. Sex Roles, 59, 392–403.
18.
HallE. V.HallA. V.GalinskyA. D.PhillipsK. W. (2019). MOSAIC: A model of stereotyping through associated and intersectional categories. Academy of Management Review, 44(3), 643–672.
19.
HallJ. A.CoatsE. J.LeBeauL. S. (2005). Nonverbal behavior and the vertical dimension of social relations: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 898–924. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.898
20.
HenleyN. M. (2012). Body politics revisited: What do we know today?. In Gender, power, and communication in human relationships (pp. 27–61). Routledge.
21.
HidegI.FerrisD. L. (2016). The compassionate sexist? How benevolent sexism promotes and undermines gender equality in the workplace. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(5), 706.
22.
HidegI.ShenW. (2019). Why still so few? A theoretical model of the role of benevolent sexism and career support in the continued underrepresentation of women in leadership positions. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 26(3), 287–303.
23.
hooksb. (1989). Talking back: Thinking feminist—Thinking Black. South End Press.
24.
Hopkins-DoyleA.SuttonR. M.DouglasK. M.CalogeroR. M. (2019). Flattering to deceive: Why people misunderstand benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(2), Article 167.
25.
KatzJ.MerrileesC.HoxmeierJ. C.MotisiM. (2017). White female bystanders’ responses to a black woman at risk for incapacitated sexual assault. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 41, 273–285.
26.
KelleyH. H. (1971). Attribution in social interaction. General Learning Press.
LeiR. F.LeshinR. A.RhodesM. (2020). The development of intersectional social prototypes. Psychological Science, 31(8), 911–926. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620920360
29.
LeshinR. A.LeiR. F.ByrneM.RhodesM. (2022). Who is a typical woman? Exploring variation in how race biases representations of gender across development. Developmental Science, 25(2), Article e13175. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.13175
30.
MasserB. M.AbramsD. (2004). Reinforcing the glass ceiling: The consequences of hostile sexism for female managerial candidates. Sex Roles, 51(9), 609–615. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-004-5470-8
31.
McMahonJ. M.KahnK. B. (2016). Benevolent racism? The impact of target race on ambivalent sexism. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 19(2), 169–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430215583153
32.
NeelR.LassetterB. (2019). The stigma of perceived irrelevance: An affordance-management theory of interpersonal invisibility. Psychological Review, 126(5), Article 634.
33.
PetskoC. D.RosetteA. S.BodenhausenG. V. (2022). Through the looking glass: A lens-based account of intersectional stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23(4), 763–787.
34.
PlantE. A.DevineP. G. (1998). Internal and external motivation to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 811–832. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.811
35.
PlousS.WilliamsT. (1995). Racial stereotypes from the days of American slavery: A continuing legacy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 795–817
36.
R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
37.
RolleroC.PeterG.TartagliaS. (2014). Psychometric properties of Short Versions of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory and Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory. https://doi.org/10.4473/TPM21.2.3
38.
RosetteA. S.TostL. P. (2010). Agentic women and communal leadership: How role prescriptions confer advantage to top women leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(2), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018204
39.
SchugJ.AltN. P.KlauerK. C. (2015). Gendered race prototypes: Evidence for the non-prototypicality of Asian men and Black women. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 56, 121–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.09.012
40.
SeskoA. K.BiernatM. (2010). Prototypes of race and gender: The invisibility of Black women. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(2), 356–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.10.016
41.
SkewesL.FineC.HaslamN. (2018). Beyond Mars and Venus: The role of gender essentialism in support for gender inequality and backlash. PLOS ONE, 13(7), Article e0200921. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200921
42.
WilliamsM. J.EberhardtJ. L. (2008). Biological conceptions of race and the motivation to cross racial boundaries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(6), 1033–1047. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.6.1033
XiaoV. L.LoweryB. S.StillwellA. (2023). Gender backlash and the moderating role of shared racial group membership. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 49(4), 554–570.
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.
