Previous work by Webster and Rashotte (2010) experimentally tested a theory of behavior and performance expectations, and female and male participants acted quite differently in the experiment. Theories of status processes predict no differences in how women and men use status information. We replicated two conditions and added two more conditions to assess a plausible cause of gender effects here. New results do not show a gender difference. We also find that: (1) theoretical predictions are confirmed more strongly in the replication than in the first experiment, (2) extraneous processes that may have affected the earlier experiment did not appear in the replication, (3) steps to enhance task focus did not improve the data and so are not needed in this experimental design, and (4) results are robust across participant pools, experimenters, computer equipment, and eight years of historical and cohort differences.
BergerJoseph. 2014. “The Standardized Experimental Situation in Expectation States Research: Notes on History, Uses, and Special Features.” Pp. 269–93 in Laboratory Experiments in the Social Sciences. 2nd ed., edited by WebsterM.Jr.SellJ.New York: Academic Press.
2.
BergerJosephCohenBernard P.ZelditchMorrisJr.1972. “Status Characteristics and Social Interaction.”American Sociological Review37:241–55.
3.
BergerJosephFisekHamitNormanRobert Z.ZelditchMorrisJr.1977. Status Characteristics and Social Interaction: An Expectation States Approach. New York: Elsevier.
4.
BergerJosephWebsterMurrayJr.2006. “Expectations, Status, and Behavior.” Pp. 268–300 in Contemporary Social Psychological Theories, edited by P. J. Burke. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
5.
BianchiAlison. 2004. “Rejecting Others’ Influence: Negative Sentiment and Status in Task Groups.”Sociological Perspectives47:339–55.
6.
DovidioJohn F.BrownClifford E.HeltmanKarenEllysonSteve L.KeatingCaroline F.1988. “Power Displays between Women and Men in Discussions of Gender-Linked Tasks: A Multichannel Study.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology55:580–87.
7.
FisekM. HamitBarlasZeynap. 2013. “Permutation Tests for Goodness-of-Fit Testing of Mathematical Models to Experimental Data.”Social Science Research42:482–95.
8.
FisekM. HamitBergerJosephMooreJames C.Jr.2002. “Evaluations, Enactment, and Expectations. Social Psychology Quarterly65: 329-45.
9.
FisekHamitBergerJosephNormanRobert Z.1991. “Participation in Heterogeneous and Homogeneous Groups: A Theoretical Integration.”The American Journal of Sociology97:721–46.
10.
FoschiMartha. 1997. “On Scope Conditions.”Small Group Research28:535–55.
11.
FoschiMartha. 2007. “Hypotheses, Operationalizations, and Manipulation Checks.” Pp. 113–35 in Laboratory Experiments in the Social Sciences, edited by WebsterM.Jr.SellJ.San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
12.
FoschiMarthaLapointeVanessa. 2002. “On Conditional Hypotheses and Gender as a Status Characteristic.”Social Psychology Quarterly65:146–62.
13.
FoxJohnMooreJames C.1979. “Status Characteristics and Expectation States: Fitting and Testing a Recent Model.”Social Psychology Quarterly42:126–34.
14.
GoffmanErving. 1956. “The Nature of Deference and Demeanor.”American Anthropologist58:473–502.
15.
GoffmanErving. 1959. The Presentation ofSelf in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.
16.
HysomStuart J.WebsterMurrayJr.WalkerLisa Slattery. 2015. “Expectations, Status Value, and Group Structure.”Sociological Perspectives58:554–69.
17.
KalkhoffWill. 2005. “Collective Validation in Multi-Actor Task Groups: The Effects of Status Differentiation.”Social Psychology Quarterly68:57–74.
18.
KalkhoffWillYountsC. WesleyTroyerLisa. 2011. “Do Others’ Views of Us Transfer to New Groups and Tasks? An Expectation States Approach.”Social Psychology Quarterly74:267–290.
19.
RashotteLisa SlatterySmith-LovinLynn. 1997. “Who Benefits from Being Bold? The Interactive Effects of Task Cues and Status Characteristics on Influence in Mock Jury Groups.” Pp. 235–55 in Advances in Group Processes, edited by LawlerE. J.Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
20.
RidgewayCecilia L.2009a. “Framed before We Know It: How Gender Shapes Social Relations.”Gender & Society23:145–60.
21.
RidgewayCecilia L.2009b. Framed by Gender: How Gender Inequality Persists in the Modern World. New York: Oxford.
22.
RidgewayCecilia L.2014. “Why Status Matters for Inequality.”American Sociological Review70:1–16.
23.
RidgewayCecilia L.BoyleElizabeth HegerKuipersKathyRobinsonDawn T.1998. “How Do Status Beliefs Develop? The Role of Resources and Interactional Experience.”American Sociological Review63:331–50.
24.
SandbergSheryl. 2013. Lean in: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead. New York: Knopf.
25.
TroyerLisaYountsC. Wesley. 1997. “Whose Expectations Matter? The Relative Power of First-Order and Second-Order Expectations in Determining Social Influence.”The American Journal of Sociology103:692–732.
26.
WebsterMurrayJr.RashotteLisa Slattery. 2010. “Behavior, Expectations, and Status.”Social Forces88:1021–49.
27.
WebsterMurrayJr.SobieszekBarbara1974. Sources of Self-Evaluation: A Formal Theory of Significant Others and Social Influence. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
28.
WhitmeyerJosephWebsterMurrayJr.RashotteLisa Slattery. 2005. “When Status Equals Make Status Claims.”Social Psychology Quarterly68:179–86.
