Due to gender-based bias, women can be at a disadvantage when trying to enter into traditionally masculine fields (e.g., engineering) or job positions (e.g., top management). The present study examined the effectiveness of two verbal gender presentation strategies that women might be able to use to improve their evaluations in traditionally masculine hiring contexts: verbalizing agentic traits (describing oneself in terms of stereotypically masculine traits) and gender acknowledgment. In a laboratory study, 674 participants evaluated either a female or a male applicant applying for a traditionally masculine position in a traditionally masculine field (engineering manager). Results showed that verbalizing one’s agentic traits resulted in favorable fit evaluations for the female applicant but not the male applicant. Further, acknowledging one’s gender resulted in negative personal evaluations for both female and male applicants. Our findings suggest that applicants’ decisions concerning how to manage their gender presentation can influence how they are evaluated and that women seeking entry into traditionally masculine occupations may want to describe themselves in agentic terms and avoid acknowledging their gender.
AtwaterL. E.BrettJ. F.WaldmanD.DiMareL.HaydenM. V. (2004). Men’s and women’s perceptions of the gender typing of management subroles. Sex Roles, 50, 191–199.
2.
BakanD. (1966). The duality of human existence: An essay on psychology and religion. Skokie, IL: Rand McNally.
3.
BemS. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.
4.
BowlesH. R.BabcockL. (2013). How can women escape the compensation negotiation dilemma? Relational accounts are one answer. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, 80–96.
5.
ChapmanD.WebsterJ. (2003). The use of technologies in the recruiting, screening, and selection processes for job candidates. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 113–120.
6.
ColquittJ. A. (2008). Publishing laboratory research in AMJ–A question of when, not if. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 616–620.
7.
CrockerJ.MajorB.SteeleC. (1998). Social stigma. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
8.
DerousE.RyanA. M.NguyenH.-H. D. (2012). Multiple categorization in resume screening: Examining effects on hiring against Arab applicants in field and lab settings. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 544–570.
9.
DuehrE.BonoJ. E. (2006). Men, women, and managers: Are stereotypes finally changing?Personnel Psychology, 59, 815–846.
10.
EaglyA. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
11.
EaglyA. H.KarauS. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598.
12.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J. C.GlickP.XuJ. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902.
13.
FletcherC. (1990). The relationships between candidate personality, self-presentation strategies, and interviewer assessments in selection interviews: An empirical study. Human Relations, 43, 739–749.
14.
Garcia-RetameroR.Lopez-ZafraE. (2006). Prejudice against women in male-congenial environments: Perceptions of gender role congruity in leadership. Sex Roles, 55, 51–61.
15.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.
16.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (1997). Hostile and benevolent sexism: Measuring ambivalent sexist attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 119–135.
17.
GlickP.ZionC.NelsonC. (1988). What mediates sex discrimination in hiring decisions?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 178–186.
18.
GoffmanE. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
19.
GoodJ. J.RudmanL. A. (2010). When women applicants meet sexist interviewers: The costs of being a target of benevolent sexism. Sex Roles, 62, 481–493.
20.
HagiwaraN.WesselJ. L.RyanA. M. (2012). Race and gender acknowledgment in the presidential election 2008: When did stigma acknowledgment hurt or benefit the candidates?Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 2191–2212.
21.
HastorfA. H.WildfogelJ.CassmanT. (1979). Acknowledgment of handicap as a tactic in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1790–1797.
22.
HeblM. R.KleckR. E. (2002). Acknowledging one’s stigma in the interview setting: Effective strategy or liability?Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 223–249.
23.
HeblM. R.TickleJ.HeathertonT. F. (2000). Awkward moments in interactions between nonstigmatized and stigmatized individuals. In HeathertonT. F.KleckR. E.HeblM. R.HullJ. G. (Eds.), The social psychology of stigma (pp. 275–306). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
24.
HeilmanM. E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. In StawB.CummingsL. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 269–298). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
25.
HeilmanM. E. (1995). Sex stereotypes and their effects in the workplace: What we know and what we don’t know. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 3–26.
26.
HeilmanM. E. (1997). Sex discrimination and the affirmative action remedy: The role of sex stereotypes. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 877–889.
27.
HeilmanM. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 657–674.
28.
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.
29.
HighhouseS. (2009). Designing experiments that generalize. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 554–566.
30.
HosodaM.Stone-RomeroE. F.CoatsG. (2003). The effects of physical attractiveness on job-related outcomes: A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Personnel Psychology, 56, 431–462.
31.
JudgeT. A.BonoJ. E.IliesR.GerhardtM. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765–780.
32.
KanterR. M. (1977). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 965–990.
33.
KwantesC. T.LinI. Y.GidakN.SchmidtK. (2011). The effect of attire on expected occupational outcomes for male employees. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 12, 166–180.
34.
LaneD. M. (2013). Online statistics education: A multimedia course of study. Retrieved fromhttp://onlinestatbook.com/
35.
LynessK. S.HeilmanM. E. (2006). When fit is fundamental: Performance evaluations and promotions of upper-level female and male managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 777–785.
36.
MartellR. F.LaneD. M.EmrichC. (1996). Male-female differences: A computer simulation. American Psychologist, 51, 157–158.
37.
MasserB. M.AbramsD. (2004). Reinforcing the glass ceiling: The consequences of hostile sexism for female managerial candidates. Sex Roles, 51, 609–615.
38.
MenardS. (1995). Applied logistic regression analysis: Sage University series on quantitative applications in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39.
National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics. (2011). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2011(Report NSF 11-309). Retrieved fromhttp://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/
40.
PhelanJ. E.Moss-RacusinC. A.RudmanL. A. (2008). Competent yet out in the cold: Shifting hiring criteria reflects backlash toward agentic women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 406–413.
41.
PhelanJ. E.RudmanL. A. (2010). Prejudice toward female leaders: Backlash effects and women’s impression management dilemma. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 807–820.
42.
PowellG. N.ButterfieldD. A. (1989). The “good manager”: Did androgyny fare better in the 1980s?Group and Organization Studies, 14, 216–233.
43.
PowellG. N.ButterfieldD. A.ParentJ. D. (2002). Gender and managerial stereotypes: Have the times changed?Journal of Management, 28, 177–193.
44.
RosetteA. S.TostL. P. (2010). Agentic women and communal leadership: How role prescriptions confer advantage to top women leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 221–235.
45.
RosserS. V. (2003). Attracting and retaining women in science and engineering. Academe, 89, 24–28.
46.
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.
47.
RudmanL. A.GlickP. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743–762.
48.
RudmanL. A.KilianskiS. E. (2000). Implicit and explicit attitudes toward female authority. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1315–1328.
49.
RyanA. M.McFarlandL.BaronH.PageR. (1999). An international look at selection practices: Nation and culture as explanations for variability in practice. Personnel Psychology, 52, 359–391.
50.
RynesS. L.BoudreauJ. W. (1986). College recruitment in large organizations: Practices, evaluations and research implications. Personnel Psychology, 39, 729–757.
51.
SingletaryS. L.HeblM. R. (2009). Compensatory strategies for reducing interpersonal discrimination: The effectiveness of acknowledgments, increased positivity, and individuating information. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 797–805.
52.
SteeleJ.JamesJ. B.BarnettR. (2002). Learning in a man's world: Examining the perceptions of undergraduate women in male-dominated academic areas. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 46–50.
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.
