Although women are thought to possess sexual power, they risk social and economic penalties (i.e., backlash; Rudman, 1998) when they self-sexualize (i.e., assert their power; Cahoon & Edmonds, 1989; Glick, Larsen, Johnson, & Branstiter, 2005). Why? Drawing on the status incongruity hypothesis (SIH), which predicts backlash against powerful women because they challenge the gender hierarchy, we expected prejudice against self-sexualizing women to be explained by a dominance penalty rather than a communality deficit (Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Phelan, & Nauts, 2012). Two experiments supported this hypothesis, and Experiment 3 further showed that the dominance penalty was explained by ascribing power motives to self-sexualized women. These findings extend the SIH’s utility to the domain of self-sexualization and illuminate the scope of people’s discomfort with female power. Implications for the advancement of gender equality are discussed.
AbbeyA.CozzarelliC.McLaughlinK.HarnishR. J. (1987). The effects of clothing and dyad sex composition on perceptions of sexual intent: Do women and men evaluate these cues differently?Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 108–126. doi:10.1111/j.1559–1816.1987.tb00304.x
2.
AmanatullahE. T.TinsleyC. H. (2013). Punishing female negotiators for asserting too much…or not enough: When advocacy moderates backlash. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120(1), 110–122. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.03.006
3.
BrescollV. L. (2011). Who takes the floor and why: Gender, power, and volubility in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56, 622–641. doi:10.1177/0001839212439994
4.
CahoonD. D.EdmondsE. M. (1989). Male–female estimates of opposite-sex first impressions concerning females’ clothing styles. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 27, 280–281. doi:10.3758/BF03334607
5.
CrandallC. S. (1991). Multiple stigma and AIDS: Illness stigma and attitudes toward homosexuals and IV drug users in AIDS-related stigmatization. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 1, 165–172. doi:10.1002/casp.2450010210
6.
EaglyA. H.KarauS. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598. doi:10.1037//0033–295X.109.3.573
7.
ErchullM. J.LissM. (2013). Exploring the concept of perceived female sexual empowerment: Development and validation of the Sex is Power Scale. Gender Issues, 30, 39–53. doi:10.1007/s12147–013–9114–6
8.
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. doi:10.1037//0022–3514.82.6.878
9.
GillR. (2008). Empowerment/sexism: Figuring female sexual agency in contemporary advertising. Feminism and Psychology, 18, 35–60. doi:10.1177/0959353507084950
10.
GillR. (2012). Media, empowerment and the “sexualization of culture” debates. Sex Roles, 66, 736–745. doi:10.1007/s11199–011–0107–1
11.
GlickP.DieboldJ.Bailey-WernerB.ZhuL. (1997). The two faces of Adam: Ambivalent sexism and polarized attitudes toward women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1323–1334. doi:10.1177/01461672972312009
12.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (2001). Ambivalent sexism. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 115–188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Academic Press.
13.
GlickP.LarsenS.JohnsonC.BranstiterH. (2005). Evaluations of sexy women in low- and high-status jobs. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 389–395. doi:10.1111/j.1471–6402.2005.00238.x
14.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford.
15.
HayesA. F.PreacherK. J. (2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67(3), 451–470. doi:10.1111/bmsp.12028.
16.
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. doi:10.1037/0021–9010.92.1.81
17.
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. doi:10.1037/0021–9010.89.3.416
18.
KaneE. W.SchippersM. (1996). Men’s and women’s beliefs about gender and sexuality. Gender and Society, 10, 650–665. doi:10.1177/089124396010005009
19.
KrayL. J.LockeC. C. (2008). To flirt or not to flirt? Sexual power at the bargaining table. Negotiation Journal, 24, 483–493. doi:10.1111/j.1571–9979.2008.00199.x
20.
KrayL. J.LockeC. C.van ZantA. B. (2012). Feminine charm: An experimental analysis of its costs and benefits in negotiations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1343–1357. doi:10.1177/0146167212453074
21.
LambS.GralingK.WheelerE. E. (2013). “Pole-arized” discourse: An analysis of responses to Miley Cyrus’s Teen Choice Awards pole dance. Feminism and Psychology, 23, 163–183. doi:10.1177/0959353512472482
22.
LambS.PetersonZ. (2012). Adolescent girls’ sexual empowerment: Two feminists explore the concept. Sex Roles, 66, 703–712. doi:10.1007/s11199–011–9995–3
23.
LevinD.KilbourneJ. (2008). So sexy, so soon: The new sexualized childhood and what parents can do to protect their kids. New York, NY: Ballantine.
24.
LissM.ErchullM. J.RamseyL. R. (2011). Empowering or oppressing? Development and exploration of the Enjoyment of Sexualization Scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 55–68. doi:10.1177/0146167210386119
25.
MurnenS. K.WrightC.KaluznyG. (2002). If “boys will be boys,” then girls will be victims? A meta-analytic review of the research that relates masculine ideology to sexual aggression. Sex Roles, 46, 359–375. doi:10.1023/A:1020488928736
26.
OkimotoT. G.BrescollV. L. (2010). The price of power: Power seeking and backlash against female politicians. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 923–936. doi:10.1177/0146167210371949
27.
RudmanL. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counter-stereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 629–645. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.74.3.629
28.
RudmanL. A.FairchildK. (2004). Reactions to counterstereotypic behavior: The role of backlash in cultural stereotype maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 157–176. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.87.2.157
29.
RudmanL. A.GlickP. (1999). Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: The hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1004–1010. doi:10.1037//0022–3514.77.5.1004
30.
RudmanL. A.GlickP. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743–762. doi:10.1111/0022–4537.00239
31.
RudmanL. A.Moss-RacusinC. A.GlickP.PhelanJ. E. (2012). Reactions to vanguards: Advances in backlash theory. In DevineP. G.PlantE. A. (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 45, pp. 167–227). New York, NY: Academic Press.
32.
RudmanL. A.Moss-RacusinC. A.PhelanJ. E.NautsS. (2012). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 165–179. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.008
33.
RudmanL. A.PhelanJ. E. (2008). Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 61–79. doi:10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.003
34.
SibleyC. G.WilsonM. S. (2004). Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexist attitudes toward positive and negative sexual female subtypes. Sex Roles, 51, 687–696. doi:10.1007/s11199–004–0718-x
35.
SixB.EckesT. (1991). A closer look at the complex structure of gender stereotypes. Sex Roles, 24, 57–71. doi:10.1007/BF00288703
36.
SmolakL.MurnenS. K. (2011). The sexualization of girls and women as primary antecedent of self-objectification. In CalogeroR. M.Tantleff-DunnS.ThompsonJ. K. (Eds.), Self-objectification in women: Causes, consequences, and counteractions (pp. 53–75). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
37.
WatkinsM. B.SmithA. N.AquinoK. (2013). The use and consequences of strategic sexual performances. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 173–186. doi:10.5465/amp.2010.0109
38.
WookeyM. L.GravesN. A.ButlerJ. C. (2009). Effects of a sexy appearance on perceived competence of women. Journal of Social Psychology, 149, 116–118. doi:10.3200/SOCP.149.1.116–118
