We present a conceptual framework of situational moderators of gender/sex effects in negotiation, risk-taking, and leadership—three masculine-stereotypic domains associated with gender/sex gaps in pay and authority. We propose that greater situational ambiguity and higher relevance and salience of gender/sex increase the likelihood of gender/sex-linked behaviors in these domains. We argue that greater ambiguity increases the extent to which actors and audiences must search inwardly (e.g., mental schema, past experience) or outwardly (e.g., social norms) for cues on how to behave or evaluate a situation and thereby widens the door for gender/sex-linked influences. Correspondingly, we propose that gender/sex effects on behavior and evaluations in these domains will be more likely when gender/sex is more relevant and salient to the setting or task. We propose further that these two situational moderators may work jointly or interactively to influence the likelihood of gender/sex effects in negotiation, risk-taking, and leadership. We conclude by discussing applications of our conceptual framework to psychological science and its translation to practice, including directions for future research.
Al DabbaghM.BowlesH. R.ThomasonB. (2016). Status reinforcement in emerging economies: The psychological experience of local candidates striving for global employment. Organization Science, 27(6), 1453–1471.
2.
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(2), 256–267.
3.
AmanatullahE. T.TinsleyC. H. (2013a). Ask and ye shall receive? How gender and status moderate negotiation success. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 6(4), 253–272.
4.
AmanatullahE. T.TinsleyC. H. (2013b). Punishing female negotiators for asserting too much . . . or not enough: Exploring why advocacy moderates backlash against assertive female negotiators. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120(1), 110–122.
5.
American Association of University Women. (n.d.). Work smart & start smart: Salary negotiation. AAUW: Empowering women since 1881. Retrieved February 10, 2024, from https://www.aauw.org/resources/programs/salary/
6.
AndersenS.ErtacS.GneezyU.ListJ. A.MaximianoS. (2013). Gender, competitiveness, and socialization at a young age: Evidence from a matrilineal and a patriarchal society. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(4), 1438–1443.
7.
ArtzB.GoodallA. H.OswaldA. J. (2018). Do women ask?Industrial Relations, 57(4), 611–636.
8.
BacharachS. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 496–515.
9.
BaduraK. L.GrijalvaE.NewmanD. A.Taiyi YanT.JeonG. (2018). Gender and leadership emergence: A meta-analysis and explanatory model. Personnel Psychology, 71(3), 335–367.
10.
BakerM. D.ManerJ. K. (2008). Risk-taking as a situationally sensitive male mating strategy. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29(6), 391–395.
11.
BakerM. D.OwensB. T.UtterR. L.BoachieR. J.KeithD. R. (2022). Boundary conditions for gender differences in risk taking. Journal of Risk Research, 25(4), 536–545.
12.
BanajiM. R.GreenwaldA. G. (2016). Blindspot: Hidden biases of good people. Bantam Books.
13.
BanksG. C.GootyJ.RossR. L.WilliamsC. E.HarringtonN. T. (2018). Construct redundancy in leader behaviors: A review and agenda for the future. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 236–251.
14.
BarberB. M.OdeanT. (2001). Boys will be boys: Gender, overconfidence, and common stock investment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 16, 261–292.
15.
BassB. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). The Free Press.
16.
BearJ. B.BabcockL. (2012). Negotiation topic as a moderator of gender differences in negotiation. Psychological Science, 23(7), 743–744.
17.
BeckerS. W.EaglyA. H. (2004). The heroism of women and men. American Psychologist, 59(3), 163–178.
18.
BerdahlJ. L.MinJ.-A. (2012). Prescriptive stereotypes and workplace consequences for East Asians in North America. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 18(2), 141–152.
19.
BlashillA. J.PowlishtaK. K. (2009). Gay stereotypes: The use of sexual orientation as a cue for gender-related attributes. Sex Roles, 61(11), 783–793.
20.
BlissR. T.PotterM. E. (2002). Mutual fund managers: Does gender matter?Journal of Business and Economic Studies, 8(1), 1–15.
21.
BohnetI. (2016). What works. Harvard University Press.
22.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P. T.RothsteinH. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
23.
BossonJ. K.JurekP.VandelloJ. A.Kosakowska-BerezeckaN.OlechM.BestaT.BenderM.HoorensV.BecckerM.Timur SevincerA.BestD. L.SafdarS.WłodarczykA.ZawiszaM.ŻadkowskaM.AbuhamdehS.Badu AgyemangC.AkbaşG.Albayrak-AydemirN.. . . Žukauskiene.R. (2021). Psychometric properties and correlates of precarious manhood beliefs in 62 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 52(3), 231–258.
24.
BossonJ. K.TaylorJ. N.Prewitt-FreilinoJ. L. (2006). Gender role violations and identity misclassification: The roles of audience and actor variables. Sex Roles, 55(1), 13–24.
25.
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(1), 84–103.
26.
BowlesH. R.BabcockL.McGinnK. L. (2005). Constraints and triggers: Situational mechanics of gender in negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 951–965.
27.
BowlesH. R.ThomasonB.Macias-AlonsoI. (2022). When gender matters in organizational negotiations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 9(1), 199–223.
28.
BrandtM. J. (2011). Sexism and gender inequality across 57 societies. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1413–1418.
29.
BrescollV. L.DawsonE.UhlmannE. L. (2010). Hard won and easily lost: The fragile status of leaders in gender-stereotype-incongruent occupations. Psychological Science, 21(11), 1640–1642.
30.
BrescollV. L.UhlmannE. L.Moss-RacusinC.SarnellL. (2012). Masculinity, status, and subordination: Why working for a gender stereotype violator causes men to lose status. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 354–357.
31.
BreslowA. S.BrewsterM. E.VelezB. L.WongS.GeigerE.SoderstromB. (2015). Resilience and collective action: Exploring buffers against minority stress for transgender individuals. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2(3), 253–265.
32.
BussD. M. (1995). Psychological sex differences: Origins through sexual selection. American Psychologist, 50, 164–168.
33.
BussD. M.SchmittD. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232.
34.
ByrnesJ. P.MillerD. C.SchaferW. D. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(3), 367–383.
35.
CárdenasJ.-C.DreberA.von EssenE.RanehillE. (2012). Gender differences in competitiveness and risk taking: Comparing children in Colombia and Sweden. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 83(1), 11–23.
36.
CastillaE. J. (2015). Accounting for the gap: A firm study manipulating organizational accountability and transparency in pay decisions. Organization Science, 26(2), 311–333.
37.
CheryanS.MarkusH. R. (2020). Masculine defaults: Identifying and mitigating hidden cultural biases. Psychological Review, 127(6), 1022–1052.
38.
ClairJ.HumberdB.RouseE.JonesE. (2019). Loosening categorical thinking: Extending the terrain of theory and research on demographic identities in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 44(3), 592–617.
39.
ConleyT. D. (2011). Perceived proposer personality characteristics and gender differences in acceptance of casual sex offers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 309–329.
40.
ConleyT. D.MoorsA. C.MatsickJ. L.ZieglerA.ValentineB. A. (2011). Women, men, and the bedroom: Methodological and conceptual insights that narrow, reframe, and eliminate gender differences in sexuality. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(5), 296–300.
41.
CortinaJ. M.KoehlerT.KeelerK. R.NielsenB. B. (2019). Restricted variance interaction effects: What they are and why they are your friends. Journal of Management, 45(7), 2779–2806.
42.
CosgroveD. (2021). “I am allowed to be myself”: A photovoice exploration of non-binary identity development and meaning-making. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 33(1), 78–102.
43.
CuddyA. J. C.FiskeS. T.GlickP. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(4), 631–648.
44.
CuddyA. J. C.WolfE. B.GlickP.CrottyS.ChongJ.NortonM. I. (2015). Men as cultural ideals: Cultural values moderate gender stereotype content. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(4), 622–635.
45.
CummingG. (2014). The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological Science, 25(1), 7–29.
46.
DalyM.WilsonM. (1998). The evolutionary social psychology of family violence. In CrawfordC. B.KrebsD. L. (Eds.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology: Ideas, issues, and applications (pp. 431–456). Psychology Press.
47.
DasguptaN. (2011). Ingroup experts and peers as social vaccines who inoculate the self-concept: The Stereotype Inoculation Model. Psychological Inquiry, 22(4), 231–246.
48.
DeauxK.MajorB. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior. Psychological Review, 94(3), 369–389.
49.
DesaiS. D.GuniaB. C. (2023). The interplay of gender and perceived sexual orientation at the bargaining table: A social dominance and intersectionalist perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 179, Article 104279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2023.104279
50.
DiekmanA. B.EaglyA. H.KulesaP. (2002). Accuracy and bias in stereotypes about the social and political attitudes of women and men. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(3), 268–282.
51.
EaglyA. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
52.
EaglyA. H.Johannesen-SchmidtM. C.van EngenM. L. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 569–591.
53.
EaglyA. H.JohnsonB. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233–256.
54.
EaglyA. H.KarauS. J. (1991). Gender and the emergence of leaders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(5), 685–710.
55.
EaglyA. H.KarauS. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598.
56.
EaglyA. H.KarauS. J.JohnsonB. T. (1992). Gender and leadership style among school principles: A meta-analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28(1), 76–102.
57.
EaglyA. H.KarauS. J.MakhijaniM. G. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 125–145.
58.
EaglyA. H.KarauS. J.MinerJ. B.JohnsonB. T. (1994). Gender and motivation to manage in hierarchic organizations: A meta-analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 5(2), 135–159.
59.
EaglyA. H.KoenigA. M. (2021). The vicious cycle linking stereotypes and social roles. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 30(4), 343–350.
60.
EaglyA. H.MakhijaniM. G.KlonskyB. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111(1), 3–22.
61.
EaglyA. H.RevelleW. (2022). Understanding the magnitude of psychological differences between women and men requires seeing the forest and the trees. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17, 1339–1358.
62.
EaglyA. H.SteffenV. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(4), 735–754.
63.
EaglyA. H.WoodW. (2013). The nature–nurture debates: 25 years of challenges in understanding the psychology of gender. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 340–357.
64.
ElyR.PadavicI. (2007). A feminist analysis of organizational research on sex differences. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1121–1143.
65.
EyalT.EpleyN. (2017). Exaggerating accessible differences: When gender stereotypes overestimate actual group differences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(9), 1323–1336.
66.
Fausto-SterlingA. (2012). Sex/gender: Biology in a social world. Routledge.
67.
FineC. (2017). Testosterone rex: Myths of sex, science and society. W. W. Norton & Company.
68.
FriedE. I. (2020). Theories and models: What they are, what they are for, and what they are about. Psychological Inquiry, 31(4), 336–344.
69.
GalinskyA. D.HallE. V.CuddyA. J. C. (2013). Gendered races: Implications for interracial marriage, leadership selection, and athletic participation. Psychological Science, 24(4), 498–506.
70.
GlickP.FiskeS. T.MladinicA.SaizJ. L.AbramsD.MasserB.AdetounB.OsagieJ. E.AkandeA.AlaoA.AnnetjeB.WillemsenT. M.ChipetaK.DardenneB.DijksterhuisA.WigboldusD.EckesT.Six-MaternaI.ExpósitoF.. . . LópezW. L. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 763–775.
71.
GneezyU.LeonardK. L.ListJ. A. (2009). Gender differences in competition: Evidence from a matrilineal and a patriarchal society. Econometrica, 77(5), 1637–1664.
72.
GoldinC. (2021). Career and family: Women’s century-long journey toward equity. Princeton University Press.
73.
GoldscheiderF.BernhardtE.LappegårdT. (2015). The gender revolution: A framework for understanding changing family and demographic behavior. Population and Development Review, 41(2), 207–239.
74.
GompersP. A.MukharlyamovV.WeisburstE.XuanY. (2022). Gender gaps in venture capital performance. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 57(2), 485–513.
75.
GongB.YangC.-L. (2012). Gender differences in risk attitudes: Field experiments on the matrilineal Mosuo and the patriarchal Yi. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 83(1), 59–65.
76.
GoodmanJ. A.SchellJ.AlexanderM. G.EidelmanS. (2008). The impact of a derogatory remark on prejudice toward a gay male leader. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(2), 542–555.
77.
HallJ. A.CarterJ. D. (1999). Gender-stereotype accuracy as an individual difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(2), 350–359.
78.
HegelsonV. S. (2020). Psychology of gender. Routledge.
79.
HeilmanM. E. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 113–135.
80.
HeilmanM. E.CaleoS. (2018). Combatting gender discrimination: A lack of fit framework. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(5), 725–744.
81.
HernandezM.AveryD. R.VolponeS. D.KaiserC. R. (2019). Bargaining while Black: The role of race in salary negotiations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(4), 581–592.
82.
HibbertA. M.LawrenceE. R.PrakashA. J. (2013). Does knowledge of finance mitigate the gender difference in financial risk-aversion?Global Finance Journal, 24(2), 140–152.
83.
HoytC. L.AllisonS. T.BarnowskiA.SultanA. (2020). Lay theories of heroism and leadership the role of gender, communion, and agency. Social Psychology, 51(6), 381–395.
84.
HsuN.BaduraK. L.NewmanD. A.SpeachM. E. P. (2021). Gender, “masculinity,” and “femininity”: A meta-analytic review of gender differences in agency and communion. Psychological Bulletin, 147(10), 987–1011.
85.
HudsonS. T.GhaniA. (2023). Sexual orientation and race intersectionally reduce the perceived gendered nature of normative stereotypes in the United States. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 48, 56–79.
86.
HydeJ. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60(6), 581–592.
87.
HydeJ. S. (2014). Gender similarities and differences. Annual Review of Psychology, 65(1), 373–398.
88.
HydeJ. S.BiglerR. S.JoelD.TateC. C.van AndersS. M. (2019). The future of sex and gender in psychology: Five challenges to the gender binary. American Psychologist, 74(2), 171–193.
89.
JackmanM. R. (1994). The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class, and race relations. University of California Press.
90.
JohnsonJ. E. V.PowellP. L. (1994). Decision making, risk and gender: Are managers different?British Journal of Management, 5(2), 123–138.
91.
JohnsonK. L.FreemanJ. B.PaukerK. (2012). Race is gendered: How covarying phenotypes and stereotypes bias sex categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(1), 116–131.
92.
KalishY.LuriaG. (2021). Traits and time in leadership emergence: A longitudinal study. The Leadership Quarterly, 32(2), Article 101443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101443
93.
KaplanS.WalleyN. (2016). The risky rhetoric of female risk aversion. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 14, 48–54.
94.
KoI.KotrbaL.RoebuckA. (2015). Leaders as males? The role of industry gender composition. Sex Roles, 72(7), 294–307.
95.
KoenigA. M.EaglyA. H. (2014). Evidence for the social role theory of stereotype content: Observations of groups’ roles shape stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(3), 371–392.
96.
KoenigA. M.EaglyA. H.MitchellA. A.RistikariT. (2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 616–642.
97.
KotterJ. P. (1990, May). What leaders really do. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 103–111.
98.
KouchakiM.KrayL. J. (2018). “I won’t let you down:” Personal ethical lapses arising from women’s advocating for others. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 147, 147–157.
99.
KrayL. J.GalinskyA. D.ThompsonL. (2002). Reversing the gender gap in negotiations: An exploration of stereotype regeneration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87, 386–410.
100.
KrayL. J.GelfandM. J. (2009). Relief versus regret: The effect of gender and negotiating norm ambiguity on reactions to having one’s first offer accepted. Social Cognition, 27(3), 418–436.
101.
KrayL. J.KennedyJ.LeeM. (in press). Now, women do ask: A call to update beliefs about the gender pay gap. Academy of Management Discoveries.
102.
KrayL. J.ThompsonL.GalinskyA. (2001). Battle of the sexes: Gender stereotype confirmation and reactance in negotiations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 942–958.
103.
KuglerK. G.ReifJ. A. M.KaschnerT.BrodbeckF. C. (2018). Gender differences in the initiation of negotiations: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 144(2), 198–222.
104.
KvandeE. (2022). Individual parental leave for fathers: Promoting gender equality in Norway. In Grau GrauM.Las Heras MaestroM.Riley BowlesH. (Eds.), Engaged fatherhood for men, families and gender equality (pp. 153–163). Springer.
105.
LeBelE. P.McCarthyR. J.EarpB. D.ElsonM.VanpaemelW. (2018). A unified framework to quantify the credibility of scientific findings. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(3), 389–402.
106.
LedgerwoodA.HudsonS. T. J.LewisN. A.MaddoxK. B.PickettC. L.RemediosJ. D.CheryanS.DiekmanA. B.DutraN. B.GohJ. X.GoodwinS. A.MunakataY.NavarroD. J.OnyeadorI. N.SrivastavaS.WilkinsC. L. (2022). The pandemic as a portal: Reimagining psychological science as truly open and inclusive. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(4), 937–959.
107.
LeibbrandtA.ListJ. A. (2015). Do women avoid salary negotiations? Evidence from a large-scale natural field experiment. Management Science, 61(9), 2016–2024.
108.
LeighA.DesaiS. D. (2023). What’s race got to do with it? The interactive effect of race and gender on negotiation offers and outcomes. Organization Science, 34(2), 935–958.
109.
LivingstonR. W.PearceN. A. (2009). The teddy-bear effect: Does having a baby face benefit Black chief executive officers?Psychological Science, 20(10), 1229–1236.
110.
LivingstonR. W.RosetteA. S.WashingtonE. F. (2012). Can an agentic Black woman get ahead? The impact of race and interpersonal dominance on perceptions of female leaders. Psychological Science, 23(4), 354–358.
111.
LuJ. G. (2023). Asians don’t ask? Relational concerns, negotiation propensity, and starting salaries. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108(2), 273–290.
112.
LuJ. G.NisbettR. E.MorrisM. W. (2020). Why East Asians but not South Asians are underrepresented in leadership positions in the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 117(9), 4590–4600.
113.
MartinA. E.SlepianM. L. (2021). The primacy of gender: Gendered cognition underlies the big two dimensions of social cognition. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(6), 1143–1158.
114.
MastersR.MeierR. (1988). Sex differences and risk-taking propensity of entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business Management, 26(1), 31–35.
115.
MazeiJ.BearJ. B.HüffmeierJ. (2023). When and why do men negotiate assertively? It depends on specific threats to their masculinity and the negotiation topic. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 24(2), 137–148.
116.
MazeiJ.HüffmeierJ.FreundP. A.StuhlmacherA. F.BilkeL.HertelG. (2015). A meta-analysis on gender differences in negotiation outcomes and their moderators. Psychological Bulletin, 141(1), 85–104.
117.
MazeiJ.ZerresA.HüffmeierJ. (2021). Masculinity at the negotiation table: A theory of men’s negotiation behaviors and outcomes. Academy of Management Review, 46(1), 108–127.
118.
MischelW. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In MagnussonD.EndlerN. S. (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 333–352). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
119.
MorgenrothT.FineC.RyanM. K.GenatA. E. (2018). Sex, drugs, and reckless driving: Are measures biased toward identifying risk-taking in men?Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(6), 744–753.
120.
MorgenrothT.RyanM. K. (2021). The effects of gender trouble: An integrative theoretical framework of the perpetuation and disruption of the gender/sex binary. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(6), 1113–1142.
NetchaevaE.KouchakiM.SheppardL. D. (2015). A man’s (precarious) place: Men’s experienced threat and self-assertive reactions to female superiors. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(9), 1247–1259.
123.
NetchaevaE.SheppardL. D.BalushkinaT. (2022). A meta-analytic review of the gender difference in leadership aspirations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 137, Article 103744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2022.103744
124.
NiederleM.VesterlundL. (2011). Gender and competition. Annual Review of Economics, 3(1), 601–630.
125.
NoheC.HüffmeierJ.BürknerP.MazeiJ.SondernD.RunteA.SieberF.HertelG. (2022). Unethical choice in negotiations: A meta-analysis on gender differences and their moderators. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 173, Article 104189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2022.104189
126.
O’BrienM.WallK. (Eds.). (2017). Comparative perspectives on work-life balance and gender equality: Fathers on leave alone (Vol. 6). Springer.
127.
PatnaikA. (2019). Reserving time for daddy: The consequences of fathers’ quotas. Journal of Labor Economics, 37(4), 1009–1059.
128.
Paustian-UnderdahlS. C.WalkerL. S.WoehrD. J. (2014). Gender and perceptions of leadership effectiveness: A meta-analysis of contextual moderators. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(6), 1129–1145.
129.
PetskoC. D.RosetteA. S. (2023). Are leaders still presumed White by default? Racial bias in leader categorization revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108(2), 330–340.
130.
PrenticeD. A.CarranzaE. (2002). What women and men should be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to be, and don’t have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4), 269–281.
131.
Purdie-VaughnsV.EibachR. P. (2008). Intersectional invisibility: The distinctive advantages and disadvantages of multiple subordinate-group identities. Sex Roles, 59(5–6), 377–391.
132.
RamarajanL. (2014). Past, present and future research on multiple identities: Toward an intrapersonal network approach. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 589–659.
133.
RankinL. E.EaglyA. H. (2008). Is his heroism hailed and hers hidden? Women, men, and the social construction of heroism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32(4), 414–422.
134.
ReifJ. A. M.KuglerK. G.BrodbeckF. C. (2020). Why are women less likely to negotiate? The influence of expectancy considerations and contextual framing on gender differences in the initiation of negotiation. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 13(4), 287–303.
135.
ReifJ. A. M.KunzF. A.KuglerK. G.BrodbeckF. C. (2019). Negotiation contexts: How and why they shape women’s and men’s decision to negotiate. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 12(4), 322–342.
136.
RidgewayC. L. (2001). How do status beliefs develop? The role of resources and interactional experiences. In JostJ.MajorB. (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice and intergroup relations (pp. 357–377). Cambridge University Press.
137.
RidgewayC. L. (2011). Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the modern world. Oxford University Press.
138.
RinkU.WalleY. M.KlasenS. (2021). The financial literacy gender gap and the role of culture. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 80, 117–134.
139.
RobinsonA. L.GottliebJ. (2021). How to close the gender gap in political participation: Lessons from matrilineal societies in Africa. British Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 68–92.
140.
RosetteA. S.de LeonR. P.KovalC. Z.HarrisonD. A. (2018). Intersectionality: Connecting experiences of gender with race at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 38, 1–22.
141.
RosetteA. S.KovalC. Z.MaA.LivingstonR. (2016). Race matters for women leaders: Intersectional effects on agentic deficiencies and penalties. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(3), 429–445.
142.
RosetteA. S.LivingstonR. W. (2012). Failure is not an option for Black women: Effects of organizational performance on leaders with single versus dual-subordinate identities. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(5), 1162–1167.
143.
RudmanL. A.GlickP. (2008). The social psychology of gender: How power and intimacy shape gender relations. Guilford Press.
144.
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(1), 165–179.
145.
ScheinV. E.MuellerR.LituchyT.LiuJ. (1996). Think manager—think male: A global phenomenon?Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17(1), 33–41.
146.
SergentK.StajkovicA. D. (2020). Women’s leadership is associated with fewer deaths during the COVID-19 crisis: Quantitative and qualitative analyses of United States governors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(8), 771–783.
147.
ShanW.KellerJ.JosephD. (2019). Are men better negotiators everywhere? A meta-analysis of how gender differences in negotiation performance vary across cultures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(6), 651–675.
148.
SiddawayA. P.WoodA. M.HedgesL. V. (2019). How to do a systematic review: A best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses. Annual Review of Psychology, 70(1), 747–770.
149.
SimonsD. J.ShodaY.LindsayD. S. (2017). Constraints on generality (COG): A proposed addition to all empirical papers. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 1123–1128.
150.
SmallD. A.GelfandM.BabcockL.GettmanH. (2007). Who goes to the bargaining table? The influence of gender and framing on the initiation of negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(4), 600–613.
151.
SmithA. N.WatkinsM. B.LadgeJ. J.CarltonP. (2019). Making the invisible visible: Paradoxical effects of intersectional invisibility on the career experiences of executive Black women. Academy of Management Journal, 62(6), 1705–1734.
152.
SnyderM.IckesW. (1985). Personality and social behavior. In LindzeyG.AronsonE. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 883–947). Random House.
153.
SteeleC. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613–629.
154.
StoetG.GearyD. C. (2018). The gender-equality paradox in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Psychological Science, 29(4), 581–593.
155.
SuttonA. J. (2009). Publication bias. In CooperH.HedgesL. V.ValentineJ. C. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 435–452). Russell Sage Foundation.
156.
SyT.ShoreL. M.StraussJ.ShoreT. H.TramS.WhiteleyP.Ikeda-MuromachiK. (2010). Leadership perceptions as a function of race-occupation fit: The case of Asian Americans. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 902–919.
157.
Taiyi YanT.TangiralaS.VaderaA. K.EkkiralaS. (2022). How employees learn to speak up from their leaders: Gender congruity effects in the development of voice self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(4), 650–667.
158.
ThompsonL. (1990). The influence of experience on negotiation performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26(6), 528–544.
159.
TinsleyC. H.ElyR. J. (2018). What most people get wrong about men and women. Harvard Business Review, 96(3), 114–121.
160.
ToosiN. R.MorS.Semnani-AzadZ.PhillipsK. W.AmanatullahE. T. (2019). Who can lean in? The intersecting role of race and gender in negotiations. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 43(1), 7–21.
161.
van AndersS. M. (2015). Beyond sexual orientation: Integrating gender/sex and diverse sexualities via Sexual Configurations Theory. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(5), 1177–1213.
162.
Van BovenL.ThompsonL. L. (2003). A look into the mind of the negotiator: Mental models in negotiation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6(4), 387–404.
163.
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(2), 101–113.
164.
VandelloJ. A.BossonJ. K.CohenD.BurnafordR. M.WeaverJ. R. (2008). Precarious manhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1325–1339.
165.
van EngenM. L.WillemsenT. M. (2004). Sex and leadership styles: A meta-analysis of research published in the 1990s. Psychological Reports, 94(1), 3–18.
166.
WalterK. V.Conroy-BeamD.BussD. M.AsaoK.SorokowskaA.SorokowskiP.AavikT.AkelloG.AlhabahbaM. M.AlmC.AmjadN.AnjumA.AtamaC. S.Atamtürk DuyarD.AyebareR.BatresC.BendixenM.BensafiaA.BizumicB.. . . ZupančičM. (2020). Sex differences in mate preferences across 45 countries: A large-scale replication. Psychological Science, 31(4), 408–423.
167.
WarnerL. R.SettlesI. H.ShieldsS. A. (2018). Intersectionality theory in the psychology of women. In TravisC. B.WhiteJ. W.RutherfordA.WilliamsW. S.CookS. L.WycheK. F. (Eds.), APA handbook of the psychology of women: History, theory, and battlegrounds (pp. 521–539). American Psychological Association.
168.
WeberE. U.BlaisA.-R.BetzN. E. (2002). A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15(4), 263–290.
169.
WellmanJ. D.BeamA. J.WilkinsC. L.NewellE. E.MendezC. A. (2021). Masculinity threat increases bias and negative emotions toward feminine gay men. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 22(4), 787–799.
170.
WestC.ZimmermanD. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1, 125–151.
171.
WheelerS. C.PettyR. E. (2001). The effects of stereotype activation on behavior: A review of possible mechanisms. Psychological Bulletin, 127(6), 797–826.
172.
WhillansA. V.YoonJ.TurekA.DonnellyG. E. (2021). Extension request avoidance predicts greater time stress among women. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 118(45), Article e2105622118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2105622118
173.
WoodW.EaglyA. H. (2012). Biosocial construction of sex differences and similarities in behavior. In OlsonJ. M.ZannaM. P. (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 46, pp. 55–123). Elsevier.
174.
ZwaanR. A.EtzA.LucasR. E.DonnellanM. B. (2018). Making replication mainstream. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 41, Article e120. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X17001972
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.
