Compared to men, women less often attain high-level positions and generally have lower status in society. In smaller groups, the relative influence of men and women depends on gender composition, but research is inconclusive regarding the relation between gender composition and female influence. Studies of nonhuman primates show that when females are in the minority they become more dominant over males, but only when conflict levels are high, because under these conditions men fight among each other. Similarly, here we show, in two studies with mixed gender groups (N = 90 and N = 56), that women were more dominant in groups with a high percentage of men and high levels of conflict. This depends on gender differences in aggressive behavior, inducing more aggressive behavior in women eliminated this increase in female dominance. Our work reveals that status relations between the genders among nonhuman primates can generalize to humans.
AikenL. S.WestS. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2.
BarberN. (2003). The sex ratio and female marital opportunity as historical predictors of violent crime in England, Scotland, and the United States. Cross-Cultural Research: The Journal of Comparative Social Science, 37, 373–392. doi:10.1177/1069397103254011
3.
BergerJ.RosenholtzS. J.ZelditchM. (1980). Status organizing processes. Annual Review of Sociology, 6, 479–508. doi:10.1146/annurev.so.06.080180.002403
4.
BettencourtB.MillerN. (1996). Gender differences in aggression as a function of provocation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 422.
5.
BlauF. D. (1977). Equal pay in the office. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
6.
BrewerN.MitchellP.WeberN. (2002). Gender role, organizational status, and conflict management styles. International Journal of Conflict Management, 13, 78–94. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb022868
7.
BussD. M.SchmittD. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204
8.
CarliL. L. (2001). Gender and social influence. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 725–741.
CraigJ. M.SherifC. W. (1986). The effectiveness of men and women in problem-solving groups as a function of group gender composition. Sex Roles, 14, 453–466. doi:10.1007/BF00288427
11.
CrickN. R.GrotpeterJ. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710–722.
12.
DasguptaN.ScircleM. M.HunsingerM. (2015). Female peers in small work groups enhance women’s motivation, verbal participation, and career aspirations in engineering. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112, 4988–4993. doi:10.1073/pnas.1422822112 [doi]
13.
DavisM. H.CapobiancoS.KrausL. A. (2010). Gender differences in responding to conflict in the workplace: Evidence from a large sample of working adults. Sex Roles, 63, 500–514.
14.
De DreuC. K.EversA.BeersmaB.KluwerE. S.NautaA. (2001). A theory-based measure of conflict management strategies in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 645–668.
15.
EaglyA. H.KarauS. J. (1991). Gender and the emergence of leaders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 685.
16.
EaglyA. H.SteffenV. J. (1986). Gender and aggressive behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 309.
17.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.BuchnerA. (2007). G* power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.
18.
FuegenK.BiernatM. (2002). Reexamining the effects of solo status for women and men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 913–925. doi:10.1177/01467202028007005
19.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
20.
GriskeviciusV.TyburJ. M.AckermanJ. M.DeltonA. W.RobertsonT. E.WhiteA. E. (2012). The financial consequences of too many men: Sex ratio effects on saving, borrowing, and spending. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 69–80. doi:10.1037/a0024761
21.
HawleyP. H. (1999). The ontogenesis of social dominance: A strategy-based evolutionary perspective. Developmental Review, 19, 97–132.
22.
HawleyP. H.LittleT. D.CardN. A. (2008). The myth of the alpha male: A new look at dominance-related beliefs and behaviors among adolescent males and females. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32, 76–88.
23.
HemelrijkC. K. (2000). Self-reinforcing dominance interactions between virtual males and females: Hypothesis generation for primate studies. Adaptive Behavior, 8, 13–26. doi:10.1177/105971230000800102
HemelrijkC. K.WantiaJ.IslerK. (2008). Female dominance over males in primates: Self-organisation and sexual dimorphism. PLoS ONE, 3. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002678
26.
HoltJ. L.DeVoreC. J. (2005). Culture, gender, organizational role, and styles of conflict resolution: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 165–196.
27.
JehnK. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256–282.
28.
JohnsonD. W.JohnsonF. P. (1991). Joining together: Group theory and group skills. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
29.
JohnsonR. A.SchulmanG. I. (1989). Gender-role composition and role entrapment in decision-making groups. Gender & Society, 3, 355–372.
30.
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.
31.
KarpowitzC. F.MendelbergT.ShakerL. (2012). Gender inequality in deliberative participation. American Political Science Review, 106, 533–547.
32.
MyaskovskyL.UnikelE.DewM. A. (2005). Effects of gender diversity on performance and interpersonal behavior in small work groups. Sex Roles, 52, 645–657. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-3732-8
O’BrienK. R.SchefferM.van NesE. H.van der LeeR. (2015). How to break the cycle of low workforce diversity: A model for change. PLoS ONE, 10, e0133208. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0133208 [doi]
35.
PedersenF. A. (1991). Secular trends in human sex ratios. Human Nature, 2, 271–291.
36.
ProppK. M. (1995). An experimental examination of biological sex as a status cue in decision-making groups and its influence on information use. Small Group Research, 26, 451–474.
37.
RidgewayC. L. (2001). Gender, status, and leadership. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 637–655. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00233
38.
RiosK.DeMarreeK. G.StatzerJ. (2014). Attitude certainty and conflict style: Divergent effects of correctness and clarity. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 819–830. doi:0146167214528991 [pii]
39.
RogelbergS. G.RumeryS. M. (1996). Gender diversity, team decision quality, time on task, and interpersonal cohesion. Small Group Research, 27, 79–90.
40.
RudmanL. A.PhelanJ. E. (2008). Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 61–79.
41.
SidaniusJ.PrattoF. (2001). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
42.
StroebeK.WangK.WrightS. C. (2015). Broadening perspectives on achieving social change. Journal of Social Issues, 71, 633–645.
43.
SurbeckM.HohmannG. (2013). Intersexual dominance relationships and the influence of leverage on the outcome of conflicts in wild bonobos (Pan paniscus). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. doi:10.1007/s00265-013-1584-8
44.
TapsJ.MartinP. Y. (1990). Gender composition, attributional accounts, and women’s influence and likability in task groups. Small Group Research, 21, 471–491.
45.
ThomasK. W.Fann ThomasG.SchaubhutN. (2008). Conflict styles of men and women at six organization levels. International Journal of Conflict Management, 19, 148–166.
46.
WattsD. P. (2010). Dominance, power, and politics in nonhuman and human primates. In KappelerP. M.SilkJ. (Eds.), Mind the gap (pp. 109–138). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
47.
WilsonM.DalyM. (1985). Competitiveness, risk taking, and violence: The young male syndrome. Ethology & Sociobiology, 6, 59–73. doi:10.1016/0162-3095(85)90041-X
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.
