Effects of a person's sex and seating arrangement were tested with 310 participants (151 men and 159 women; M age = 20.0, SD = 3.3) from a large southwestern U.S. university who were asked to select a leader from among five persons depicted around a rectangular table. Participants chose a person shown seated at the head of the table as the leader of a group, regardless of that person's sex. This conflicts with prior research indicating gender bias against women as leaders.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CohenJ. (1977) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.
2.
CohenJ. (1994) The earth is round (p<0.05). American Psychologist, 49, 997–1003.
3.
DavenportW. G.BrookerG.MunroN. (1971) Factors in social perception: seating position. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 33, 747–752.
4.
EaglyA.KarauS. J. (2002) Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598.
5.
KnappM. A.HallJ. A. (2002) Nonverbal communication in human interaction. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
6.
LarsenR. J.MarxL. M. (1986) An introduction to mathematical statistics and its applications. (2nd ed.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
7.
PorterN.GeisF. (1981) Women and nonverbal leadership cues: when seeing is not believing. In MayoC.HenleyN. M. (Eds.), Gender and nonverbal behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag. Pp. 39–61.
8.
RhodeD. (2003) The difference ‘difference’ makes: women and leadership. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univer. Press.
9.
RossiJ. S. (1997) A case study in the failure of psychology as a cumulative science: the spontaneous recovery of verbal learning. In HarlowL. L.MulaikS. A.SteigerJ. H. (Eds.), What if there were no significance tests?Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 175–195.
10.
StiversC. (2002) Gender images in public administration: legitimacy and the administrative state. (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
ValianV. (1998) Why so slow?Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12.
ValianV. (1999) The cognitive bases of gender bias. Brooklyn Law Review, 65, 1037–1061.
