Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Gender and Group Behavior

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Gender Research in Psychology

Abstract

In the United States, it appears that the glass ceiling has broken. Women’s incomes have risen; among full-time U.S. employees, women now earn 80% of what men earn, compared with only 62% in 1979 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2008a). Women have also made dramatic gains in education and now earn more bachelor’s degrees than men do (U.S. National Center for Education Statistics, 2007). Women have greater access to leadership as well. For example, across all organizations in the United States, 26% of CEOs today are women (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2008b, Table 11).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Studies on children also reveal that boys who behave communally are not penalized, but girls who behave agentically are, at least by boys (Carli, 2006). Thus, men and boys are allowed more freedom to violate gender norms along communal–agentic dimensions. However, studies show little evidence that men and women are evaluated differently simply for showing cross-gender interests and behaviors (e.g., Lehavot & Lambert, 2007). Not all cross-gender behavior is prohibited. Rather, it is the more negative behaviors associated with each gender that is most unacceptable in the other gender. Specifically, highly dominant agentic behavior (e.g., aggressive, controlling, arrogant) is especially prohibited in women and weak and overly emotional behavior (e.g., weak, melodramatic, gullible) is especially prohibited in men (Prentice & Carranza, 2002). So, people do sometimes penalize men and boys more than women and girls for gender-role violations. For example, boys are penalized more for dressing like girls than vice versa (e.g., Blakemore, 2003; Levy, 1985; Zucker, Wilson-Smith, Kurita, & Stern, 1995), particularly by other boys (Smetana, 1986), and more for acting like sissies than girls who act like tomboys (Martin, 1990). Because behaviors such as dressing and walking like girls and being melodramatic are particularly associated with male homosexuality (Madon, 1997), rejection of men who violate gender norms is likely to reflect homophobia. Studies show negative reactions to homosexuality in men, especially by men (Herek & Capitanio, 1996, 1999; Schope & Eliason, 2004). In the absence of specific information about sexual preference, people may view certain cross-gender behavior in men to be a proxy for homosexuality and respond negatively as a result. This possibility is consistent with evidence that people perceive a stronger link between cross-gender behaviors or traits and sexual orientation in men than in women (McCreary, 1994; Sirin, McCreary, & Mahalik, 2004).

References

  • Alagna, S. W., & Reddy, D. M. (1985). Self and peer ratings and evaluations of group process in mixed-sex and male medical training groups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 31–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alagna, S. W., Reddy, D. M., & Collins, D. L. (1982). Perceptions of functioning in mixed-sex and male medical training groups. Journal of Medical Education, 57, 801–803.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, T. D. (2006). Rewarding good citizens: The relationship between citizenship behavior, gender, and organizational rewards. Journal of Applied Psychology, 36, 120–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, K. J., & Leaper, C. (1998). Meta-analyses of gender effects on conversational interruption: Who, what, when, where, and how. Sex Roles, 39, 225–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aries, E. (1976). Interaction patterns and themes of male, female, and mixed groups. Small Group Behavior, 7, 7–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, J., Fisek, M. H., Norman, R. Z., & Zelditch, M., Jr. (1977). Status characteristics and social interactions: An expectation states approach. New York: Elsevier Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, J., Rosenholtz, S. J., & Zelditch, M.,Jr. (1980). Status organizing processes. American Sociological Review, 6, 479–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, J., & Webster, M.,Jr. (2006). Expectations, status, and behavior. In P. J. Burke (Ed.), Contemporary social psychological theories(pp. 268–300). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berdahl, J. L., & Anderson, C. (2005). Men, women, and leadership centralization in groups over time. Group Dynamics, 9, 45–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertjan, D., Ellemers, N., & Spears, R. (1999). Commitment and intergroup behaviour. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 84–106). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biernat, M. (2003). Toward a broader view of social stereotyping. American Psychologist, 58, 1019–1027.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Biernat, M., & Kobrynowicz, D. (1997). Gender and race-based standards of competence: Lower minimum standards but higher ability standards for devalued groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 544–557.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blakemore, J. E. O. (2003). Children’s beliefs about violating gender norms: Boys shouldn’t look like girls, and girls shouldn’t act like boys. Sex Roles, 48, 411–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2003). Counternormative impression management, likeability, and performance ratings: The use of intimidation in an organizational setting. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 237–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowers, C. A., Pharmer, J. A., & Salas, E. (2000). When member homogeneity is needed in work teams: A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 31, 305–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowles, H. R., Babcock, L., & Lai, L. (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, 84–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, M., Birk, T. S., & Hall, J. R. (1991). Compliance and satisfaction with physician-patient communication: An expectancy theory interpretation of gender differences. Human Communication Research, 18, 177–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, M., Dillard, J. P., & Doran, N. E. (1983). Friendly or unfriendly persuasion: The effects of violations by males and females. Human Communication Research, 10, 283–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, M., Jones, S. B., & Stewart, D. (1975). Toward a message-centered theory of persuasion: Three empirical investigations of language intensity. Human Communication Research, 1, 240–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, D., & Geis, F. L. (1990). Nonverbal affect responses to male and female leaders: Implications for leadership evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 48–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buttner, E. H., & McEnally, M. (1996). The interactive effect of influence tactic, applicant gender, and type of job on hiring recommendations. Sex Roles, 34, 581–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carli, L. L. (1989). Gender differences in interaction style and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 565–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carli, L. L. (1990). Gender, language, and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 941–951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carli, L. L. (2001). Assertiveness. In J. Worell (Ed.), Encyclopedia of women and gender: Sex similarities and differences and the impact of society on gender(pp. 157–168). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carli, L. L. (2001). Gender and social influence. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 725–742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carli, L. L. (2006, July). Gender and social influence: Women confront the double bind. Paper presented at the International Congress of Applied Psychology, Athens, Greece.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carli, L. L., & Bukatko, D. (2000). Gender, communication, and social influence: A developmental perspective. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 295–331). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carli, L. L., & Eagly, A. H. (1999). Gender effects on social influence and emergent leadership. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work (pp. 203–222). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carli, L. L., LaFleur, S. J., & Loeber, C. C. (1995). Nonverbal behavior, gender, and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 1030–1041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carli, L. L., & Olm-Shipman, C. (2004). Gender differences in task and social behavior: A meta-analytic review. Unpublished research, Wellesley College, Wellesley, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, D. A., Simkins, B. J., & Simpson, W. G. (2003). Corporate governance, board diversity, and firm value. Financial Review,38, 33–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catalyst. (2007). 2006 Catalyst census of women corporate officers and top earners of the Fortune 500. http://www.catalyst.org/publication/18/2006-catalyst-census-of-women-corporate-officers-and-top-earners-of-the-fortune-500

  • Catalyst. (2008). Women CEOs of the Fortune 1000. http://www.catalyst.org/publication/271/women-ceos-of-the-fortune-1000

  • Center for American Women and Politics. (2008). Facts on women in Congress, 2008. http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/levels_of_office/Congress_CurrentFacts.php

  • Chatman, J. A., Boisnier, A. D., Berdahl, J. L., Spataro, S. E., & Anderson, C. (2005). The typical, the rare, and the outnumbered: Disentangling the effects of historical typicality and numerical distinctiveness at work. Working paper, University of California at Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatman, J. A., Polzer, J. T., Barsade, S. G., & Neale, M. A. (1998). Being different yet feeling similar: The influence of demographic composition and organizational culture on work processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 749–780

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chronicle of Higher Education. (1998). Almanac (Vol. 45, No. 1). Washington, DC: Chronicle of Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Copeland, C. L., Driskell, J. E., & Salas, E. (1995). Gender and reactions to dominance. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 53–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, J. M., &, Sherif, C. W. (1986). The effectiveness of men and women in problem-solving groups as a function of group gender composition. Sex Roles, 14, 453–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, A., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. (1993). Demographic differences and employee work outcomes: Effects of multiple comparison groups. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Atlanta, GA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davison, H. K., & Burke, M. J. (2000). Sex discrimination in simulated employment contexts: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 225–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiBerardinis, J. P., Ramage, K., & Levitt, S. (1984). Risky shift and gender of the advocate: Information theory versus normative theory. Group & Organization Studies, 9, 189–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dovidio, J. F., Brown, C. E., Heltman, K., Ellyson, S. L., & Keating, C. F. (1988). Power displays between men and women in discussions of gender-linked tasks: A multichannel study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 580–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dovidio, J. F., Ellyson, S. L., Keating, C. F., Heltman, K., & Brown, C. E. (1988).The relationship of social power to visual displays of dominance between men and women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 233–242.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Driskell, J., Olmstead, E. B., & Salas, E. (1993). Task cues, dominance cues, and influence in task groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 51–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 569–591.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (1991). Gender and the emergence of leaders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 685–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 125–145.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellyson, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., & Brown, C. E. (1992). The look of power: Gender differences in visual dominance behavior. In C. L. Ridgeway (Ed.), Gender, interaction, and inequality(pp. 50–80). New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2004). Implicit leadership theories in applied settings: Factor structure, generalizability, and stability over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 293–310.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Erhardt, M. L., Werbel, J. D., & Shrader, C. B. (2003). Board of director diversity and firm financial performance. Corporate Governance, 11, 102–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falbo, T., Hazen, M. D., & Linimon, D. (1982). The costs of selecting power bases or messages associated with the opposite sex. Sex Roles, 8, 147–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman-Summers, S., Montano, D. E., Kasprzyk, D., & Wagner, B. (1980). Influence attempts when competing views are gender-related: Sex as credibility. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 311–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fenwick, G. D., & Neal, D. J. (2001). Effect of group composition on group performance. Gender, Work, and Organization, 8, 206–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Filardo, A. K. (1996). Gender patterns in African American and white adolescents’ social interactions in same-race, mixed-gender groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 71–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, S. T., Xu, J., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (1999). (Dis)respecting versus (dis)liking: Status and interdependence predict ambivalent stereotypes of competence and warmth. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 473–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foddy, M., & Graham, H. (1987). Sex and the double standards in the inference of ability. Presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association, Vancouver, BC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foschi, M. (1996). Double standards in the evaluation of men and women. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 237–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foschi, M. (2000). Double standards for competence: Theory and research. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 21–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foschi, M., Lai, L., & Sigerson. K. (1994). Gender and double standards in the assessment of job applicants. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 326–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foschi, M., Sigerson, K., & Lebesis, M. (1995). Assessing job applicants: The relative effects of gender, academic record, and decision type. Small Group Research, 26, 328–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerrard, M., Breda, C., & Gibbons, F. X. (1990). Gender effects in couples’ decision making and contraceptive use. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 449–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giacalone, R. A., & Riordan, C. A. (1990). Effect of self-presentation on perceptions and recognition in an organization. Journal of Psychology, 124, 25–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 307–338.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. A., & Braunwald, K. G. (1981). Gender cues in conversations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 270–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, K. W. (1995). Effects of gender and communication content of leadership emergence in small task-oriented groups. Small Group Research, 26, 234–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., & Martell, R. F. (1995). Sex stereotypes: Do they influence perceptions of managers? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 237–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heilman, M. E., & Chen. J. J. (2005). Same behavior, different consequences: Reactions to men’s and women’s altruistic citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 431–441.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heilman, M. E., & Haynes, M. C. (2005). No credit where credit is due: Attributional rationalization of women’s success in male–female teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 905–916.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heilman, M. E., & Okimoto, T. G. (2007). Why are women penalized for success at male tasks? The implied communality deficit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 81–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tamkins, M. M. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed in male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 416–427.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Henry, R. A., Kmet, J., Desrosiers, E., & Landa, A. (2002). Examining the impact of interpersonal cohesiveness on group accuracy interventions: The importance of matching versus buffering. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87, 25–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. P. (1996). “Some of my best friends”: Intergroup contact, concealable stigma, and heterosexuals’ attitudes towards gay men and lesbians. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 412–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. P. (1999). Sex differences in how heterosexuals think about lesbians and gay men: Evidence from survey context effects. Journal of Sex Research, 36, 348–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homan, A. C., van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007). Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: Diversity beliefs, information elaboration, and performance in diverse work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1189–1199.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Holtgraves, T., & Lasky, B. (1999). Linguistic power and persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 18, 196–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hultin, M. (2003). Some take the glass escalator, some hit the glass ceiling? Career consequences of occupational sex segregation. Work and Occupations, 30, 30–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutson-Comeaux, S. L., & Kelly, R. J. (1996). Sex differences in interaction style and group task performance: The process-performance relationship. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 11, 255–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, R., & Norris, P. (2003). Rising tide: Gender equality and cultural change around the world. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Izraeli, D. N. (1983). Sex effects or structural effects? An empirical test of Kanter’s theory of proportions. Social Forces, 62, 153–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Izraeli, D. N. (1984). The attitudinal effects of gender mix in union committees. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 37, 212–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. E., May, K. E., & Whitney, K. (1995). Understanding the dynamics of diversity in decision-making teams. In R. A. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 204–261). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Javornisky, G. (1979). Task content and sex differences in conformity. Journal of Psychology, 108, 213–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, C., Clay-Warner, J., & Funk, S. J. (1996). Effects of authority structures and gender on interaction in same sex groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 221–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. A., & Schulman, G. I. (1989). Gender-role composition and role entrapment in decision-making groups. Gender & Society, 3, 355–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 901–910.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Karakowsky, L., McBey, K., & Miller, D. L. (2004). Gender, perceived competence, and power displays: Examining verbal interruptions in a group context. Small Group Research, 35, 407–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Killen, M., & Naigles, L. R. (1995). Preschool children pay attention to their addressees: Effects of gender composition on peer disputes. Discourse Processes, 19, 329–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krishnan, H. A., & Park, D. (2005). A few good women—on top management teams. Journal of Business Research, 58, 1712–1720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaFrance, M., Hecht, M. A., & Paluck, E. L. (2003). The contingent smile: A meta-analysis of sex differences in smiling. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 305–334.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lehavot, K., & Lambert, A. J. (2007). Toward a greater understanding of antigay prejudice: On the role of sexual orientation and gender role violation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29, 279–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leaper, C., & Ayres, M. M. (2007). A Meta-analytic review of gender variations in adults’ language use: Talkativeness, affiliative speech, and assertive speech. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 328–363.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, G. D., Taylor, M. G., & Gelman, S. A. (1995).Traditional and evaluative aspects of flexibility in gender roles, social conventions, moral rules, and physical laws. Child Development, 66, 515–531.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, M. H., Kwan, V. S. Y., Cheung, A., & Fiske, S. T. (2005). Stereotype content model explains prejudice for an envied outgroup: Scale of anti-Asian American stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 34–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lockheed, M. E., (1985). Sex and social influence: A meta-analysis guided by theory. In J. Berger & M. Zelditch, Jr. (Eds.), Status, rewards, and influence: How expectations organize behavior(pp. 406–429). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockheed, M. E., & Hall, K. P. (1976). Conceptualizing sex as a status characteristic: Application to leadership training strategies. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 111–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madon, S. (1997). What do people believe about gay males? A study of stereotype content and strength. Sex Roles, 37, 663–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mast, M. S. (2001). Gender differences and similarities in dominance hierarchies in same-gender groups based on speaking time. Sex Roles, 44, 537–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maume, D. J.,Jr. (2004). Is the glass ceiling a unique form of inequality? Evidence from a random-effects model of managerial attainment. Work and Occupations, 31, 250–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, C. M. (1990). Attitudes and expectations about children with nontraditional and traditional gender roles. Sex Roles, 22, 151–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matschiner, M., & Murnen, S. K. (1999). Hyperfemininity and influence. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 631–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCreary, D. R. (1994). The male role and avoiding femininity. Sex Roles, 31, 517–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMillan, J. R., Clifton, A. K., McGrath, D., & Gale, W. S. (1977). Women’s language: Uncertainty or interpersonal sensitivity and emotionality. Sex Roles, 3, 545–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMullen, L. M., & Pasloski, D. D. (1992). Effects of communication apprehension, familiarity of partner, and topic on selected "women’s language" features. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 21, 17–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meeker, B. F., & Weitzel-O’Neill, P. A. (1985). Sex roles and interpersonal behavior in task-oriented groups. In J. Berger & M. Zelditch (Eds.), Status, rewards, and influence (pp. 379–405). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehta, P., Dovidio, J. F., Gibbs, R., Miller, K., Huray, K., Ellyson, S. L., & Brown, C. E. (1989, April). Sex differences in the expression of power motives through visual dominance behavior. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, L. C., Cooke, L. L., Tsang, J., & Morgan, F. (1992). Should I brag? Nature and impact of positive and boastful disclosures for women and men. Human Communication Research, 18, 364–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myaskovsky, L., Unikel, E., & Dew, M. A. (2005). Effects of gender diversity on performance and interpersonal behavior in small work groups. Sex Roles, 52, 645–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ott, E. M. (1989). Effects of the male-female ratio at work: Policewomen and male nurses. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13, 41–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelled, L. H. (1996). Relational demography and perceptions of group conflict and performance: A field investigation. International Journal of Conflict Management, 7, 230–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelled, L. H., Cummings, T. G., & Kizilos, M. A. (2000). The influence of organizational demography on customer-oriented prosocial behavior: An exploratory investigation. Journal of Business Research 47, 209–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piliavin, J. A., & Martin, R. R. (1978). The effects of sex composition of groups on style of social interaction. Sex Roles, 4, 281–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prentice, D. A., & Carranzo, E. (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, 269–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pugh, M. D., & Wahrman, R. (1983). Neutralizing sexism in mixed-sex groups: Do women have to be better than men? American Journal of Sociology, 88, 746–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Propp, K. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Randel, A. E. (2002). Identity salience: A moderator of the relationship between group gender composition and work group conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 749–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, V., & Buddeberg-Fischer, B. (2001). Career obstacles for women in medicine: An overview. Medical Education, 35, 139–147.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rhoads, K. V., & Cialdini, R. B. (2002). The business of influence: Principles that lead to success in commercial settings. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 513–542). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhode, D. L. (2001). The unfinished agenda: Women and the legal profession. Chicago: American Bar Association, Commission on Women in the Profession.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L. (1978). Conformity, group-oriented motivation, and status attainment in small groups. Social Psychology, 41, 175–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L. (1981). Nonconformity, competence, and influence in groups: A test of two theories. American Sociological Review, 46, 333–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L. (1982). Status in groups: The importance of motivation. American Sociological Review, 47, 76–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. (2001). Gender, status, and leadership. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 637–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riordan, C. M., & Shore, L. M. (1997). Demographic diversity and employee attitudes: An empirical examination of relational demography within work units. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 342–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogelberg, S. G., & Rumery, S. M. (1996). Gender diversity, team decision quality, time on task, and interpersonal cohesion. Small Group Research, 27, 79–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosette, A. S., Leonardelli, G. J., & Phillips, K. (2008). The White standard: Racial bias in leader categorization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 758–777.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rudman, L. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sackett, P. R., DuBois, C. L. Z., & Noe, A. W. (1991). Tokenism in performance evaluation: The effects of work group representation on male-female and White-Black differences in performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 263–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, K. A., & Brown, D. J. (2006). Female first, leader second? Gender bias in the encoding of leadership behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101, 230–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shackelford, S., Wood, W., & Worchel, S. (1996). Behavioral styles and the influence of women in mixed-sex groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 284–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schein, V. E. (2001). A global look at psychological barriers to women’s progress in management. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 675–688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, J., & Cook, K. (1995). Status inconsistency and gender: Combining revisited. Small Group Research, 26, 372–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schope, R. D., & Eliason, M. J. (2004). Sissies and tomboys: Gender role behaviors and homophobia. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 16, 73–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schruijer, S. G. L., & Mostert, I. (1997). Creativity and sex composition: An experimental illustration. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 6, 175–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sczesny, S. (2003). A closer look beneath the surface: Various facets of the think-manager—think-male stereotype. Sex Roles, 49, 353–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirin, S. R., McCreary, D. R., & Mahalik, J. R. (2004). Differential reactions to men and women’s gender role transgressions: Perceptions of social status, sexual orientation, and value dissimilarity. Journal of Men’s Studies, 12, 119–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smetana, J. G. (1986). Preschool children’s conceptions of sex-role transgressions, Child Development, 57, 862–871.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein, R. T., & Heller, T. (1979). An empirical analysis between leadership status and participation rates reported in the literature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1993–2002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterling, B. S., & Owen, J. W. (1982). Perceptions of demanding versus reasoning male and female police officers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 336–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoddard, T., & Turiel, E. (1985). Children’s concepts of cross-gender activities. Child Development, 56, 1241–1252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H. (1982). The social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taps, J., & Martin, P. Y. (1990). Gender composition, attributional accounts, and women’s influence and likability in task groups. Small Group Research, 21, 471–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tepper, B. J., Brown, S. J., & Hunt, M. D. (1993). Strength of subordinates’ upward influence tactics and gender congruency effects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1903–1919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas-Hunt, M. C., & Phillips, K. W. (2004). When what you know is not enough: Expertise and gender dynamics in task groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1585–1598.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., & O’Reilly, C. A., III. (1992). Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 549–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Twenge, J. M. (1997). Attitudes toward women, 1970–1995. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 35–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uhlmann, E. L., & Cohen, G. L. (2005). Constructed criteria: Redefining merit to justify discrimination. Psychological Science, 16, 474–480.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2008a). Highlights of women’s earnings in 2007. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswom2007.pdf

  • U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2008b). Tables from employment and earnings: Annual averages, household data. http://www.bls.gov/cps/tables.htm#annual

  • U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2003). Women’s earnings: Work patterns partially explain difference between men’s and women’s earnings(GAO-04-35). http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0435.pdf

  • U.S. National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). Digest of education statistics, 2005. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_258.asp.

  • van Engen, M. L., & Willemsen, T. M. (2004). Sex and leadership styles: A meta-analysis of research published in the 1990s. Psychological Reports, 94, 3–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007).Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 515–41

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, D. G., Ford, R. S., & Ford, T. W. (1986). Can gender inequalities be reduced? American Sociological Review, 51, 47–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, H. A., Ilardi, B. C., McMahon, A. M., & Fennell, M. L. (1996). Gender, interaction, and leadership. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 255–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webber, S. S., & Donahue L. M. (2001). Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 27, 141–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weimann, G. (1985). Sex differences in dealing with bureaucracy. Sex Roles, 12, 777–790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheelan, S. A. (1996). Effects of gender composition and group status differences on member perceptions of group developmental patterns, effectiveness, and productivity. Sex Roles, 34,665–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheelan, S. A., & Verdi, A. F. (1992). Differences in male and female patterns of communication in groups: A methodological artifact? Sex Roles, 27, 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, C. L. (1992). The glass escalator: Hidden advantages for men in the “female” professions. Social Problems, 39, 41–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. E., & Best, D. L. (1990). Measuring sex stereotypes: A multinational study. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams K. Y., & O’Reilly C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, W. (1987). Meta-analytic review of sex differences in group performance. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 53–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, W., & Kallgren, C. A. (1988). Communicator attributes and persuasion: Recipients’ access to attitude-relevant information in memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 172–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, W., & Karten, S. J. (1986). Sex differences in interaction style as a product of perceived sex differences in competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 341–347.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wosinska, W., Dabul, A. J., Whetstone-Dion, R., & Cialdini, R. B. (1996). Self-presentational responses to success in the organization: The costs and benefits of modesty. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 18, 229–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yamada, E. M., Tjosvold, D., & Draguns, J. G. (1983). Effects of sex-linked situations and sex composition on cooperation and style of interaction. Sex Roles, 9, 541–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoder, J. D. (2001). Making leadership work more effectively for women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 815–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoder, J. D. (2002). Context matters: Understanding tokenism processes and their impact on women’s work. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoder, J. D., & Schleicher, T. L. (1996). Undergraduates regard deviation from occupational gender stereotypes as costly for women. Sex Roles, 34, 171–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoder, J. D., Schleicher, T. L., & McDonald, T. W. (1998). Empowering token women leaders: The importance of organizationally legitimated credibility. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 209–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zucker, K. J., Wilson-Smith, D. N., Kurita, J. A., & Stern, A. (1995). Children’s appraisals of sex-typed behavior in their peers. Sex Roles, 33, 703–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Wellesley College, Wellesley, MA, USA

    Linda L. Carli

Authors
  1. Linda L. Carli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Connecticut College, Mohegan Avenue 270, New London, 06320, U.S.A.

    Joan C. Chrisler

  2. Elm Street 38, Toronto, M5G 2K5, Canada

    Donald R. McCreary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Carli, L.L. (2010). Gender and Group Behavior. In: Chrisler, J., McCreary, D. (eds) Handbook of Gender Research in Psychology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1467-5_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation