Sex Roles

, Volume 55, Issue 1–2, pp 51–61 | Cite as

Prejudice against Women in Male-congenial Environments: Perceptions of Gender Role Congruity in Leadership

Original Article

Abstract

Some authors assert that there is a feminine advantage in leadership, even though female leaders are often targets of prejudice. Our experiment tested how people’s expectations affect this prejudice in different work environments. Participants evaluated a male or a female candidate for a leadership position in an industry that was congruent or incongruent with the candidate’s gender role. Participants showed prejudice against the female candidate, especially when she worked in an industry incongruent with her gender role. Female and older participants showed more prejudice against the female leader than did male and younger participants. These results invoke role congruity theory (Eagly & Karau, Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598, 2002).

Keywords

Causal attributions Gender Gender identity Leadership Prejudice Role congruity Sex Transformational leadership Women 

References

  1. Adler, M. (1994). Male–female power differences at work: A comparison of supervisors and policymakers. Sociological Inquiry, 64, 37–55.Google Scholar
  2. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free.Google Scholar
  3. Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industry, military, and educational impact. Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Booth, A. L., Francesconi, M., & Frank, J. (2003). A sticky floors model of promotion, pay, and gender. European Economic Review, 47, 295–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burgess, D., & Borgida, E. (1999). Who women are, who women should be: Descriptive and prescriptive gender stereotyping in sex discrimination. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, 665–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carli, L. L. (2001). Gender and social influence. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 725–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cejka, M. A., & Eagly, A. H. (1999). Gender stereotypic images of occupations correspond to the sex segregation of employment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 413–423.Google Scholar
  9. Corporate Women Directors International (2002). Women board directors of Spain’s 300 top companies. Retrieved September 9, 2005 from http://www.globewomen.com/cwdi/country_rep/spain_report.htm.
  10. Deaux, K. (1984). From individual differences to social categories: Analysis of a decade’s research on gender. American Psychologist, 39, 105–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Diekman, A. B., & Eagly, A. H. (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of the past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1171–1188.Google Scholar
  12. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Eagly, A. H. (2004). Few women at the top: How role incongruity produces prejudice and the glass ceiling. In D. van Knippenberg & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Identity, leadership, and power (pp. 79–93). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2003). The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 807–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire: A meta-analysis comparing men and women. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 569–591.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 125–145.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautmer (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Garcia-Retamero, R. (2006). Identidad de género y nivel de aspiraciones profesionales en alumnos universitarios. Revista Mexicana de Psicología. (in press).Google Scholar
  21. Garcia-Retamero, R., & López-Zafra, E. (2002). Percepción y evaluación de la mujer en liderazgo como explicación de la discriminación de la mujer en puestos de dirección. Revista de Psicología Social Aplicada, 12, 21–52.Google Scholar
  22. Garcia-Retamero, R., & López-Zafra, R. (2006). Congruencia de rol de género y liderazgo: El papel de las atribuciones causales sobre el éxito y el fracaso. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 38, 245–257.Google Scholar
  23. Goldberg, P. (1968). Are women prejudiced against women? Transaction, 5, 316–322.Google Scholar
  24. Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 657–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hopcroft, R. (1996). The authority attainment of women: Competitive sector effects. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 55, 163–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE) (2001). Encuesta de población activa por actividades en España. Retrieved September 9, 2005 from www.ine.es/inebase/cgi/axi.
  27. Jacobs, J. A. (1999). The sex segregation of occupations: Prospects for the 21st century. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work (pp. 125–144). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Koch, S. C. (2004). Constructing gender: A lens-model inspired gender communication approach. Sex Roles, 51, 171–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. López-Sáez, M. (1994). Procesos culturales e individuales implicados en la estereotipia de género: Una aproximación empírica a la elección de carreta. Revista de Psicología Social, 9, 213–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. López-Zafra, E. (1998). Liderazgo carismático: Un intento de validación convergente al M.L.Q. (Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire). Revista de Psicología Social, 13, 211–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. López-Zafra, E. (1999). Liderazgo femenino: Nuevas pautas para un nuevo milenio. In M. A. Bel (Ed.), Ecofeminismo: Un reencuentro con la naturaleza (pp. 43–61). España: Servicio de publicaciones de la Universidad de Jaén.Google Scholar
  32. López-Zafra, E., & Del Olmo, S. M. (1999). Estereotipia de género y liderazgo transformacional en contextos de trabajo típicamente femeninos. Revista de Psicología Social Aplicada, 9, 53–71.Google Scholar
  33. López-Zafra, E., & López-Sáez, M. (2001). Por qué las mujeres se consideran más o menos femeninas y los hombres más o menos masculinos? Explicaciones sobre su autoconcepto de identidad de género. Revista de Psicología Social, 16, 193–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nicolson, P. (1997). Poder, género y organizaciones: ¿Se valora a la mujer en la empresa? Madrid: Narcea.Google Scholar
  35. Powell, G. N. (1999). Examining the intersection of gender and work. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work (pp. ix–xx). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Powell, G. N., Butterfield, D. A., & Parent, J. D. (2002). Gender and managerial stereotypes: Have the times changed? Journal of Management, 28, 177–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rudman, L. A., & Kilianski, S. E. (2000). Implicit and explicit attitudes toward female authority. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1315–1328.Google Scholar
  38. Schein, V. E. (2001). A global look at psychological barriers to women’s progress in management. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 675–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Swim, J. K., & Sanna, L. J. (1996). He’s skilled, she’s lucky: A meta-analysis of observers’ attributions for women’s and men’s successes and failures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 507–522.Google Scholar
  40. Taylor, L., Newman, S., Mangis, C., Swiander, M., Garibaldi, C., Ismael, A., et al. (1993). Gender and attribution: A reversal of bias? Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 575–582.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Top, T. J. (1991). Sex bias in the evaluation of performance in the scientific, artistic, and literary professions: A review. Sex Roles, 24, 73–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. United Nations Development Programme (2004). Human development report 2004: Cultural liberty in today’s diverse world. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. van Engen, M. L., van der Leeden, R., & Willemsen, T. M. (2001). Gender, context, and leadership style: A field study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 581–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wolf, W. C., & Fligstein, N. (1979). Sex and authority in the workplace: The causes of sexual inequality. American Sociological Review, 44, 235–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Adaptive Behavior and CognitionMax Plank Institute for Human DevelopmentBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Departamento de PsicologíaÁrea de Psicología SocialJaénSpain

Personalised recommendations