Sex Roles

, Volume 80, Issue 11–12, pp 681–692 | Cite as

Prejudice against Women Leaders: Insights from an Indirect Questioning Approach

  • Adrian HoffmannEmail author
  • Jochen Musch
Original Article


To avoid social disapproval in studies on prejudice against women leaders, participants might provide socially desirable rather than truthful responses. Using the Crosswise Model, an indirect questioning technique that can be applied to control for socially desirable responding, we investigated the prevalence of prejudice against women leaders in a German university community sample of 1529 participants. Prevalence estimates that were based on an indirect question that guaranteed confidentiality of responses were higher than estimates that were based on a direct question. Prejudice against women leaders was thus shown to be more widespread than previously indicated by self-reports that were potentially biased by social desirability. Whereas women showed less prejudice against women leaders, their responses were actually found to be more biased by social desirability, as indicated by a significant interaction between questioning technique and participants’ gender. For men, prejudice estimates increased only slightly from 36% to 45% when an indirect question was used, whereas for women, prejudice estimates almost tripled from 10% to 28%. Whereas women were particularly hesitant to provide negative judgments regarding the qualities of women leaders, prejudice against women leaders was more prevalent among men even when gender differences in social desirability were controlled. Taken together, the results highlight the importance of controlling for socially desirable responding when using self-reports to investigate the prevalence of gender prejudice.


Prejudice Gender Women leaders Social desirability Validity Indirect questioning Randomized response technique Crosswise model 



We are grateful to Anke Sievert for her help in collecting the data for this study.


Funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) - HO 5818/1-1.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

This study was carried out in accordance with the revised Declaration of Helsinki (2013) and the ethical guidelines of the German Society for Psychology. All participants were informed about the purpose of the study and about the strict anonymization of all data prior to their participation, and consented to participate on a voluntary basis. We certify that we have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Supplementary material

11199_2018_969_MOESM1_ESM.docx (23 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 23 kb)


  1. Allport, G. W. (1979). The nature of prejudice (25th ed.). New York: Perseus Books.Google Scholar
  2. Ayman, R., & Korabik, K. (2010). Leadership: Why gender and culture matter. American Psychologist, 65, 157–170. Scholar
  3. Batchelder, W. H. (1998). Multinomial processing tree models and psychological assessment. Psychological Assessment, 10, 331–344. Scholar
  4. Batchelder, W. H., & Riefer, D. M. (1999). Theoretical and empirical review of multinomial process tree modeling. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 57–86. Scholar
  5. Berufsverband Deutscher Psychologinnen und Psychologen, & Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychologie. (2016). Berufsethische Richtlinien des Berufsverbandes Deutscher Psychologinnen und Psychologen e.V. und der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie e.V. Retrieved from Accessed 10 September 2018.
  6. Biernat, M. (2003). Toward a broader view of social stereotyping. American Psychologist, 58, 1019–1027. Scholar
  7. Biernat, M. (2012). Stereotypes and shifting standards: Forming, communicating, and translating person impressions. In P. Devine & A. Plant (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1–59). San Diego: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  8. Biernat, M., Crandall, C. S., Young, L. V., Kobrynowicz, D., & Halpin, S. M. (1998). All that you can be: Stereotyping of self and others in a military context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 301–317. Scholar
  9. Biernat, M., Manis, M., & Nelson, T. E. (1991). Stereotypes and standards of judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 485–499. Scholar
  10. Blanton, H., Jaccard, J., Christie, C., & Gonzales, P. M. (2007). Plausible assumptions, questionable assumptions and post hoc rationalizations: Will the real IAT, please stand up? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 399–409. Scholar
  11. Blanton, H., Jaccard, J., Gonzales, P. M., & Christe, C. (2006). Decoding the implicit association test: Implications for criterion prediction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 192–212. Scholar
  12. Bligh, M. C., Schlehofer, M. M., Casad, B. J., & Gaffney, A. M. (2012). Competent enough, but would you vote for her? Gender stereotypes and media influences on perceptions of women politicians. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 560–597. Scholar
  13. Bosak, J., & Sczesny, S. (2011). Gender Bias in leader selection? Evidence from a hiring simulation study. Sex Roles, 65, 234–242. Scholar
  14. Buschle, N., & Hähnel, S. (2016). Hochschulen auf einen Blick: Ausgabe 2016 [graduate schools at a glance: 2016 edition]. Wiesbaden: German Federal Statistical Office.Google Scholar
  15. Deaux, K., & Lewis, L. L. (1984). Structure of gender stereotypes - interrelationships among components and gender label. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 991–1004. Scholar
  16. Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., & Rubin, D. B. (1977). Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via Em algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 39, 1–38.Google Scholar
  17. Dovidio, J. F., Hewstone, M., Glick, P., & Esses, V. M. (2010). Prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2003). The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 807–834. Scholar
  20. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598. Scholar
  21. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2012). Social role theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories in social psychology (2nd ed., pp. 458–476). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Elsesser, K. M., & Lever, J. (2011). Does gender bias against female leaders persist? Quantitative and qualitative data from a large-scale survey. Human Relations, 64, 1555–1578. Scholar
  24. Endendijk, J. J., Groeneveld, M. G., van Berkel, S. R., Hallers-Haalboom, E. T., Mesman, J., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (2013). Gender stereotypes in the family context: Mothers, fathers, and siblings. Sex Roles, 68, 577–590. Scholar
  25. Garcia-Retamero, R., & López-Zafra, E. (2006). Prejudice against women in male-congenial environments: Perceptions of gender role congruity in leadership. Sex Roles, 55, 51–61. Scholar
  26. Garcia-Retamero, R., Müller, S. M., & López-Zafra, E. (2011). The malleability of gender stereotypes: Influence of population size on perceptions of men and women in the past, present, and future. Journal of Social Psychology, 151, 635–656. Scholar
  27. German Federal Statistical Office. (2016a). Facts and figures, Indicators. Quality of employment: Women in managerial occupations. Retrieved from Accessed 2 November 2016.
  28. German Federal Statistical Office. (2016b). State & Society. Institutions of higher education: Education. Retrieved from Accessed 2 November 2016.
  29. Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. an improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197–216. Scholar
  30. Haines, E. L., Deaux, K., & Lofaro, N. (2016). The times they are a-changing ... Or are they not? A comparison of gender stereotypes, 1983-2014. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40, 353–363. Scholar
  31. Heilman, M. E. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in Organizational Behavior: An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews, 32, 113–135. Scholar
  32. Hoffmann, A., Diedenhofen, B., Verschuere, B. J., & Musch, J. (2015). A strong validation of the crosswise model using experimentally induced cheating behavior. Experimental Psychology, 62, 403–414. Scholar
  33. Hoffmann, A., & Musch, J. (2016). Assessing the validity of two indirect questioning techniques: A stochastic lie detector versus the crosswise model. Behavior Research Methods, 48, 1032–1046. Scholar
  34. Hoffmann, A., Waubert de Puiseau, B., Schmidt, A. F., & Musch, J. (2017). On the comprehensibility and perceived privacy protection of indirect questioning techniques. Behavior Research Methods, 49, 1470–1483. Scholar
  35. Höglinger, M., & Diekmann, A. (2017). Uncovering a blind spot in sensitive question research: False positives undermine the crosswise-model RRT. Political Analysis, 25, 131–137. Scholar
  36. Holst, E., Busch-Heizmann, A., & Wieber, A. (2015). Führungskräfte-Monitor 2015. Update 2001–2013 [Manager monitor 2015 . Update 2001–2013]. Berlin: Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung.Google Scholar
  37. Hu, X., & Batchelder, W. H. (1994). The statistical-analysis of general processing tree models with the Em algorithm. Psychometrika, 59, 21–47. Scholar
  38. Jann, B., Jerke, J., & Krumpal, I. (2012). Asking sensitive questions using the crosswise model. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76, 32–49. Scholar
  39. Kark, R., & Eagly, A. H. (2010). Gender and leadership: Negotiating the labyrinth. In J. C. Chrisler & D. R. McCreary (Eds.), Handbook of gender research in psychology (Vol. 2: Gender Research in Social and Applied Psychology, pp. 443–468). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kite, M. E., Deaux, K., & Haines, E. L. (2008). Gender Stereotypes. In F. L. Denmark & M. A. Paludi (Eds.), Psychology of women: A handbook of issues and theories (2nd ed., pp. 205–236). Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
  41. Knapp, B. R., & Batchelder, W. H. (2004). Representing parametric order constraints in multi-trial applications of multinomial processing tree models. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 48, 215–229. Scholar
  42. Korndörfer, M., Krumpal, I., & Schmukle, S. C. (2014). Measuring and explaining tax evasion: Improving self-reports using the crosswise model. Journal of Economic Psychology, 45, 18–32. Scholar
  43. Kundt, T. C., Misch, F., & Nerré, B. (2016). Re-assessing the merits of measuring tax evasion through business surveys: An application of the crosswise model. International Tax and Public Finance,  1–22.
  44. Latu, I. M., Stewart, T. L., Myers, A. C., Lisco, C. G., Estes, S. B., & Donahue, D. K. (2011). What we "say" and what we "think" about female managers: Explicit versus implicit associations of women with success. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35, 252–266. Scholar
  45. Leatherwood, L., & Mitch, W. (2008). Gender and career paths. Journal of Women in Educational Leadership, 15, 261–273.Google Scholar
  46. López-Zafra, E., & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2011). The impact of nontraditionalism on the malleability of gender stereotypes in Spain and Germany. International Journal of Psychology, 46, 249–258. Scholar
  47. Moshagen, M. (2010). multiTree: A computer program for the analysis of multinomial processing tree models. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 42–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Moshagen, M., Hilbig, B. E., & Musch, J. (2011). Defection in the dark? A randomized-response investigation of cooperativeness in social dilemma games. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 638–644. Scholar
  49. Moshagen, M., & Musch, J. (2012). Surveying multiple sensitive attributes using an extension of the randomized-response technique. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 24, 508–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Moshagen, M., Musch, J., & Erdfelder, E. (2012). A stochastic lie detector. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 222–231.
  51. Nederhof, A. J. (1985). Methods of coping with social desirability Bias - a review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 263–280. Scholar
  52. Nosek, B. A., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (2005). Understanding and using the implicit association test: II. Method variables and construct validity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 166–180. Scholar
  53. Ostapczuk, M., Musch, J., & Moshagen, M. (2011). Improving self-report measures of medication non-adherence using a cheating detection extension of the randomised-response-technique. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 20, 489–503. Scholar
  54. Paulhus, D. L., & Reid, D. B. (1991). Enhancement and denial in socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 307–317. Scholar
  55. Pötzsch, O. (2012). Geburten in Deutschland [Births in Germany]. Retrieved from Accessed 6 June 2012.
  56. Powell, G. N., Butterfield, D. A., & Parent, J. D. (2002). Gender and managerial stereotypes: Have the times changed? Journal of Management, 28, 177–193. Scholar
  57. Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, 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. Scholar
  58. Reinders, M. (1996). Häufigkeit von Namensanfängen [frequency of first letters of surnames]. Statistische Rundschau Nordrhein-Westfalen, 11, 651–660.Google Scholar
  59. Thielmann, I., Heck, D. W., & Hilbig, B. E. (2016). Anonymity and incentives: An investigation of techniques to reduce socially desirable responding in the trust game. Judgment and Decision Making, 11, 527–536.Google Scholar
  60. Tourangeau, R., & Yan, T. (2007). Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 859–883.
  61. Ulrich, R., Schröter, H., Striegel, H., & Simon, P. (2012). Asking sensitive questions: A statistical power analysis of randomized response models. Psychological Methods, 17, 623–641. Scholar
  62. Umesh, U. N., & Peterson, R. A. (1991). A critical evaluation of the randomized-response method - applications, validation, and research agenda. Sociological Methods & Research, 20, 104–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Warner, S. L. (1965). Randomized-response - a survey technique for eliminating evasive answer Bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 60, 63–69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Wilde, A., & Diekman, A. B. (2005). Cross-cultural similarities and differences in dynamic stereotypes: A comparison between Germany and the United States. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 188–196. Scholar
  65. Wittenbrink, B., & Schwarz, N. (2007). Introduction: Explicit and implicit measures of attitudes. In B. Wittenbrink & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Implicit measures of attitudes (pp. 1–3). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  66. World Medical Association. (2013). World medical association declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA, 310, 2191–2194. Scholar
  67. Yu, J.-W., Tian, G.-L., & Tang, M.-L. (2008). Two new models for survey sampling with sensitive characteristic: Design and analysis. Metrika, 67, 251–263. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Experimental PsychologyUniversity of DuesseldorfDuesseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations