Sex Roles

, Volume 75, Issue 3–4, pp 126–138 | Cite as

Gender Stereotypes Influence How People Explain Gender Disparities in the Workplace

  • Jessica L. CundiffEmail author
  • Theresa K. Vescio
Original Article


Gender stereotypes provide viable explanations for why women are underrepresented and men are overrepresented in senior leadership positions and STEM occupations, typically by attributing gender disparities to the dispositions of women and men. The present research examined whether stereotypes also influence attributions to discrimination. Consistent with predictions, undergraduate participants who strongly vs. weakly endorsed gender stereotypes, either chronically (Study 1, N = 147) or when situationally primed (Study 2, N = 258), were less likely to attribute gender disparities in the workplace to discrimination. In addition, participants unexpectedly made stronger discrimination attributions when explaining gender gaps in leadership positions than in STEM occupations, suggesting that interventions for addressing gender discrimination may need to use different strategies for different contexts. Overall, results are consistent with the notion that stereotypes influence explanations for group disparities in ways that justify existing social arrangements as fair, just, and legitimate. Our findings have implications for understanding when people will acknowledge discrimination, which is an important first step toward addressing discrimination.


Stereotyped attitudes Sex role attitudes Attribution Division of labor Sex discrimination 



This research was supported by a Psi Chi Graduate Research Grant awarded to the first author. Portions of this research were presented at the 11th Annual Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology in Las Vegas, NV, January, 2010.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Disclosure of Funding Sources

The research was supported by a Psi Chi Graduate Research Grant awarded to the first author.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Previous Publication

The authors certify that the work described in the manuscript has not been published previously, that the manuscript is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, and that is approved by all authors. Portions of this research were presented at the 11th Annual Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology in Las Vegas, NV, January, 2010.

Ethical Treatment of Human Participants

The authors certify that the research was approved by the Pennsylvania State University IRB and was conducted in accordance with APA ethical guidelines, including informed consent from all research participants.

Supplementary material

11199_2016_593_MOESM1_ESM.docx (142 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 141 kb)


  1. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Oxford: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  2. Barreto, M., Ryan, M. K., & Schmitt, M. T. (Eds.). (2009). The glass ceiling in the 21 st century: Understanding barriers to gender equality. Washington: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/11863-000.Google Scholar
  3. Bastian, B., & Haslam, N. (2006). Psychological essentialism and stereotype endorsement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 228–235. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2005.03.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell, M. P., Harrison, D. A., & McLaughlin, M. E. (1997). Asian-American attitudes toward affirmative action in employment: Implications for the model minority myth. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 33, 356–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Biernat, M., Crosby, F.J., & Williams, J.C. (Eds.). (2004). The maternal wall: Research and policy perspectives on discrimination against mothers in the workplace [Special issue]. Journal of Social Issues, 60(4).Google Scholar
  7. Bigelow, L., Lundmark, L., Parks, J. M., & Wuebker, R. (2014). Skirting the issues: Experimental evidence of gender bias in IPO prospectus evaluations. Journal of Management, 40, 1732–1759. doi: 10.1177/0149206312441624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brescoll, V., & LaFrance, M. (2004). The correlates and consequences of newspaper reports of research on sex differences. Psychological Science, 15, 515–520. doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00712.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Callister, R. R. (2006). The impact of gender and department climate on job satisfaction and intentions to quit for faculty in science and engineering fields. Journal of Technology Transfer, 21, 367–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carli, L. L., Alawa, L., Lee, Y., Zhao, B., & Kim, E. (2016). Stereotypes about gender and science: Women ≠ scientists. Psychology of Women Quarterly. doi: 10.1177/0361684315622645. Advance online publication.Google Scholar
  11. Ceci, S. J., Ginther, D. K., Kahn, S., & Williams, W. M. (2014). Women in academic science: A changing landscape. Psychological Interest in the Public Interest, 15, 75–141. doi: 10.1177/1529100614541236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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. doi: 10.1177/0146167299025004002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cheryan, S., Master, A., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2015). Cultural stereotypes as gatekeepers: Increasing girls’ interest in computer science and engineering by diversifying stereotypes. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–8. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Corcoran, K. E., Pettinicchio, D., & Young, J. N. (2015). Perceptions of structural injustice and efficacy: Participation in low/moderate/high-cost forms of collective action. Sociological Inquiry, 85, 429–461. doi: 10.1111/soin.12082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cundiff, J. L., Zawadzki, M. J., Danube, C. L., & Shields, S. A. (2014). Using experiential learning to increase the recognition of everyday sexism as harmful: The WAGES intervention. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 703–721. doi: 10.1111/josi.12087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development. Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis/Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  17. Dweck, C.S. (2012). Implicit theories. In P. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, E. T. Higgins, P. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (vol. 2, pp. 43–61). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd. doi:  10.4135/9781446249222.n28.
  18. Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2003). The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 807–834. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.09.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  20. Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 735–754. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.46.4.735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2012). Social role theory. In P. van Lange, A. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 458–476). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Ltd.. doi: 10.4135/9781446249222.n49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ellemers, N., Wilke, H., & van Knippenberg, A. (1993). Effects of the legitimacy of low group or individual status on individual and collective status-enhancement strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 766–778. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.64.5.766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Foster, M. D. (2000). Positive and negative responses to personal discrimination: Does coping make a difference? The Journal of Social Psychology, 140, 93–106.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Fouad, N.A., Singh, R., Fitzpatrick, M. E., & Liu, J.P. (2012). Stemming the tide: Why women leave engineering. Retrieved from
  25. Gilbert, D. T. (1989). Thinking lightly about others: Automatic components of the social inference process. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 189–211). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  26. Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 21–38. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Harrison, D. A., Kravitz, D. A., Mayer, D. M., Leslie, L. M., & Lev-Arey, D. (2006). Understanding attitudes toward affirmative action programs in employment: Summary and meta-analysis of 35 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1013–1036. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2000). Essentialist beliefs about social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 113–127.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Haslam, N., Bastian, B., Bain, P., & Kashima, Y. (2006). Psychological essentialism, implicit theories, and intergroup relations. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 9, 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Heilman, M. E. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 113–135. doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2012.11.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.905.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Hoffman, C., & Hurst, N. (1990). Gender stereotypes: Perception or rationalization? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 197–208. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.58.2.197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Inman, M. L., & Baron, R. S. (1996). Influence of prototypes on perceptions of prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 727–739. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.727.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Iyer, A., & Ryan, M. K. (2009). Why do men and women challenge gender discrimination in the workplace? The role of group status and in-group identification in predicting pathways to collective action. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 791–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Katz, I., & Hass, R. G. (1988). Racial ambivalence and American value conflict: Correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive structures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 893–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Keller, J. (2005). In genes we trust: The biological component of psychological essentialism and its relationship to mechanisms of motivated social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 686–702. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.686.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Kluegel, J. R. (1985). ‘If there isn’t a problem, you don’t need a solution’: The bases of contemporary affirmative action attitudes. American Behavioral Scientist, 28, 761–784. doi: 10.1177/000276485028006004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Koch, A. J., D’Mello, S. D., & Sackett, P. R. (2015). A meta-analysis of gender stereotypes and bias in experimental simulations of employment decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 128–161. doi: 10.1037/a0036734.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Koenig, A. M., & Eagly, A. H. (2014). Evidence for the social role theory of stereotype content: Observations of groups’ roles shape stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 371–392. doi: 10.1037/a0037215.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Leslie, S., Cimpian, A., Meyer, M., & Freeland, E. (2015). Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science, 347, 262–265. doi: 10.1126/science.1261375.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Levy, S. R., Stroessner, S. J., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Stereotype formation and endorsement: The role of implicit theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1421–1436. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lyness, K. S., & Heilman, M. E. (2006). When fit is fundamental: Performance evaluations and promotions of upper-level female and male managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 777–785. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.777.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Major, B., Gramzow, R. H., McCoy, S. K., Levin, S., Schmader, T., & Sidanius, J. (2002a). Perceiving personal discrimination: The role of group status and legitimizing ideology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 269–282. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.82.3.269.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Major, B., Quinton, W. J., & McCoy, S. K. (2002b). Antecedents and consequences of attributions to discrimination: Theoretical and empirical advances. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 251–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Martell, R. F., Lane, D. M., & Emrich, C. (1996). Male-female differences: A computer simulation. American Psychologist, 51, 157–158. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Martin, C. L., & Parker, S. (1995). Folk theories about sex and race differences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 45–57. doi: 10.1177/0146167295211006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McArthur, L. Z., & Post, D. L. (1977). Figural emphasis and person perception. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 520–535. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(77)90051-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Medin, D. L., & Ortony, A. (1989). Psychological essentialism. In S. Vosnaidou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 179–195). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 16474–16479. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1211286109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mummendey, A., Kessler, T., Klink, A., & Mielke, R. (1999). Strategies to cope with negative social identity: Predictions by social theory and relative deprivation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 229–245. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.76.2.229.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Operario, D., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). Ethnic identity moderates perceptions of prejudice: Judgments of personal versus group discrimination and subtle versus blatant bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 550–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Park, B., & Judd, C. M. (1990). Measures and models of perceived group variability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 173–191. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.59.2.173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pauker, K., Ambady, N., & Apfelbaum, E. P. (2010). Race salience and essentialist thinking in racial stereotype development. Child Development, 81, 1799–1813.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. Pettigrew, T. F. (1979). The ultimate attribution error: Extending Allport’s cognitive analysis of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 461–476. doi: 10.1177/014616727900500407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rangel, U., & Keller, J. (2011). Essentialism goes social: Belief in social determinism as a component of psychological essentialism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 1056–1078. doi: 10.1037/a0022401.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Regan, D. T., & Totten, J. (1975). Empathy and attribution: Turning observers into actors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 850–856.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Reyna, C. (2000). Lazy, dumb, or industrious: When stereotypes convey attributional information in the classroom. Educational Psychology Review, 12, 85–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rogier, A., & Yzerbyt, V. (1999). Social attribution, correspondence bias, and the emergence of stereotypes. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 58, 233–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortion in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental psychology (vol. 10, pp. 174–221). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  61. Ross, L. D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1991). The person and the situation: Perspectives of social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  62. Rydell, R. J., Hugenberg, K., Ray, D., & Mackie, D. M. (2007). Implicit theories about groups and stereotyping: The role of group entitativity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 549–558. doi: 10.1177/0146167206296956.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Settles, I. H., Cortina, L. M., Buchanan, N. T., & Miner, K. N. (2013). Derogation, discrimination, and (dis)satisfaction with jobs in science: A gendered analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, 179–191. doi: 10.1177/0361684312468727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Soo Oh, S., & Lewis, G. B. (2011). Stemming inequality? Employment and pay of female and minority scientists and engineers. The Social Science Journal, 48, 397–403. doi: 10.1016/j.soscij.2010.11.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 199–214. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  68. Trope, Y., & Gaunt, R. (2000). Processing alternative explanations of behavior: Correction or integration? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 344–354. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.79.3.344.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2015). Employed labor force statistics from the Current Population Survey. Retrieved from
  70. U.S. Department of Labor & Bureau of Labor Statistics (2008). Women in the labor force: A databook (Report No. 996). Retrieved from
  71. U.S. Glass Ceiling Commission (1995). Good for business: Making full use of the nation’s human capital. Washington, DC. Retrieved from
  72. Valian, V. (1998). Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  73. Van Vugt, M., & Spisak, B. R. (2008). Sex differences in the emergence of leadership during competitions within and between groups. Psychological Science, 19, 854–858.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 504–535. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Vescio, T. K., & Biernat, M. (1999). When stereotype-based expectations impair perceivers’ performance: The effect of prejudice, race, and target quality on judgments and perceiver performance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 961–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Vescio, T. K., & Biernat, M. (2003). Family values and antipathy toward gay men. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 833–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Vescio, T. K., Gervais, S. J., & Cundiff, J. L. (2016). Powerful women and men’s stereotyping of the self and others in masculine domains. Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar
  78. Watson, D. (1982). The actor and the observer: How are their perceptions of causality divergent? Psychological Bulletin, 92, 682–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Weiner, B. (1995). Judgments of responsibility: A foundation for a theory of social conduct. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  80. Weiner, B., Osborne, D., & Rudolph, U. (2011). An attributional analysis of reactions to poverty: The political ideology of the giver and the perceived morality of the receiver. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 199–213. doi: 10.1177/1088868310387615.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Wenneras, C., & Wold, A. (1997). Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature, 387, 341–343.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Williams, W. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2015). National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 5360–5365. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1418878112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Yoshida, E., Peach, J. M., Zanna, M. P., & Spencer, S. J. (2012). Not all automatic associations are created equal: How implicit normative evaluations are distinct from implicit attitudes and uniquely predict meaningful behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 694–706. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.09.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Yzerbyt, V., & Rogier, A. (2001). Blame it on the group: Entitativity, subjective essentialism, and social attribution. In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 103–134). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  85. Yzerbyt, V., & Rogier, A. (2002). Subjective essentialism and the emergence of stereotypes. In C. McGarty, V. Y. Yzerbyt, & R. Spears (Eds.), Stereotypes as explanations: The formation of meaningful beliefs about social groups (pp. 38–66). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Yzerbyt, V., Rocher, S., & Schadron, G. (1997). Stereotypes as explanations: A subjective essentialistic view of group perception. In R. Spears, P. J. Oakes, N. Ellemers, & S. A. Haslam (Eds.), The social psychology of stereotyping and group life (pp. 20–50). Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  87. Yzerbyt, V., Rogier, A., & Fiske, S. (1998). Group entitativity and social attribution: On translating situational constraints into stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1089–1103. doi: 10.1177/01461672982410006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychological ScienceMissouri University of Science and TechnologyRollaUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations