Prejudice against Women Leaders: Insights from an Indirect Questioning Approach
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.
KeywordsPrejudice 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.
- Allport, G. W. (1979). The nature of prejudice (25th ed.). New York: Perseus Books.Google Scholar
- 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 https://www.dgps.de/fileadmin/documents/Empfehlungen/berufsethische_richtlinien_dgps.pdf. Accessed 10 September 2018.
- 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
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.10.019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00781.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Dovidio, J. F., Hewstone, M., Glick, P., & Esses, V. M. (2010). Prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2010.522616.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- German Federal Statistical Office. (2016a). Facts and figures, Indicators. Quality of employment: Women in managerial occupations. Retrieved fromhttps://www.destatis.de/EN/FactsFigures/Indicators/QualityEmployment/QualitaetEmployment.html. Accessed 2 November 2016.
- German Federal Statistical Office. (2016b). State & Society. Institutions of higher education: Education. Retrieved from https://www.destatis.de/EN/FactsFigures/Indicators/LongTermSeries/Education/lrbil01.html. Accessed 2 November 2016.
- 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
- 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
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684310383811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Leatherwood, L., & Mitch, W. (2008). Gender and career paths. Journal of Women in Educational Leadership, 15, 261–273.Google Scholar
- Moshagen, M., Musch, J., & Erdfelder, E. (2012). A stochastic lie detector. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 222–231. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0144-221858604.
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280210372843.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Pötzsch, O. (2012). Geburten in Deutschland [Births in Germany]. Retrieved fromhttps://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/Bevoelkerung/Bevoelkerungsbewegung/BroschuereGeburtenDeutschland0120007129004.pdf. Accessed 6 June 2012.
- Reinders, M. (1996). Häufigkeit von Namensanfängen [frequency of first letters of surnames]. Statistische Rundschau Nordrhein-Westfalen, 11, 651–660.Google Scholar
- 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
- Tourangeau, R., & Yan, T. (2007). Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 859–883. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.5.85917723033.
- 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