Sex Roles

pp 1–18 | Cite as

The Femme Fatale Effect: Attractiveness is a Liability for Businesswomen’s Perceived Truthfulness, Trust, and Deservingness of Termination

  • Leah D. SheppardEmail author
  • Stefanie K. Johnson
Original Article


In what we label the “femme fatale” effect, we proposed and found support for the notion that attractive businesswomen are judged as being less truthful than less attractive women for reasons rooted in sexual insecurity. In Study 1 (n = 198; U.S. participants), attractiveness predicted less perceived truthfulness for female, but not male, leaders delivering negative organizational news. Next, we revealed limitations of the lack-of-fit explanation; this effect persisted when the attractive woman was in a feminine role in Study 2 (n = 155; U.S. participants), in a feminine industry in Study 3 (n = 286; U.S. participants), and delivering positive rather than negative news in Study 4 (n = 148; U.S. participants). In Study 5 (n = 209; U.S. participants), the effect was eliminated when participants were primed to feel sexually secure, but maintained among those primed to feel generally secure, and truthfulness predicted trust in the target’s leadership. In Study 6 (n = 206; U.S. participants), we again eliminated the femme fatale effect by priming sexual security and extended our findings by demonstrating that perceptions of truthfulness predicted perceived deservingness of termination.


Attractiveness bias “Beauty is beastly” “What is beautiful is good” Gender and leadership Truthfulness Trustworthiness 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest. The research was determined to be exempt from full IRB review.

Supplementary material

11199_2019_1031_MOESM1_ESM.doc (79 kb)
ESM 1 (DOC 79 kb)


  1. Ashmore, R. D., Solomon, M. R., & Longo, L. C. (1996). Thinking about fashion models: A multidimensional approach to the structure of perceived physical attractiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1083–1104. Scholar
  2. Bar-Tal, D., & Saxe, L. (1976). Perceptions of similarly and dissimilarly attractive couples and individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 772–781. Scholar
  3. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Sexual economics: Sex as a female resource for social exchange in heterosexual interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 339–363. Scholar
  5. Baumeister, R. F., Catanese, K. R., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Is there a gender difference in strength of sex drive? Theoretical views, conceptual distinctions, and a review of relevant evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 242–273. Scholar
  6. Baxter, J. (2012). Women of the corporation: A sociological perspective of senior women’s leadership language in the U.K. Journal of SocioLinguistics, 16, 81–107. Scholar
  7. Boltz, M. G., Dyer, R. L., & Miller, A. R. (2010). Are you lying to me? Temporal cues for deception. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29, 458–466. Scholar
  8. Braun, S., Peus, C., & Frey, D. (2012). Is beauty beastly? Gender-specific effects of leader attractiveness and leadership style on followers’ trust and loyalty. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie, 220, 98–108. Scholar
  9. Brewer, G., & Archer, J. (2007). What do people infer from facial attractiveness? Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 5, 39–49. Scholar
  10. Buchan, N. R., Croson, R. T. A., & Solnick, S. (2008). Trust and gender: An examination of behavior, biases, and beliefs in the investment game. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 68, 466–476. Scholar
  11. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2017). Labor force statistics from the current population. Retrieved on February 26, 2018 from
  12. Burriss, R. P., & Little, A. C. (2006). Effects of partner conception risk phase on male perception of dominance in faces. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 297–305. Scholar
  13. Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49. Scholar
  14. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory – An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232. Scholar
  15. Butler, J. K. (1991). Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust: Evolution of a conditions of trust inventory. Journal of Management, 17, 643–663. Scholar
  16. Cash, T. F., Gillen, B., & Burns, D. S. (1977). Sexism and beautyism in personnel consultant decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 301–310. Scholar
  17. Cohen, L. L., & Shotland, R. L. (1996). Timing of first sexual intercourse in a relationship: Expectations, experiences, and perceptions of other. Journal of Sex Research, 33, 291–299. Scholar
  18. Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and personal need non-fulfilment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 39–52. Scholar
  19. De Vita, E. (2010). Trust and the female boss. Retrieved on February 28, 2018 from
  20. DePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., Wyer, M. M., & Epstein, J. A. (1996). Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 979–995. Scholar
  21. Dermer, M., & Thiel, D. L. (1975). When beauty may fail. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 1168–1176. Scholar
  22. Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285–290. Scholar
  23. Driscoll, J. W. (1978). Trust and participation in organizational decision making as predictors of satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 21, 44–56. Scholar
  24. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Eagly, A. H. (2003). The rise of female leaders. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 34, 123–132. Scholar
  26. Eagly, A. H. (2007). Female leadership advantage and disadvantage: Resolving the contradictions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 1–12. Scholar
  27. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598. Scholar
  28. 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. Scholar
  29. Forgas, J. P., & East, R. (2008). On being happy and gullible: Mood effects on skepticism and the detection of deception. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1362–1367. Scholar
  30. Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T.-A. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206. Scholar
  31. Gee, L. K., Migueis, M., & Parsa, S. (2017). Redistributive choices and increasing income inequality: Experimental evidence for income as a signal of deservingness. Experimental Economics, 20, 894–923. Scholar
  32. Giessner, S. R., & van Knippenberg, D. (2008). “License to fail”: Goal definition, leader group prototypicality, and perceptions of leadership effectiveness after leader failure. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 105, 14–35. Scholar
  33. Gilstrap, J. B., & Collins, B. J. (2012). The importance of being trustworthy: Trust as a mediator of the relationship between leader behaviors and employee job satisfaction. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 19, 152–163. Scholar
  34. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. Scholar
  35. Hamermesh, D. S., & Biddle, J. E. (1994). Beauty and the labor market. The American Economic Review, 84, 1174–1194.
  36. Hayes, A. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  37. Heilman, M. E., & Saruwatari, L. R. (1979). When beauty is beastly: The effects of appearance and sex on evaluations of job applicants for managerial and nonmanagerial jobs. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 360–372. Scholar
  38. Heilman, M. E., & Stopeck, M. H. (1985a). Being attractive, advantage or disadvantage? Performance-based evaluations and recommended personnel actions as a function of appearance, sex, and job type. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35, 202–215. Scholar
  39. Heilman, M. E., & Stopeck, M. H. (1985b). Attractiveness and corporate success: Different causal attributions for males and females. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 379–388. Scholar
  40. Hosoda, M., Stone-Romero, E. F., & Coats, G. (2003). The effects of physical attractiveness on job-related outcomes: A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Personnel Psychology, 56, 431–462. Scholar
  41. Infanger, M., Rudman, L. A., & Sczesny, S. (2016). Sex as a source of power? Backlash against self-sexualizing women. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 19, 110–124. Scholar
  42. Johnson, S. K., Podratz, K. E., Dipboye, R. E., & Gibbons, E. (2010). Physical attractiveness biases in ratings of employment suitability: Tracking down the “beauty is beastly” effect. The Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 301–318. Scholar
  43. Johnson, S. K., Sitzmann, T., & Nguyen, A. T. (2014). Don’t hate me because I’m beautiful: Acknowledging appearance mitigates the “beauty is beastly” effect. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 125, 184–192. Scholar
  44. Jones, E. E. (1964). Ingratiation. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  45. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  46. Kennard, A. R., Willis, L. E., Robinson, M. J., & Knoblock-Westerwick, S. (2016). The allure of Aphrodite: How gender-congruent media portrayals impact adult women’s possible future selves. Human Communication Research, 42, 221–245. Scholar
  47. Lagace, R. R. (1991). An exploratory study of reciprocal trust between sales managers and salespersons. The Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 11, 49–58. Scholar
  48. Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 390–423. Scholar
  49. Liou, T. K. (1995). Understanding employee commitment in the public organization: A study of the juvenile detention center. International Journal of Public Administration, 18, 1269–1295. Scholar
  50. Locher, P., Unger, R., Sociedade, P., & Wahl, J. (1993). At first glance: Accessibility of the physical attractiveness stereotype. Sex Roles, 28, 729–743. Scholar
  51. Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 123–136. Scholar
  52. McGloin, R., & Denes, A. (2018). Too hot to trust: Examining the relationship between attractiveness, trustworthiness, and desire to date in online dating. New Media & Society, 20, 919–936. Scholar
  53. Mongeau, P. A., Hale, J. L., & Alles, M. (1994). An experimental investigation of accounts and attributions following a sexual infidelity. Communication Monographs, 61, 326–344. Scholar
  54. Nanus, B. (1989). The leader’s edge: The seven keys to leadership in a turbulent world. Chicago, IL: Contemporary Books.Google Scholar
  55. Netchaeva, E., Kouchaki, M., & Sheppard, L. D. (2015). A man’s (precarious) place: Men’s experienced threat and self-assertive reactions to female superiors. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 1247–1259. Scholar
  56. Olson, I. R., & Marshuetz, C. (2005). Facial attractiveness is appraised in a glance. Emotion, 5(4), 498–502. Scholar
  57. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107–142. Scholar
  58. 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
  59. Reb, J., Goldman, B. M., Kray, L. J., & Cropanzano, R. (2006). Different wrongs, different remedies? Reactions to organizational remedies after procedural and interactional justice. Personnel Psychology, 59, 31–64. Scholar
  60. Rhodes, G., Simmons, L. W., & Peters, M. (2005). Attractiveness and sexual behavior: Does attractiveness enhance mating success? Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 186–201. Scholar
  61. Ritts, V., Patterson, M. L., & Tubbs, M. E. (1992). Expectations, impressions, and judgments of physically attractive students: A review. Review of Educational Research, 62, 413–426. Scholar
  62. Robinovich, J., Ossa, X., Baeza, B., Krumeich, A., & van der Borne, B. (2018). Embodiment of social roles and thinness as a form of capital: A qualitative approach towards understanding female obesity disparities in Chile. Social Science & Medicine, 201, 80–86. Scholar
  63. Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393–404.
  64. Schwarz, S., & Hassebrauck, M. (2012). Sex and age differences in mate-selection preferences. Human Nature, 23, 447–466. Scholar
  65. Shackelford, T. K. (2003). Preventing, correcting and anticipating female infidelity: Three adaptive problems of sperm competition. Evolution and Cognition, 9, 90–96. Scholar
  66. Singh, D. (2004). Mating strategies of young women: Role of physical attractiveness. Journal of Sex Research, 41, 43–54. Scholar
  67. Sprecher, S., Sullivan, Q., & Hatfield, E. (1994). Mate selection preferences – gender differences examined in a national sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1074–1080. Scholar
  68. Stephan, C. W., & Langlois, J. H. (1984). Baby beautiful: Adult attributions of infant competence as a function of infant attractiveness. Child Development, 55, 576–585. Scholar
  69. Strauss, E. M. (2013). Iowa woman fired for being attractive looks back and moves on. Retrieved on August 20, 2013 from
  70. Tannahill, R. (1980). Sex in history. New York: Stein and Day.Google Scholar
  71. Townsend, J. M., & Levy, G. D. (1990). Effects of potential partners’ physical attractiveness and socioeconomic status on sexuality and partner selection. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 19, 149–164. Scholar
  72. Watkins, M. B., Smith, A. N., & Aquino, K. (2013). The use and consequences of strategic sexual performances. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 173–186. Scholar
  73. Williams, M. J., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2016). The subtle suspension of backlash: A meta-analysis of penalties for women’s implicit and explicit dominance behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 142, 165–197. Scholar
  74. Winston, J. S., O’Doherty, J., Kilner, J. M., Perrett, D. I., & Dolan, R. J. (2007). Brain systems for assessing facial attractiveness. Neuropsychologia, 45, 195–206. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Carson College of BusinessWashington State UniversityPullmanUSA
  2. 2.Leeds School of BusinessUniversity of Colorado BoulderBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations