Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organizations

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.003Get rights and content

Abstract

Backlash effects are defined as social and economic reprisals for behaving counterstereotypically (Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 629–645). The present chapter outlines an impression-management dilemma that women face and describes the literature on backlash effects in organizations. Because women are perceived to be less competent, ambitious, and competitive (i.e., less agentic) than men, they may be overlooked for leadership positions unless they present themselves as atypical women. However, the prescriptive nature of gender stereotypes can result in negative reactions to female agency and authority (i.e., backlash). This dilemma has serious consequences for gender parity, as it undermines women at every stage of their careers. It also has consequences for organizations, as it likely contributes to female managers’ higher rates of job disaffection and turnover, relative to male counterparts. In addition to specifying the consequences of backlash for women and organizations, we consider potential moderators of backlash effects and the role that backlash plays in maintaining cultural stereotypes. Finally, we outline potential avenues for future research.

Section snippets

Stereotypes as normative expectancies

Stereotypes have been defined as “cognitive structures that contain the perceiver's knowledge, beliefs, and expectancies about some human group” (Hamilton & Trolier, 1986, p. 133, italics added). As a powerful source of social influence, expectancies have long been a topic of study for social psychologists (for reviews, see Hamilton & Sherman, 1994; Hamilton, Sherman, & Ruvolo, 1990). They are known to bias social interactions through numerous mechanisms, including perceptual and behavioral

Women's impression-management dilemma

Historically, women have been perceived to be less competent and competitive than men (e.g., Broverman, Broverman, Clarkson, Rosenkrantz, & Vogel, 1972). Moreover, the attributes that characterize successful managers (e.g., assertive and decisive) are stereotypically male (not female) qualities, resulting in a “lack of fit” between female gender and leadership (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Heilman, 1983; Prentice & Carranza, 2002). Therefore, when women compete against men (e.g., for employment) it may

Role congruity theory of prejudice

We have described how women must overcome negative stereotypes about their competence and leadership ability in order to obtain positions of power, but risk being perceived as unlikable and insufficiently “feminine” when they do so. Eagly and Karau (2002) combined these two barriers to gender parity in their role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. The model consists of two types of prejudice. First, descriptive stereotypes lead evaluators to perceive that men are better suited

Potential moderators of backlash effects

The research evidence clearly points to negative consequences for female agency, but there are also several moderator variables to consider. Below, we consider characteristics of the target, the organization, and evaluators as factors that have the potential to alleviate or exacerbate backlash effects.

Consequences of backlash for cultural stereotype maintenance

In addition to contributing to gender inequities, backlash also plays a role in preserving cultural stereotypes (Rudman & Fairchild, 2004). When atypical job applicants are devalued and discriminated against (e.g., for leadership roles and promotions), it curbs their ability to stand out as stereotype-disconfirming role models—an important mechanism that undermines stereotypes (e.g., Brewer, 1988; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990). By thwarting the ambitions of agentic women and communal men, evaluators

Directions for future research

To date, backlash effects have been identified at many stages of women's careers, but their psychological explanation has not been clearly articulated. Although prescriptive stereotypes are thought to be causal, scant research has directly tested this assumption (cf. Gill, 2004). Given recent advancements in measuring prescriptive beliefs (e.g., Prentice & Carranza, 2002), future research should compare them to descriptive beliefs as moderators of backlash effects. In addition, the role of

Conclusion

Backlash effects have a pernicious, far-reaching influence on women's ability to achieve gender parity in performance settings. Although women must enact agency to offset negative stereotypes regarding their leadership ability, doing so can result in social and economic reprisals. This dilemma effectively forces women to choose between their gender identity and their career—a choice that men are not required to make. Moreover, the fallout from backlash effects likely increases women's

Acknowledgement

Preparation of this chapter was partially supported by Grant BCS-0417335 from National Science Foundation.

References (179)

  • L. Babcock et al.

    Women don’t ask: Negotiation and the gender divide

    (2003)
  • J.A. Bargh

    Conditional automaticity: Varieties of automatic influence in social perception and cognition

  • F.A. Bartlett

    A study in experimental and social psychology

    (1932)
  • K.M. Bartol et al.

    Sex effects in evaluating leaders

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (1976)
  • S.A. Basow

    Gender stereotypes: Traditions and alternatives

    (1986)
  • S.L. Bem

    The measurement of psychological androgyny

    Journal of Clinical and Consulting Psychology

    (1974)
  • J. Berger et al.

    Status cues, expectations, and behaviors

  • C. Bingham et al.

    Class action: The story of Lois Jenson and the landmark case that changed sexual harassment law

    (2002)
  • G.V. Bodenhausen

    Emotions, arousal, and stereotypic judgments: A heuristic model of affect and stereotyping

  • M.C. Bolino et al.

    Counternormative impression management, likeability, and performance ratings: The use of intimidation in an organization setting

    Journal of Organizational Behavior

    (2003)
  • M. Bombardieri

    Summers displays new understanding of women's careers

    The Boston Globe

    (2005 April 8)
  • Bowles, H. R., Babcock, L., & Lai, L. (2005). It depends who is asking and who you ask: Social incentives for sex...
  • H.R. Bowles et al.

    Constraints and triggers: Situational mechanics of gender in negotiation

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (2005)
  • L.A. Boyce et al.

    The relationship between gender role stereotypes and requisite military leadership characteristics

    Sex Roles

    (2003)
  • N.R. Branscombe et al.

    Social inferences concerning male and female homeowners who use a gun to shoot an intruder

    Aggressive Behavior

    (1993)
  • V.L. Brescoll et al.

    Can an angry woman get ahead? Status conferral, gender, and expression of emotion in the workplace

    Psychological Science

    (2008)
  • J.F. Brett et al.

    Effective delivery of workplace discipline: Do women have to be more participatory than men?

    Group and Organization Management

    (2005)
  • M.B. Brewer

    A dual process model of impression formation

  • I.K. Broverman et al.

    Sex stereotypes. A current appraisal

    Journal of Social Issues

    (1972)
  • D. Burgess et al.

    Who women are, who women should be: Descriptive and prescriptive gender stereotyping in sex discrimination

    Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

    (1999)
  • D. Butler et al.

    Nonverbal affect responses to male and female leaders. Implications for leadership evaluations

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1990)
  • E.H. Buttner et al.

    The interactive effect of applicant gender, influence tactics, and type of job on hiring recommendations

    Sex Roles

    (1996)
  • B. Cahill et al.

    An exploratory study of early childhood teachers’ attitudes toward gender roles

    Sex Roles

    (1997)
  • L.L. Carli

    Gender, language, and influence

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1990)
  • L.L. Carli

    Gender and social influence

    Journal of Social Issues

    (2001)
  • L.L. Carli et al.

    Nonverbal behavior, gender, and influence

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1995)
  • S. Carpenter et al.

    Implicit attitudes and behavior toward female leaders

  • Carranza, E. (2004). Is what's good for the goose derogated in the gander? Reactions to masculine women and feminine...
  • Catalyst

    1999 Catalyst census of women corporate officers and top earners of the Fortune 500

    (1999)
  • Catalyst

    Women in financial services: The word on the street

    (2001)
  • Catalyst (2002). 2002 Catalyst census of women corporate officers and top earners in the Fortune 500. Retrieved May 04,...
  • M.A. Cejka et al.

    Gender-stereotypic images of occupations correspond to the sex segregation of employment

    Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

    (1999)
  • S. Chaiken et al.

    Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context

  • F. Cherry et al.

    Fear of success versus fear of gender-inappropriate behavior

    Sex Roles

    (1978)
  • R.B. Cialdini et al.

    Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance

  • M. Crawford

    Gender, age, and the social evaluation of assertion

    Behavior Modification

    (1988)
  • K.A. Daubman et al.

    Gender and the self-presentation of academic achievement

    Sex Roles

    (1992)
  • V.J. Derlega et al.

    Norms affecting self-disclosure in men and women

    Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

    (1976)
  • A.B. Diekman et al.

    Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of the past, present, and future

    Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

    (2000)
  • S. Dillon

    Harvard chief defends his talk on women

    The New York Times

    (2005 January 18)

    • Cited by (0)

    View full text
    Copyright © 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.