The Influence of Sexual Orientation and Race on Gender Prescriptive Stereotypes with Sa-kiera Hudson

Gender stereotypes are powerful forces that shape collective expectations and are socialized from an early age; these stereotypes are not just descriptive, but also prescriptive, stating what sorts of things men and women should and should not do based on their gender.

Rule congruity theory helps to explain why these prescriptive stereotypes are often a source of backlash: men and women are evaluated negatively when the role that they occupy is incongruent with the stereotypes of their gender. Negative evaluations can come from both descriptive and prescriptive stereotypes – women can spark descriptive backlash in leadership roles if there are few other women in leadership, and prescriptive backlash if the traits she displays violates one’s notions of how women should behave.

Rule congruity theory has sparked a great deal of research, but researchers generally haven’t interrogated who or what we mean when we say “men” or “women.” Research on role congruity theory and gender generally presumes straight, white, middle-class individuals, which gives reason to believe that prescriptive stereotypes of women don’t fully encompass lesbian women or women of color.

Taking an intersectional perspective may reveal that societal expectations are unique based on other identities. Importantly, less than 20% of studies on race include women, and less than 10% of studies on gender include race: there is an enormous amount of work to be done in intersectional psychology.

The first WAPPP Seminar of the semester featured Sa-kiera Hudson, PhD Candidate in Psychology at Harvard University and WAPPP Fellow, presenting research on intersectional identities and gender stereotypes. In particular, Hudson questions whether rule congruity theory is adequate to explain intersectional identities and, if not, how the theory should be modified.

Study 1

Hudson’s first study incorporated sexual orientation as an additional identity. Existing literature suggests that in the realm of stereotypes, gay men and straight women are presumed to be similar, as are lesbian women and straight men, because of their similar sexual preferences.

In this study, individuals were given a list of 70 traits, some of which were more stereotypically masculine, feminine, or neutral (e.g. “assertive,” “warm and kind,” “honest”), and asked to rate whether that trait was desirable for straight and gay men and women, for men and women without a sexual orientation identifier, and for straight or gay people, without specifying gender.

Hudson hypothesized three expected patterns: stability in gender stereotypes, evidence of heterocentrism, and evidence of gender inversion.

1. Stability in gender stereotypes: Hudson’s findings were substantially the same as a similar study from 2002, which indicates that prescriptive gender stereotypes are relatively stable and haven’t changed much in the last 15 years.

2. Evidence of heterocentrism: There was no trait for which respondents’ rankings of desirable traits for a “man” deviated from those for a “straight man,” nor “woman” from “straight woman” or “person” from “straight person.” This finding suggests that when individuals are rating a person without a sexual orientation identifier, they presume straightness. While this isn’t surprising, it is useful: very few studies directly demonstrate heteronormativity in judgments like these.

3. Gender inversion: Hudson expected to see evidence of gender inversion, similarities between gay men and straight women and between lesbian women and straight men, in addition to differences between gay and straight men that mirror the differences between straight men and straight women. Of the 70 traits, there was evidence of gender inversion for 9: for example, it was less desirable for straight women to be assertive compared to straight men, but more desirable for lesbian women to be assertive compared to gay men.

An additional 12 traits showed evidence of gender asymmetry, where desirability ratings for men or women were the same regardless of sexual orientation, but diverged for the opposite gender. For example, cleanliness was equally desirable for gay and straight men, but for women, there was more pressure for straight women to be clean than for lesbian women. Thirty-four traits displayed evidence of sexual orientation asymmetry – there was gender differentiation for straight and gay men and women, but no difference between gay men and lesbian women. This finding suggests that gender might not matter as much as sexual orientation in terms of how we perceive gay men and lesbian women.

In addition, Hudson presented three other interesting wrinkles from this study:

• It is more desirable for lesbians to be assertive, competitive, and forceful compared to straight women, but there was no difference in trait desirability for business sense, career-oriented, or leadership ability, which suggests that it is acceptable for lesbian women to display dominant personality traits, but not in ways that might disturb the status quo of gender hierarchy.
• The differences between straight and gay men are much larger than the differences between straight and lesbian women, which suggests that gay men may lose some of the status that comes with being male by virtue of their sexual orientation, while lesbian women don’t gain much status above that accorded to straight women.
• Finally, Hudson’s study revealed some evidence that homosexuality is associated with low status – study respondents found it less desirable for gay men and lesbian women to be loyal, dependable, honest, or enthusiastic, traits that are typically considered neutral and positive. 

Study 2

Hudson’s second study replicated the first study’s methods using race rather than sexual orientation. There are different stereotypes of men and women of different races; for example, white women are stereotyped as submissive and feminine, black women as confident and aggressive. What studies do exist demonstrate that black and white women are treated differently with respect to normative traits – black women are not sanctioned as heavily for “aggressive leadership behaviors” as black men and white women. Something about the interaction of race and gender stereotypes specific to black women may mediate backlash.

Just as in the first study, Hudson found stability of gender stereotypes over time and evidence of eurocentrism: when respondents rated traits for a person without a race marker, their answers most closely matched those given for white individuals, suggesting that they viewed white as the default.

Hudson initially hypothesized that this study would yield evidence of gendered race theory, which posits that black individuals are masculinized. However, the results produced limited evidence for gendered race theory! For black men, it was less desirable to be masculine and more desirable to be feminine compared to the control male target. For black women, it was less desirable to be feminine and more desirable to be masculine compared to the control female target, suggesting that both black men and women are distanced from their gender stereotypes. For 38 traits, there was little gender differentiation among black targets but a significant amount for white targets, again suggesting that gender is not as important as race for stereotypes regarding men and women of color.

Both of these studies revealed that the prescriptive norms for gays and lesbians and for black men and women are mostly feminized norms, which suggests that status might play a role in how gender prescriptive stereotypes are generated for intersectional targets – these stereotypes are less about gender per se and more about relative status. The results of these studies underscore just how much intersectionality matters for contemporary research and the importance of updating existing theories accordingly.

Discussing Diversity: How Emphasizing and Minimizing Intergroup Differences Affect Bias and Empowerment with Ashley Martin

Over the last several years, there has been an increased push to talk about diversity, under the assumption that being blind to difference is counterproductive and that to leverage the benefits of diversity, we have to emphasize it. But is it really a good idea to talk about difference? This week’s WAPPP seminar featured Ashley Martin, PhD Candidate at Columbia Business School, as she presented a series of studies about awareness of difference and effects on inclusion and empowerment.

There is a great deal of literature about awareness of difference with respect to race: talking about difference reduces bias and increases engagement. However, there is almost no research on this awareness strategy for gender. The single study that had been published showed that being aware of or emphasizing gender differences was related to benevolent sexism. As a field, researchers have not systematically explored the types of differences attention to diversity emphasizes, whether they are similar for race and gender, and how this strategy affects outcomes for each group.

Effects of awareness on attributions of difference

In the first study, the researchers asked 143 participants to list ten differences either between men and women or between black and white people. When asked to categorize these differences, it became clear that the listed racial differences were far more in the realm of opportunity and culture, and the gender differences were more related to personality and biology. The results of this initial study demonstrate that the types of differences that people generate when asked to consider race and gender are difference – for race, people focus on external differences related to opportunity, but for gender, people focus on internal differences.

The second study served to measure individuals’ beliefs about how one should approach difference. Study participants were rated on an awareness scale (how often they agreed with statements like “there are differences between groups that should be acknowledged” versus “there is no reason to categorize people based on their membership in a certain group”) and how often they attributed difference to external versus internal factors (opportunity/culture or personality/biology). Study participants who said that we should celebrate racial differences were more likely to attribute difference to opportunity; by contrast, those who said we should celebrate gender differences were more likely to attribute difference to biology. Recognizing external differences with respect to race is a positive development, as recognizing inequality is the first step in disrupting it. However, attributing gender differences to personality and biology has consequences for women.

In particular, the third study revealed that “personality differences” really boil down to stereotypes about gender and leadership; that men are agentic and assertive, whereas women are communal and warm. By telling people to recognize and embrace differences, we may be inadvertently telling them to embrace stereotypes that limit women’s opportunities. In this experiment, subjects were divided into three groups: the first read an article on why it is good to be aware of differences, the second an article on why it is good to be blind to differences, and the third were simply asked to think about diversity.

In the second stage of the study, participants were asked to rate whether differences between groups were due to opportunity or biology, to what extent a list of character traits regarding assertiveness versus communality were associated with each group, and a measure of “denial of inequality” – whether participants thought that discrimination was not a problem, and that on average all groups were treated equally.

On the race side, participants were more likely to attribute difference to opportunity rather than biology. However, those who reflected on the importance of acknowledging difference in the first stage were more likely to attribute differences to opportunity, while those who read the article deemphasizing difference made fewer opportunity attributions. On the gender side, participants endorsed biological reasons for difference in both the control and the “aware” condition. Only the group who read the article about being blind to difference attributed gender differences more to opportunity than to biology. Further analysis of these findings indicated that there was little connection between race and stereotyping. By contrast, all participants associated men with agency much more than women, though in the blind condition, this assessment decreased somewhat.
Overall, this study reveals that being blind to difference is the baseline for racial differences, and that awareness pushes people to consider the antecedents of difference more closely. For gender, awareness of difference doesn’t change results from the status quo, but being blind to difference can improve assessments of women.

Effects on bias

The next study was designed to test the effects of awareness ideology on bias. Two groups of male study participants were asked to read either the “aware of difference” article or the “blind to difference” article, and then were given a woman’s resume and asked to rate her leadership potential and assess whether they would hire her. In the awareness condition, participants rated the applicant lower on leadership potential than in the blindness condition, and were less likely to hire her. The decision to hire is mediated by the individual’s leadership evaluation, which is itself affected by stereotypes regarding agency and what makes a good leader that are emphasized through awareness of gender difference.

Effects on women’s confidence

How do these assessments affect women at work? In the next study, 163 women were asked to make lists of differences or similarities between genders, and were then asked to what extent these qualities undermined their ability to be seen as a leader. When women listed differences, they perceived these differences as having a major negative effect on their leadership potential and listed more words related to agency and assertiveness than when they listed similarities.
In the next phase of the study, 115 women read either the article about the benefits of being aware of difference, the benefits of being blind to difference, or a control article that was completely devoid of any gendered content. Next, the participants took a workplace confidence scale: in the control condition and in the awareness condition, women rated their workplace confidence above the midpoint. However, in the blindness condition, women rated themselves as significantly more competent.

Awareness of difference not only affects confidence, but also action-taking. The next study featured 126 female managers, who read either the aware or blind to differences article, then completed a self-assessment of their agency, the workplace confidence scale, and then participated in several risky decision tasks. In the awareness condition, the participants identified less with agency, rated themselves lower on workplace confidence, and took less action than in the blindness condition.

Dyadic effects

In the final study, the researchers examined how men’s awareness beliefs affected male-female interactions. Study participants were divided into male-female pairs. In the first part of the study, the men read either the awareness or blindness article. Next, the pairs were asked to complete the bushfire survival task, requiring them to discuss and rank a list of survival items in order of importance. Independent raters were asked to evaluate the amount of time men versus women spent talking, the level of openness in the conversation, and the overall quality of the interaction. In the awareness condition, men spoke more than women and were less open. In the blindness condition, women spoke significantly more than men, men and women were equally open, and the interactions were overall higher in quality. Indeed, it seemed that men were “leaning out” so that women could lean in.

The results of these studies indicate that awareness of difference can be beneficial in attributing race to external differences, but that deemphasizing gender difference leads to better outcomes for women. This research demonstrates that diversity strategies shouldn’t be monolithic, as they may not work for all groups. Perhaps instead of discussing differences between men and women, discussing similarities may be an effective intervention to promote gender equality.

Barriers to Female Leadership: Does Race Matter? with Laurie Rudman

Despite making major strides toward gender equality, gender stereotype violations are still taboo. Women who display traits inconsistent with feminine gender role prescriptions are at risk for social and economic backlash, “penalties” for behaving out of social bounds. This week’s WAPPP seminar featured Laurie Rudman, Professor of Psychology at Rutgers University, as she presented studies on backlash to women’s leadership, how race affects backlash, and how the psychology of backlash affected the 2016 presidential election.

The risk of backlash creates a double bind for women leaders. In order to prove their competence, aspiring leaders can show agency, ambition, or assertiveness, all traits associated with stereotypical leaders who have historically been men. This strategy is effective for demonstrating fitness for a leadership role, but when women do it they face social disapproval for transgressing feminine gender roles: women therefore have to jump over two key hurdles to get to leadership positions.

Much of the psychological research on backlash uses the example of job applicants: study participants are exposed to male and female job applicants who are either agentic (self-promoting, confident, assertive) or communal (modest, oriented toward others). Only the gender of the applicant is varied: all communal applicants and all agentic applicants use the same script. Respondents are asked to rate these applicants on their competence, likability, and hireability. Professor Rudman presented a mini-meta analysis of eight of her backlash studies that follow this same paradigm.

When comparing male and female communal applicants, respondents rate them as equally likeable. However, they tend to rate male communal applicants as more competent and therefore more hirable than women. Interestingly, agentic women tend to be rated slightly more competent than agentic men. However, agentic women are rated as far less likeable than agentic men, and therefore are not hired. This paradigm, according to Professor Rudman, perfectly illustrates the double bind: when women exhibit stereotypically “female” traits, they are viewed as incompetent; take on traditionally “male” traits that are associated with leadership, and they are unlikable and unhirable.

This paradigm of backlash and double-bind may help us understand the result of the 2016 presidential election. According to Professor Rudman, ambitious and competent women provoke backlash because they threaten the legitimacy of patriarchy. As more women are seen performing at the highest levels, it becomes less tenable for society to grant men preferential access to power and privilege. Backlash, therefore, functions to keep women out of the highest levels of leadership, render them invisible, and support patriarchy. The vitriol leveled toward Hillary Clinton throughout her career perfectly encapsulates the backlash effect.

What motivates this level of animosity? Men and women who defend traditional gender roles and power differentials are more likely to engage in backlash against agentic female leaders. However, this leaves a vital question: What is it about patriarchy that people deem worthy of defense? Professor Rudman suggested a few possible sources of support. Defenders of patriarchy may exhibit social dominance orientation (SDO), a sense that hierarchies are a good thing and that some groups deserve to be at the top, and others at the bottom. Alternatively, it could be gender essentialism, the belief that biological differences between men and women imply hierarchy. Finally, Professor Rudman suggested social Darwinism. Adherents of social Darwinism believe that humans are governed by survival of the fittest and that social hierarchies justify ruthlessness to achieve success. Social Darwinism has been used to support white supremacy, colonialism, and eugenics, and anthropologists have been quick to note that humans are driven far more by culture than by genes. Still, social Darwinism lives on in the collective consciousness, particularly in the literature on business ethics, but has rarely been studied in psychology.

With these possibilities in mind, Professor Rudman conducted a study of 433 American adults, asking whether they had preferred Trump or Clinton in the 2016 election. The results showed 60% favoring Clinton to 40% Trump, driven mostly by women’s votes. After adjusting for demographic factors, political identification and support for patriarchy were the only variables that predicted favoring Trump over Clinton. This confirms what we already know – people who support patriarchy reject female leaders – but it doesn’t explain why. Professor Rudman separately regressed defending patriarchy on SDO, gender essentialism, and social Darwinism and found that support for social Darwinism contributes about twice as much variance to defending patriarchy (16%) as SDO (8%) and gender essentialism (7%). This result replicated directly in a study of 387 Rutgers undergraduates: social Darwinism predicts defending patriarchy, which predicts favoring Trump over Clinton.

Professor Rudman and her colleagues delved further into gender essentialism, working with a scenario that centers reproductive biology in a study on backlash. Study participants received a paragraph about Susan and her husband, both high-powered business leaders who love their jobs. The end of the paragraph either read “Susan has never wanted to be a mother, and the couple has decided to be child-free by choice. Susan wants her husband to get a vasectomy, and he has agreed” or “Susan has always wanted to be a mother, so the couple has decided to start a family. Susan has asked her husband to reverse his vasectomy, and he has agreed.” Participants were asked how much they support Susan’s lifestyle, trust her decision making, and how morally justified they believe her lifestyle to be. Participants who scored higher on defending patriarchy demonstrated low support for Susan in the first condition, but not in the second condition. Just as in the last study, support for social Darwinism was the greatest contributor to this effect, above SDO and gender essentialism. These studies emphasize that social Darwinism – the belief that some are destined to dominate and others to be dominated – is a critical force in understanding defense of patriarchy and backlash against agentic women. The study of Susan demonstrates that this effect even holds outside of the political context.

What role does race have on backlash against agentic women? Black women are often stereotyped as more androgynous or masculine than white women, and therefore may have less difficulty asserting their competence by demonstrating “male” traits. Alternatively, they may face double jeopardy of having to combat both racial and gender stereotypes, placing even more hurdles on the path to leadership. Psychological studies of race can prove challenging, Professor Rudman said, because white respondents have an intense fear of being perceived as bigoted, and therefore overcompensate in their answers to reveal a pro-black bias. In the job applicant example, black women get top marks on competence, likability, and hirability, whether they are depicted as agentic or communal.

Professor Rudman and her colleagues turned to a new paradigm in which respondents were told that they were choosing actors for a role as lab managers, thereby allowing all actors to use the same agentic script. In one condition, respondents saw a white man and a white woman, and in the other respondents saw a white man and a black woman. Again, participants were asked to rate the actors based on competence, likability, and hirability. In the first condition, respondents rated the white man and white woman as equally competent, but found the man much more likable than the woman and were more likely to hire him. In the second condition, respondents rated the black woman more likable than the white man, but found the white man far more competent and were more likely to hire him. While all women were at a disadvantage for hiring, for white women this result was based on likability, while for black women it was based on competence. This result is consistent with double jeopardy, that black women face a higher first hurdle than white women to prove their fitness for leadership positions. What it takes to surmount this obstacle is a pressing concern for future intersectional research.