Gender Differences in Virtual Negotiation: Theory and Research

Social roles create conflicting behavioral expectations for female negotiators; however, virtual negotiations reduce social pressures. This paper reviews theoretical explanations on why men and women might differ in negotiations that occur through email, telephone, or video. Forty-three negotiation studies comparing face-to-face and virtual negotiations were examined for gender differences. All studies were reported in English but not limited to US participants. While many reports omitted gender information, meta-analytic findings supported the prediction that women would be more hostile in virtual compared to face-to-face negotiations, as well as finding no hostility difference for men between virtual and face-to-face negotiations. While negotiators overall were more successful face-to-face than virtually, results separated by gender did not find this effect.     

Wimpy and undeserving of respect: Penalties for men’s gender-inconsistent success

Results of an experimental study varying the sex of the employee and the gender-type of the job demonstrated that men, as well as women, are penalized when they are successful in areas that imply that they have violated gender norms. But the nature of these penalties differed. When depicted as being successful at a female gender-typed job, men were characterized as more ineffectual and afforded less respect than women successful at the same job or than men successful in a gender-consistent position. Women, in contrast, were more interpersonally derogated and disliked when said to be successful at a male gender-typed job. Regardless of these differing characterizations, both men and women successful in gender-inconsistent jobs were reported to be less preferable as bosses than their more normatively consistent counterparts. These results suggest that success, when it violates gender norms, can be disadvantageous for both men and women, but in different ways.     

It is better to smile to women: Gender modifies perception of honesty of smiling individuals across cultures

Social perception studies have revealed that smiling individuals are perceived more favourably on many communion dimensions in comparison to nonsmiling individuals. Research on gender differences in smiling habits showed that women smile more than men. In our study, we investigated this phenomena further and hypothesised that women perceive smiling individuals as more honest than men. An experiment conducted in seven countries (China, Germany, Mexico, Norway, Poland, Republic of South Africa and USA) revealed that gender may influence the perception of honesty in smiling individuals. We compared ratings of honesty made by male and female participants who viewed photos of smiling and nonsmiling people. While men and women did not differ on ratings of honesty in nonsmiling individuals, women assessed smiling individuals as more honest than men did. We discuss these results from a social norms perspective.     

Male pragmatism in negotiators’ ethical reasoning

Across four studies, we explored why a gender gap emerges in negotiator ethics, such that men set lower ethical standards than women. The male pragmatism hypothesis suggests men, more than women, are motivationally biased in setting ethical standards. Experiment 1 demonstrated how negotiations’ masculinity implications underlie this gender gap in ethics. Experiment 2 demonstrated that, by viewing ethics from a self-interested perspective, men were more egocentric in their ethical reasoning than women. Experiment 3 demonstrated that, by granting themselves more leniency in ethics than others, men exhibited more moral hypocrisy than women. Experiment 4 examined how implicit negotiation beliefs affect the relation between gender and ethical standards. As hypothesized, fixed beliefs predicted lower ethical standards, particularly for men. These findings suggest a robust pattern by which men are more pragmatic in their ethical reasoning at the bargaining table than women.     

Finding a ‘Normal’ Woman: Selection Processes for Board Membership

The higher the organization level, the lower the percentage of women in governance. The purpose of the present study was to explore how men and women negotiate women’s ‘fit’ as candidates for boards of national sport organizations. We based our analysis on in- depth interviews with male chairs and female board members. The results provide evidence that men can control boards by affirming and negating affirmative action policies and by framing the process of recruitment and selection in such a way as to reproduce the male-dominated culture in the board. Women, in their turn, tend to negotiate their entry by distancing themselves from their gender and proving their ‘fit.’     

Reversing the Gender Gap in Negotiations: An Exploration of Stereotype Regeneration

We examine how gender stereotypes affect performance in mixed-gender negotiations. We extend recent work demonstrating that stereotype activation leads to a male advantage and a complementary female disadvantage at the bargaining table (Kray, Thompson, & Galinsky, 2001). In the present investigation, we regenerate the stereotype of effective negotiators by associating stereotypically feminine skills with negotiation success. In Experiment 1, women performed better in mixed-gender negotiations when stereotypically feminine traits were linked to successful negotiating, but not when gender-neutral traits were linked to negotiation success. Gender differences were mediated by the performance expectations and goals set by negotiators. In Experiment 2, we regenerated the stereotype of effective negotiators by linking stereotypically masculine or feminine traits with negotiation ineffectiveness. Women outperformed men in mixed-gender negotiations when stereotypically masculine traits were linked to poor negotiation performance, but men outperformed women when stereotypically feminine traits were linked to poor negotiation performance. Implications for stereotype threat theory and negotiations are discussed.     

Effects of Gender on Costly Punishment

Women are often believed to be more cooperative and less egoistic than men. In the present study, we examined whether people punish women for failing to live up to these benevolent gender stereotypes. Participants played a prisoner's dilemma game with female and male partners who either cooperated or defected. Participants were offered a costly punishment option. They could spend money to decrease the payment of their partners. In Experiment 1, participants spent more money to punish the defection of female in comparison to male partners, but this effect of partner gender on punishment was indirect rather than direct: Participants were more likely to cooperate with female partners than with male partners, which gave them more opportunity for moralistic punishment. In Experiments 2 and 3, we examined the effects of the participants' own gender on cooperation and punishment of female and male partners. Female participants cooperated more with female partners than with male partners while male participants treated female and male partners equally. We conclude that the effect of facial gender on punishment are indirect rather than direct. The results also showed that women, in contrast to men, tended to make decisions that can be considered more social and less rational from an economic point of view, consistent with social‐role theory and evolutionary accounts. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Gender Bias in Leader Selection? Evidence from a Hiring Simulation Study

The present research investigated factors that might affect gender discrimination in a hiring simulation context from the perspectives of social role theory and the shifting standards model. Specifically, the experimental study investigated whether gender biases are evident in the screening and hiring stage of the personnel selection process depending on the applicants?? social role and evaluators?? gender. A sample of German undergraduate business students (54 women, 53 men) was asked to make a personnel selection decision (short-listing or hiring) about a fictitious applicant (man or woman) in a specific role (leader or non-leader) for a managerial position. Consistent with social role theory??s assumption that social role information is more influential than gender information, participants selected applicants described as leaders over applicants described as non-leaders, regardless of applicant gender. In addition, in the presence of role information, female applicants portrayed as leaders were similarly short-listed and hired as male applicants with the same credentials. In the absence of role information, female applicants were similarly short-listed as male applicants; however, male applicants were hired over female applicants, albeit by male participants only. This is consistent with the shifting standards model??s assumption that group members are held to a higher standard to confirm traits on which they are perceived to be deficient: Male participants hired female applicants portrayed as non-leaders with less certainty than their male counterparts possibly due to higher confirmatory standards for leadership ability in women than men. The research and practice implications of these results are discussed.     

When Illnesses or Accidents Befall Others: The Role of Gender in Defensive Distancing

Two experiments were designed to investigate the proposition that men engage in greater defensive distancing than do women. In Experiment 1, we tested this hypothesis by having male and female participants (predominantly White, from working class backgrounds) distance themselves from a person with an illness or medical condition. In Experiment 2, we tested this hypothesis by having male and female participants distance themselves from a person involved in a mild or severe accident. We also attempted to replicate the finding that people distance themselves more over time from a person with a serious illness. As predicted, men engaged in greater defensive distancing than did women. We did not find that participants distanced themselves more over time from a person with a serious illness. Implications of these findings are discussed.     

Stereotype susceptibility narrows the gender gap in imagined self-rotation performance

Three studies examined the impact of stereotype messages on men’s and women’s performance of a mental rotation task involving imagined self-rotations. Experiment 1 established baseline differences between men and women; women made 12% more errors than did men. Experiment 2 found that exposure to a positive stereotype message enhanced women’s performance in comparison with that of another group of women who received neutral information. In Experiment 3, men who were exposed to the same stereotype message emphasizing a female advantage made more errors than did male controls, and the magnitude of error was similar to that for women from Experiment 1. The results suggest that the gender gap in mental rotation performance is partially caused by experiential factors, particularly those induced by sociocultural stereotypes.     

Do women who succeed in male‐dominated domains help other women? The moderating role of gender identification

It is often expected that the first women to advance in male‐dominated fields will promote other women who follow them. Two studies test the hypothesis that some women show this expected pattern of promoting women but that others show the opposite pattern, favoring men over women. In two studies, women's gender identification moderated the extent to which they favored men over women when they advanced in a male‐dominated field. Specifically, the weaker women's gender identification, the more favoritism they showed for a male relative to a female subordinate. Gender identification did not moderate women's behavior in a context in which women were not underrepresented, pointing to the power of the situation in eliciting this relationship. Implications for the advancement of women in male‐dominated fields are discussed.     

Affirmative Action Policies in Academic Job Advertisements: Do They Facilitate or Hinder Gender Discrimination in Hiring Processes for Professorships?

Evidence of female-favoring hiring preferences for assistant professorships suggests that universities can implement affirmative action programs successfully. However, research on the role of applicant gender and the actual use of affirmative action policies in hiring processes for high-level professorships remain scarce. A web-based experiment with 481 economic university members assessed whether evaluators perceived a female applicant as less qualified than a male applicant for an associate professorship position when the job advertisement highlighted the university’s commitment to affirmative action (gender-based preferential selection) but not when it solely highlighted its commitment to excellence (non-gender-based selection). Contrary to previous experimental findings that affirmative action would adversely affect female applicants, evaluators perceived the female applicant as more hirable and ranked her first for the job significantly more often than the male candidate. Furthermore, male evaluators had a stronger preference for the female candidate in the gender-based condition than in the non-gender-based condition and a stronger preference for the male candidate in the non-gender-based condition than in the gender-based condition. Overall, the results provide evidence that gender-based preferential selection policies can evoke their intended effect to bring highly qualified women to high-level professorships, especially when being evaluated by non-beneficiaries of these policies, such as men.

     

Backlash for high self-promotion at hiring depends on candidates' gender and age

Previous research has shown that evaluators react negatively to intense, high levels of self-promotion during the interview, in particular when displayed by female candidates, presumably because these behaviors violate the female gender stereotype of being modest and putting others first. We expand this focus on a single social category and examine the joint effects of gender and age on reactions to high self-promotion/low modesty, as both gender and age stereotypes contain normative expectations regarding assertiveness and humility. Results of our experimental study point out two groups at risk of backlash, older women and younger men. While both older female and younger male candidates engaging in high self-promotion were seen as competent, they were regarded as less interpersonally warm, received lower interview performance ratings, and were less likely to be hired. These results provide evidence for the importance of applying an intersectional lens on the effects of self-promotion at hiring. Their implications for theory and practice as well as recommendations for future research are discussed.     

The preference to work for a man or a woman: A matter of sex and gender?

A survey of 455 individuals sampled from two populations that varied in age, educational level, and work experience posed a question asked in Gallup polls over six decades: “If you were taking a new job and had your choice of a boss, would you prefer to work for a man or a woman?” Respondents could state that they would prefer a male boss, prefer a female boss, or had no preference. As expected from theory and Gallup results, respondents who had a preference preferred to work for a man more than a woman, although a majority expressed “no preference.” When they expressed a preference, women preferred to work for a female boss over a male boss more than men did, whereas men preferred to work for a male boss over a female boss more than women did. Sex-typed (i.e., masculine or feminine) respondents in gender identity exhibited a greater preference to work for a boss of a particular sex over having no preference than non-sex-typed respondents. Further, feminine respondents preferred to work for a female boss over a male boss more than masculine respondents did, whereas masculine respondents preferred to work for a male boss over a female boss more than feminine respondents did. Overall, these results suggest that the preference to work for a man or a woman is a matter of both sex and gender. Implications for job applicants' vocational decisions and how female leaders fare in the workplace are discussed.     

Student Ratings of a Male and Female Professors’ Lecture on Sex Discrimination in the Workforce

Using an experimental design, male (n = 41) and female (n = 46) undergraduate students in the southeastern USA evaluated an identical written lecture by a male and female professor on pay disparities between men and women in the workforce suggesting sex discrimination. Regardless of the students’ sex, the male professor and his lecture was rated more positively and less sexist than the female professor. Moderated multiple regression analysis indicated that more traditional and gender stereotypical attitudes toward women in male students were related to greater sexism ratings of the female professor compared to the male professor whereas; no differences on ratings of sexism between the male and female professor were found for male students with more liberal attitudes.     

Height and attraction: Do men and women see eye-to-eye?1

Two experiments were conducted to examine the influence of male height on interpresonal attraction. In Experiment 1, short, medium, and tall women evaluated pictures of men whom they believed to be either short, medium, or tall. On the basis of previous research, it was predicted that women's attraction to the men would be an increasing linear function of the men's height. This prediction was not confirmed; men of medium height were seen to be significantly more socially desirable than either short or tall men. This was true whether the female evaluator was short, medium, or tall; women did not differ in their evaluations. In Experiment 2, short, medium, and tall men evaluated the same male stimuli the women had evaluated in Experiment 1. These men not only gave their own evaluation of the male stimuli, but they also estimated how socially desirable the males pictured were to women. While men showed no evidence that they believed height was important to women, their own evaluations revealed that they liked and rated short men more positively than they did tall men. This was true regardless of the height of the male rater. These results were discussed in terms of social stereotypes and the importance of specifying situational context in the prediction of attraction.     

Influence of Item Content and Stereotype Situation on Gender Differences in Mathematical Problem Solving

On standardized tests of mathematical problemsolving, the typical finding has been that women scorelower than men. Experiment 1 manipulated gender labeling(female character, male character, or gender neutral) within the problem question to seewhether this accounted for gender differences inmathematical problem solving. Sixty-four seventh andeighth graders were tested on modified versions of theCanadian Test of Basic Skills (CTBS) with the resultsshowing that although gender labeling affected studentsperformance, it did not account for gender differences.Experiment 2 manipulated both gender labeling and gender stereotype threat for 174 universitystudents writing modified versions of a modelStandardized Achievement Test (SAT). Again, genderlabeling within problem questions did not account forgender differences. However, women scored lower thanmen when they believed that the test had previouslyshown gender differences. There was no gender differencein the performance of the same women and men when they believed that the test was merelycomparing Canadian students with American students. Thissuggests that gender stereotype threat could be a keyfactor in explaining gender differences in mathematical problem solving.     

Exposure to sexism can decrease implicit gender stereotype bias

Two studies examined the effect of exposure to sexism on implicit gender bias, focusing specifically on stereotypes of men as competent and women as warm. Male and female participants were exposed to sexism or no sexism. In both Experiment 1 (Implicit Association Task; N = 115) and Experiment 2 (Go/No‐go Association Task; N = 167), women who had been exposed to sexist beliefs demonstrated less implicit gender stereotype bias relative to women who were not exposed to sexism. In contrast, exposure to sexism did not influence men's implicit gender stereotype bias. In Experiment 2, process modelling revealed that women's reduction in bias in response to sexism was related to increased accuracy orientation and a tendency to make warmth versus competence judgments. The implications of these findings for current understandings of sexism and its effects on gender stereotypes are discussed.