Laurie A. Rudman - US grants

Women who move into traditionally male-dominated jobs must often work to counteract gender stereotypes regarding their qualifications (e.g., their competence, ambition, and leadership ability). One strategy for doing so is self-promotion. Previous research has shown that female self-promotion does lead to higher ratings of competence. However, such self-promotion also elicits a backlash effect in the form of lower ratings of likability and hireability. As a result, highly qualified women are rejected because of social factors. For men, self-promotion carries no such risks. This double standard for self-promotion represents a dilemma in which women may be discriminated against for normative behavior (i.e., for acting `as a woman`) and discriminated against for counternormative behavior (i.e., for not acting `as a woman should`). If the workplace values masculine behaviors but suppresses them in women, this constitutes a distinct form of sex discrimination, with implications for women's economic and psychological well-being. The current research will use both self-report and response time measures to investigate potential mediators of the backlash effect, including traditional gender beliefs. The research will also examine moderators of the effect (conditions designed to exacerbate and relieve it). By examining these variables, the research will provide insight into a social psychological barrier that prevents women from fully realizing equal opportunities in performance settings. Thus, the research is designed to contribute to the goals of NSF's Human Capital Initiative.

Impression formation theories suggest that stereotypes automatically influence judgments unless perceivers undergo the cognitive effort of individuating targets. Targets can promote this process by engaging in actions that disconfirm the stereotype (i.e., counterstereotypical behaviors). Ideally, these behaviors should promote positive impressions of targets that accurately reflect individual attributes rather than category-based judgments. However, current person perception frameworks do not acknowledge that individuation can have negative consequences for men and women. Because gender stereotypes are not only descriptive (reflecting what people "are") but also prescriptive (reflecting what people "should be"), disconfirming them can lead to sanctions for atypical behavior. For example, confident and competitive female job applicants are perceived as highly knowledgeable and qualified for high status positions, but they are also viewed as socially deficient and unlikable, which results in hiring discrimination. Similarly, modest and communal men are perceived as likable, but they are also viewed as less competent and hirable than are competitive men. Past research has identified numerous ways in which counterstereotypical men and women are sanctioned. These sanctions represent social barriers to gender-atypical behaviors and are, therefore, an effective means by which sex stereotypes are maintained. Moreover, they suggest an important gap in current thinking about person perception. Several experiments will examine the processes that underlie these barriers. The mechanisms to be investigated stem from expectancy-violation, system-justification, and social comparison theories. Because each of these frameworks relies on involuntary processes, implicit as well as explicit methods will be employed. In concert, the research should afford answers to why perceivers sanction atypical targets, and thereby contribute to the development of a theory of motivated implicit social cognition. The research will also provide insight into the social psychological obstacles that prevent people from successfully counteracting group-based expectancies.

When perceivers meet actors, they are likely to categorize them on the basis of physical features, such as gender, age, or race, and then to form a stereotypical impression, unless actors behave in a manner that contradicts the stereotypes. Thus, a powerful way to thwart stereotypes is to act atypically for your group. For example, women who strive to be leaders might simply "act like men" (e.g., be self-confident and ambitious) to avoid being judged as weak or incapable. However, people who counteract stereotypes risk being socially rejected. For example, masterful women are judged to be highly competent, but they are disliked for being insufficiently feminine. Similarly, academically gifted minority group members are judged to be highly intelligent, but they risk being disliked for acting "too White." Acting atypically can indeed thwart stereotypes, but it can also lead to serious reprisals, including being sabotaged and passed over for a job or promotion. Reprisals for counterstereotypical behavior have been termed backlash effects. Across nine experiments, the present research will investigate the causes and consequences of backlash effects, using a wide range of social groups (based on gender, ethnicity, religion, and politics). The research program will also show that backlash influences perceivers and actors differently, but that both groups play a role in cultural stereotype maintenance. First, perceivers who reject atypical actors (e.g., by failing to hire them) curb atypical actors' ability to stand out as role models, which in turn allows stereotypes to persist, unchallenged. Second, actors who fear backlash tend to hide their atypical behaviors (including counterstereotypical talents) from others. They also engage in other strategies that maintain stereotypes (e.g., increased norm conformity) in order to avoid backlash. In sum, when perceivers punish atypical actors or when actors closet their own atypical behaviors, stereotypes are allowed to thrive in the culture-at-large. To counter this process, the research will examine the effectiveness of an intervention strategy. Because atypical actors are critical for reducing perceivers' use of stereotypes, it is important to develop strategies that might reduce the threat of backlash for atypical actors. Doing so should encourage the visibility of counterstereotypical achievement and thereby afford actors greater opportunity to challenge cultural stereotypes. An increased understanding of the motives underlying backlash should also lead to stereotype reduction by promoting conditions under which stereotyped group members can maximize their potential without fear of reprisals. In concert, the research should inform policies for educational and workplace settings, including how to structure environments so that people can perform to their highest level without the encumbrance of stereotypes, or the need to hide their accomplishments under threat of backlash.

When people violate unwritten rules about behavior that is considered appropriate for their gender or their race, they are often subject to backlash effects (social and economic penalties for behaving in unexpected or "atypical" ways). For example, a Hispanic woman who behaves in a highly dominant or assertive fashion might be shunned or punished in certain settings when the same behavior would actually be rewarded for a White man. Backlash is an important phenomenon worthy of scientific inquiry because it prevents people who violate stereotypes from achieving their goals and aspirations. Backlash is also problematic because it prevents such people from serving as visible, outstanding role models (as people who have overcome cultural stereotypes). Importantly, backlash is not engaged in arbitrarily; it must usually be justified. The proposed research builds on recent advances in backlash theory, which suggest that people justify backlash by charging atypical women and men with violating stereotypic proscriptions (for women, prohibitions against dominance, and for African Americans, prohibitions against intelligence). In other words, almost no one criticizes a dominant woman for being "too powerful for a woman." Instead they criticize her for being "extremely difficult," "overbearing," or "domineering." Because these gender rules punish women for behaving in ways that could increase women's economic and social status, these rules tend to maintain and perpetuate lower cultural status among women. In addition, several experiments will also investigate backlash against atypical African Americans, as well as uniquely examine the intersection of gender and race (e.g., Are African American women generally at greater risk for experiencing backlash than are Black men, or does it depend on which stereotype people violate?).

In 11 experimental laboratory-based studies and drawing from preliminary research, the PI will investigate the potential psychological motives for gender and race backlash. The Status Incongruity Hypothesis (SIH), developed by the PI, posits that people are discomfited by the conflict between women's gender status (which is low) and their high-status behavior (when they are agentic). Although people readily acknowledge their competence, they use the dominance penalty to justify backlash against them. The SIH presents a significant breakthrough in illuminating why women's progress has stalled, or in some cases, reversed. It can similarly be used to explain the experience of many ethnic minority persons. Instead of blaming stereotype violation per se, it views status-violations as culpable. As a result, a key motive for backlash concerns system-justification, a process whereby people defend the status quo to preserve their need to believe the world is just and fair. By understanding which factors play the largest role in backlash, how the factors might sometimes operate together, and whether the factors operate differently or in similar fashion for women and men, and for Blacks and Whites, the investigator will begin to shed light on the exact psychological motives and mechanisms behind backlash. Ultimately, this work will advance understanding about what motivates backlash and at the same time facilitate the design of effective interventions to attenuate its effects on women and minorities.