Escaping the Double Bind: Self-Reliance Is a Positve

Home , Double bind

ESCAPING THE DOUBLE BIND:

SELF-RELIANCE IS A POSITVE AND DISTINCT FORM OF AGENCY FOR

WOMEN IN ORGANIZATIONS

A DISSERTATION

SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS

AND THE COMMITTEE ON GRADUATE STUDIES OF STANFORD

UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL FULLFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR

THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Rebecca L. Schaumberg

June 2013

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- 3.0 United States License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/

This dissertation is online at: http://purl.stanford.edu/bd413nt2715

ii I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Francis Flynn, Primary Adviser

I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Brian Lowery, Co-Adviser

I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Larissa Tiedens

Approved for the Stanford University Committee on Graduate Studies. Patricia J. Gumport, Vice Provost Graduate Education

This signature page was generated electronically upon submission of this dissertation in electronic format. An original signed hard copy of the signature page is on file in University Archives.

iii

ABSTRACT

Four experiments test the idea that self-reliance is a functional form of agency for women in organizations. Drawing on theories of interpersonal perception and group based stereotypes, this paper suggests that women face backlash for displaying agency related to competition and hierarchy (e.g., dominance), but not for displaying agency unrelated to competition and hierarchy (e.g., self-reliance). This is because only displays of the former evoke negative assessments of women’s trustworthiness.

Participants judged male and female targets to be similarly competent when they displayed high levels of either self-reliance or dominance (Studies 1-4). But, whereas they judged male targets to be similarly trustworthy regardless of the type of agency they displayed, they judged female targets to be more trustworthy when they displayed self-reliance than when they displayed dominance (Studies 1-4). Consequently, participants were more likely to hire (Study 2), to vote for (Study 3), and to invest in the company of (Study 4) a woman when she displayed self-reliance than they were when she displayed dominance. Participants made no such distinctions between men that displayed self-reliance and men that displayed dominance. Moreover, whereas there was evidence of backlash against women that displayed dominance in three of the four studies, there was no evidence of backlash against women that displayed self- reliance in any of the studies. These findings suggest that by framing agency as self- reliance female leaders may be able to demonstrate competence without a cost.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I offer my deepest gratitude to my dissertation advisor, Francis J. Flynn, and my doctoral advisor, Brian S. Lowery, who’ve taught me not only how to think about research, but also how to think about life. I also express my gratitude to Larissa Z.

Tiedens for serving on my dissertation reading committee and to S. Christian Wheeler and Shelley J. Correll for serving on my dissertation defense committee. I extend my sincere appreciation to the people that took time out of their day to participate in this research. I also thank Geoff Morrison for listening to me talk about this project. Your fresh perspective and encouraging words have made this paper stronger.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1

Gender Stereotypes and the “Lack of Fit” Problem for Women 2

The Drawback of Agency for Women 3

Different Expressions of Agency 4

Overview of Studies 10

Study 1 14

Method 14

Results 18

Discussion 23

Study 2 24

Method 24

Results 28

Discussion 34

Study 3 35

Method 35

Results 40

Discussion 48

Study 4 50

Method 50

Results 55

Discussion 64

General Discussion 66

Limitations and Future Directions 68

Practical Implications 74

Conclusion 75

References 76

Appendix A 99

Appendix B 102

Appendix C 105

Appendix D 107

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Results from a principle axis factor analysis with promax 85

rotation on all of the outcome variable items from Study 1

Table 2. Means and standard deviations for perceived competence 86

and perceived trustworthiness from Study 1

Table 3. Results from a principle axis factor analysis with promax 87

rotation on all of the outcome variable items from Study 2

Table 4. Means and standard deviations for all outcome variables 88

from Study 2

Table 5. Results from a principle axis factor analysis with promax 89

rotation on all of the outcome variable items from Study 3

Table 6. Means and standard deviations for all outcome variables 90

from Study 3

Table 7. Results from a principle axis factor analysis with promax 91

rotation on all of the outcome variable items from Study 4

Table 8. Means and standard deviations for all outcome variables 92

from Study 4

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. The effect of a target’s gender, the type of agency he or she 93

displayed, and the degree of agency he or she displayed on

perceived competence and perceived trustworthiness from

Study1

Figure 2. The effect of a job applicant’s gender and the type of 94

agency he or she displayed on participants’ desire to hire

him or her from Study 2

Figure 3. The effect of a job applicant’s gender and the type of 95

agency he or she displayed on participants’ perceptions of

his or her competence and trustworthiness from Study 2

Figure 4. The effect of a politician’s gender and the type of agency he 96

or she displayed on participants’ willingness to vote for him

or her and their perceptions of his or her competence and

trustworthiness from Study 3

Figure 5. The effect of a Silicon Valley executives’ gender and the 97

type of agency that he or she displayed on participants’

desire to invest in his or her company from Study 4

Figure 6. The effect of a Silicon Valley executives’ gender and the 98

type of agency that he or she displayed on participants’

perceptions of his or her competence and trustworthiness

from Study 4.

INTRODUCTION

Men obtain leadership positions faster and more frequently than women even though they are neither more desirous nor qualified for them (Catalyst, 2001, 2004;

Hyde, 2005; Maume, 1999; Reskin & McBriar, 2000). This occurs in part because people negatively judge women, but not men, for displaying the agentic behaviors that are deemed necessary for positions of authority (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Heilman,

Wallen, Fuchs, & Tamkins, 2004; Rudman, 1998). Because gender stereotypes prescribe that women should be communal and deferential – not competitive and dominant (Bem, 1974; Conway, Pizzamiglio, & Mount, 1996; Prentice & Carranza,

2002), people perceive women that display agentic traits to be more manipulative, unlikeable, and untrustworthy than women that do not display agentic traits (Heilman

& Okimoto, 2007; Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Phelan, & Nauts, 2012). The problem is further compounded for women because, unlike men, when women refrain from being agentic, people assume that they are too dependent, too passive, and too focused on others to succeed in leadership roles (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Heilman & Haynes, 2005;

Prentice & Carranza, 2002). Consequently, women are thought to be stuck in a double bind wherein no routes exist for them to be judged as well suited for positions of authority (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Rudman & Phelan, 2008).

This cannot be the full case as women do obtain leadership positions, and people see them as successful in these roles. If women are seemingly stuck in a double bind, then what accounts for their success? I propose that people’s perceptions of women’s suitability for leadership positions and their preferences for having women in leadership roles, rests on women being perceived as more agentic, not less so. These

perceptions and preferences depend, however, on the type of agency that women display. I suggest that people judge women to be better suited for positions of authority when they display agentic traits unrelated to competition and hierarchy (e.g., self-reliance, independence) than when they display agentic traits related to competition and hierarchy (e.g., dominance, competitiveness). When women display agentic traits unrelated to competition and hierarchy they may be able to demonstrate their competence without undermining perceptions of their trustworthiness. Thus, I suggest that self-reliance and independence may be functional agentic traits for women in organizations that help them to be seen as well suited for leadership positions.

Gender Stereotypes and the “Lack of Fit” Problem for Women

Gender stereotypes and positional inequalities reinforce the belief that men are more competent, more esteemed, and better suited for leadership roles than women

(Cejka & Eagly, 1999; Correll & Ridgeway, 2003; Eagly & Karau, 2002; Ridgeway,

2011; Ridgeway & Smith-Lovin, 1999). Descriptive gender stereotypes lead people to see men as dominant, assertive, and self-focused and to see women as warm, nurturing, and other-focused (Abele, 2003; Prentice & Carranza, 2002; Rudman et al.,

2012). This poses a challenge for women in organizations because these feminine stereotypes are antithetical to people’s beliefs about the traits needed to succeed in these contexts (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Heilman, Block, Martell, & Simon, 1989;

Ridgeway, 2011). Because people assume that successful leaders need to possess agentic traits they tend to see women as less suited than men for these position (Eagly

& Karau, 2002; Heilman, 1983).

The fact that women are seen as less agentic than men means that they also receive less credit than men for the same achievements (Biernat & Kobrynowicz,

1997; Correll, 2004; Heilman & Haynes, 2005). People expect more valuable contributions to come from people who have a more valued status in a group (e.g., men in mixed sex settings) than from people who have a less valued status in a group

(e.g., women in mixed sex settings) (Correll & Ridgeway, 2003; Ridgway, 2011).

Consequently, groups give women fewer opportunities to participate than they give men, and they pay less attention to the contributions of female group members when they do participate (Correll & Ridgeway, 2003; Heilman & Chen, 2003). When a woman is perceived as contributing valuable content to a group task, it defies people’s expectations and prompts them to be more scrutinizing of the merits of her contributions—wondering if she was responsible for the good outcome or if the outcome was due to the assistance she received from others (Biernat & Kobrynowicz,

1997; Correll, 2004; Foschi, 1989; Heilman & Haynes, 2005). This results in women needing to perform better than men in order to receive the same level of recognition for their achievements (Biernat & Kobrynowicz, 1997; Heilman, 1983; 1985).

The Drawbacks of Agency for Women

If descriptive feminine stereotypes undermine women’s perceived suitability for leadership positions then one might expect that women would be perceived as better suited for these positions when they display more masculine, agentic traits.

People do judge women that behave in more agentic ways to be more competent and to have higher status than women who behave in more communal ways (Powers &

Zuroff, 1988; Rudman, 1998). But, this boost to perceived competence often comes at a cost.

Women’s displays of masculine, agentic traits are discordant with people’s beliefs that women should be modest, communal, and egalitarian; they violate people’s prescriptive gender stereotypes, or their beliefs about how women “should” behave (Prentice & Carranza, 2002; Ridgeway, 2001; Rudman & Glick, 2001,

Rudman et al., 2012). When people display masculine, agentic traits such as dominance their behavior indicates that they want to be better than or in control of people (Cheng, Tracy, & Henrich, 2010; Rudman et al., 2012; Wiggins, 1979).

Whereas people expect this type of behavior from men (Ridgeway, 2001; Rudman et al., 2012), they are disapproving and even threatened by this type of behavior from women (Brescoll, 2012; Brescoll & Uhlmann, 2008; Okimoto & Brescoll, 2010;

Rudman et al., 2012). They judge women that display these traits to be “manipulative”

“selfish” “conniving” and “unconcerned with others” (Heilman & Okimoto, 2007;

Heilman et al., 2004). They think women that display these traits are colder and less trustworthy than men that display these traits (Heilman & Okimoto, 2007; Heilman et al., 2004). Consequently, although they judge men and women that display these traits to be similarly competent, they deem women that display these traits to be less suited for leadership positions (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Heilman & Okimoto, 2007; Ridgeway,

2011; Rudman et al., 2012). Women appear then to be trapped in a double bind; people deem them less suited than men for leadership positions regardless of whether they do or do not act agentically.

Different Expressions of Agency

I suggest that displaying agency, the very behavior thought to trap women in this double bind, may help to free them from it. Whether displaying agency makes women seem more or less suited for leadership positions likely depends on the type of agency they display. To understand this, it is important to first consider how group stereotypes form and why this process leads to negative assessments of agentic women.

Interpersonal perceptions arise from two fundamental dimensions. Although these dimensions have carried different labels (e.g., warmth/competence; trustworthiness/power; communality/agency; morality/competence), they boil down to two basic questions that are asked in an interpersonal encounter: Is this person competent, and can this person be trusted? (Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, 2007; Fiske,

Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002). That is, people want to know whether someone has positive or negative intentions toward them (e.g., whether he or she is trustworthy), and whether someone has the ability to carry out these intentions (e.g., whether he or she is competent) (Cuddy, Glick, & Beninger, 2011).

When it comes to stereotypes about groups (such as female leaders) people’s assessment of whether the members of the group are competent and trustworthy stem from perceptions of status and competition, respectively (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu,

2002). Male and female leaders both are judged to be high status. People see them as agentic, competent and responsible for their own achievements (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick,

& Xu, 2002). Whereas these perceptions of status should result in feelings of admiration and respect for both male and female leaders, people tend to exhibit admiration only for male leaders (Cuddy et al., 2011; Fiske, Xu, Cuddy, & Glick,

1999). They tend to feel envious prejudice against female leaders (Cuddy et al., 2011;

Fiske, et al., 1999). This difference stems not from differences in the perceived status between male and female leaders, but from differences in perceived competition

(Cuddy et al., 2011; Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002; Fiske et al., 1999).

Perceptions that members of certain groups are untrustworthy (e.g., female leaders) often stem from people’s assessment that a group poses a competitive challenge to the ingroup (Cuddy et al., 2011; Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002; Fiske et al., 1999). When groups are not seen as competitors of the ingroup, people assume these groups have positive intentions toward the ingroup and so regard them as trustworthy (Cuddy et al., 2011; Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002; Fiske et al., 1999).

On the other hand, when groups are seen as competitors of the ingroup, people assume they have negative intentions toward the ingroup, and regard them as untrustworthy

(Cuddy et al., 2011; Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002; Fiske et al., 1999). People judge ingroups, allies of ingroups, and reference groups (e.g., men) to be relatively warm and trustworthy because they see these groups as deserving of their positions

(Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002). Because male leaders are viewed as a reference group (e.g., Miller, Taylor, & Buck, 1991), they do not suffer the assumption that they are untrustworthy (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002). However, because people view female leaders as competitors of this male reference group, they judge female leaders as untrustworthy (Cuddy et al., 2011; Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002). Thus, the perception that female leaders are less trustworthy than male leaders seems to stem from differences in the perceived competitiveness of these two groups. If this is true, then women may be able to overcome the “lack of fit problem” by displaying agentic

traits that do not activate these competitive concerns. That is, they may be able to be seen as both competent and trustworthy.

How can women display agency without igniting concerns about competition?

Agency is a broad dimension of interpersonal judgment that relates to the expansion and individuation of the self and the attainment of one’s goals (Baken, 1966; Bem,

1974, Wiggins, 1971; 1999). Agentic traits can convey that someone is instrumental, independent, and able to initiate action, but they can also convey that someone is dominant, power seeking, and interested in controlling others (see Baken, 1966;

Conway et al., 1996; Prentice & Carranza, 2002; Rudman et al., 2012, Wiggins, 1971).

Thus, agency is similar to cross-cultural conceptualizations of individualism in that is seems to have both a horizontal dimension (e.g., aspects unrelated to competition and hierarchy) and a vertical dimension (e.g., aspects related to competition and hierarchy)

(Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk, & Gelfand, 1995; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). If perceived competition drives people to see female leaders as untrustworthy then female leaders should not be seen as less trustworthy than male leaders only when they display agentic traits related to competition and hierarchy.

Cultural and developmental psychologists often categorize traits that express agency but not competition as a desire for self-reliance. As Triandis and Gelfand

(1998) point out, people who are highly self-reliant are likely to say, “I want to do my own thing,” but they are not particularly interested in being better than others or in having higher status (p. 119). Self-reliance is considered a capacity and a desire to act independently and not necessarily an inability to be close to others (Steinberg &

Silverberg, 1986; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). For instance, studies of adolescents

show that self-reliance is associated positively with resistance to peer pressure, but unrelated (or sometimes negatively related) to emotional distance from, or poor relationships with, family and friends (Steinberg & Silverberg, 1986). Traits that express agency and competition are often categorized as “dominance” (see Cheng et al., 2010; Maner & Mead, 2010). Thus, the labels of dominance and self-reliance are used here to refer respectively to agentic traits related to competition and hierarchy and agentic traits unrelated to competition and hierarchy.

Because people believe that men are more self-reliant than women (Rudman et al., 2012), the expression of these traits may violate people’s expectations about the way that women do and should behave. Unlike the expression of dominance, the expression of self-reliance may mark a positive expectancy violation for women.

Although both the expression of dominance and self-reliance likely boost women’s perceived status and competence (cf. Powers & Zuroff, 1988; Rudman, 1998), I suggest that only the expression of dominance ignites concerns about competition and hierarchy and, thus, only the expression of dominance undermines women’s perceived trustworthiness. The expression of self-reliance is less likely to elicit concerns about competition and hierarchy because its reveals little about a person’s desire to be better than or in control of others. Thus, I propose that when women express self-reliance they are less likely to face the negative assumption that they cannot be trusted. On the other hand, men’s perceived trustworthiness is less tied to expressions of their dominance, in part, because people believe that men are deserving of their dominant position (Sidanius & Pratto, 2001). So, when it comes to men, people may make less of a distinction between self-reliance and dominance.

Hypothesis 1a. People perceive women to be more trustworthy when they

display self-reliance than when they display dominance, whereas they perceive

men to be similarly trustworthy regardless of whether they display self-reliance

or dominance.

Hypothesis 1b. People judge women that display dominance to be less

trustworthy than men that display either dominance or self-reliance, whereas

they judge women that display self-reliance to be just as trustworthy as men

that display either dominance or self-reliance.

Because women that display high levels of agency often suffer from negative assumptions about their competitive desires (Cuddy et al., 2011; Rudman et al., 2012), people see them as being cold, harboring negative intentions toward others, and being untrustworthy (Heilman & Okimoto, 2007; Rudman, 1998). Consequently, people often are less inclined to hire, to vote for, and to work for female leaders than they are male leaders (Heilman et al., 2004; Okimoto & Brescoll, 2010; Rudman & Glick,

2001). If, as suggested in Hypothesis 1a and 1b, these negative assessments about women’s trustworthiness stem specifically from concerns about competition and hierarchy then the backlash against female leaders should be attenuated when women demonstrate agency in the form of self-reliance. Thus, I suggest that by displaying self-reliance instead of dominance, women may be able to escape the double bind that often traps female leaders and be deemed well suited for positions of authority.

Because men do not face the same negative assumptions about competition, there is no reason to expect that displaying self-reliance would be any more or less functional than displaying dominance for men in leadership contexts.

Hypothesis 2a. People judge women that display self-reliance to be better

suited for leadership positions than women that display dominance. But, they

judge men that display self-reliance and men that display dominance to

similarly well suited for these roles.

Hypothesis 2b. People judge women that display dominance to be less suited

for leadership positions than men that display either self-reliance or

dominance. But, they judge women that display self-reliance to be just as well

suited for these roles as men that display either self-reliance or dominance).

Hypothesis 3. Perceptions of women’s trustworthiness will mediate the effect

of the type of agency they display on their perceived suitability for leadership

positions.

Overview of Studies

Four studies test the prediction that self-reliance is a distinct and functional form of agency for women. In the first study, participants viewed a male or female target that displayed either low or high levels of dominance or self-reliance and then rated the target’s competence and trustworthiness. In the next three studies, participants viewed either a male or female target that displayed high levels of either dominance or self-reliance. Then they rated their impressions of the target’s trustworthiness as well as their willingness to hire the applicant for a managerial position (Study 2), their willingness to vote for the target for political office (Study 3), or their willingness to invest in the target’s company (Study 4).

I want to provide a brief overview of the participant pools from which I recruited participants before going into the details of each study. Participants were

recruited from one of two online participant pools. I recruited them from either

Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk (Studies 1, 3, and 4) or from a West coast business school’s private listserve of participants willing to complete online studies. Previous research has shown that studies conducted with online participant pools produce data that is of similar quality to data collected with undergraduate students in the laboratory

(Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011; Horton, Rand, & Zeckhauser, 2011; Paolacci,

Chandler, & Iperiotis, 2010). That said, researchers that have studied the quality of data collected from online participant pools recommend employing various checks and safeguards to ensure the quality of the data (Chandler, Mueller, & Paolaccci, 2013;

Mason & Suri, 2012).

They say it is critical to implement some form of quality control to ensure that participants are paying attention and taking the study seriously. These types of controls include using attention check questions with easy and verifiably correct answers. I asked participants these types of questions in each study. Rather than including these types of questions in the studies themselves and then excluding participants that failed these questions, I used participants’ responses to these questions as a qualifier for participation in the study. Before each study, I asked participants to complete a multiple choice reading comprehension question. I took the questions from an eighth grade standardized reading comprehension exam.1

1 An example of one of the reading comprehension questions is as follows. Potential participants read the passage, “As usual, Jim left for school ten minutes later than he should have. His shoelaces were untied and his backpack was unzipped. He had only traveled one block when he heard his mother shout his name. He looked back and saw her waving a brown bag lunch.” Participants were then asked, “What can you infer

Participants were eligible for the study if they answered the question correctly. They were not eligible to participate if they answered the question incorrectly.

These researchers also recommend checking whether participants have participated previously in the same exact study or in a conceptually similar study

(Chandler, Mueller, & Paolaccci, 2013; Mason & Suri, 2012). When I recruited participants for a study, I only allowed them to sign-up for the study if they had not already participated in a similar study of mine. So, if a participant completed Study 1 they would be ineligible to participate in any of the other studies. Although this helps to get a naïve sample of participants (i.e., a sample of people that have not had prior experience with the manipulations used in the study) additional steps are needed to obtain a naïve sample of participants when using online subject pools.

Obtaining a naïve sample is a challenge with online participant pools because researchers from all across the world use these pools to run studies. It is difficult to restrict participants from the outset that have participated in similar studies because there is no master list of the types of studies these participants have completed (as is often the case with undergraduate participant pools within a university). Thus, participation in conceptually similar studies is one of the major limitations of online participant pools (Chandler, Mueller, & Paolaccci, 2013). Chandler and colleagues surveyed workers from Mechanical Turk about their participation in a sample of common experimental paradigms. They found that more than half of all of the

about Jim from the passage?” They received five possible answers: (1) “Jim is in 4th grade”; (2) “Jim takes the bus”; (3) “Jim is tall”; (4) “Jim is disorganized”; and (5) “Don’t know”. The correct answer is (4) “Jim disorganized.”

participants they surveyed had completed some form of the prisoner’s dilemma game and some form of the ultimatum game, and one-third of the participants had completed some form of the trolley problem. When looking at the most productive workers (i.e., the workers that use Mechanical Turk the most) the percentage of workers that had completed these experimental paradigms climbed to over 75%. Given these findings, Chandler, Mueller, and Paolacci (2013) recommend checking whether participants have completed similar studies in the past and excluding those who have in order to maintain a naïve participant sample. The concern is that because participants have been exposed to the experimental paradigm in the past (and presumably debriefed about it) their responses may be biased.

I checked for whether participants in the present studies had been exposed to conceptually similar experimental paradigms in the past. I did this by asking participants to report if they had completed a similar study in the past. I then asked them to describe in detail how the present study was similar to the study (or studies) they’ve completed previously. If they mentioned that the experimental paradigm was similar (e.g., “Similar to this study, in a previous study I was shown someone’s supposed responses to a questionnaire and then responded to questions about my perceptions of this person”) I excluded them from the sample. In no study does excluding these participants change the pattern of results. By excluding participants that have completed conceptually similar studies, however, the relative magnitude of some of the effects changes. The direction of the change is not consistent and does not follow a particular pattern (i.e., sometimes the effect gets stronger, sometimes it gets weaker, and sometimes it is unchanged). For each study, I report the number of

participants that were excluded because they had been exposed to a conceptually similar experimental paradigm in the past.

Study 1

I propose that people perceive women that display self-reliance and women that display dominance to be similarly competent, but they perceive women that display self-reliance to be more trustworthy than women that display dominance. I also propose that people perceive men that display self-reliance and men that display dominance to be similarly competent and trustworthy. Moreover, I suggest that whereas women are perceived as less trustworthy than men when they display dominance, they are perceived as similarly trustworthy when they display self- reliance. I tested these predictions in Study 1 by having participants provide their impressions of either a male or female target that displayed either high or low levels of self-reliance or dominance.

Method

Participants

Three hundred and seventy adults from across the United States completed the study (119 men, 111 women, 1 unreported, Mage = 13.92). Participants were recruited from Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk and they received $1.00 for their participation.

I excluded seven participants from the study that reported having participated previously in a similar study. They all indicated that they had previously completed a study in which they were given little information about someone and then asked to rate that individual’s personality. Thus, for all analyses N=363.

Procedure

Participants reviewed an individual’s responses to a questionnaire and then answered questions about their impressions of this individual. Participants first read a short form that indicated the name, gender, age-range, current city, and occupational status of the person who ostensibly had completed the personality measure.

Participants then received a copy of this target’s supposed responses to a personality questionnaire that contained items pertaining to the target’s agency as well as filler items. They then rated the target’s competence and trustworthiness. Participants finished the study by completing a short demographics questionnaire.

Manipulations

Manipulation of the target’s gender. To manipulate the target’s gender, I varied the name of the person that participants rated. Participants were randomly assigned to rate either Anne Ward or Andrew Ward. All other information about the target’s background was held constant across conditions. Participants learned that the target was between 30-40 years old, lived in Chicago, and was employed full-time.

Manipulation of the type of agency the target displayed. To manipulate the type of agency the target displayed, I varied the questions to which the target person had supposedly responded. Participants were randomly assigned to see that the target responded to questions about his of her self-reliance or about his or her dominance.

In the self-reliance condition, participants viewed the target’s responses to three questions taken from the horizontal individualism subscale of Triandis and

Gelfand’s (1998) measure of individualism and collectivism. This measure captures the more egalitarian, non-competitive dimension of individualism, or simply the extent to which people value an independent and autonomous self. It serves as a reliable

measure of self-reliance (Singelis et al., 1995; Triandis & Gelfand, 2008). Participants saw that the target had been asked to indicate the extent to which she or he agreed or disagreed with each of the following items on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5

= strongly agree): (1) “I’d rather depend on myself than others”; (2) “I rely on myself most of the time; I rarely rely on others”; (3) “I often “do my own thing.”

In the dominance condition, participants viewed the target’s responses to three questions taken from the vertical individualism subscale of the same Triandis and

Gelfand measure. This captures the more hierarchical, competitive aspects of individualism, or the extent to which people value being better than other people

(Singelis et al., 1995; Triandis & Gelfand, 2008). Participants saw that the target had been asked to indicate the extent to which she or he agreed or disagreed with each of the following items on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree): (1)

“It is important to do my job better than others”; (2) “Winning is everything” (3)

“Competition is the law of nature.”

I embedded the agency related personality items among four filler items so as to obscure the focus of the study. The three self-reliance items or the three dominance items came after four general and vague personality statements taken from research on

“the Barnum effect” (see Forer, 1949; Snyder, Shenkel, & Lowery, 1977). These statements are broad and unspecific so that most people agree with them, although the interpretation of the agreement is essentially meaningless (see Dickenson & Kelly,

1985 for a review). Just as with the agency items, participants saw that the target had been asked to indicate the extent to which she or he agreed or disagreed with each of the items on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). The four items

were: (1) “Some of your aspirations tend to be pretty unrealistic”; (2) “Security is one of your major goals in life”; (3) “At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing”; (4) “You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations.” The target’s supposed responses to these items were held constant across conditions. All participants saw that the target responded with a 4 (agree) to the first and fourth items and with a 3 (neither agree nor disagree) with the second and third items. See Appendix A for examples of the exact materials that were used to manipulate the type of agency the target displayed.

Manipulation of the degree of agency the target displayed. To manipulate the degree of agency that the target individual displayed, I varied the extent to which the target agreed with the three agency-relevant questions. In the low agency condition, participants saw that the target responded with a 2 (disagree) to the first two items and with a 1 (strongly disagree) to the last item, for an average level of agency of 1.67. In contrast, participants in the high degree of agency condition saw that the target responded with a 5 (strongly agree) to the first two items and with a 4 (agree) to the third item, for an overall agency rating of 4.67. That is, participants were randomly assigned to see that a male or female target was either high or low in either dominance or self-reliance. See Appendix A for examples of the exact materials that were used to manipulate the degree of agency the target displayed.

Measures

Perceived trustworthiness. To assess participants’ perceptions of the target’s trustworthiness, I used the 8-item trust/ingenuous subscale of Wiggins’ (1979)

interpersonal adjectives measure. Wiggins (1979) synthesis and mapping of the various interpersonal traits provided an initial and enduring conceptualization of the types of traits related to agency and the types of traits related to communion. I elected to use the traits he identified related to trust and integrity because it is clear from his work how these traits relate theoretically and empirically to other interpersonal traits such as competence. I also choose to use traits from Wiggins’s interpersonal adjective measure because this measure offered subscales related to both perceived trust and perceived competence. Participants indicated the extent to which they perceived the target to be each of the following (1 = not at all, 5 = very): (1) uncunning, (2) uncalculating, (3) uncrafty, (4) unwily, (5) unsly, (6) guileless (7) undevious, and (8) undeceptive (α = .96).

Perceived competence. To assess participants’ perceptions of the target’s competence, I used the 8-item success/ambitious subscale from Wiggins’ (1979) interpersonal adjectives scale. I elected to use this scale for the same reasons outlined above. Participants indicated the extent to which the target possessed each of the following traits on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all; 5 = very): (1) persevering, (2) persistent, (3) industrious, (4) self-disciplined, (5) organized, (6) deliberative, (7) stable, and (8) steady. I averaged participants’ responses to these items to create a composite measure of perceived competence (α = .94).

Results

Means and standard deviations from each analysis are reported in Table 2.

Pre-Analysis

I ran a principle axis factor analysis with promax rotation on all of the outcome variables. As shown in Table 1, two factors clearly emerged. All of the items related to perceived competence loaded on a single factor, and all of the items related to perceived trustworthiness loaded on a single factor.

Analytical Technique

For each analysis, I first conducted a 2 (participant gender: male, female) x 2

(gender of the target: male, female) x 2 (type of agency the target displayed: self- reliance, dominance) x 2 (degree of agency the target displayed: low, high) ANOVA to see whether participants’ gender moderated any of the effects. I observed no moderating effect of gender so I collapsed across participant gender in each analysis.

Thus, the reported results are from a 2 (gender of the target: male, female) x 2 (type of agency the target displayed: self-reliance, dominance) x 2 (degree of agency the target displayed: low, high) between subjects ANOVA.

Main Analyses

Perceived competence. In line with the idea that displaying either self-reliance or dominance boosts perceptions of a target’s competence, I observed only one significant effect on perceptions of competence: the degree of agency the target displayed, F(1, 355) = 203.31, p < .001 (see Figure 1). Participants perceived the target to be more competent when he or she displayed high agency than when he or she displayed low agency. No other main or moderating effects emerged as significant, all p values greater than .14. That is, participants perceived men and women to be similarly competent when they displayed high levels of agency

regardless of whether the agency they displayed was framed as self-reliance or dominance.

Perceived trustworthiness. A main effect of the type of agency the target displayed emerged, F(1, 355) = 5.17, p = .024. Participants perceived targets that displayed self-reliance to be more trustworthy than the targets that displayed dominance. There was also a significant main effect of the degree of agency that the target displayed, F(1, 355) = 55.53, p < .001. Participants perceived the target to be less trustworthy when he or she displayed high agency than when he or she displayed low agency. There was a significant interaction between the target’s gender and the type of agency that he or she displayed, F(1, 355) = 3.90, p = .049, as well as a significant interaction between the type of agency the target displayed and the degree of agency he or she displayed, F(1, 355) = 6.36, p = .012. These two-way interactions were qualified by a three-way interaction among the target’s gender, the type of agency he or she displayed, and the degree of agency that he or she displayed, although this three way interaction was marginally significant, F(1, 355) = 3.37, p =

.068 (see Figure 1).

I assessed the relationship between the target’s gender and the type of agency that he or she displayed separately for low levels of agency and high levels of agency to test Hypothesis 1a. When the target displayed low levels of agency, there was only a main effect of the target’s gender, F(1, 355) = 4.39, p = .037. Participants perceived male targets that displayed low agency to be more trustworthy than female targets that displayed low agency. There was neither a main effect of the type of agency the target displayed, F(1, 355) = .032, p = .86, nor an interaction between the target’s gender and

the type of agency he or she displayed when the target displayed low levels of agency,

F(1, 355) = .01, p = .92.

A different picture emerged when the target displayed high levels of agency.

There was no main effect of the target’s gender, F(1, 355) = .06, p = .81, but there was a main effect of the type of agency the target displayed, F(1, 355) = 11.10, p < .001.

Participants perceived targets that displayed high levels of self-reliance to be more trustworthy than targets that displayed high levels of dominance. These effects were qualified by an interaction between the target’s gender and the type of agency that he or she displayed, (1, 355) = 6.99, p = .009. In line with Hypothesis 1a, participants judged male targets that displayed high levels of self-reliance and high levels of dominance to be similarly trustworthy, F(1, 355) = .64, p = .42. On the other hand, participants judged female targets that displayed high levels of self-reliance to be more trustworthy than female targets that displayed dominance, F(1, 355) = 17.56, p < .001.

Thus, supporting Hypothesis 1a, participants perceived female targets that displayed high levels of self-reliance to be more trustworthy than female targets that displayed high levels of dominance, but they judged male targets to be similarly trustworthy regardless of whether they displayed high levels of self-reliance or high levels dominance.

I next ran planned comparisons to test Hypothesis 1b. In support of Hypothesis

1b and previous research (e.g., Heilman & Okimoto, 2007; Heilman et al., 2004;

Rudman et al., 2012), participants judged female targets that displayed high levels of dominance to be less trustworthy than male targets that displayed high levels of agency (i.e., the male target that displayed high levels of self-reliance and the male

target that displayed high levels of dominance combined), t(78.37) = -2.75, p = .007.

But, they judged women that displayed high levels self-reliance to be more trustworthy than men that displayed high levels of agency, t(71.50) = 2.78, p = .007.

This suggests that women may incur interpersonal backlash when they display agentic traits related to competition and hierarchy (e.g. dominance), but not when they display agentic traits unrelated to competition and hierarchy (e.g. self-reliance).

I also wanted to see whether there were differences in perceived trustworthiness between low and high displays of self-reliance and dominance for male targets and female targets. Thus, I also looked at the relationship between the type of agency the target displayed and the degree of agency the target displayed separately for male and female targets. For male targets, there was only a main effect of the degree of agency they displayed, F(1, 355) = 42.72, p < .001. Participants perceived male targets that displayed high agency to be less trustworthy than male targets that displayed low agency.

For female targets a different pattern emerged. There was a main effect of the degree of agency the target displayed, F(1, 355) = 16.37, p < .001. Participants perceived female targets that displayed high agency to be less trustworthy than female targets that displayed low agency. There was also a main effect of the type of agency that female targets displayed, F(1, 355) = 8.72, p = .003. Participants perceived female targets that displayed self-reliance to be more trustworthy than female targets that displayed dominance. These effects were qualified by an interaction between the type of agency the female targets displayed and the degree of agency they displayed, F(1,

355) = 9.15, p =.002. Participants judged female targets that displayed high levels of

dominance to be less trustworthy than female targets that displayed low levels of dominance, F(1, 355) = 24.52, p < .001. On the other hand, participants judged female targets that displayed high levels of self-reliance and female targets that displayed low levels of self-reliance to be similarly trustworthy, F(1, 355) = 0.53, p = 47. That is, female targets that displayed dominance incurred a cost for displaying agency in the form of being seen as less trustworthy that self-reliant female targets did not incur.

Discussion

The results of Study 1 provide initial support for the idea that displaying agency in the form of self-reliance may be a functional way for women to demonstrate their competence without incurring a cost to judgments of their trustworthiness.

Participants judged male and female targets to be similarly competent when they displayed high levels of self-reliance and dominance. Participants judged male targets to be similarly trustworthy when they displayed high levels of self-reliance or dominance, but they judged female targets to be more trustworthy when they displayed high levels of self-reliance than when they displayed high levels of dominance (supporting Hypothesis 1a). Moreover, similar to previous work (e.g.,

Heilman & Okimoto, 2007; Heilman et al., 2004; Rudman et al., 2012), and in line with Hypothesis 1b, participants perceived women that displayed high levels of dominance to be less trustworthy than men that displayed high levels of either self- reliance or dominance. But, participants perceived women that displayed high levels of self-reliance to be more trustworthy than men that displayed either high levels of self-reliance or high levels of dominance.

Overall, Study 1 provides support for Hypothesis 1a and 1b. The question then becomes, given that women do not appear to face negative assessments of their trustworthiness when they display self-reliance, does displaying self-reliance help women to be seen as better suited for positions of authority at work? Study 2 tests this prediction by having participants evaluate either a male or female job applicant that displayed either self-reliance or dominance.

Study 2

Study 2 further assesses the functional aspects of self-reliance for women in organizations. In particular, Study 2 tests the prediction that people will be less inclined to hire female applicants than male applicants for a managerial position only when female applicants display dominance (i.e., agentic traits related to competition and hierarchy). People will be just as inclined to hire a female applicant as a male applicant when the female applicant displays self-reliance. To test these predictions, participants were randomly assigned to review application materials for either a male or female job applicant that displayed either high self-reliance or high dominance.2

Method

Participants

One hundred and forty-one participants completed Study 2 (71 men, 70 women, Mage=36.42). Participants were recruited from a listserv of adults that have expressed interest in completing online research studies for payment. Participants received a $2.00 gift card to a major online retailer for participating. I excluded 18

2 In this study and subsequent studies, I did not manipulate the degree of agency the target displayed.

participants from the study that reported having participated in a similar study in the past. Thus, N = 123 for all analyses.

Procedure

Participants reviewed application materials from a job applicant who was applying for a position as an associate at a management consulting company. After reading a brief description of the firm, participants received a job applicant’s cover letter, resume, and letter of recommendation. When participants finished reviewing the materials, they answered several questions about the applicant. Participants concluded the study by completing a short demographics questionnaire. See Appendix B for an example of these materials.

Manipulations

Applicant’s gender. Participants were randomly assigned to receive the application materials from either a male or female job applicant. I varied the applicant’s gender by altering the applicant’s name. Participants in the female applicant condition received Elizabeth Clark’s application materials. Participants in the male applicant condition received William Clark’s application materials.

Type of agency the applicant displayed. I manipulated the type of agency the applicant displayed by varying the way the applicant described him/herself in the cover letter and the way the applicant was described in the letter of recommendation.

The cover letter and letter of recommendation were identical across conditions except for a paragraph in each in which the applicant’s agency was described.

In the cover letter, the applicant described him or herself as either dominant or self-reliant. The applicant that displayed dominance stated, “My education and work

experience have taught me to be assertive and forceful. I am not afraid to voice my opinions. I ask for what I want and persist until I get it. I seek to lead conversations, and I strive to take charge of group tasks.” On the other hand, the applicant that displayed self-reliance stated, “My education and work experience have taught be to self-reliant and independent. I find ways to complete tasks and assignments on my own. I strive to depend on myself, rather than on others, to accomplish what I need to get done.”

In the letter of recommendation, the letter writer described the applicant as either dominant or self-reliant. To describe the applicant as dominant, the letter writer stated, “Ms. Clark [Mr. Clark] is competent and hardworking. She [He] successfully completed several major projects while serving on my team at Hayne. While working with her [him], I noticed that she [he] is assertive, forceful, and takes charge of tasks and conversations. She [He] seeks control, stands up for herself [himself], and doesn’t take no for an answer. She [He] tends to be more willing than her [his] colleagues to assert her [his] opinions and thoughts.”

To describe the applicant as self-reliant, the letter writer stated, “Ms. Clark

[Mr. Clark] is competent and hardworking. She [He] successfully completed several major projects while serving on my team at Hayne. While working with her [him], I noticed that she [he] is independent, resourceful, and does not rely on others. She [He] possesses the skills, resources, and know-how to meet her [his] needs. She [He] tends to be more willing than her [his] colleagues to handle problems and issues that arise on her [his] own.”

Measures

Outcome variables

Desire to hire applicant. Participants answered five questions to assess the extent to which they would want to hire the applicant. (1) “What is the likelihood that you would interview her [him]?” (1 = very unlikely; 5 = very likely); (2) “What is the likelihood that you would hire her [him]?” (1 = very unlikely; 5 = very likely); (3)

“How much better or worse do you think this candidate is compared to other possible candidates?” (1 = much worse than other candidates; 5 = much better than other candidates); (4) “To what extent do you agree of disagree that she [he] would make a good leader?” (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree); (5) “If you were to hire her

[him], what would you recommend her [his] starting salary be from $90,000/year to

$120,000/year?” Participants selected from a dropdown list of seven starting salaries that started at $90,000 and increased in $5,000 increments to $120,000. Because the first four items were measured on five point scales and the fifth item was measured on a seven point scale, I z-scored participants’ responses to each item and then averaged their responses to create a composite measure of participants’ desire to hire the applicant (α = .83).

Perceived trustworthiness. Participants rated the job applicant’s trustworthiness on five items that were adapted from Mayer and (1999) measure of perceived trust. Participants responded to each statement on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). The five items were: (1) “She [He] has a strong sense of justice”; (2) “She [He] sticks to her [his] word”; (3) “She [He] is very consistent in her [his] actions”; (4) “I respect her [his] values”; (5) “Sound principles

seem to guide her [his] behavior.” I averaged the items to create a composite measure of the job applicant’s perceived trustworthiness (α = .88)

Perceived competence. To ensure that the any effects of the manipulation on the other outcome variables were not due to the manipulation effect on perceived competence, I asked participants, “How competent or incompetent do you think she

[he] is?” Participants responded to the question on a 5-point scale (1 = very incompetent; 5 = very competent).

Manipulation checks

Perceived self-reliance. Participants indicated the extent to which the applicant was (1) self-reliant and (2) independent (5-point scales, 1 = not at all; 5 = extremely). I averaged these two items to create a measure of the applicant’s perceived self-reliance

(α = .91).

Perceived dominance. . Participants indicated the extent to which the applicant was (1) dominant and (2) forceful (5-point scales, 1 = not at all; 5 = extremely). I averaged these two items to create a measure of the applicant’s perceived dominance

(α = .91).

Results

Means and standard deviations from each analysis are reported in Table 4.

Pre-Analysis

I ran a principle axis factor analysis with promax rotation on all of the outcome variables to see whether they loaded on unique factors. As shown in Table 3, each item loaded on its intended factor, with perceived competence not loading on any of the four factors that emerged.

Analytical Technique

I first ran a 2 (participant gender: male, female) x 2 (applicant gender: male, female) x 2 (type of agency the applicant displayed: dominance, self-reliance)

ANOVA for each dependent variable to see whether participants’ gender moderated any of the effects. I found no evidence that participants’ gender moderated any of the effects described below, so I collapsed across participant gender in all analyses. Thus,

I report the results from a 2 (applicant gender: male, female) x 2 (type of agency the applicant displayed: dominance, self-reliance) ANOVA.

Manipulation Checks

Perceived self-reliance. Only a main effect of the type of agency the applicant displayed emerged on perceptions of the target’s self-reliance, although this effect was marginally significant, F(1, 119) = 2.87, p = .093. Participants perceived the applicant that displayed self-reliance to be more self-reliant than the applicant that displayed dominance.

Perceived dominance. Only a main effect of the type of agency the applicant displayed emerged on perceptions of the target’s dominance, F(1, 119) = 24.03, p <

.001. Participants perceived the applicant that displayed dominance to be more dominant than the applicant that displayed self-reliance.

Main Analyses

Competence. There were no main or interactive effects of the applicant’s gender and the type of agency the applicant displayed on judgments of his or her competence, all p values greater than .32. That is, participants perceived male and

female applicants that displayed either self-reliance or dominance to be similarly competent (see Figure 3).

Desire to hire the applicant. As predicted by Hypothesis 2a, only a significant interaction between the applicant’s gender and the type of agency he or she displayed emerged, F(1, 119) = 5.17, p = .025 (see Figure 2). To test Hypothesis 2a, I probed the interaction by looking at the effect of the type of agency the applicant displayed on participants’ desire to hire the applicant separately for male applicants and female applicants. Participants were similarly inclined to hire the male applicant regardless of whether he displayed self-reliance or dominance, F(1, 119) = 0.61, p =

.44. On the other hand, participants were more inclined to hire the female applicant when she displayed self-reliance than when she displayed dominance, F(1, 119) =

6.17, p = .014, supporting Hypothesis 2a..

To assess Hypothesis 2b, I again ran planned contrasts to compare (1) participants’ desire to hire the female applicant that displayed dominance to their desire to hire the two male applicants (combined), and (2) participants’ desire to hire the female applicant that displayed self-reliance to their desire to hire the two male applicants combined (combined). Similar to past research showing backlash against highly agentic women (e.g., Heilman & Okimoto, 2007; Heilman et al., 2004; Rudman et al., 2012), participants were less inclined to hire a dominant female applicant than a male applicant, t(119) = -2.13, p = .036. But, participants were just as inclined to hire a self-reliant female applicant as they were a male applicant, t(119) = 0.65, p = .52.

Thus, in line with Hypothesis 2b, the female applicants encountered backlash only when they displayed agency related to competition and hierarchy (e.g. dominance),

but not when they displayed agency unrelated to competition and hierarchy (e.g., self- reliance).

Perceived trustworthiness. As predicted by Hypothesis 1a, there was only a significant interaction between the applicant’s gender and type of agency the applicant displayed on participants’ perceptions of the applicant’s trustworthiness, F(1, 119) =

5.61, p = .020 (see Figure 3). To test Hypothesis 1a, I probed the interaction by looking at the effect of the type of agency the applicant displayed on the applicant’s perceived trustworthiness separately for male applicants and female applicants.

Participants perceived the male applicant to be similarly trustworthy regardless of whether he displayed self-reliance or dominance, F(1, 119) = 0.82, p = .37. On the other hand, participants perceived the female applicant to be more trustworthy when she displayed self-reliance than when she displayed dominance, F(1, 119) = 6.19, p =

.014. Thus, replicating Study 1, whereas participants perceived women that displayed self-reliance to be more trustworthy than women that displayed dominance, they judged men to be similarly trustworthy regardless of the type of agency they displayed.

I again ran planned contrasts to test Hypothesis 1b. I compared (1) the dominant female applicant’s perceived trustworthiness to the two male applicants’ perceived trustworthiness and (2) the self-reliant female applicant’s perceived trustworthiness to the two male applicants’ perceived trustworthiness. In support of

Hypothesis 1b and similar to previous research (e.g., Heilman & Okimoto, 2007;

Heilman et al., 2004; Rudman et al., 2012), participants perceived the dominant female applicant to be less trustworthy than the male applicants, t(119) = -2.65, p =

.009. But, participants perceived the self-reliant female applicant to be just as trustworthy as the two male applicants, t(119) = -.12, p = .90. Thus, replicating Study

1 and supporting Hypothesis 1b, female applicants experienced negative judgments about their trustworthiness only when they displayed agentic traits related to competition and hierarchy (e.g. dominance).

Moderated mediation analysis. I ran a moderated mediation model to test whether perceptions of the job applicant’s trustworthiness mediated the interactive effect of the applicant’s gender and the type of agency that he or she displayed on participants’ desire to hire him or her. That is, I tested whether, for the female job applicant, judgments of her trustworthiness mediated the effect of the type of agency she displayed on participant’s desire to hire her. Given that participants were similarly inclined to hire the male applicant and judged him to be similarly trustworthy regardless of whether he displayed self-reliance or dominance, I did not expect any mediated effect for the male applicant.

I first assessed whether participants’ perceptions of the applicant’s trustworthiness predicted participants’ desire to hire him or her and whether either the applicant’s gender or the type of agency the applicant displayed moderated this relationship. An ANOVA with the applicant’s gender, the type of agency the applicant displayed, and the applicant’s perceived trustworthiness as predictor variables, revealed only a significant main effect of perceived trustworthiness, F(1, 115) = 66.30, p < .001. No other main or moderating effects emerged, all p values greater than .16.

That is, the positive relationship between participants’ perceptions of the applicant’s trustworthiness and their desire to hire the applicant did not vary as a function of the

applicant’s gender or the type of agency the applicant displayed. Given that the relationship between the proposed mediator and the dependent variable was not moderated, I ran a moderated mediation model that corresponds to Model 2 specified by Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes (2007).

For female job applicants, the indirect effect of the type of agency they displayed on participants’ desire to hire them through perceptions of their trustworthiness was .14 and the 95% CI (bias corrected) ranged from .03 to .28. Thus, in support of Hypothesis 3, participants were more inclined to hire the self-reliant female applicant than the dominant female applicant because they perceived the self- reliant female applicant to be more trustworthy.

To further test Hypothesis 3, I also ran a mediation model to assess whether participants’ perceptions of the applicant’s trustworthiness could account for the fact that participants were less inclined to hire the female applicant that displayed dominance than the male applicants. To do this, I created a dummy variable for both the female applicant that displayed dominance and a dummy variable for the female applicant that displayed self-reliance. I specified the dummy variable for the female applicant that displayed dominance as the predictor variable and the dummy variable for the female applicant that displayed self-reliance as a covariate in a process model developed by Preacher and Hayes (2004) for testing indirect effects. This left the reference group as male applicants. The indirect effect was -.27 and the 95% confidence interval ranged from -.52 to -.04. Thus, further supporting Hypothesis 3, participants were less inclined to hire the female applicant that displayed dominance

than the male applicants because they judged the female applicant that displayed dominance to be less trustworthy.

Discussion

Study 2 builds on Study 1 by showing that the type of agency women display not only influences their perceived trustworthiness, but also how willing people are to hire them. Participants were more inclined to hire a woman applying to a management consulting position when she displayed self-reliance than when she displayed dominance because they perceived her to be more trustworthy when she displayed self-reliance. Participants were similarly inclined, however, to hire a male applicant and saw him as similarly trustworthy regardless of the type of agency he displayed.

Replicating past findings about backlash against agentic women, participants were less inclined to hire a female applicant that displayed dominance than they were to hire male applicants, even though the applicants were perceived to be similarly competent.

But, participants were just as likely to hire a female applicant that displayed self- reliance as they were to hire male applicants. This provides further support for the idea that framing agency as self-reliance may be one way that women can overcome some of the negative interpersonal judgments that arise when they seek leadership positions.

I suggest that displaying self-reliance may be one way for women to be seen as better suited for positions of authority. One shortcoming of Study 2 was that it assessed participants’ willingness to hire someone for a management consulting position, which may or may not have great authority. The question then becomes, do people respond better to female leaders when they display self-reliance than when they display dominance? That is, do women leaders face backlash for being agentic only

when they display traits related to competition and hierarchy? I test this directly in

Study 3.

Study 3

Study 3 assessed whether self-reliance is a functional form of agency for female leaders by assessing participants’ responses to male and female state congressional members that displayed either self-reliance or dominance. Participants viewed a website for a fictitious member of the Pennsylvania Legislative Assembly and then answered questions about their impressions of the state representative as well as their willingness to vote the state representative.

Method

Participants

One hundred and twenty-nine participants from Amazon.com’s Mechanical

Turk website completed the study (82 men, 48 women, Mage = 32.53). Participants received $1.00 for their participation. I excluded 14 participants from the study that reported having participated previously in a similar study. They all indicated that they had previously completed a study in which they read a website or passage about a real or fake politician and then answered questions about this person’s personality. Thus, for all analyses N=115.

Procedure

Participants were invited to participate in a research study on impression formation. I told them the study concerned the impressions people form of politicians from their congressional webpages. Participants reviewed a webpage for a state representative. To help maintain the cover story, participants then answered questions

about their impressions of the state representative’s website (e.g., “How easy or difficult was it to read the webpage?”). Next, participants answered questions about their likelihood of voting for the state representative and their perceptions of his or her trustworthiness and competence. Participants concluded the study by completing a short demographics questionnaire. Examples of the materials used in this study are in

Appendix C.

Manipulations

Manipulation of the state representative’s gender. To manipulate the state representative’s gender, I varied the name and headshot on his or her website.

Participants reviewed the webpage of either John Burr or Ann Burr, and they saw a business headshot of either a male or female, respectively.

Manipulation of the type of agency the state representative displayed. In addition to contact information, committee assignments, and a brief biography, the webpage had a section on recent news about the state representative. Whereas the contact information, committee assignments and biography were identical across conditions, the news brief was varied such that it described the state representative as being self-reliant or dominant. All participants read the following in the “Recent

News” section of the webpage:

Ann [John] Burr, a “rising star” in the Pennsylvania State Legislature, has been

named by Business Development Daily as one of its “45 under 45 to watch in

Pennsylvania.” The list announced on February 4, recognizes 45 business and

political leaders under the age of 45 in Pennsylvania for their accomplishments

and their future promise.

To describe the state representative as dominant, the “Recent News” section stated:

The Business Development Daily, described Ms. [Mr.] Burr as, “…a strong

political force…she’s [he’s] one of the most ambitious and assertive politicians

in Pennsylvania...she [he] has a strong will to power and is making her [his]

presence known. Ms. [Mr.] Burr herself [himself] has been quoted as saying

that “Being hungry and assertive is everything…it’s key to gaining influence”

(see Okimoto & Brescoll, 2010 for a similar manipulation).

To describe the state representative as self-reliant, the “Recent News” section stated:

The Business Development Daily described Ms. [Mr.] Burr, as “…a skilled

politician…who stands out from her [his] peers. She’s [He’s] known for her

[his] self-reliance and self-sufficiency…she’s [he’s] someone who can always

be counted on to get things done on her [his] own. Ms. [Mr.] Burr herself

[himself] has been quoted as saying, “For me, it is important to be self-

directed. I seek to depend on myself, rather than on others, to get things

accomplished.”

Measures

Outcome variables

Willingness to vote for the state representative. Participants indicated how likely they would be to vote for the state representative if she or he ran for the U.S.

Senate. In particular, participants were asked to imagine that they lived in the same state as the state representative and that they were eligible to vote. They then responded to the question, “How likely or unlikely is it that you would vote for her

[him] if she [he] ran for the U.S. Senate?” (1 = very unlikely; 7 = very likely).

Perceived trustworthiness. Participants responded to the same measure of perceived trustworthiness as they did in Study 2. The only difference was that participants provided their responses on a 7-point scale instead of a 5-point scale in this study (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). Participants’ responses were averaged to create a composite measure of perceived trustworthiness (α = .89).

Perceived competence. Participants indicated how competent or incompetent they thought the state representative was on a 7-point scale (1 = very incompetent; 7 = very competent).

Manipulation checks

Perceived self-reliance. Participants responded to four questions about their impressions of the state representative’s self-reliance. Similar to Study 2, participants indicated the extent to which they thought the state representative was (1) self-reliant and (2) independent. Participants responded to these questions on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all; 5 = extremely). Participants also indicated (3) how much they thought the state representative valued being able to accomplish things on his or her own (1 = not at all; 5 = extremely), and (4) how often they thought the state representative depended on others to get things done (reverse-scored) (1 = she [he] never depends on others; 5=she [he] depends on others all of the time). I averaged the items to create an overall measure of perceived self-reliance (α = .84).

Perceived dominance. Participants responded to six items about their impressions of the state representative’s dominance. Similar to Study 2, participants indicated the extent to which they thought the state representative was (1) dominant and (2) forceful. They also indicated the extent to which they thought the state

representative was (3) motivated by desire to have power over others. Participants responded to these questions on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all; 5 = extremely).

Participants also reported the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each of the following statements that were adapted from a measure of dominance used by Maner and Mead (2010): (1) “She [He] tries to control others”; (2) “She [He] has a forceful or dominant personality”; (3) “She [He] enjoys having authority over other people.”

Participants responded to these items on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). Because the items were measured on different length scales, I z- scored participants’ responses to the items and then averaged them to create a composite measure of perceived dominance (α = .91)

Covariate

To help obscure the study’s interest in the relationship between the content of the state representative’s webpage and the various dependent variables, participants responded to two questions about their impressions of the state representative’s website: (1) “How much do you like or dislike the layout of the webpage?” (1 = strongly dislike; 7 = strongly like); (2) “How easy or difficult was it to read the webpage?” (1 = very difficult; 7 = very easy). The items loaded on the same factor (see

Table 5) and demonstrated moderate reliability (α = .63). I averaged the items to create an overall measure of participants’ regard for the state representative’s webpage.

Participants’ regard for the webpage was highly correlated with both their desire to vote for the state representative, r = .40, p < .001, and with their perceptions of the state representative’s trustworthiness, r =. 35 p < .001).

Given the strong correlations between this variable and the outcome variables,

I sought to include participants’ regard for the state representative’s webpage as a covariate in the model in order to increase the statistical power of the tests of the independent variables. The inclusion of covariates in experimental studies has been shown to significantly reduce error variance thereby increasing the power of between- group comparisons (see Fleiss, 1986; Mulligan & Wiesen, 2003; Porter &

Raudenbush, 1987). Indeed, including regard for the state representative’s webpage as a covariate increased the statistical power of the tests of the independent effects in the following analyses. Using covariates to increase the statistical power of interaction effects, however, is deemed appropriate only when the covariate is unrelated to the independent variables (Yzerbyt, Muller & Judd, 2004). This is because the estimates of the effects of the independent variables are only unchanged when the covariate is unrelated to the independent variables (Yzerbyt, Muller & Judd, 2004). Thus, I checked to see whether the state representative’s gender or the type of agency the state representative displayed affected participants’ regard for the state representative’s webpage. An ANOVA showed that participants’ regard for the webpage did not vary as a function of either the state representative’s gender or the type of agency that he or she displayed. Thus, I elected to include regard for the state representative’s webpage as a covariate in each analysis in order to increase the statistical power of the test of the effects of the independent variables. I also report what the results look like if this covariate is not included for participants’ willingness to vote for the state representative and for their perceptions of the state representatives’ trustworthiness.

Results

Means and standard deviations from each analysis are reported in Table 6.

Pre-Analysis

I conducted a principle axis factor analysis with promax rotation on all of the measured outcome variables. As shown in Table 5, four clear factors emerged, corresponding to perceived dominance, perceived self-reliance, perceived trustworthiness, and regard for the congressperson’s webpage, respectively. The dependent measure of willingness to vote and perceived competence did not load on any of these factors, and these two items did not load on the same factor.

Analytical Technique

For each analysis, I first conducted a 2 (participant gender: male, female) x 2

(gender of the state representative, male, female) x 2 (type of agency the state representative displayed: self-reliance, dominance) between subjects ANCOVA with the outcome variable of interest as the dependent variable and regard for the state representative’s webpage as a covariate. Participants’ gender did not moderate any of the effects, so I collapsed across participant gender. The reported results are from a 2

(gender of the state representative: male, female) x 2 (type of agency the state representative displayed: self-reliance, dominance) ANCOVA.

Manipulation Checks

Perceived self-reliance. There was only a main effect of the type of agency the state representative displayed on participants’ perceptions of his or her self- reliance, F(1, 110) = 15.36, p < .001. Participants perceived the state representative to be more self-reliant when he or she displayed self-reliance than when he or she displayed dominance.

Perceived dominance. There was a main effect of the state representative’s gender on perceptions of the congressperson’s dominance, although this effect was marginally significant, F(1, 110) = 3.70, p = .055. Participants perceived the male state representatives to be more dominant than the female state representatives.

Importantly, there was also a main effect of the type of agency the state representative displayed, F(1, 110) = 6.03, p = .016. Participants perceived the state representatives that displayed dominance to be more dominant than the state representatives that displayed self-reliance. There was no interaction between the state representative’s gender and the type of agency he or she displayed on participants’ perceptions of his or her dominance, F(1, 110) = 1.39, p = .24.

Main Analyses

Perceived competence. There was a main effect of the state representative’s gender on participants’ perceptions of his or her competence, F(1, 110) = 5.77, p =

.018. Participants perceived the female state representative to be more competent than the male state representative. Importantly, there was no main effect of the type of agency the state representative displayed, F(1, 110) = 1.23, p = .26. Participants perceived the state representative to be similarly competent regardless of whether he or she displayed self-reliance or dominance.

There was no interaction between the state representative’s gender and the type of agency that he or she displayed on participants’ perceptions of his or her competence,

F(1, 110) = .19, p = .66 (see Figure 4)

Willingness to vote for the state representative. There was a main effect of the state representative’s gender on participants’ willingness to vote for him or her,

F(1, 110) = 9.63, p =.002. Participants were more inclined to vote for the female state representative than the male state representative. The type of agency the state representative displayed had no overall effect on participants’ willingness to vote for him or her, F(1, 110) = 1.23, p = .27. These main effects were qualified by an interaction between the state representative’s gender and the type of agency he or she displayed, F(1, 110) = 4.10, p = .045 (see Figure 4).3

I probed the nature of the interaction by looking at the effect of the type of agency the state representative displayed on participants’ willingness to vote for the state representative separately for male and female state representatives. Participants were similarly willing to vote for the male state representative regardless of whether he displayed self-reliance or dominance, F(1, 110) = 0.42, p = .52. On the other hand, participants were more willing to vote for the female state representative when she displayed self-reliance than when she displayed dominance, F(1, 110) = 4.46, p =

.037. Thus, replicating Study 2 and in support of Hypothesis 2a, participants were

3 The results of this analyses without including participants’ regard for the state representative’s webpage as a covariate are as follows: There was a main effect of the state representative’s gender on participants’ willingness to vote for him or her, F(1, 111) = 7.47, p =.007. Participants were more inclined to vote for the female state representative than the male state representative. The type of agency the state representative displayed had no overall effect on participants’ willingness to vote for him or her, F(1, 111) = 0.30, p = .58. These main effects were qualified by an interaction between the state representative’s gender and the type of agency he or she displayed, although this interaction was only marginally significant, F(1, 111) = 3.09, p = .081. Participants were similarly willing to vote for the male state representative regardless of whether he displayed self-reliance, F(1, 111) = 0.75, p = .39. The pattern was reversed for the female state representatives. Participants were more inclined to vote for the female representative when she displayed self-reliance than when she displayed dominance, but this difference was not significant, F(1, 111) = 2.61, p = .11.

similarly inclined to vote for a male state representative regardless of the type of agency that he displayed, but they were more inclined to vote for a female state representative when she displayed self-reliance than when she displayed dominance.

To test Hypothesis 2b, I again ran planned comparisons to assess whether female leaders incur backlash for displaying dominance, but not for displaying self- reliance. I created a dummy variable corresponding to the female state representative that displayed self-reliance, a dummy variable corresponding to the female state representative that displayed dominance, and a dummy variable corresponding to the two male state representatives. I ran an ANCOVA in which I entered the dummy variables for the two female state representatives as predictor variables, and specified the male state representatives as the reference group. Unlike Study 2 and past research on backlash against female leaders, participants were similarly inclined to vote for the female state representative that displayed dominance as they were for the two male state representatives, F(1, 111) = 2.12, p = .23. This lack of a difference may be due to the fact that participants perceived the male state representatives to be more dominant than the female state representative that displayed dominance, which is different from previous research showing backlash against dominant women (e.g., Rudman et al.,

2012). Participants, however, were more willing to vote for a female state representative that displayed self-reliance than they were for the male state

representatives, F(1, 111) = 14.28, p < .001. Thus, there was no evidence in this study that female leaders experienced backlash.4

Perceived trustworthiness. There was a main effect of the state representative’s gender on participants’ perceptions of his or her trustworthiness, F(1,

110) = 6.76, p = .011. Participants perceived the female state representatives to be more trustworthy than the male state representatives. There was also a main effect of the type of agency the state representative displayed, F(1, 110) = 3.95, p = .050.

Participants perceived the state representative to be more trustworthy when he or she displayed self-reliance than when he or she displayed dominance. Unlike Study 1 and

Study 2, there was no interaction between the state representative’s gender and the type of agency that he or she displayed on participants’ perceptions of his or her trustworthiness, F(1, 110) = .79, p = .38 (see Figure 4).5

Although the interaction was not significant, planned comparisons showed a similar pattern of results as the previous two studies. Participants’ perceived the male state representative to be similarly trustworthy regardless of whether he displayed self-

4 The results of this analyses without including participants’ regard for the state representative’s webpage as a covariate are as follows: Participants were just as inclined to vote for the dominant female state representative as they were for the male state representatives, F(1, 112) = 1.55, p = .22. Participants were more inclined to vote for the self-reliant female state representative than for the male state representatives, F(1, 112) = 9.79, p = .002. 5 The results of this analyses without including participants’ regard for the state representative’s webpage as a covariate are as follows: There was a main effect of the state representative’s gender on perceived trustworthiness, F(1, 111) =5.41, p =.022. Participants thought the female state representatives were more trustworthy than the male state representatives. There was no main effect of the type of agency the state representative displayed, F(1, 111) = 2.01, p = .16. There was also no interaction between the state representative’s gender and the type of agency that he or she displayed F(1, 111) = 0.56, p = .46.

reliance or dominance, F(1, 110) = 0.65, p = .42. But, they perceived the female state representative to be more trustworthy when she displayed self-reliance than when she displayed dominance, F(1, 110) = 3.90, p = .051, although this comparison was marginally significant. These results follow a similar pattern as the results of Studies 1 and 2 and are in line with Hypothesis 1a, but they should be interpreted with caution given that the interaction between the state representative’s gender and the type of agency he or she displayed was not significant. 6

To test Hypothesis 1b, I again ran planned comparisons to assess (1) whether participants perceived the female state representative that displayed dominance to be less trustworthy than the male state representatives, but (2) perceived the female state representative that displayed self-reliance to be just as trustworthy as the male state representatives. Unlike the previous studies and past research on backlash against female leaders (e.g., Heilman & Okimoto, 2007; Heilman et al., 2004; Rudman et al.,

2012), participants judged the female state representative that displayed dominance to be just as trustworthy as the two male state representatives, F(1, 111) = 0.97, p = .33.

Moreover, participants judged the female state representative that displayed self- reliance to be more trustworthy than the two male state representatives, F(1, 111) =

6 Neither of these comparisons are significant if participants’ regard for the state representative’s webpage is not included as a covariate. The comparison between self- reliant men and dominant men is as follows, F(1, 112) = 0.21, p = .64. The comparison between self-reliant women and dominant women is as follows, F(1, 112) = 2.89, p = .13.

11.06, p = .001. Thus, again, there was no evidence of backlash against female leaders in this study.7

Mediation analysis. I assessed whether participants’ perceptions of the state representative’s trustworthiness predicted participants’ willingness to vote for him or her. An ANCOVA with the state representative’s gender, the type of agency he or she displayed, and his or her perceived trustworthiness as predictor variables, revealed only a significant main effect of perceived trustworthiness, F(1, 106) = 21.54, p <

.001. No other main or moderating effects emerged, all p values greater than .20. That is, the positive relationship between participants’ perceptions of the state representative’s trustworthiness and their willingness to vote for him or her did not vary as a function of the state representative’s gender or the type of agency that he or she displayed. The present results did not meet the criteria for moderated mediation; there was no significant interaction between the state representative’s gender and the type of agency he or she displayed on participants’ perceptions of his or her trustworthiness, and there was no evidence that the relationship between perceived trustworthiness and willingness to vote for the state representative was moderated.8

7 The results of this analysis without including participants’ regard for the state representative’s webpage as a covariate are as follows: Participants perceived the dominant female state representative and the male state representatives to be similarly trustworthy, F(1, 112) = 1.08, p = .30. Participants thought the the self-reliant female state representative was more trustworthy than the male state representatives, F(1, 112) = 7.88, p = .006. 8 I tested whether the indirect effect of the type of agency the state representative displayed on participants’ willingness to vote for him or her through perceptions of his or her trustworthiness was significant for female state representatives. The indirect effect was .27 and the 95% bias corrected confidence interval ranged from .05 to .68. This suggests that, similar to Study 2, participants were more inclined to vote for the

I did assess whether participants’ perceptions of the state representative’s trustworthiness accounted for their greater willingness to vote for the female state representative that displayed self-reliance than for the two male state representatives.

Similar to Study 2, I created a dummy variable for the female state representative that displayed dominance, a dummy variable for the female state representative that displayed self-reliance, and a dummy variable for the male state representatives. I specified the dummy variable for the female state representative that displayed dominance as the predictor variable and the dummy variable for the female state representative that displayed dominance as a covariate in a process model developed by Preacher and Hayes (2004) for testing indirect effects. The reference group was male state representatives. The indirect effect was .42 and the 95% bias corrected confidence interval ranged from .18 to .78. 9 This suggests that participants were more willing to vote for the female state representative that displayed self-reliance than for the two male state representatives because they judged her to be more trustworthy.

Discussion

Study 3 provided further evidence that self-reliance is a functional form of agency for women in organizations. Participants were more likely to vote for a female politician when she displayed self-reliance than when she displayed dominance, but

female state representative when she displayed self-reliance than when she displayed dominance because they perceived her to be more trustworthy when she displayed self-reliance. To note, this mediation was not significant when participants’ regard for the state representative’s webpage wasn’t included as a covariate. 9 When participants’ regard for the state representative’s webpage wasn’t included as a covariate, the indirect effect was .47 and the 95% bias corrected confidence interval ranged from .16 to .82.

they were similarly inclined to vote for a male politician regardless of the type of agency that he displayed. Moreover, perceptions of the politician’s trustworthiness mediated this difference (see Footnote 8). That said, although the pattern of means was similar to those in Study 1 and Study 2, the interaction between the politician’s gender and the type of agency he or she displayed on perceptions of trustworthiness was not significant. The findings from this study also diverge a bit from past work on interpersonal backlash against agentic women. Participants were just as inclined to vote for a female politician that displayed dominance, and they were more inclined to vote for a female politician that displayed self-reliance, than they were for male politicians. Although these findings support the idea that self-reliance may be a more functional form of agency for women than dominance, they suggest that, at least in this context, neither form of agency evokes backlash. Given the inconsistencies between Study 3 and Studies 1 and 2, Study 4 provided a similar test of people’s perceptions of male and female leaders to see which pattern replicated.

There were two other aims of Study 4. The first was to assess whether displaying self-reliance is actually functional for women in organizations, or if it is just not as bad as displaying dominance. Because the previous studies compared participants’ perceptions of male and female targets that displayed either self-reliance or dominance, it is unclear whether it is more functional for women to display self- reliance or to display no particular agentic trait. Study 4 addresses this issue by including a condition in which participants read about a male or female leader that displays no specific type of agency. The other purpose of Study 4 was to better assess the external validity of the present predictions. To this end, rather than reading about

fictitious targets (Study 1), fictitious applicants (Study 2), and fictitious politicians

(Study 3), participants in Study 4 read about real Silicon Valley technology executives

(e.g., Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook, or Jeff Weiner of LinkedIn) that displayed dominance, self-reliance, or no particular form of agency. Moreover, rather than assessing only interpersonal judgments, Study 4 assessed whether the type of agency an executive displays affects people’s impressions of the executive’s company.

Study 4

Study 4 assessed participants’ willingness to invest in Facebook or LinkedIn as a function of the type of agency that Sheryl Sandberg (Facebook’s Chief Operating

Officer) or Jeff Weiner (LinkedIn’s Chief Executive Officer) displayed. Participants read an article in which Sheryl Sandberg or Jeff Weiner displayed self-reliance, dominance, or no specific type of agency and then indicated their willingness to invest in her or his company.

Method

Participants

Two hundred and eighty-two participants from Amazon.com’s Mechanical

Turk completed the study (Men = 145, Women = 134, Unreported = 3, Mage = 32.51).

Participants were paid $1.00. Four participants were excluded from the study because they reported having completed a similar study in the past about their impressions of technology executives. So, for all analyses N = 278.

Procedure

I recruited participants to participate in a study on impressions of technology companies and technology executives. Participants read a short article about a top executive at a major social media firm in Silicon Valley. The article provided a short description of the executive’s biography and career background. After reading this article, participants answered questions about their impressions of the executive and their interest in investing in this executive’s company. Following these questions, participants completed a short demographics questionnaire. See Appendix D for examples of the exact materials that were used.

Manipulations

Manipulation of the executive’s gender. Participants were randomly assigned to read about either Sheryl Sandberg, the Chief Operating Officer (COO) at Facebook, or Jeff Weiner, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) at LinkedIn. Participants saw a picture of either Sheryl Sandberg or Jeff Weiner and then read information about their respective career backgrounds. To note, participants read about either Jeff Weiner or

Sheryl Sandberg’s actual career background. Thus, although the backgrounds of these individuals are similar, they are not identical.

Participants that read about Sheryl Sandberg, read the following about her:

Mark Zuckerberg may have founded Facebook, but Sheryl Sandberg—the

company’s current Chief Operating Officer—is working to make it thrive.

Sandberg came to Facebook highly recommended. Previously, she served as a

VP at Google, where she built and managed the online sales channels for

advertising and publishing and operations for consumer products globally. She

has also worked as a management consultant with McKinsey & Company and

as an economist with the World Bank. “She could have any job in the world,"

said one close friend, who thinks that, despite her soaring career, she will hang

around at Facebook for a few more years.

Participants that read about Jeff Weiner, read the following about him:

Reid Hoffman may have founded LinkedIn, but Jeff Weiner - the company's

current Chief Executive Officer - is working to make it thrive. Weiner came to

LinkedIn highly recommended. Previously, he served as an Executive Vice

President at Yahoo where he oversaw the expansion of the company's

category-leading consumer web products, including Yahoo’s Front Doors,

Communications and Community products. He also worked as an Executive-

in-Residence for two major venture capital firms, Accel Partners and Greylock

Partners. “He could have any job in the world," said one close friend, who

thinks that, despite his soaring career, he will hang around at LinkedIn for a

few more years.

Manipulation of the type of agency the executive displayed. In order to manipulate the type of agency that Sheryl Sandberg and Jeff Weiner displayed, I varied the way in which these targets were described in the online article. In particular, the article described them as self-reliant, dominant, or it provided no specific information about their agency. This last condition served as a neutral condition from which to assess the relative benefits or drawbacks of displaying self-reliance or dominance.

To describe Sheryl Sandberg or Jeff Weiner as self-reliant, the article reported the following:

Described by her [his] colleagues as “one of the most self-reliant and

independent figures in Silicon Valley,” Sandberg [Weiner] can always be

counted on to get things done on her [his] own. Sandberg, herself, [Weiner,

himself,] has said of her [his] career, “For me, it has been important to be self-

directed. I seek to depend on myself, rather than on others, to get things

accomplished.” It is this steely self-sufficiency that has marked Sandberg

[Weiner] as a high-flier in Silicon Valley. If Facebook [LinkedIn] is to live up

to the lofty price tag it gained when it went public, it will be because investors

are willing to put their faith in the delivery of Sandberg [Weiner].

To describe Sheryl Sandberg or Jeff Weiner as dominant, the article reported the following:

Described by her [his] colleagues as “one of the most ambitious and

commanding figures in Silicon Valley” she [he] has a strong will to power and

has made her [his] presence known. Sandberg, herself, [Weiner, himself,] has

said of her [his] career, “…being hungry and assertive is everything…it’s key

to gaining influence.” It is this steely assertiveness that has marked Sandberg

[Weiner] as a high-flier in Silicon Valley. If Facebook [LinkedIn] is to live up

to the lofty price tag it gained when it went public, it will be because investors

are willing to put their faith in the delivery of Sandberg [Weiner].

To provide neutral or no specific information about Sheryl Sandberg or Jeff Weiner’s agency, the article stated:

Sandberg [Weiner] has been marked as a high-flier in Silicon Valley. If

Facebook [LinkedIn] is to live up to the lofty price tag it gained when it went

public, it will be because investors are willing to put their faith in the delivery

of Sandberg [Weiner].

Measures

Outcome variables.

Desire to invest in the executive’s company. The main dependent variable was participants’ desire to invest in the executive’s company (either Facebook of

LinkedIn). Participants answered three questions that assessed their desire to invest in the company. Participants were asked first, “If you had the opportunity and funds to invest in Facebook [LinkedIn], how much money would you be willing to invest from

$0.00 to $1000?” They responded to this question using a slider that allowed them to indicate any amount of money between $0.00 and $1000.00 that they would invest in the company. Next participants were asked, “How much do you think a share of

Facebook stock should be valued at from $0.00 to $100.00 a share?” They also responded to this question with a slider that allowed them to indicate any amount of money from $0.00 to $100.00. Finally, participants were asked, “Overall, how successful or unsuccessful do you think Facebook [LinkedIn] will be over the next five years?” They responded to this question on a 7-point scale (1 = very unsuccessful,

7 = very successful). Because participants responded to each question on a different scale, I z-scored their responses and then averaged them to create an overall measure of participants’ desire to invest in the executive’s company. All three items loaded on a single factor (see Table 7) (α = .65).

Perceived trustworthiness. Participants’ perceptions of the executive’s trustworthiness were measured in the same way as in Studies 2 and 3. Participants

responded to each item on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree)

(α =.87).

Competence. Participants again indicated their perceptions of the target’s competence by answering the question, “How competent or incompetent do you think she [he] is?” (1= very incompetent; 7 = very competent).

Manipulation checks

Perceived self-reliance. Participants responded to the same items as they did in

Study 3 about their impressions of the executive’s self-reliance (α = .83).

Perceived dominance. Participants responded to the same items as they did in

Study 3 about their impressions of the executive’s dominance. Because the items were not assessed on the same length scales, I again z-scored participants’ responses to the items and averaged them to create a composite measure of perceived dominance (α =

.88).

Results

Means and standard deviations from each analysis are reported in Table 8.

Pre-Analysis.

I conducted a principle axis factor analysis with promax rotation on all of the measured outcome variables. As shown in Table 7, four clear factors emerged, corresponding to perceived dominance, perceived self-reliance, perceived trustworthiness, and desire to invest in the executive’s company, respectively.

Perceived competence did not load on any of these four factors.

Analytical Technique

For each analysis, I first conducted a 2 (participant gender: male, female) x 2

(executive: Sheryl Sandberg, Jeff Weiner) x 3 (type of agency the executive displayed: self-reliance, dominance, no specific type of agency) between subjects ANOVA with the outcome of interest as the dependent variable. Participants’ gender did not moderate any of the effects, so I collapsed across participant gender. The reported results are from a 2 (executive; Sheryl Sandberg, Jeff Weiner) x 3 (type of agency the executive displayed: self-reliance, dominance, no specific type of agency) ANOVA.

Manipulation Checks

Self-reliance. As expected, there was a main effect of the type of agency the executive displayed on participants’ perceptions of the executive’s self-reliance, F(2,

272) = 15.83, p < . 001. Participants perceived the executive to be more self-reliant when she or he displayed self-reliance than when she or he did not display self- reliance. Thus, the manipulation of self-reliance was effective. That said, there was also a main effect of the executive, F(1, 272) = 5.21, p = .023. Participants perceived

Sheryl Sandberg to be more self-reliant than Jeff Weiner. These effects were qualified by an interaction between the executive and the type of agency that he or she displayed, F(2, 272) = 3.54, p = .030. I probed this interaction by looking at the effect of the type of agency the executive displayed on perceptions of the executive’s self- reliance separately for Sheryl Sandberg and for Jeff Weiner.

Participants viewed Sheryl Sandberg to be more self-reliant when she displayed self-reliance than when she displayed dominance, t(272) = 3.83, p < .001, and when she displayed no specific type of agency, t(272) = 2.27, p = .024. They viewed her to be less self-reliant when she displayed dominance than when she

displayed no specific type of agency, but this difference was not significant, t(272) =

1.62, p = .11.

Participants also viewed Jeff Weiner to be more self-reliant when he displayed self-reliance than when he displayed dominance, t(272) = 2.87, p = .004, and when he displayed no specific type of agency, t(272) = 4.81, p < .001. Different from Sheryl

Sandberg, participants viewed Jeff Weiner to be more self-reliant when he displayed dominance than when he displayed no specific type of agency, t(272) = 2.03, p = .043.

The fact that participants viewed both Sheryl Sandberg and Jeff Weiner to be more self-reliant when they displayed self-reliance than when they displayed either dominance or no specific type of agency indicates that the manipulation of self- reliance was effective.

Dominance. There was only a main effect of the type of agency the executive displayed on participants’ judgments of his or her dominance, F(1, 272) = 4.81, p =

.009. Participants judged the executives to be more dominant when they displayed dominance than when they did not.

Main Analyses

Competence. Only a marginal main effect of the executive emerged on participants’ perceptions of the executives’ competence, F(1, 272) = 3.68, p = .056.

Participants perceived Sheryl Sandberg to be more competent than Jeff Weiner.

Importantly, there was no main or interactive effect of the type of agency the target displayed on perceptions of the target’s competence (see Figure 6).

Desire to invest in the executive’s company. There was a main effect of the executive on participants’ desire to invest in the executive’s company, although this

effect was marginally significant, F(1, 272) = 3.48, p = .063. Participants were more inclined to invest in Jeff Weiner’s company (LinkedIn) than they were in Sheryl

Sandberg’s company (Facebook). There was no main effect of the type of agency the executive displayed, F(2, 272) = 1.46, p = .23. These main effects were qualified by an interaction between the executive and the type of agency he or she displayed, F(2,

272) = 4.28, p = .015 (see Figure 5).10

To test Hypothesis 2a, I assessed the effect of the type of agency the executive displayed on participants’ willingness to invest in the executive’s company separately for Sheryl Sandberg and Jeff Weiner. Participants were similarly inclined to invest in

Jeff Weiner’s company (LinkedIn) regardless of whether he displayed self-reliance, dominance, or no specific type of agency, all pairwise comparisons p values greater than .26. When participants evaluated Sheryl Sandberg, however, a different story emerged. Participants were more inclined to invest in Sheryl Sandberg’s company

(Facebook) when she displayed self-reliance than when she displayed either dominance, t(87.93) = 2.58, p = .012, or no specific type of agency t(91.72) = 2.52, p

10 I also ran a 2 (executive: Sheryl Sandberg, Jeff Weiner) x 2 (type of agency the executive displayed: dominance, self-reliance) between subjects ANOVA to see whether the results from this study replicated the results from Studies 2 and 3. I omitted the condition in which the executive displayed no specific type of agency as this condition was not included in the previous studies. There was neither a main effect of executive, F(1, 179) = .21, p = .65, nor a main effect of the type of agency the executive displayed, F(1, 179) = 2.61, p = .11. Replicating Studies 2 and 3, there was a significant interaction between the executive’s gender and the type of agency that he or she displayed, F(1, 179) = 5.28, p = .023. Participants were similarly inclined to invest in Jeff Weiner’s company (LinkedIn) when he was described as self- reliant as they were when he was described as dominant, F(1, 179) = 0.24, p = .63. However, participants were more inclined to invest in Sheryl Sandberg’s company (Facebook) when she was described as self-reliant than when she was described as dominant, F(1, 179) = 7.54, p = .007, supporting Hypothesis 2a.

= .014. They were similarly willing to invest in Sheryl Sandberg’s company

(Facebook) when she displayed dominance or no specific type of agency, t(89.38) =

.11, p = .92. Thus, supporting Hypothesis 2a and replicating Studies 2 and 3, participants were more likely to invest in a female executive’s company when she displayed self-reliance than when she displayed dominance or no specific type of agency. However, they were similarly inclined to invest in a male executive’s company regardless of the type of agency that he displayed.

Similar to Studies 2 and 3, I also ran planned comparisons to test Hypothesis

2b. I first compared participants’ desire to invest in the company when Sheryl

Sandberg displayed dominance and when she displayed no specific type of agency

(combined) to participants’ desire to invest in the company when Jeff Weiner was its executive (i.e., all three male agency conditions combined). Replicating Study 2 and previous research about the backlash that women face for demonstrating agency (e.g.,

Heilman & Okimoto, 2007; Heilman et al., 2004; Rudman et al., 2012), participants were less inclined to invest in the company when Sheryl Sandberg displayed dominance or no specific type of agency than they were to invest in the company when Jeff Weiner was the executive, t(158.86) = -3.042, p = .003. I then compared participants’ desire to invest in the company when Sheryl Sandberg displayed self- reliance to their desire to invest in the company when Jeff Weiner was its executive(i.e., all three male agency conditions combined). Participants were similarly willing to invest in the company when Sheryl Sandberg displayed self-reliance as they

were when Jeff Weiner was the executive, t(64.96) = .94, p = .35.11 Thus, in support of Hypothesis 2b, displaying agency as self-reliance helped to buffer a female leader against interpersonal backlash.

Perceived trustworthiness. There was no main effect of the executive on participants’ perceptions of the executive’s trustworthiness, F(1, 272) = 2.07, p = .15.

There was a main effect of the type of agency the executive displayed on perceptions of his or her trustworthiness, although this effect was marginally significant, F(2, 272)

= 2.67, p = .071. These main effects were qualified by an interaction between the executive and the type of agency the executive displayed, F(2, 272) = 3.16, p = .044

(see Figure 6).12

11 I also compared participants’ desire to invest in the company as a function of whether Sheryl Sandberg or Jeff Weiner was named as its executive within the type of agency that she or he displayed. Participants were less inclined to invest in the company when Sheryl Sandberg displayed dominance than when Jeff Weiner displayed dominance, t(86.31) = 2.02, p = .046. They were also less inclined to invest in the company when Sheryl Sandberg displayed no specific type of agency than they were when Jeff Weiner displayed no specific type of agency, t(79.84) = - 2.59, p = .011. Participants were similarly interested in investing in the company when Sheryl Sandberg displayed self-reliance as they were when Jeff Weiner displayed self- reliance, t(87.17) = 1.25, p = .21. 12 In order to see whether the interactive effect of gender and agency on perceptions of trustworthiness replicated from Study 2 or Study 3, I ran a 2 (executive: Sheryl Sandberg, Jeff Weiner) x 2 (type of agency the executive displayed: dominance, self- reliance) ANOVA with perceptions of trustworthiness as the outcome variable. I omitted the condition in which no specific information was provided about the executive’s agency as this was not included in the previous studies. The results showed no overall effect of executive, F(1, 179) = 0.70, p = .40. A main effect of agency such that participants perceived the executives to be more trustworthy when they displayed self-reliance than when they displayed dominance. These effects were qualified by the predicted interaction between the executive and the type of agency that he or she displayed, F(1, 179) = 5.73, p = .018. Replicating Studies 1 and 2, when participants viewed a male target (Jeff Weiner), there was no difference in their perceptions of his trustworthiness as a function of whether he displayed self-reliance

To test Hypothesis 1a, I assessed the effect of the type of agency the executive displayed on participants’ perceptions of the executive’s trustworthiness separately for

Sheryl Sandberg and Jeff Weiner. Participants perceived Jeff Weiner to be similarly trustworthy regardless of whether he displayed dominance, self-reliance, or no specific type of agency, all p values for pairwise comparisons greater than .28. However, participants perceived Sheryl Sandberg to be more trustworthy when she displayed self-reliance than when she displayed dominance, t(272) = 3.20, p = .002, and when she displayed no specific type agency, although this comparison was marginally significant, t(272) = 1.91, p = .057.

I also ran planned comparisons to test Hypothesis 1b. I first tested whether participants perceived Sheryl Sandberg to be less trustworthy than Jeff Weiner (i.e., all three male agency conditions combined) when she displayed dominance and when she displayed no specific type of agency (combined). No difference emerged, t(272) =

0.04, p = .97. Thus, similar to Study 3, but running counter to previous research (e.g.,

Heilman & Okimoto, 2007; Heilman et al., 2004; Rudman et al., 2012), participants did not judge Sheryl Sandberg to be less trustworthy than Jeff Weiner when she displayed dominance or no specific type of agency. I also compared whether participants perceived Sheryl Sandberg to be just as trustworthy as Jeff Weiner when she displayed self-reliance. Participants perceived Sheryl Sandberg to be more trustworthy than Jeff Weiner when she displayed self-reliance, t(272) = 3.11, p =

or dominance, t(179) = -0.25, p = .80. However, when participants viewed a female target (Sheryl Sandberg), they saw her as more trustworthy when she displayed self- reliance than when she displayed dominance, t(179) = 3.10, p = .002.

.002.13 Although participants did not view Sheryl Sandberg to be less trustworthy than

Jeff Weiner, which was predicted by Hypothesis 1b and previous research, their perceptions of Sheryl Sandberg’s trustworthiness relative to Jeff Weiner’s trustworthiness did vary as a function of the type of agency she displayed.

Moderated mediation. I ran a moderated mediation to see whether perceptions of the executives’ trustworthiness mediated the moderated effect of agency on participants’ willingness to invest in the executive’s company. That is, were participants more willing to invest in Facebook when Sheryl Sandberg displayed self- reliance than they were when she displayed dominance or no specific type of agency because they perceived her to be more trustworthy when she displayed self-reliance?

Given that participants were similarly willing to invest in LinkedIn regardless of whether Jeff Weiner displayed self-reliance, dominance, or no specific type of agency, there was no reason to expect mediation when participants’ evaluated Jeff Weiner.

I first assessed whether perceptions of the executive’s trustworthiness predicted participants’ willingness to invest in his or her company, and whether either the executive’s gender or the type of agency that he or she displayed moderated this relationship. An ANOVA revealed only a relationship between participants’ perceptions of the executive’s trustworthiness and their willingness to invest in his or

13 I also compared participants’ perceptions of Sheryl Sandberg and Jeff Weiner’s trustworthiness within the type of agency the she or he displayed. Participants judged Sheryl Sandberg to be as trustworthy as Jeff Weiner when they both displayed dominance, t(272) = -1.14, p = .26. They also judged Sheryl Sandberg to be as trustworthy as Jeff Weiner when they both displayed no specific type of agency, t(272) = 1.29, p = .20. However, they judged Sheryl Sandberg to be more trustworthy than Jeff Weiner when they both displayed self-reliance, t(272) = 2.32, p = .021.

her company. F(1, 274) = 64.04, p < .001. Because this relationship was not moderated, I ran a moderated mediation model that corresponds to Model 2 outlined in

Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes (2007). I followed their guidelines for testing mediated effects with categorical variables. This involved creating k (number of categories) - 1 dummy variables. For each assessment, I compared two categories and included the third category as a covariate. For instance, to see whether perceptions of Sheryl

Sandberg’s trustworthiness mediated participants’ greater willingness to invest in

Facebook when she displayed self-reliance than when she displayed dominance, I specified the dummy variable for self-reliance as the independent variable, the dummy variable for no specific type of agency as a covariate, and I left the dummy variable for dominance as the reference category.

In support of Hypothesis 3, participants were more inclined to invest in

Facebook when Sheryl Sandberg displayed self-reliance than when she displayed either dominance or no specific type of agency because they trusted her more when she displayed self-reliance. The indirect effect of displaying self-reliance or dominance on participants’ willingness to invest in Facebook through perceptions of

Sheryl Sandberg’s trustworthiness was .17 and the 95% bias corrected confidence interval ranged from .04 to .31. Moreover, the indirect effect of displaying self- reliance or no specific type of agency on participants’ willingness to invest in

Facebook through perceptions of Sheryl Sandberg’s trustworthiness was also .17 and the 95% bias corrected confidence interval ranged from .04 to .31. As expected, because participants were similarly inclined to invest in Facebook when Sheryl

Sandberg displayed dominance as they were when she displayed no specific type of

agency, there was no evidence that perceptions of trustworthiness mediated the difference between these conditions. Similarly, because no differences emerged in participants’ willingness to invest in LinkedIn as a function of the type of agency that

Jeff Weiner displayed, there was no evidence that perceptions of his trustworthiness mediated any differences among these conditions.

Supplementary analysis. Although Facebook and LinkedIn are two popular social media websites, participants may have been more familiar with one of the companies and/or one of the executives. One could be concerned that the observed effects only emerge when observers are or are not familiar with the given target. To address this concern, I assessed whether participants’ familiarity with the company or their familiarity with the executive moderated any of the observed effects. At the end of the study participants were asked two questions: (1) “How familiar were you with

Facebook [LinkedIn] prior to this study?” and (2) “How familiar were you with Sheryl

Sandberg [Jeff Weiner] prior to this study?” Participants answered both questions on a

5-point scale (1 = not at all; 5 = extremely). I found no evidence that participants’ familiarity with either the company or the executive moderated any of the effects.

Additionally, the results remain the same if these variables are included as covariates in the analyses. .

Discussion

Participants were more inclined to invest in Facebook when its COO, Sheryl

Sandberg, displayed self-reliance than when she displayed either dominance or no specific type of agency. On the other hand, participants were similarly inclined to invest in LinkedIn regardless of whether its CEO displayed self-reliance, dominance,

or no specific type of agency. Moreover, whereas participants were less likely to invest in Sheryl Sandberg’s company (Facebook) than they were in Jeff Weiner’s company (LinkedIn) when Sheryl Sandberg displayed dominance or no specific type of agency, they were just as likely to invest in her company as they were Jeff Weiner’s company when she displayed self-reliance. Thus, a female leader experienced backlash when she displayed agentic traits related to competition and hierarchy (e.g. dominance), but did not experience backlash when she displayed agentic traits unrelated to competition and hierarchy (e.g., self-reliance).

Study 4 lends greater external validity to the previous findings. Participants were more willing to invest in Facebook when Sheryl Sandberg displayed self-reliance than when she did not. That said, by using actual executives at actual Silicon Valley social media companies, there were differences across conditions that were unrelated to either the executive’s gender or the type of agency that he or she displayed. For instance, the executive’s gender was confounded with the executive’s company, the specific position the executive held in the company, and the specific details of the executive’s career background. Thus, one could be concerned that one or more of these differences could account for differences in participants’ perceptions of Sheryl

Sandberg and Jeff Weiner. In particular, one could be concerned that people may have responded negatively to Sheryl Sandberg when she displayed dominance because it is seen as less appropriate for a COO to act this way than it is for a CEO. In light of the previous studies, these potential confounds are less of a concern. In each of the previous studies, the position, background, and experience of the male and female

targets were held constant. Thus, even when the targets had the same background and position, a similar pattern of results emerged.

General Discussion

Why do women obtain leadership positions less frequently than men even though they are as qualified and desirous of them? Past research suggests that this difference exists because women face negative assumptions about their agency that men do not (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Ridgeway, 2011; Rudman, 1998). When women refrain from displaying agentic traits, they are judged to be too dependent, weak, and concerned about others to succeed in leadership roles (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Heilman

& Haynes, 2005; Prentice & Carranza, 2002). When they display these agentic traits, however, they are judged to be too cold, competitive, and untrustworthy to succeed in these positions (Heilman & Okimoto, 2007; Okimoto & Brescoll, 2010; Rudman &

Glick, 2001). Thus, women often are thought to be trapped in a double bind wherein no routes exist for them to be judged as well suited for positions of authority. The present findings suggest that women may be able to escape this double bind by displaying self-reliance.

Evidence from four studies supports the idea that self-reliance is a functional form of agency for women in organizations. Participants were just as inclined to hire

(Study 2), to vote for (Study 3), and to invest in the company of (Study 4) a man that displayed self-reliance as they were a man that displayed dominance. On the other hand, participants were more inclined to hire (Study 2), to vote for (Study 3), and to invest in the company of (Study 4) a women when she displayed self-reliance than when she displayed dominance. These differences emerged because participants

judged women to be more trustworthy when they displayed self-reliance than when they displayed dominance (Studies 1-4). These findings suggest that people perceive women negatively for displaying agentic traits that are related to competition and hierarchy (e.g., dominance), but not for displaying agentic traits that are unrelated to competition and hierarchy (e.g., self-reliance).

By distinguishing between agentic traits that do and do not relate to competition and hierarchy, this paper furthers our understanding about when agency helps and when it hinders women in organizations. Similar to past research (e.g.,

Heilman & Okimoto, 2007; Heilman et al., 2004; Rudman et al., 2012), this paper found that when women displayed dominance (i.e., agentic traits related to competition and hierarchy) people were less likely to hire them (Study 2) and less likely to support their companies (Study 4) than they were to hire and support the companies of similarly competent men. In contrast to previous research, this paper found no evidence of backlash against women when they displayed self-reliance

(Studies 1-4). That is, participants were just as inclined to hire and to invest in the company of a women that displayed self-reliance as they were to hire and to invest in the company of a man that displayed either dominance or self-reliance. In fact, they were more likely to vote for a female politician that displayed self-reliance than they were for a male politician that displayed either dominance or self-reliance (Study 3).

Overall, the present findings suggest that backlash against female leaders stems from the specific perception that female leaders are dominant and not from the broader perception that they are agentic. Thus, these findings not only clarify when and why

female leaders may experience backlash, but also point to ways in which this backlash might be overcome.

Limitations and Future Directions

Although the present studies provide initial support for the idea that self- reliance is a functional form of agency for women in organizations, numerous questions still remain. Many of these questions arise because of limitations with the present experimental approach. For instance, one limitation is that each study assessed people’s perceptions of an individual and not their actual behavior toward an individual. Although people’s attitudes about someone often predict their actions toward this person (e.g., Greenwald, Poehlman, Uhlmann, & Banaji, 2009), the link between attitudes and behavior can be tenuous (e.g., Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977). The possibility exists that people behave similarly toward self-reliant and dominant women even though they express more positive attitudes toward self-reliant women.

Moreover, none of the studies were conducted in an actual organizational context despite the fact that they purport to test the functional aspects of self-reliance for women in organizations. This is a limitation of the experimental design because how people say they would respond and how they actually respond to someone at work may not be aligned.

In subsequent research it is vital that I expand the experimental approach and assess people’s actual behavior toward self-reliant women in an organizational context. For instance, I could run an audit study in which I send application materials to actual job postings and see how the gender of the applicant and the type of agency the applicant displays influence the response rate (see Correll, Benard & Paik, 2007

for an example of this approach). Additionally, I could code actual political candidates’ campaign materials for the degree to which they display self-reliance and dominance and see how these displays influence the candidates’ political success. I could draw stronger conclusions about the functional aspects of self-reliance for women in organizations by employing these types of behavioral and archival studies.

The present experiments are also limited in their external validity. Each study explicitly described an individual as either dominant or self-reliant. We rarely receive such explicit information about a person’s character in day-to-day interactions.

Although we might be told about someone’s personality, or we might read about someone’s personality on the web, we tend to make inferences about people’s personalities from their actions. If people are not told explicitly that someone is self- reliant then how do they infer that he or she is? That is, what behaviors do people use to infer that someone is or is not self-reliant? In order to answer these questions and to improve the external validity of the findings, in subsequent research I would like to determine the behavioral correlates of perceived self-reliance.

Another potential problem with the current experimental design is that it gives the impression that displays of self-reliance from women and displays of self-reliance from men convey the same things to observers. This might be the case, but the possibility also exists that people perceive self-reliance differently depending on a person’s gender. There are two findings from the present studies that suggest that self- reliance carries a different meaning for men and women. First, self-reliance boosted people’s perceptions of a woman’s trustworthiness, but it did not influence people’s perceptions of a man’s trustworthiness. Second, people were more likely to vote for a

self-reliant female politician than a male politician in Study 3, and people were more likely to invest in the company of a self-reliant female executive than in the company of a self-reliant male executive in Study 4. These differences suggest that self-reliance may send a different signal when a woman displays it than when a man displays it. It will be important to determine in future research whether the inferences people make about self-reliant women are different from the inferences that people make about self- reliant men.

Because the present studies explicitly described a person as either self-reliant or dominant, they also don’t speak to how highly self-reliant and highly dominant men and women actually behave. An important question to ask is whether the same results emerge if self-reliance and dominance are assessed as individual differences rather than manipulated as character description. That is, are self-identified self-reliant women more likely to be hired and more likely to be seen as suited for leadership positions than self-identified dominant women? In follow-up research, I would like to assess the extent differences in actual levels of self-reliance and dominance predict positive organizational outcomes (e.g., emergent leadership, job performance) for men and women.

By assessing individual differences in self-reliance, I also hope to determine whether the characteristics of self-reliant women are different from the characteristics of self-reliant men. In the same way that it is important to know whether self-reliance signals the same thing for men and women, it is also important to know whether self- reliance is the same thing for men and women. Self-reliance may be uniquely functional for women because self-reliant women are actually fundamentally different

from self-reliant men. People may identify as self-reliant for different reasons. For instance, someone could be self-reliant because they don’t want to or don’t have to depend on others, or because they can’t be around others. The former conceptualization is likely perceived as more positive in organizations than the latter conceptualization. The possibility exists that any differences in observed responses to self-reliant women and self-reliant men are due to self-reliance being more about not having to depend on others for women and more about not wanting to be around others for men. Thus, I would like to explore whether the personality traits and interpersonal attitudes that are correlated with self-reliance differ for men and women.

The exclusive use of an online, U.S. based participant pool is another limitation of the paper. The predictions laid out in this paper arise from a particular cultural perspective; they may not ring true in other cultural contexts. Similar to the majority of experimental findings in social psychological and management texts, the predictions in this paper are rooted in a Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic context (Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010). Consequently, the present findings should be interpreted as pertaining only to the context in which they were tested. Indeed, there is reason to believe that people’s cultural context influences their responses to men and women that display high levels of agency. First, although there are cross-cultural similarities in people’s gender stereotypes, these beliefs are far from universal (Sugihara & Katsurada, 2000; Ward & Sethi, 1986; Wood & Eagly, 2002).

The theoretical rational for backlash against agentic women presupposes that people hold specific beliefs about the way that men and women should behave. Therefore, this rationale may be unfitting in contexts where these specific beliefs do not exist.

Second, the idea that self-reliance is a functional form of agency for women rests on the assumption that people regard a “desire to be distinct from others” as an appropriate, or even a respected trait. But, as decades of work from cross-cultural psychology have shown, there is cross-cultural variability in the extent to which this trait is valued (Marcus & Kitayama, 1991). If one were to step outside the independent cultural context in which the studies were conducted, self-reliance may no longer emerge as a functional form of agency for women. In subsequent research, I would like to investigate how an individual’s cultural background influences the way in which he or she responds to highly self-reliant men and women.

The lack of assessment of the cross-cultural bounds of this paper is part of a larger limitation. Namely, this paper does not shed light on when self-reliance is likely to be more or less functional for women. Because the goal of the present work was to see if people distinguish between self-reliant and dominant women it did not consider the situations that are likely to reduce or intensify this difference. People preferred to hire and invest in the company of a self-reliant woman because they saw her as more trustworthy. This suggests that the preference for self-reliant women should be diminished in contexts where perceived trustworthiness is less important. Perceived trustworthiness is especially important in contexts of high interdependence (e.g., when an employee’s success depends on the work of her colleagues) and high uncertainty

(e.g., when people can behave in multiple ways) (Righett & Finkenauer, 2010). Thus, in highly independent work environments or in work environments with strong routines or low autonomy (i.e., low uncertainty), people may be similarly inclined to hire, to promote, or to want to work with self-reliant and dominant women. Relatedly,

self-reliant women may also not be preferred to dominant women in contexts in which people’s behavior is easily monitored or is very public because, on average, people act in more trustworthy and benevolent ways when their behavior is visible to others (e.g.,

Haley & Fessler, 2005).

Trust also tends to get stronger over time and to be stronger with close others

(e.g., ingroup members) than with distant others (e.g., outgroup members) (see

Kramer, 1999). Thus, it stands to reason that the longer people interact with an agentic woman it will matter less whether she displays self-reliance or dominance. A limitation of the present studies is that they assessed people’s initial impressions of a target with whom they were unacquainted. So, it is unclear whether the present findings would be seen in more long-standing and close relationships. The possibility exists that overtime people may actually come to prefer dominant women to self- reliant women. People tend to believe that dominant women are excessively self- interested (Rudman et al., 2012). If people’s interests, however, are aligned with the interests of a dominant woman (e.g., because they are members of the same group), they might come to see her dominance as beneficial. Indeed, dominant women are actually preferred to non-dominant women in contexts where women have to advocate for other people (Amanatullah & Morris, 2010; Bowles, Babcock, & McGinn, 2005).

In future research, I would like to assess the ways in which people’s relationships with dominant and self-reliant women influence their responses to these women in order to identify the possible temporal and interpersonal bounds of the present findings.

Although this paper focused on the functional aspects of self-reliance for women, it stands to reason that the same predictions would hold for other groups.

Women are judged negatively for displaying dominance in part because acting dominantly is discordant with women’s perceived lower status. That is, people judge dominant women as less trustworthy than non-dominant women because they see dominant women as challenging the social hierarchy (Rudman et al., 2012). If concerns about the social hierarchy drive negative responses to dominant women, then it stands to reason that these same concerns drive negative responses to dominant individuals from other lower status groups. If this were the case then I would expect that people would judge members of lower status groups to be better suited for positions of authority when they display self-reliance than when they display dominance. Thus, I intend to assess in future research if self-reliance is a functional agentic trait not only for women, but also for members of other lower status groups in organizations.

Practical Implications

Given that displaying self-reliance helped women to be seen as well-suited for leadership positions, future research could investigate the benefits of helping women to frame their experiences and personality in self-reliant terms. In the present studies, brief verbal descriptions of a woman’s self-reliance boosted people’s perceptions of her suitability for leadership positions. It is thus possible that women may increase their chances of being hired or promoted to a leadership position by simply emphasizing their self-reliance in a cover letter or during an interview.

It should be noted that by offering this intervention recommendation, this paper is offering a target-centered solution to a structural problem. That is, it suggests ways that the targets of backlash might be able to avoid this backlash. It does not,

however, offer a solution for eradicating the source of this backlash. In doing so, it may unduly put the burden of dealing with the problem on the shoulders of the people who are victims of the problem. Backlash against agentic women stems from long- standing structural gender inequities and negative gender stereotypes. Thus, subsequent work might benefit from focusing on the factors that may mitigate these structural inequities and negative gender stereotypes. It should be further noted that by suggesting that backlash against female leaders arises only when female leaders display agentic traits related to competition and hierarchy this paper does not mean to suggest that backlash is not an issue for women in the workplace. Given that women still face backlash when they display dominance, they have fewer open routes for demonstrating their agency than men, and thus may still be disadvantaged when it comes to being seen as well suited for leadership positions.

Conclusion

A bleak picture is often painted for women in organizations. It suggests that no matter what women do they will fail to be seen as well suited for positions of leadership. The fact that self-reliance is a form of agency that helps women may repaint this picture with brighter hues. Although structural inequalities and gender stereotypes make the path to leadership harder for women, the path may not be as treacherous as often assumed.

References

Abele, A. E. (2003). The dynamics of masculine-agentic and feminine-communal

traits: Findings from a prosective study. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 85, 768-776.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis

and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888-918.

Amanatullah, E. T., & Morris, M. W. (2010). Negotiating gender roles: Gender

differences in assertive negotiating are mediated by women’s fear of backlash

and attenuated when negotiating on behalf of others. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 98, 256-267

Baken, D. (1966). The duality of human nature. Chicago: Ran McNally.

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgeny Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.

Biernat, M., & Kobrynowicz, D. (1997). Gender- and race-based standards of

competence: Lower minimum standards but higher ability standards for

devalued groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 544-557.

Bowles, H. R., Babcock, L., & McGinn, K. L. (2005). Constraints and triggers:

Situational mechanics of gender in negotiation. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 89, 951–965

Brescoll, V. L. (2012). Who takes the floor and why: Gende,r power, and volubility in

organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29.

Brescoll, V. L., & Uhlmann, E. L. (2008). Can an angry women get ahead: Status

conferral, gender, and expression of emotion in the workplace. Psychological

Science, 19, 268-275.

Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A

new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on

Psychological Science, 6, 3-5.

Catalyst. (2001). 2001 Catalyst census of women board directors. New York.

Catalyst. (2004). Women and men in U.S. corporate leadership: Same workplace,

different realities? New York.

Cejka, M. A., & Eagly, A. H. (1999). Gender-stereotypic images of occupations

correspond to sex-segregation of employment. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 25, 413- 423.

Chandler, J.J, Mueller, P.A., & Paolacci, F. (2013). Methodological concerns and

advanced uses of Amazon Mechanical Turk in psychological research.

Working paper retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/1816137/

Methodological_Concerns_and_Advanced_Uses_of_Crowdsourcing_

in_Psychological_Research

Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., & Henrich, J. (2010). Pride, personality and the evolutionary

foundations of human social status. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 334-

347.

Conway, M., Pizzamiglio, M. T., & Mount, L. (1996). Status, communality, and

agency: Implications for stereotypes of gender and other groups Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 25-38.

Correll, S. J. (2004). Constraints into preferences: Gender, status, and emerging career

aspirations. American Sociological Review, 69, 93-113.

Correll, S. J., Benard, S., & Paik, I. (2007). Getting a Job: Is There a Motherhood

Penalty? American Journal of Sociology, 112, 1297-1339.

Correll, S. J., & Ridgeway, C. L. (2003). Expectation states theory. In J. Delamater

(Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 29-51). New York: Kluwer

Academic Press.

Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Beninger, A. (2011). The dynamics of warmth and

competence judgments, and their outcomes in organizations. Research in

Organizational Behavior, 31, 73-98.

Dickson, D. H., & Kelly, I. W. (1985). The 'Barnum Effect' in personality assessment:

a review of the literature. Psychological Reports, 57, 367-382.

Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female

leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573-598.

Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social

cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 77-83.

Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed)

stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from

perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 82, 878-902.

Fiske, S. T., Xu, J., Cuddy, A. C., & Glick, P. (1999). (Dis) respecting versus (dis)

liking: Status and interdependence predict ambivalent stereotypes of

competence and warmth. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 473-489.

Fleiss, J. L. (1986). The design and analysis of clinical experiments. New York:

Wiley.

Forer, B.R. (1949). The fallacy of personal validation: A classroom demonstration of

guillibility. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44, 118-123

Foschi, M. (1989). Status characteristics, standards, and attributions. In J. Berger, J.

Morris Zelditch & Bo Anderson (Eds.), Sociological theories in progress: New

formulations. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Greenwald, A. G., Poehlman, T. A., Uhlmann, E. L., & Banaji, M. R. (2009).

Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of

predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 17-41

Haley, K. J., & Fessler, D. M. (2005). Nobody's watching?: Subtle cues affect

generosity in an anonymous economic game. Evolution and Human behavior,

26, 245-256.

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world.

Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61-83.

Heilman, M. E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. Research in

Organizational Behavior, 5, 269-298.

Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., Martell, R. F., & Simon, M. C. (1989). Has anything

changed? Current characterizations of men, women, and managers. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 74, 935-942.

Heilman, M. E., & Chen, J. J. (2003). Entrepreneurship as a solution: the allure of self-

employment for women and minorities. Human Resource ManagementReview,

13, 347-364.

Heilman, M. E., & Haynes, M. C. (2005). No credit where credit is due: Attributional

rationalization of women’s success in male–female teams Journal of Applied

Psychology 90, 905-916.

Heilman, M. E., & Okimoto, T. G. (2007). Why are women penalized for success at

male tasks?: The implied communality deficit. Journal of Applied Psychology,

92, 81-92.

Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tamkins, M. M. (2004). Penalties for

success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 89, 416-427.

Horton, J. J., Rand, D. G., & Zeckhauser, R. J. (2011). The online laboratory:

Conducting experiments in a real labor market. Experimental Economics, 14,

399-425.

Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis American Psychologist, 60,

581-592.

Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives,

enduring questions. Annual review of psychology, 50, 569-598.

Maner, J. K., & Mead, N. L. (2010). The essential tension between leadership and

power: When leaders sacrifice group goals for the sake of self-interest. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 482-497.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for

cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253

Mason, W., & Suri, S. (2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s

Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 1-23.

Maume, D. J. (1999). Glass ceilings and glass escalators: Occuptional segregation and

race and sex differences in managerial promotions. Work and Occuptions, 26,

483-509.

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.

Miller, D. T., Taylor, B., & Buck, M. L. (1991). Gender gaps: Who needs to be

explained? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 5-12.

Mulligan, N. W., & Wiesen, C. (2003). Using the analysis of covariance to increase

the power of priming experiments. Canadian Journal of Experimental

Psychology, 57, 152-166.

Okimoto, T. G., & Brescoll, V. L. (2010). The price of power: Power seeking and

backlash against female politicians. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 36, 923-936.

Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon

Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 411–419.

Porter, A. C., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1987). Analysis of covariance: Its model and use

in psychological research. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 34, 383–392.

Powers, T. A., & Zuroff, D. C. (1988). Intepersonal consequences of over self-

criticism: A comparison of neutral and self-enhancing presentations of self.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1054-1062.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating

indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods,

Instruments, and Computers, 36, 717-731

Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated

mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate

Behavioral Research, 42, 185-227.

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.

Reskin, B. F., & McBriar, D. B. (2000). Why not ascription? Organizations'

employement of male and female managers. American Sociological Review,

65, 210-233.

Ridgeway, C. L. (2001). Gender, status and leadership. Journal of Social Issues, 57,

637-655.

Ridgeway, C. L. (2011). Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the

modern world. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ridgeway, C. L., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1999). The gender system and interaction.

Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 191-216.

Righetti, F., & Finkenauer, C. (2011). If you are able to control yourself, I will trust

you: The role of perceived self-control in interpersonal trust. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 874-886

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.

Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash

toward agentic women Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743-762.

Rudman, L. A., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Nauts, S. (2012). Status

ncongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates

prejudice against female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,

48, 165-179.

Rudman, L. A., & Phelan, J. E. (2008). Backlash effects for disconfirming gender

stereotypes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 61-79.

Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (2001). Social dominance. Cambridge University Press.

Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D., & Gelfand, M. J. (1995). Horizontal and

vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and

measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29, 240-275.

Snyder, C. R., Shenkel, R. J., & Lowery, C. R. (1977). Acceptance of personality

interpretations: The "Barnum Effect" and beyond. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 45, 104-114.

Steinberg, L., & Silverberg, S. B. (1986). The vicissitudes of autonomy in early

adolescence. Child Development, 57, 841-851.

Sugihara, Y., & Katsurada, E. (2000). Gender-role personality traits in Japanese

culture. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 309-318.

Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and

vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 74, 118-128.

Ward, C., & Sethi, R. R. (1986). Cross-cultural validation of the Bem sex role

inventory Malaysian and South Indian research. Journal of Cross-Cultural

Psychology, 17, 300-314.

Wiggins, J. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait descriptive terms: The

interpsonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 395-

412.

Wiggins, J. (1991). Agency and communion as conceptual coordinates for the

understanding of measurement of interpersonal behavior. In D. Cicchetti & W.

Crove (Eds.), Essays in honor of Paul Everett Meehl: University of Minnesota

Pres.

Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of

women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological

bulletin, 128, 699-727.

Yzerbyt, V.Y., Muller, D., & Judd, C.M. (2004). Adjusting researchers’ approach to

adjustment: On the use of covariates when testing interactions. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 424-431.

Table 1

Results from a principle axis factor analysis with promax rotation on all of the outcome variable items from Study 1.

Survey item 1 2 Uncrafty .92

Unwily .91

Uncalculating .89

Unsly .88

Uncunning .85

Undevious .83

Undeceptive .82

Guileless .78

Self-disciplined .86

Organized .84

Industrious .82

Persistent .81

Deliberative .81

Persevering .81

Steady .79

Stable .75

Table 2

Means and standard deviations for perceived competence and perceived trustworthiness from Study 1.

Male target Female target

Dominance Self-reliance Dominance Self-reliance

Low High Low High Low High Low High

M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

Perceived 2.38 0.71 3.49 0.76 2.25 0.81 3.38 0.91 2.47 0.78 3.58 0.80 2.22 0.79 3.57 0.70 competence

Perceived 2.86 1.08 1.85 0.74 2.82 1.21 1.95 0.82 2.54 1.00 1.50 0.78 2.53 1.02 2.38 1.01 trustworthiness

Table 3

Results from a principle axis factor analysis with promax rotation on all of the outcome variable items from Study 2.

Survey item 1 2 3 4 She [He] sticks to her [his] word. .97

Sound principles seem to guide her [his] .77 behavior. She [He] is very consistent in her [his] actions. .71

She [He] has a strong sense of justice. .68

I respect her [his] values. .60

What is the likelihood that you would interview .86 her [him]? She [he] would make a good leader. .83

How much better or worse do you think this candidate is compared to other possible .65 candidates? What is the likelihood that you would hire her .58 [him]? If you were to hire her, what would you recommend her starting salary be from .56

$90,000/year to $120,000/year? To what extent is she [he] self-reliant? .97

To what extent is she [he] independent? .85

To what extent is she [he] dominant? .95

To what extent is she [he] forceful? .90

How competent or incompetent do you think she [he] is?

Table 4

Means and standard deviations for all outcome variables from Study 2.

Male applicant Female applicant

Dominant Self-reliant Dominant Self-reliant

M SD M SD M SD M SD

DV: Desire to hire the applicant 0.13 0.71 -0.02 0.72 -0.31 0.81 0.16 0.79

88 (z-scored)

DV: Perceived trustworthiness 3.81 0.70 3.65 0.49 3.32 0.85 3.74 0.65

DV: Perceived competence 4.30 0.61 4.32 0.70 4.30 0.70 4.53 0.79

DV: Perceived self-reliance 4.02 0.74 4.24 0.68 4.18 0.94 4.43 0.68 (manipulation check) DV: Perceived dominance 3.91 1.16 3.11 0.73 4.27 0.95 3.29 1.20 (z-scored manipulation check)

Table 5

Results from a principle axis factor analysis with promax rotation on all of the outcome variable items from Study 3.

Survey item 1 2 3 4 She [He] has a forceful or dominant personality. .86

She [He] tries to control others. .84

She [He] enjoys having authority over other people. .84

To what extent is she [he] dominant? .80

To what extent is she [he] motivated by a desire to have power over others? .79

To what extent is she [he] forceful? .73

She [He] has a strong sense of justice. .87

She [He] is very consistent in her [his] actions. .84

She [He] sticks to her [his] word. .84

I respect her [his] values. .80

Sound principles seem to guide her [his] behavior. .67

To what extent is she [he] self-reliant? .89

To what extent is she [he] independent? .81 How often do you think she [he] depends on others (reverse-scored)? .72 How much do you think she [he] being able to accomplish things on her [his] own? .70 How easy or difficult was it to read the webpage? .69 How much do you like or dislike the layout of the webpage? .69

How likely or unlikely is it that you would vote for her [him] if she [he] ran for the U.S. Senate? How competent or incompetent do you think she [he] is?

Table 6

Means and standard deviations for all outcome variables from Study 3.

Male politician Female politician

Dominant Self-reliant Dominant Self-reliant

90 M SD M SD M SD M SD

DV: Willingness to vote 4.19 1.55 3.89 1.37 4.43 1.40 5.00 0.82 for U.S. senate DV: Perceived 4.66 1.12 4.78 0.93 4.95 1.05 5.34 0.72 trustworthiness DV: Perceived 5.66 1.15 5.56 1.05 5.86 1.11 6.21 0.92 competence DV: Perceived self- reliance (manipulation 3.64 0.69 4.17 0.86 3.88 0.57 4.30 0.61 check) DV: Perceived dominance (z scored manipulation 0.22 0.70 0.05 0.91 1.05 0.82 -0.41 0.79 check)

Table 7

Results from a principle axis factor analysis with promax rotation on all of the outcome variable items from Study 4.

Survey item 1 2 3 4 She [He] tries to control others. .80

To what extent is she [he] forceful? .79 She [He] has a forceful or dominant personality. .78

She [He] enjoys having authority over others. .72 To what extent is she [he] dominant? .71 To what extent is she [he] motivated by a desire to have power over others? .71 She sticks to her [his] word. .86 Sound principles seem to guide her [his] behavior. .78 I respect her [his] values. .72

She [He] has a strong sense of justice. .71 She [He] is very consistent in her [his] actions. .65

To what extent is she [he] self-reliant? .96

To what extent is she [he] independent? .88

How much do you think she [he] values being able to accomplish things on her [his] own? .76 How often do you think she [he] depends on others (reverse-scored)? .49 Overall, how successful or unsuccessful do you think Facebook [LinkedIn] will be over the next five years? .78 If you had the opportunity and funds to invest in Facebook [LinkedIn], how much would you be willing to invest from $0.00 to $1000? .55 How much do you think a share of Facebook [LinkedIn] should be valued at from $0.00 to $100 a share? .52 How competent of incompetent do you think she [he] is?

Table 8

Means and standard deviations among study variables from Study 4.

Jeff Weiner Sheryl Sandberg

No specific No specific Dominant type of Self-reliant Dominant type of Self-reliant agency agency

M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

DV: Desire to invest in

92 the executive's 0.08 0.68 0.16 0.58 0.00 0.72 -0.23 0.77 -0.25 0.92 0.11 0.83

company (z-scored) DV: Perceived 5.20 0.91 4.99 0.88 5.15 0.91 4.98 1.06 5.24 0.92 5.61 0.99 trustworthiness

DV: Perceived 6.47 0.94 6.68 0.59 6.59 0.69 6.66 0.61 6.69 0.55 6.72 0.58 competence DV: Perceived self- reliance (manipulation 4.08 0.68 3.82 0.64 4.46 0.74 4.05 0.66 4.27 0.49 4.57 0.56 check) DV: Perceived - dominance (z-scored 0.10 0.86 -0.28 0.66 0.08 0.79 0.22 0.79 -0.10 0.75 0.86 0.01 manipulation check)

Figure 1

The effect of a target’s gender, the type of agency he or she displayed, and the degree of agency he or she displayed on

perceived competence and perceived trustworthiness from Study 1.

5 DV: Perceived competence DV: Perceived trustworthiness

4 Low 93

High

1 Dominance Self-reliance Dominance Self-reliance Dominance Self-reliance Dominance Self-reliance Male target Female target Male target Female target

Figure 2

The effect of a job applicant’s gender and the type of agency he or she displayed on participants’ desire to hire him or her from Study 2.

0.5 DV: Desire to hire the job applicant Dominant

Self-reliant 0.25

-0.25

-0.5 Male applicant Female applicant

Note. The dependent measure is the z-scored composite measure of participants’ desire to hire the job applicant. Error bars are +- SE.

Figure 3

The effect of a job applicant’s gender and the type of agency he or she displayed on participants’ perceptions of his or her competence and trustworthiness from Study 2.

5 DV: Perceived DV: Perceived trustworthiness competence Dominant

4.5 Self-reliant

3.5

3 Male Female Male Female applicant applicant applicant applicant

Note. Both variables were measured on 5-point scales. Standard errors represent +-SE.

Figure 4

The effect of a politician’s gender and the type of agency he or she displayed on participants’ willingness to vote for him or her and

their perceptions of his or her competence and trustworthiness from Study 3.

7 DV: Willingness to vote DV: Perceived DV: Perceived competence for U.S. Senate trustworthiness

6 Dominant

Self-relian

96 5

1 Male politician Female politician Male politician Female politician Male politician Female politician

Note. All three variables were measured on 7-point scales. Standard errors represent +-SE.

Figure 5

The effect of a Silicon Valley executives’ gender and the type of agency that he or she displayed on participants’ desire to invest in his or her company from Study 4.

.45 DV: Desire to invest in the executive's Dominant company (i.e., Facebook or LinkedIn) No specific agentic trait Self-reliant .30

.15

.00

-.15

-.30

-.45 Jeff Weiner Sheryl Sandberg

Note. The dependent measure as the z-scored composite measure of participants’ desire to invest in the executive’s company (i.e., Facebook or LinkedIn). Error bars are +- SE.

Figure 6

The effect of a Silicon Valley executives’ gender and the type of agency that he or she displayed on participants’ perceptions of his or her competence and trustworthiness from Study 4.

Dominant DV: Perceived DV: Perceived trustworthiness competence No specific 7 agentic trait Self-reliant

4 Jeff Weiner Sheryl Jeff Weiner Sheryl Sandberg Sandberg

Note. Both variables were measured on 7-point scales. Standard errors represent +-SE.

Appendix A

Example of the manipulation of the type of agency and the degree of agency the target displayed from Study 1. The stimuli below were used in the female target condition.

Filler personality items used in all conditions

High self-reliance condition

Low self-reliance condition

100

High dominance condition

Low dominance condition

101

Appendix B

Example of the cover letter, resume, and letter of recommendation used to manipulate the type of agency that the male and female job applicants displayed in Study 2. The following materials were used to in the female/self-reliance condition.

Cover letter

102

Resume

103

Letter of recommendation

104

Appendix C

Example of the materials used to manipulate the type of agency that the male and female politicians displayed in Study 3. The following materials were used to in the self-reliance condition.

105

106

Appendix D

Example of the materials used to manipulate the executive and the type of agency the executive displayed in Study 4. The following materials are from the self-reliant condition.

107