Author's personal copy

Journal of Experimental 46 (2010) 672–675

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jesp

FlashReport Just the thought of it!: Effects of anticipating computer-mediated communication on gender stereotyping

Madeline E. Heilman *, Suzette Caleo, May Ling Halim

New York University, 6 Washington Place, Room 550, New York, NY 10003, United States article info abstract

Article history: A study investigated how anticipated communication mode affects the use of in forming Received 1 August 2009 impressions and making task assignments. Participants rated male or female targets with whom they Revised 9 February 2010 envisioned working on a business project using computer-mediated or face-to-face modes of communi- Available online 25 February 2010 cation. Results indicated that both men and women were characterized more stereotypically when par- ticipants anticipated working with them electronically than when they anticipated working with them Keywords: face-to-face. Furthermore, task assignments were more often gender consistent when the Computer-mediated communication communication mode was computer-mediated than when it was face-to-face. These findings suggest Communication mode that the mere anticipation of computer-mediated communication, without the actual the experience of Stereotypes Gender stereotypes it, is enough to promote stereotypes and biased decision-making. Impression formation Ó 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

An increase in the use of computer-mediated communication results in seeing less in-group heterogeneity and intergroup simi- (CMC) has prompted researchers to document how CMC influences larity, which thus engenders frequent use of stereotypes in social interactions (Kiesler, Siegel, & McGuire, 1984). This work has other-perception (Lea et al., 2001; Postmes et al., 2002) and self- focused on a variety of outcomes (e.g., Bordia, 1997; Lee, 2004; Lee, perception (Postmes & Spears, 2002). 2006; Olaniran, 1994; Tanis & Postmes, 2005), including impres- These explanations all share the common assumption that the sion formation. Findings suggest that electronic compared to experience of CMC promotes stereotyping — that the physical prop- face-to-face interaction leads to less individuated impressions of erties and design features of CMC produce its social effects. In con- targets (Hancock & Dunham, 2001; Tanis & Postmes, 2003), and trast, we believe that the effect of CMC on impression formation, therefore greater use of stereotypes (Lea, Spears, & de Groot, and in particular the use of stereotypes in other-perception, is 2001; Postmes, Spears, & Lea, 2002). not necessarily dependent on actually communicating via com- There have been several explanations for these findings. Social puter or even being present in the CMC situation. Instead, we pro- presence theory posits that interactions that are not face-to-face pose that when individuals know that they are going to be using an impart a reduced sense of ‘‘social presence,” or awareness of the electronic rather than a face-to-face communication mode, they other as a real person (Short, 1974; Short, Williams, & Christie, recognize that they are going to be visually anonymous and their 1976). The cuelessness model (Rutter & Stephenson, 1979) argues interactions highly ambiguous. By engaging in mental imagery that the lack of social cues inherent in communication that is not (James, 1890/1950; Kosslyn, Thompson, & Ganis, 2006), they can face-to-face results in depersonalization. Other theories have sug- picture these features of the communication situation simply by gested that the anonymity inherent in electronic communication is envisioning the event transpiring. They therefore expect to have responsible for deindividuation (Kiesler et al., 1984) and greater less individuated about their co-communicators and stereotyping. The more comprehensive social identity model of to feel more deindividuated themselves, and these expectations deindividuation effects (SIDE) builds upon this idea, but also draws become the basis of the impression formation process. Conse- upon social identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) and self-categorization quently, we contend that anticipating CMC, without actually expe- theories (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) to argue riencing it, can be sufficient to promote stereotyping. that the anonymity of CMC causes perceivers to become more sen- The current study tests this idea, contrasting the effects of CMC sitive to group membership cues (Reicher, Spears, & Postmes, and face-to-face communication that is anticipated, not experi- 1995; Spears & Lea, 1992). According to SIDE theorists, the deper- enced. We hold the amount and quality of actual interaction con- sonalization of self and other generated by the anonymity of CMC stant and vary only the communication mode the participant expects to use. Our focus is on gender stereotypes. We propose that the anticipation of CMC will promote gender stereotyping, affect- * Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (M.E. Heilman). ing how women and men are perceived and determinations about

0022-1031/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.02.005 Author's personal copy

M.E. Heilman et al. / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 46 (2010) 672–675 673 the work roles for which they are best suited. Specifically, we ex- was also included. The photos were pretested to ensure equiva- pect that gender-stereotyped characterizations of targets (women lence in attractiveness and perceived competence, and each ap- as communal and people-oriented and men as agentic and task- peared equally frequently with each of the biographies. oriented) will be more likely, and task assignment decisions more consistent with gender stereotypes, when the communication Communication mode mode is anticipated to be computer-mediated than when it is Communication mode was manipulated in the instructions pre- anticipated to be face-to-face. ceding each biography. For one target participants were told that, ‘‘You will be working with this individual through e-mail and in- Method stant messenger” and for the other, they were told that ‘‘You will be working with this individual face-to-face”. Participants and design Dependent measures Sixty-four undergraduates (21 men, 42 women, 1 unspecified) enrolled in psychology courses participated for course credit. The Stereotyping was measured using rating scales and comparative study design was a 2 2 mixed factorial, with communication characterizations. Scales of perceived communality (stereotypi- Â mode (face-to-face or computer-mediated) the within-subjects cally female) and perceived agency (stereotypically male) were factor and sex of target (male or female) the between-subjects fac- created. The perceived communality scale was composed of three tor. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the target sex 9-point bipolar adjective ratings (warm–cold, compassionate- conditions. hard-hearted, tender-gruff; a = .83). The perceived agency scale was composed of two 9-point bipolar adjective ratings (strong– Procedure weak, dominant-yielding; a = .80). Comparative characterizations were obtained on the final questionnaire. Participants indicated The study was described as an investigation of the use of differ- their beliefs about which of the individuals they reviewed was ent communication modes in the workplace. Participants were told the more people-oriented (stereotypically female) and which was that they would be taking on the role of an employee heading up a the more task-oriented (stereotypically male). team at a consumer products company that was preparing for the Task assignment decisions also were obtained on the final ques- company’s annual investors’ meeting. They were further told that tionnaire. Told that they could assign only one individual to each one of their duties would be to assign two different work tasks task, they were asked, ‘‘Who would you assign to the Financial Re- to co-workers. search task?” and, ‘‘Who would you assign to the Investor Relations The first task, ‘‘Financial Research”, was designed to be male task?”. gender-typed. It involved the preparation of financial information. Responsibilities included preparing financial reports, organizing Results financial data in presentations, and overseeing data analysis. Requirements included strong analytical and quantitative skills Initial analyses and an ability to take on the role of a consultant. It also required someone who could be direct, decisive, and authoritative. Initial analyses indicated our experimental manipulations were The second task, ‘‘Investor Relations”, was designed to be fe- successful. Reports of targets’ names verified that all participants male gender-typed. It involved pre-meeting contact with investors. were aware of the sex of the employees. Also, all participants cor- Responsibilities included contacting investors about logistics, rectly indicated whether the mode of communication with each arranging packages for investors’ stay, and answering all investors’ employee was to be computer-mediated or face-to-face. Addition- questions. Requirements included strong interpersonal and human ally, on a 9-point ‘‘feminine-masculine” scale the financial research relations skills and an ability to build trusting relationships. It also task was rated as more masculine (M = 5.84, SD = 1.64) than the required someone who could be understanding and supportive. investor relations task (M = 4.16, SD = 1.32), t(63) = 5.32, p < .001. After reading both task descriptions, participants reviewed To test for differences in male and female participants’ re- information about two same-sex employees. They were told that sponses, we added participant sex as an additional independent both employees were to be on their team preparing for the inves- variable in the analyses of the dependent measures. ANOVAs indi- tors’ meeting, and that they would be working with each individual cated no significant interactions involving participant sex for the through either face-to-face or computer-mediated communication. attribute ratings. Chi-square tests also revealed no significant They then read a brief biography of the first employee that in- interactions involving participant sex for either the task assign- cluded information on work and school history and completed a ments or comparative characterizations with one exception, which questionnaire. This sequence was repeated for the second employ- is noted below. Thus, male and female participants’ data were col- ee. Because each participant reviewed two employees, there were lapsed for all subsequent analyses, except where noted. two different versions of the biography, each designed to be equiv- Means and standard deviations of the attribute ratings appear alent but not identical. Both biographies were paired equally often in Table 1. Table 2 presents the frequencies and percentages for with each communication mode, and the order of presentation of the comparative characterizations and the task assignment the biographies was systematically varied. After reviewing the decisions. employees, participants completed a final questionnaire and were fully debriefed and thanked. Attribute ratings

Experimental manipulations Communality An ANOVA revealed a general tendency for women to be viewed Sex of target employee as more communal than men, F(1, 62) = 8.35, p = .005, g2 = .12, as Each subject reviewed either two male or two female employ- well as a significant interaction between communication mode ees. Employee sex was varied by name and gender-relevant pro- and target sex, F(1, 62) = 9.14, p = .004, g2 = .13. Intercell compar- nouns in the employee biography. A photograph of the employee isons indicated that, as predicted, female targets were seen as more Author's personal copy

674 M.E. Heilman et al. / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 46 (2010) 672–675

Table 1 who they thought they would communicate with electronically to Means (and standard deviations) for stereotypic characterizations. the female gender-typed task (investor relations) than the female 2 Attribute ratings target they thought they would interact with face-to-face, v (1, Experimental condition Communal Agentic N = 64) = 12.25, p < .001, U = .44. Also, participants were more likely to assign the male target who they thought they would communi- Male target cate with electronically to the male-typed task (financial research) Computer-mediated 5.48a (1.06) 6.25a (1.43)

Face-to-face 5.93a (0.94) 5.39b (1.12) than the male target they thought they would interact with face- 2 Female target to-face, v (1, N = 64) = 4.00, p = .046, U = .25.

Computer-mediated 6.64b (1.17) 5.66a,b (1.61)

Face-to-face 5.88a (1.23) 5.80a,b (1.34) Discussion Note: The higher the mean, the higher the communality and agency ratings. Ratings were done on 9-point scales, with n = 32 in the male target condition and n =32in the female target condition. Means in the same column that do not share subscripts The results of this study indicate that computer-mediated com- significantly differ at p < .05. munication can provoke stereotyping even without actual experi- ence of the medium. They therefore suggest that direct communal when communication was expected to be computer- experience of CMC’s design features – lack of social contact, visual mediated than when it was expected to be face-to-face, anonymity, and ambiguity due to the absence of non-verbal and t(31) = 2.55, p = .016, d = .64. There was no significant difference paralinguistic cues – is not necessary for stereotyping to occur. in the communality ratings of the male targets as a consequence The mere anticipation of CMC was found to be sufficient. of anticipated communication mode, t(31) = 1.69, ns. Anticipating CMC produced both stereotypic perceptions and stereotype-driven judgments. When the communication mode was expected to be computer-mediated, both men and women Agency were characterized in more gender stereotypic terms. This finding An ANOVA of the agency ratings indicated that there was a sig- takes on additional importance given recent work suggesting that nificant interaction between communication mode and sex of tar- these initial impressions are likely to persevere when people actu- get, F(1, 62) = 4.92, p = .030, g2 = .07. As predicted, male targets ally engage in communication using e-mail (Epley & Kruger, 2005). were rated as more agentic when communication was expected Moreover, the effect of anticipating CMC was not confined only to to be computer-mediated than when it was expected to be face- impressions, but also affected judgments about individuals’ suit- to-face, t(31) = 2.98, p = .006, d = .75. There was no significant dif- ability for different types of work, increasing the likelihood of ste- ference in agency ratings of the female targets as a consequence reotype-consistent task assignment decisions. of communication mode, t(31) = .41, ns. Because we focused on gender stereotypes, our findings have spe- cific implications for women. Gender stereotypes carry presump- Comparative characterizations tions of incompetence in gender-inconsistent arenas, and, although this affects men as well as women, the tasks and roles that When asked to choose which of the targets – the one with whom typically are most respected and desired in achievement settings are they were to work electronically or the one with whom they were to those that are considered to be traditionally male. Female stereo- work face-to-face – was the more people-oriented and which was types feed the perception that women do not have the attributes re- the more task-oriented, the results differed depending on the tar- quired to perform successfully in these male gender-typed domains, gets’ sex. Results were consistent with our hypotheses. When the and therefore limit women’s access to them (Eagly & Karau, 2002; target was female, those with whom computer-mediated communi- Heilman, 2001; Heilman & Parks-Stamm, 2007). Indeed, the pattern cation was expected were more often identified as the more people- of gender-consistent task assignments evidenced in this study is 2 oriented of the two, v (1, N = 64) = 16.00, p < .001, U = .50. When the illustrative of the potentially negative consequences of gender ste- target was male, those with whom computer-mediated communica- reotypes for women in work situations. The fact that this response tion was expected were more often identified as the more task-ori- pattern was prompted by something as subtle, and as prevalent, as 2 ented of the two, v (1, N = 64) = 6.28, p = .012, U = .32, and, in the the anticipation of CMC is particularly troubling. one instance in which we found a participant sex effect, this pattern Although the results support our hypotheses, they do not pro- was more pronounced for male than for female participants. vide a definitive explanation of why the mere anticipation of CMC had these effects. To understand the process underlying our Task assignment decisions results, it is necessary in future research to measure self-percep- tions, self-stereotyping, and levels of identification to determine Chi-square analyses of the assignment of tasks to the targets whether the outcomes delineated by the SIDE model occur when revealed a significant effect, v2(1, N = 64) = 7.63,p= .006. As pre- CMC is not directly experienced. It also is important to find out dicted, participants were more likely to assign the female target whether consequences other than stereotyping known to result

Table 2 Frequencies (and percentages) of within-sex comparative judgments.

Attribute choice Task assignment Experimental condition People-oriented Task-oriented Investor relations Financial research Female target Computer-mediated 24 (75.00%) 8 (25.00%) 23 (72.00%) 9 (28.00%) Face-to-face 8 (25.00%) 24 (75.00%) 9 (28.00%) 23 (72.00%) Male target Computer-mediated 12 (37.50%) 22 (68.75%) 12 (37.50%) 20 (62.50%) Face-to-face 20 (62.50%) 10 (31.25%) 20 (62.50%) 12 (37.50%)

Note: Two participants characterized the male target with whom communication would be computer-mediated as the most people-oriented and the most task-oriented compared to the male target with whom communication would be face-to-face. Results remained significant even if these participants were removed from the analyses. Author's personal copy

M.E. Heilman et al. / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 46 (2010) 672–675 675 from CMC occur when CMC is only anticipated. Additionally, it will Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes be useful to consider factors that regulate whether and when antic- prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 657–674. ipated CMC impacts stereotyping. This includes investigating Heilman, M. E., & Parks-Stamm, E. J. (2007). Gender stereotypes in the workplace. whether the results differ when subsequent interaction is immi- Obstacles to women’s career . In S. J. Correll (Ed.). Social Psychology of nent rather than only imagined, and contextual elements such as Gender: Advances in Group Processes (Vol. 24, pp. 47–77). JAI Press: Elsevier Ltd.. James, W. (1950). The principles of psychology. New York: Dover (Original work the co-communicator’s in-group or out-group status and the ex- published 1890). pected permanence of the work relationship. It also includes indi- Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer- vidual differences that might limit the capacity for mental imagery mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123–1134. Kosslyn, S. M., Thompson, W. L., & Ganis, G. (2006). The case for mental imagery. New in this situation, such as the amount of past experience with CMC. York: Oxford University Press. Exploring these and other potential moderators will lend insight Lea, M., Spears, R., & de Groot, D. (2001). Knowing me, knowing you: Anonymity not only into the conditions that regulate the effects we demon- effects on social identity processes within groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 526–537. strated, but also into the process that mediates it. Finally, because Lee, E. J. (2004). Effects of visual representation on social influence in computer- our results demonstrate only that anticipated CMC affects stereo- mediated communication: Experimental tests of the social identity model of typing, not that it affects stereotyping to the same degree or in deindividuation effects. Human Communication Research, 30, 234–259. the same way as does actual experience with CMC, it is important Lee, E. J. (2006). When and how does depersonalization increase to group norms in computer-mediated communication? Communication Research, to compare both in the same study to assess whether anticipation 33, 423–447. accounts for all or only part of CMC’s effects. Olaniran, B. A. (1994). Group performance in computer-mediated and face-to-face Despite the many questions yet to be addressed, this study’s communication media. Management Communication Quarterly, 7, 256–281. Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2002). Behavior online: Does anonymous computer findings are clear in their implications. By demonstrating that the communication reduce gender inequality? Personality and Social Psychology mere anticipation of CMC promoted stereotyping, they indicate Bulletin, 28, 1073–1083. that the effects of CMC can occur even when the actual amount Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (2002). Intergroup differentiation in computer- mediated communication: Effects of depersonalization. , 6, of individuating information it provides is no different than that 3–16. available in the face-to-face communication mode. The findings Reicher, S. D., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (1995). A social identity model of therefore suggest that the prevailing theories designed to explain deindividuation phenomena. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.). European review of social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 161–198). England: Wiley Chichester. reactions to CMC need to be re-examined and the role of percep- Rutter, D. R., & Stephenson, G. M. (1979). The role of visual communication in social tions more fully considered if we are to understand, and potentially interaction. Current Anthropology, 20, 124–125. affect, the impact of computer-mediated communication on Short, J. A. (1974). Effects of medium of communication on experimental negotiation. Human Relations, 27, 325–334. impression formation. Short, J. A., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. New York: Wiley. Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1992). Social influence and the influence of the social in computer-mediated communication. In M. Lea (Ed.), Contexts of computer- References mediated communication (pp. 30–65). Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Bordia, P. (1997). Face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication: A S. Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). synthesis of the experimental literature. Journal of Business Communication, Chicago: Nelson-Hall. 34, 99–120. Tanis, M., & Postmes, T. (2003). Social cues and impression formation in CMC. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female Journal of Communication, 53, 676–693. leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598. Tanis, M., & Postmes, T. (2005). A social identity approach to trust: Interpersonal Epley, N., & Kruger, J. (2005). When what you type isn’t what they read: The perception, group membership and trusting behavior. European Journal of Social perseverance of stereotypes and expectancies over email. Journal of Psychology, 35, 413–424. Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 414–422. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Hancock, J. T., & Dunham, P. J. (2001). Impression formation in computer-mediated Rediscovering the : A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Basil communication revisited: An analysis of the breadth and intensity of Blackwell. impressions. Communication Research, 28, 325–347.