1
MSc Thesis
The interactive effect of gender and age stereotypes on the
changing work force:
A deviation from traditional norms.
Roosje van Baren
10811494
Supervisor: Tanja Hentschel
2
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Student Roosje van Baren who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document are original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
3 Abstract
The aim of this thesis was to research whether age and gender had an effect on the evaluations of people who had either an accomplished or an unaccomplished career. Literature on age stereotyping emphasizes how older people on the work floor are generally assumed to be affected by negative stereotyping causing negative evaluation ratings. Literature on gender stereotyping has pointed out that both men and women are victimized for violating gender normative behavior, resulting in backlash. However, a new movement in the literature suggests that for agentic women this backlash effect is fading. For this research eight
vignettes were created which contained fictional stories of people who differed in gender, age, and career accomplishment. Participants (N = 313) were randomly assigned to one of the eight conditions and asked to evaluate the subject on the vignette on competence, status, success, agency and communality. The results showed that only unaccomplished older women were evaluated as less communal than unaccomplished younger women. All other groups were evaluated the same on all five evaluation criteria.
4
Inhoud
1. Introduction ... 5
2. Theoretical Framework ... 8
2.1 Defining Career Success ... 8
2.2 Age Stereotypes and Content ... 10
2.3 Gender Stereotypes ... 13
2.3.1 Gender stereotypes of Women ... 14
2.3.2 Gender stereotypes of Men ... 17
3. Methodology ... 19
3.1 Design ... 19
3.2 Participants ... 19
3.3 Procedure ... 20
3.4 Experimental manipulations ... 21
3.4.1 Sex of the subject ... 22
3.4.2 Age of the subject... 22
3.4.3 Career accomplishment of the subject... 23
3.5 Dependent measures ... 24
4. Results ... 26
4.1 Hypotheses testing ... 26
4.1.1 Career accomplishment ... 26
4.1.2 Intersection of age and career accomplishment ... 27
4.1.3 Intersection of gender, age, and career accomplishment ... 28
5. Discussion, limitations, and practical implications ... 32
5.1 Discussion ... 32 5.2 Limitations ... 34 5.3 Practical implications ... 35 6. Conclusion ... 36 7. Bibliography ... 37 8. Appendices ... 46
5
1. Introduction
The composition of the workforce is changing. The participation rate of women in the labor force has increased substantially during the 20th century (OECD, 2018). So much, that in the last two decades the worldwide female-to-male labor force ratio has been fluctuating around 50 percent (The World Bank, 2017). Moreover, in 2015, out of five million European graduates, 52 percent were female whereas 48 percent were male (Eurostat, 2017). More and more do women choose to remain employed after having children, and do men choose to take on family responsibilities (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2009). The quantity of career opportunities for women is increasing and stereotypical beliefs about the division of family responsibilities make room for new, more contemporary beliefs (Spence & Hahn, 1997). The traditionalistic views regarding male and female roles have already become a lot less “traditional” but there is still room for improvement, especially in the workforce. Biernat and Deaux’s (2012) study in which male cognitive skills and abilities were compared to female skills and abilities, found almost no difference between the two genders. Despite these facts, in 2016, only 5 percent of European CEO positions were occupied by women (Catalyst, 2017).
Moreover, the workforce is aging and will continue to do so in the future. By 2050 the US work force is expected to be comprised for 19 percent by the 55- and older age group (Toossi, 2002). An increase of the workforce is anticipated for all industrialized nations, due to the large baby boom generation who are remaining in the workforce (Armstrong-Stassen & Templer, 2004). An empirical review of European studies on the subject of old age employment constraints even found that, among other things, older employees were affected by age discrimination through set age limits in recruitment (Taylor & Urwin, 2001).
Stereotypes are defined as generalizations, positive or negative, about certain groups and their group members (Taylor, Fiske, Etcoff, & Ruderman, 1978). Multiple studies have shown the disadvantageous effect of gender and age stereotypes on the work floor (e.g. Carli &
6
Eagly, 1999; Kulik & Cregan, 2016), and it has continued to be a topic of interest. Specially to explain the underrepresentation of women in leadership positions, (Eagly & Sczesny, 2009; Lemm, Dabady, & Banaji, 2005) and how biases can impede their career development, even though they possess the same qualifications as men (Eagly, 2012). In the same way, older employees obtain less opportunities because they are often, unfairly, perceived as unessential and expensive in comparison to younger employees, and consequently evaluated as less valuable than young employees (Peeters & Emmerik, 2008). These examples illustrate how stereotypes in organizational settings still induce evaluation biases which can hinder, but also favor, career development.
The aim of this study will be to investigate how the demographic characteristics age and gender influence the relationship between objective career accomplishments and people evaluation. This is an interesting line of work to pursue because firstly, objective career evaluation studies have mainly focused on the topic of career accomplishment and failure as a dependent outcome rather than as an independent input (e.g. Melamed, 1995; Hoeksema, Van De Vliert, & Williams, 1997). Secondly, literature on age stereotypes is limited in comparison to the existing literature on gender stereotypes, especially the literature on ageism in the workplace (Finkelstein, King, & Voyles, 2015). And thirdly, gender and age stereotypes are often studied independently, so there is less known about their interaction effect on other workplace criteria (Raver & Nishii, 2010). Since stereotypes still induce negative evaluations towards certain groups of people in the workplace, gaining a better understanding of the motives behind them is important. The following research question has been constructed:
How do career accomplishments affect the evaluation of old versus young men and
7 Figure 1. Conceptual model of the research question.
The structure of this thesis will be as followed: a framework of literature on related topics will be presented in the next part which will lead to hypotheses. This will be followed up by the methodology, in which the methods which will be used for gathering the data to test the hypotheses will be explained. The result part will discuss the relevant results which are found during the data analyzation. The discussion, will provide theoretical and practical implications, accompanied by suggestions for future research. Lastly, this paper will close with a conclusion in which the research question will be answered based on the most important findings of the study.
8
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1 Defining Career Success
For multiple decades, researchers have been trying to define the correct terminology for
career. Continuous changes in organizational structures (e.g. the rise of globalization, or
organizational restructuring) have been important causes inducing continuous alterations of the terminology (Mirvis & Hall, 1994; Rousseau, 1990). Traditionally, career was defined as a sequence of hierarchically organized jobs, wherein with the succession of each job, an individual would be assigned more power and prestige (Wilensky, 1961). Later literature defined career as “the combination and sequence of roles played by a person during the course of a lifetime” (Super, 1980, p. 282). At present, the most frequently used and established definition of career has been defined by Arthur, Hall, and Lawrence (1989) as “the unfolding sequence of a person’s work experiences over time” (p. 178). This description approaches the content of career clearly without defining career success or giving it a direction (Arthur, Khapova, &Wilderom, 2005).
The definitional changes of career have also caused a shift in the terminology of career accomplishment. Judge, Cable, Boudreau, and Bretz (1995) define career accomplishment as “positive psychological or work-related outcomes or achievements one has accumulated as a result of one’s work experiences” (p. 486). The boundaries to having an accomplished career are fading because people believe that career opportunities have become easier to acquire (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996). This is partly do due the fact that the general definition of an accomplished career is shifting towards a more personal interpretation (Hall, 2002). Modern research no longer defines career accomplishment in terms of job succession, but rather uses the term experiences to indicate the accomlishments of an individual throughout their work life (Savickas, 1995). In analyzing career accomplishment, literature distinguishes objective from
9
others can reliably evaluate (e.g. public observations of achievement such as pay). Subjective career accomplishment, even though influenced by objective criteria, refers to an individual’s own sense of achievement (Van Maanen, 1977; Arthur, et al., 2005).
Yet, developed theories and models defining the implications of career outcomes in general do not differentiate different career advancement opportunities (Orser & Leck, 2010). Career achievements are based on a one-size fits all theory, and scholars are starting to question the validity of this assumption. Judge et al. (1995) generated a contemporary model showing the personal and structural influencers of career outcomes. Gender and age were found to be two of a few demographic factors which had a significant effect on both objective and subjective career accomplishment. Exactly how these demographics influenced evaluation was not further investigated.
Furthermore, people can be evaluated on multiple characteristics, however, there are some characteristics that are more frequently used and known to be necessary to have an accomplished career. For this research I have chosen to define evaluation in using the criteria competence, status, and success (e.g. Moss-Racusin, Phelan, & Rudman, 2010; Melamed, 1995):
H1. Accomplished people will be rated higher on Competence, Status, and Success than
10 2.2 Age Stereotypes and Content
People develop stereotypes to simplify the complexity of their surroundings (Heilman, 1983). Stereotypes serve as “energy-saving devices, allowing perceivers to form impressions quickly, enabling them to easily respond to and make more predictable the highly complex world confronting them” (Macrae, Milne, & Bodenhausen, 1994, p. 37). In the situation of meeting a new person, we use stereotyping to categorize him or her faster or remember him or her better (Klatzky & Anderson, 1988). Stereotypical beliefs are activated unconsciously, which gives us the opportunity to respond quickly to potential dangers. However, they are not only activated unconsciously, but also highly impactful in our thoughts and choices. They can influence our judgement of other people so that our perception of others is not formed based on what a person has done as an individual, but rather on our thoughts and associations of the group to which he or she belongs (Heilman, 2012).
When analyzing stereotypes, literature distinguishes descriptive from prescriptive stereotypes. Descriptive stereotypes include the beliefs of how people typically are. It is our description to what general characteristics we expect members of a group to have. In opposition, the prescriptive component states the expectations of how people are supposed to behave, and more specifically, what characteristics they should possess (Cota, Reid, & Dion, 1991; Fiske & Stevens, 1993; Eagly & Karau, 2002, Burges & Borgida, 1999).
A group commonly affected by stereotypes are older adults. Studies show that age is one of the first characteristics we notice from other people and that it strongly shapes our first impression of other people (Kite, Deaux, & Miele, 1991). Moreover, almost everyone will, at least at one point in their life, be affected negatively by age stereotyping (Manfredi & Vickers, 2009). In example, most countries have set a mandatory retirement age on which older people are expected to retire from the workforce with the goal of creating opportunities for younger people to access better jobs. Disregarding whether or not there are individuals of the affected
11
group that want to maintain in the workforce. This chosen age is mostly based on a generalization stating that people of age suffer from declining physical, cognitive and memory abilities, therefore being less competent than their younger counterparts (Cuddy & Fiske, 2002). It is only one of many examples of (unconscious) age discrimination against older people. Despite this given and the fact that aging affects everyone, substantial less research has been done on the effect of age stereotyping as opposed to gender stereotyping (Posthuma, Wagstaff, & Campion, 2012).
A common descriptive stereotype associated with age is the so called poor performance stereotype which states that “older workers have lower ability, are less motivated, and are less productive than younger workers” (Posthuma & Campion, 2009, p. 161). This stereotype assumes that older employees have lower mental and physical abilities and are less competent which results in lower job performance (McCann & Giles, 2002). Even though these stereotypes are commonly presumed, in reality very little evidence on the relationship between increasing age and decreasing job performance exists (Reio, Sanders-Rejo, & Reio, 1999). Rosen and Jerdee (1988) even found evidence stating the opposite: they found that performance improves with age since mature individuals have obtained more knowledge throughout their careers, making them capable to handle more situations.
Another common stereotype is that older employees have a lower ability to learn and therefore “have less potential for development” (Posthuma & Campion, 2009, p. 162). Studies have shown that these age-related stereotypes also influence outcomes of decisions related to employment in multiple situations (Taylor, 2001). Aviolo and Barrett (1987) found that overall, older employees score lower in performance appraisals and interviews than their younger counterpart who hold the same qualifications because younger people are perceived to have higher future potential. Gringart, Helmes, and Speelman (2013) added to this that younger employees are seen as more productive because they still have time to grow out their careers.
12
This could be because older employees are commonly characterized by and associated with low status and low competence ratings (Cuddy & Fiske, 2004; Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002). But even though mixed results have been found among researchers researching the validity of this stereotype (Posthuma & Campion, 2009), Gordon and Avery (2004) confirmed that there is an existing general preference for hiring younger employees.
Literature on age stereotypes has mainly focused on researching the descriptive stereotypes associated with age, consequently, the body of literature on prescriptive age stereotypes is substantially more limited (North and Fiske, 2012). Though common assumptions about age stereotypes are that older employees are generally approached from a group-level perspective (Cottrel & Neuberg, 2005), meaning that it is assumed that all old people are the same, and that they are not constant, e.g. people grow in and out of certain expectations (Cuddy, Norton, & Fiske, 2005). Throughout our careers, how much status people we get assigned by others fluctuates, and it peaks with middle-agers. Young people are assigned less status because they have not gotten the time yet to gather the resources needed to be successful (e.g. knowledge). Though, older employees who have failed to gather the right resources are struck by a backlash effect. We expect them in general to have an accomplished career (Eagly & Diekman, 2005). So, if they already have gotten the time to proof themselves, why did they not succeed?
It is also presumed that people lose competence and status as they age. However, it is unclear if these assumptions hold for people who did adhere to the norm of their assigned prescriptive stereotypes. Rudman (1998) argues that people with accomplished careers engage in successful self-promotion, which increases the perception of their competence. It is expected that older people who have accomplished careers have adhered to the norm. Thus, there is no reason to assume that they would be evaluated differently in terms of competence, status and success. Therefore, the next hypotheses have been constructed:
13
H2a. If people have an accomplished career, older and younger people will be
evaluated similarly on Competence, Status, and Success.
Furthermore, it is expected that older people who have had a career that does not adhere to the norms will encounter backlash, while this effect will not occur for younger people because they are not subjected to specific expectations. If even, they will be evaluated more positively because they still have time to grow into accomplishment:
H2b. If people have an unaccomplished career, older people will be evaluated lower on
Competence, Status, and Success as compared to younger people.
2.3 Gender Stereotypes
Literature on gender specific descriptive stereotypes differentiates communal from
agentic characteristics (Deaux & Lewis, 1984). Communal characteristics are defined as the
qualities that evoke compassion towards others, such as being affectionate, sympathetic, gentle, and soft-spoken. Agentic characteristics are linked to the qualities that enhance the need for controlling others through being aggressive, dominant, individualistic, and self-reliant (Bakan, 1966; Abele, Andrea, Wojciszke & Bogdan, 2007). Studies have shown how women are perceived to be more communal, or social-oriented, than men, whereas men are perceived to be more agentic, or achievement-oriented, than women (Bakan, 1966; Heilman, 1983; Williams & Best, 1990; Newport, 2001; Hentschel, Heilman, & Peus, 2012). These oppositional views of men and women indicate that we see both genders as lacking the characteristics associated with the gender expectations of the opposite sex (Heilman, 2012). Consequently, we characterize men and women as complete opposites which can have negative effects on our evaluation of them.
The Lack of Fit model, proposed by Heilman (1983, 2001), explains how when the alignment between descriptive gender attributes and job specific attributes is too small, people’s
14
career successes can hamper. Generating an assessment of job fit influences the performance expectations associated with that position (Heilman, 1983). For example, leader characteristics are assumed to be predominantly described as agentic (Eagly & Sczesny, 2009; Lemm, Dabady, & Banaji, 2005; Schein, 1973, 1975).
It is usually presumed that, because women are not expected to possess agentic traits, their skillsets are weaker than those of men. As a result, women are evaluated as having less status than men (Ridgeway, 1993) and they are classified as a low-status member whereas men get assigned the position of a high-status member (Foschi & Foddy, 1988). Status and competence are directly related to each other in the way that being competent on a task results in achieving status (Foschi, 1996). This means that even though men and women perform the same, because they are classified into different status groups, they are also evaluated differently on competence. An outcome of these inconsistent ratings is that when assessing success, women are evaluated through inconsistent rating criteria in the form of double standards. It means that they are evaluated stricter for both being competent and lacking competence (Foschi, 1989). This implies that it can be harder for women to be evaluated as successful.
2.3.1 Gender stereotypes of Women
Social Role Theory describes how we expect people to behave in a certain way by taking up specific social roles (Eagly, 1987). More specifically, we expect women to be communal and therefore to be the “homemaker”, whereas we expect men to be agentic, and to take up the role of “breadwinner”1. In line with Social Role Theory, Role Congruity Theory suggests that
a gap between the expected characteristics of an individual (i.e. sex) and their role (i.e. job), will possibly raise bias or prejudices (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Role Congruity Theory of
1 It should be noted that these expectations are changing due to the increasing number of women entering the labor force, in particular male dominated roles, since the mid-20th century (Fullerton, 1999).
15
prejudice explains how people have certain expectations of what the ideal candidate for a position should look like and what characteristics this person should possess (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Heilman & Eagly, 2008).
Descriptive stereotypes feed the perception that women have no leadership potential, due to the belief that they do not possess the required agentic characteristics (Heilman & Haynes, 2005; Ritter & Yoder, 2004). Whereas prescriptive stereotypes influence our evaluations of women and their actual leadership behavior, which are in general less favorable because these women are perceived as deviating from the norm (Eagly & Karau, 2002).
Researchers believe that women who are successful in agentic roles, are faced with two choices: they can be communal and liked but not respected or agentic and respected but not liked (e.g Rudman & Glick, 1999). Furthermore, Rudman (1998) argues that self-promotion positively influences the perception of competence. Men who engage in self-promoting behaviors, are viewed as highly competent, likable and thus, hirable (Rudman and Glick, 1999, 2001). However, women who engage in self-promotion during job interviews are evaluated as less competent, they are scored lower on social skill ratings, and it reduces their likelihood of being hired.
These findings demonstrate how prescriptive stereotyping induces the devaluation of women who (in)directly violate gender norms when obtaining a traditional male position, and display agency (Heilman & Parks-Stamm, 2007; Heilman, 2002). Although most literature suggests that women are primarily punished for deviating from gender norms (Eagly, Makhijani, & Klonsky, 1992; Gill, 2004), there is an upcoming movement in the literature indicating the opposite. Recently, researchers researching agentic women and how prescriptive backlash affects them are starting to notice diminishing effects in this relationship. Diekman (2007), for example, found that nowadays, men and women who engage in the same agentic behaviors are not evaluated differently. More importantly, Bongiorno, Bain, and David (2014)
16
even found proof for how people preferred women in leadership positions who used agentic speech (e.g. assertive) over women who used communal speech (e.g. tentative). Agentic women scored higher on likability and influence than their communal counterparts, indicating a preference for agent female leaders. In comparison, they were rated equally on likability and influence as assertive men.
Literature is showing a positive trend towards the acceptance of agentic women, indicating that women are less being punished for violating gender normative behavior. However, since it is not expected of women to be agentic or have an accomplished career in the first place, I assume that accomplished women of all age groups will be evaluated the same because they are not submitted to gender specific career accomplishment expectations. Therefore, I hypothesize that:
H3a. If women have an accomplished career, older and younger women will be
evaluated similarly on competence, status, success, agency, and communality.
In line with the study of Cuddy, et al. (2005), Kite, Deaux, and Miele (1991) found that when people age, they are viewed as losing agency, whereas communality ratings remain the same. Furthermore, Ruggs, Hebl, Walker, and Fa-Kaji (2014) executed a research to find out how older people with no high career status, e.g. an unaccomplished career, were affected by prescriptive stereotypes. Their study targeted older people who applied for entry-level positions and they were evaluated in comparison to their younger counterparts following the same hiring process. The study showed that older women were not evaluated differently to younger women in terms of ability and competence.
Women who do not have an accomplished career will be evaluated as communal rather than agentic. Since communal characteristics are not associated with competitive and status attaining behavior, it will not be expected of communal women to be competent, have status, or be successful, thus I assume that evaluation ratings on these criteria should not differ.
17
Furthermore, I do not assume a difference in agency evaluations since communal women in general are already evaluated as lacking agency. Therefore, I hypothesize that:
H3b. If women have an unaccomplished career, older women and younger women will
be evaluated similarly on competence, status, success, agency, and communality.
2.3.2 Gender stereotypes of Men
Not only agentic women can experience backlash of the effects of prescriptive stereotypes, men who violate gender normative behavior do so as well. Though, less is known about this effect because most research has focused predominately on the effects of backlash towards women rather than towards men (Rudman & Phelan, 2008). Men are expected to be more accomplished and have more power than women because they are assumed to be more agentic. So, men who do not violate these gender norms are praised for their behavior with more positive evaluation ratings and more acceptance (Ridgeway, 2001; Kimmel, 2004). In such, it is expected of men that they value being successful and that they will be more competitive in order to be successful. Men who do not display these characteristics are perceived as being modest, a characteristic assigned to women and communality, and are penalized for their status-attenuating behavior by low status perceptions and less career opportunities (Moss-Racusin, et al., 2010).
The study of Ruggs, et al. (2014) found that older men were evaluated lower on both ability and competence dimensions in comparison to all of the other groups they studied (e.g. young, middle-aged, and old women, and young and middle-aged men). This finding is in line with Social Role and Role Congruity Theory, in which we expect older people, and in particular older men, to have established a career since they already have had many years to proof their agency and thus to obtain a position with high status, such as a leadership position (Eagly, 1987;
18
Eagly & Diekman, 2005). If they do not establish their career, this will induce backlash due to the gender normative violating nature of their behavior.
There is no assumption to believe that men with accomplished careers who comply by their assigned gender normative behavior will be evaluated differently on the evaluation criteria. Young men are seen as still having the time to develop their careers into further success, whereas old men have met societies’ expectations. Thus:
H3c. If men have an accomplished career, older and younger men will be evaluated
similarly on competence, status, success, agency, and communality.
However, when men do not have an accomplished career, I expect older men to be evaluated lower on the evaluation criteria competence, status, and success as compared to young men. This is assumed because of the combination of two reasons: firstly, young men will be evaluated as still having the opportunity to grow their career into accomplishment (Gringart, Helmes, & Speelman, 2013). Secondly, in line with Cuddy, et al. (2005), young men will be perceived as not having had the opportunity to collect sufficient recourses yet. In line with Kite, et al. (1991) I also expect older unaccomplished men to be rated lower on agency evaluations:
H3d. If men have an unaccomplished career, older men will be evaluated lower on
competence, status, success, and agency as compared to younger men.
Lastly, again according to the findings of Kite, et al. (1991), I expect that there will be no difference in communality evaluations of unaccomplished old and young men:
H3a. If men have an unaccomplished career, older and younger men will be evaluated
19
3. Methodology
3.1 Design
The experiment of this research was based on a 2 x 2 x 2 between subject quantitative research design, with gender (male, female), age (young, old), and career accomplishment (yes, no) as the independent variables. Furthermore, during the experiment participants were shown one out of eight conditions: A young or old male or female who had an accomplished or an unaccomplished career. Table 1 gives an overview of the number of recorded responses per condition.
Table 1
Table of Conditions
Accomplished Not Accomplished
Male Female Male Female
Old N = 37 N = 33 N = 43 N = 44
Young N = 40 N = 40 N = 36 N = 40
3.2 Participants
A total of 391 online responses were recorded for this experiment (179 females, 198 males, and one who specified their sex as “other”). Responses of respondents that had failed to pass the two attention checks (“Please click “strongly disagree” to this question, so I know that you have read it” (N = 48) and an honesty question (N = 8) or those that were not
complete (N = 22), were excluded from the dataset. 313 responses were used for the data analysis (154 females, 146 males, and one who specified their sex as “other”). The mean age of the respondents was 39.03 years (SD = 17.83). Of the people that did specify their age, the majority of the participants were between 16 and 30 years old (50.8%), 24.6% were between the ages of 31 and 56, and 24.6% were between the ages of 57 and 84. 157 people held a
20
Dutch nationality (52.5%), and 142 had an “other” nationality (47.5%). 14 people did not specify their nationality.
Of the participants who gave information about their occupation, 92 currently held a leadership position (32.1%), 76 had had one in the past (26.5%), and 119 did not have a leadership position (41.5%). Most participants were employees on a pay role (N = 145, 46.3%), the next largest group were students (N = 62, 19.8%), 41 participants were self-employed (13.1%) and 33 were retired (10.5%). The small remainder of participants were either unemployed, a homemaker, or checked “other” to this question. Lastly, participants were asked to provide information about their highest achieved education. Most participants had obtained a University Bachelor’s degree (N = 113, 37.8%). The next largest group graduated with a University Master’s degree (N = 90, 30.1%), and the third and fourth group existed of people who held an Applied Sciences degree (N = 37, 12.4%) and a Post Graduate degree (N = 33, 11%).
3.3 Procedure
Participants were recruited via social media sites Facebook and LinkedIn (see Appendix 1 for recruitment text), from my personal circle, and via mTurk (N=73). All participants were introduced to the experiment through a short introduction in which they were informed about the subject of the research which was the Perceptions of People. They were asked to read a short scenario about a randomly chosen person and, based on that story, answer the questions in the questionnaire based on their evaluations of the person in the vignette. Furthermore, I also explained that I was aware that the information that was given to them was limited, but that the aim of the study was to collect respondent’s spontaneous impressions of others.
The eight vignettes began with a short description which stated the subject’s name, gender, and age, accompanied by a picture. The next part was a short story which described the
21
careers of the persons from the vignettes in terms of graduation, type and duration of traineeship, prestige of the company they got hired, number and speed of promotions (in comparison to their colleagues), whether they had a leadership position or not, and their salary (in comparison to their colleagues).
After reading the vignette, participants were asked to rate the person from the vignette that they were randomly assigned to, answering a questionnaire which contained questions and adjectives that could be answered on either on a 7-point Likert scale or a 7-point bipolar adjective scale.
3.4 Experimental manipulations
The vignettes used in this research were manipulated on sex, age, and career accomplishment. The pictures used in the vignettes were run through a pretest to make sure that appearance features would not influence participant’s evaluation too much. Sixteen pictures were gathered of four old men, four old women, four young men, and four young women. These pictures can be found in Appendix 2. The aim of the test was to select the pictures that induced the most neutral reactions from participants, meaning that the people in the picture could be perceived as both accomplished and unaccomplished. A total of 19 respondents participated in the pretest of whom 15.8% were male (N=3), 63.2% were female (N=12), and 21.1% did not specify their gender (N=4). Ten people reported their nationality as Dutch (52.6%), four as “Other” (21.1%), and five did not report their gender (26.3%). The youngest respondent was 21, whereas the oldest was 71 (M = 29.33, SD = 14.59). Participants were asked to guess the age of the persons in the pictures, and to rate them on Attractiveness (1 very unattractive – 7
very attractive), Competency (1 very incompetent – 7 very competent), Successfulness (1 very
unsuccessful – 7 very successful), Likability (1 very unlikable – 7 very likable), and Warmth (1
very cold – 7 very warm). Appendix 3displays the descriptive statistics of the pictures that were chosen for this research.
22
Age was manipulated using part of Rugss, et al.’s (2014) experiment design, in which three age groups, e.g. young 20 years old, middle-aged 40 years old, and old 60 years old, were compared to test how evaluation ratings differed between men and women of different age groups. Building on this, I chose to define the young age group as 27 years old, because I wanted to create the perception that these people had already had some time to develop their career since they graduated. The number was based on the assumption that people graduate when they are approximately 23 years old. For the old age group (60 years old), I wanted to portray the subjects as having already had quite some time to build, or not build, an accomplished career, and being close, but not too close, to the retiring age (67 in the Netherlands).
The variable for career accomplishment was constructed using the design of Melamed (1995), who manipulated career accomplishment based on salary and the number of promotions the subjects obtained and the design of Westman and Etzion (1990) who manipulated career accomplishment based on the development speed of a subject’s career.
3.4.1 Sex of the subject
Participants were exposed to either a male or a female in the vignettes. This information was manipulated by including a picture and a typical male of female gender related name.
3.4.2 Age of the subject
The age of the subject in the vignettes was manipulated by including his or her together with the year in which he or she was graduated. Furthermore, in the old conditions it was stated that the subject was married and had two children, whereas in the young position the subject recently got married and had a child.
23 3.4.3 Career accomplishment of the subject
A few factors were included to manipulate the clarity of the career succession outcome. The people in the vignettes that portrayed an accomplished career had graduated and received a competitive scholarship during their studies whereas the people with unaccomplished careers did not receive any sort of reward (no text was included to the unaccomplished conditions to specifically indicate this). Furthermore, all conditions applied for traineeships, but the accomplished conditions would be hired right away in a prestigious company and finished this traineeship a few months ahead of schedule. Whilst for the unaccomplished conditions it took a few applications to get accepted at a small regional company and they completed their trajectory a few months behind schedule. Additionally, information was given in all vignettes about the salary of the subjects, which was higher than average for the accomplished conditions, and lower for the unaccomplished conditions.
The old conditions contained a little bit more information, such as the number of promotions the subjects acquired throughout their careers and whether they held a leadership position. In the accomplished condition, the subject had obtained more promotions and was now in a leadership position, whereas in the unaccomplished condition the subject had obtained less promotions, and nothing was specified about a leadership position (See Appendix 4 for all vignettes). Table 2 gives anoverview of the manipulations per condition.
24 Table 2
Information of vignettes
Graduation Traineeship Duration Salary Promotions Leadership position Accomplished
Young With competitive scholarship Got accepted right away Few months ahead Slightly higher than colleagues – –
Old With competitive scholarship Got accepted right away Few months ahead Slightly higher than colleagues A lot Yes Unaccomplished
Young Regular Took a few applications Few months behind Slightly lower than colleagues – –
Old Regular Took a few
applications Few months behind Slightly lower than colleagues A few No 3.5 Dependent measures
The dependent variables were constructed using different measurement scales of Competence, Status, Success, Agency, and Communality which could consist of adjectives, questions or both. A reliability test was also executed to make sure that the selected items used to construct the Independent Variables consistently measured what they needed to measure. Consistency and error probabilities are expressed using a Cronbach Alpha scale (Cooper & Schindler, 2006). A Cronbach Alpha between 0.7 and 0.8 is an acceptable scale to claim reliability (Field, 2005).
Competence
Competence (α = 0.780) consisted of three questions “I think this person is probably good on the job”, “I think this person is a good performer” (Harter, 1982), which could be answered on a scale ranging from 1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree, and “how much would you like
25
this person as your boss?” which could be answered on a scale ranging from 1 not at all to 7 very much. The adjective competence was also included [1 not competent – 7 competent]. Status
Status (α = 0.890) consisted of five judgement questions “people admire this person”, “this person is held in high esteem by other people”, “this person has high status”, “this person is valued by the organization”, and “I think this person is an important member of the organization” which all could be answered on a scale ranging from 1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree.
Success
Success (α = 0.883) was measured by three judgement questions extracted from the study of Turban and Dougherty (1994). These were “compared to the person’s coworkers, this person has a successful career”, “this person’s career is ‘on schedule’”, and “I think the person’s career has been successful”. These could all be answered on a scale ranging from 1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree.
Agency and Communality
The Agency (α = 0.885) and Communality (α = 0.817) variables were constructed using adjectives that were extracted from the research of Moss-Racusin, et al. (2010). Agency was measured in achievement-related measures which were 1 not arrogant – 7 arrogant, 1 not
ambitious – 7 ambitious, 1 not competitive – 7 competitive, and 1 not confident – 7
self-confident. Furthermore, Communality was measured using interpersonal hostility measures
26
4. Results
The result section will analyze the data that was collected for this research. Hypothesis 1 will be analyzed using a t-test. Hypotheses 2 and 3 will be analyzed with the use of
ANOVAs. For all significant interaction results, Post Hoc tests will be run on the basis of the hypotheses to find out which conditions are significantly different from one another. Even though all hypotheses could be tested within the same 3-way ANOVAs, I have decided to use the most appropriate test to test the individual hypotheses. This resulted in a few calculations being repeated but reassures that the most accurate tests are used. Furthermore, it is my opinion that this is the most appropriate way of analyzing the results of the experiment.
4.1 Hypotheses testing
4.1.1 Career accomplishment
Hypothesis 1 hypothesizes that accomplished employees will be rated higher on competence, status, and success than unaccomplished people. T-tests are performed to test whether there is a significant difference between the ratings of the Accomplished versus the Unaccomplished group. The results of the descriptive statistics can be found in Table 3.
Table 3.
Descriptive statistics Hypothesis 1
Unaccomplished Accomplished M (SD) M (SD) Competence 4,74 (1,02) N = 160 5.67 (.74) N = 150 Status 4.15 (1.15) N = 161 5.66 (.77) N = 150 Success 3.96 (1.37) N = 155 5.65 (.71) N = 148 Agency 3.801(1.19) N = 161 5.58 (.68) N = 150 Communality 5.13 (1.12) N = 160 4.89 (1.19) N = 150
27
T-tests show that the unaccomplished employees as compared to the accomplished employees are rated as less competent, t(290) = -9.19, p < .001, are allocated less status, t(281) = -13.70,
p < .001, and are seen as less successful, t(236) = -13.57, p < .001. All outcomes of the t-tests
were significant indicating a difference in the means of the variables. Thus, Hypothesis 1 is supported by the data.
4.1.2 Intersection of age and career accomplishment
The second hypotheses were created to test how age and accomplishment interacted with the different evaluation variables. Table 4displays the descriptive statistics of the dependent variables. It is found that there was a marginally significant main effect of age on status, F(1,307) = 3.13, p = .078, indicating that older employees (M = 4.93, SD = 1.23) are rated higher in status than younger employees (M = 4.83, SD =1.25). An interaction effect is found for success, F(1,299) = 6.29, p = .013. The results of the Post Hoc test of success reveal that the young unaccomplished employees (M = 4.22, SD = 1.22) received significantly higher success ratings (p = .007) than their older unaccomplished counterparts (M = 3.73, SD = 1.45). No significant different in ratings was found between the old and young
accomplished groups (p = .400). The results of the ANOVA can be found in table 5. Table 4.
Descriptive statistics Hypothesis 2
Unaccomplished Accomplished
Old Young Old Young
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Competence 4.67 (1.06) N = 86 4.82 (.97) N = 74 5.75 (.73) N = 70 5.59 (.75) N = 80 Status 4.22 (1.09) N = 86 4.07 (1.22) N = 75 5.79 (.76) N = 70 5.55 (.77) N = 80 Success 3.73 (1.45) N = 84 4.22 (1.22) N = 71 5.73 (.75) N = 68 5.58 (.69) N = 80
28 Table 5.
ANOVAs main and interaction effect of accomplishment and age
Main effect of accomplishment
Main effect of age Interaction effect
Competence F (1,306) = 82.25, p < .001 F (1,306) = .00, p = .982 F (1,306) = 2.17, p = .142 Status F (1,307) = 185.45, p < .001 F (1,307) = 3.13, p = .078 F (1,307) = .15, p = .701 Success F (1,299) = 178.87, p < .001 F (1,299) = 1.70, p = .194 F (1,299) = 6.29, p = .013
H2a hypothesized that there would be no difference in the ratings of the evaluation criteria of young and old accomplished employees. The insignificant results of the ANOVAs and the Post Hoc test suggest that there are no differences in the means of all evaluation criteria for accomplished employees, thus old and young accomplished employees are not evaluated differently on competence, status, and success. This means that H2a is supported by the data. H2b hypothesized that old unaccomplished employees would be evaluated lower on all evaluation criteria. A significant difference in evaluation was only found for the success criterium, which indicated that unaccomplished old employees were evaluated as less successful as compared to their younger counterparts. For the other criteria competence and status, no significant difference between the means of the two groups was found. Thus, H2b was only partially supported.
4.1.3 Intersection of gender, age, and career accomplishment
Hypothesis 3 was generated to test whether and how accomplishment, age and gender interacted with the dependent evaluation variables. Table 6displays the descriptive statistics of the dependent variables.
29 Table 6.
Descriptive statistics Hypothesis 3
Unaccomplished Accomplished
Old Young Old Young
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
M (SD) N M (SD) N M (SD) N M (SD) N M (SD) N M (SD) N M (SD) N M (SD) N Competence 4.71 (.97) 42 4.63 (1.15) 44 4.56 (.91) 34 5.04 (.98) 40 5.61 (.78) 37 5.90 (.63) 33 5.49 (.70) 40 5.69 (.79) 40 Status 4.31 (1.06) 42 4.13 (1.13) 44 3.82 (1.12) 35 4.29 (1.27) 40 5.70 (.87) 37 5.90 (.60) 33 5.40 (.74) 40 5.71 (.78) 40 Success 3.90 (1.48) 42 3.58 (1.43) 42 3.99 (1.10) 32 4.40 (1.28) 39 5.76 (.76) 37 5.69 (.75) 31 5.51 (.70) 40 5.65 (.68) 40 Agency 3.43 (1.29) 42 3.59 (1.22) 44 3.93 (1.04) 35 4.31 (1.00) 40 5.55 (.53) 37 5.73 (.69) 33 5.51 (.81) 40 5.54 (.65) 40 Communalit y 5.01 (1.20) 42 5.08 (1.06) 44 4.65 (1.16) 34 5.71 (.84) 40 4.85 (1.46) 37 5.20 (.97) 33 4.64 (1.13) 40 4.93 (1.14) 40
The results of the ANOVAs in table 7show that there is a main effect of gender on competence, F(1,302) = 5, p = .028, and on communality, F(1,302) = 12, p = .001. This indicates that females (M = 5.27, SD = 1.05) are evaluated as more competent than men (M = 5.10, SD = .96), and that females (M = 5.23, SD = 1.04) are also evaluated more communal than men (M = 4.79, SD = 5.23). There is also a marginally significant main effect of gender on status, F(1,303) = 3, p = .075, and on agency, F(1,303) = 3, p = .088. This implies that females (M = 4.94, SD = 1.27) are assigned more status than men (M = 4.81, SD = 1.21). Furthermore, females (M = 4.72, SD = 1.29) are also rated higher on agency than men (M = 4.59, SD = 1.35).
30 Table 7.
ANOVAs main and interaction effect of accomplishment, age, and gender
Competence Status Success Agency Communality
Main effect accomplishment F(1,302) = 86, p < .001 F(1,303) = 190, p < .001 F(1,295) = 180, p < .001 F(1,303) = 265, p < .001 F(1,302) = 3, p = .104 Main effect age F(1,302) = 0,
p = .869 F(1,303) = 4, p = .061 F(1,295) = 2, p = .218 F(1,303) = 5, p = .023 F(1,302) = 0, p = .673 Main effect gender F(1,302) = 5,
p = .028 F(1,303) = 3, p = .075 F(1,295) = 0, p = .752 F(1,303) = 3, p = .088 F(1,302) = 12, p = .001 Interaction effect accomplishment*age F(1,302) = 2, p = .156 F(1,303) = 0, p = .740 F(1,295) = 6, p = .017 F(1,303) = 11, p = .001 F(1,302) = 2, p = .145 Interaction effect accomplishment*gender F(1,302) = 1, p = .818 F(1,303) = 0, p = .619 F(1,295) = 0, p = .951 F(1,303) = 0, p = .462 F(1,302) = 1, p = .333 Interaction effect age*gender F(1,302) = 1, p = .240 F(1,303) = 3, p = .090 F(1,295) = 4, p = .060 F(1,303) = 0, p = .875 F(1,302) = 3, p = .069 Interaction effect accomplishment*age*gender F(1,302) = 3, p = .103 F(1,303) = 1, p = .229 F(1,295) = 1, p = .311 F(1,303) = 1, p = .366 F(1,302) = 4, p = .041
No interaction effect between accomplished and age is found in the results, whereas there is a marginally significant interaction effect of age and gender on status, F(1,303) = 3, p = .090, success, F(1,295) = 4, p = .060, and communality, F(1,302) = 3, p = .069. Finally, there is an interaction effect of accomplishment, age, and gender on communality, F(1,302) = 4, p = .041. The results of the Post Hoc test of communality reveal only a significant
difference between unaccomplished old and young females (p = .011), where unaccomplished young females (M = 5.71, SD = .84) are evaluated as more communal than unaccomplished old females (M = 5.08, SD = 1.06). For all other groups, e.g. accomplished old and young males (p = .407), unaccomplished old and young males (p = .163) and accomplished old and
31
young females (p = .307), the Post Hoc test exposes no significant differences in the communality evaluation ratings.
H3a hypothesized that accomplished old and young women, would be evaluated the same on all evaluation criteria. The insignificant results of the ANOVAs and the Post Hoc test imply that a difference in the means of the evaluation criteria cannot be assumed. Thus, H3a is supported indicating that accomplished old and young women are evaluated the same on competence, status, success, agency, and communality. H2b hypothesized that
unaccomplished old and young women would also be evaluated the same on all evaluation criteria. This is true for the ratings of competence, status, success, and agency. However, a closer inspection of the means of the communality ratings of both groups by the Post Hoc test revealed that these significantly differed from each other. Therefore, it can be assumed that unaccomplished older women receive lower communality ratings than unaccomplished younger women. Thus, H2b was only partially supported by the data.
H3c hypothesized that accomplished old and young men would be evaluated the same on all evaluation criteria. No significant differences in the means are found between the two groups, meaning that it can be assumed that accomplished old and young men are evaluated the same on competence, status, success, agency, and communality. Finally, H3d and H3e hypothesized that unaccomplished older men would be evaluated lower on competence, status, success, and communality, but that both groups would be evaluated the same on
communality. No significant differences in the means were found for all groups, implying that it can be assumed that unaccomplished old and young men are evaluated the same on
competence, status, success, agency and communality. Thus, H3d was rejected and H3e was supported.
32
5. Discussion, limitations, and practical implications
5.1 Discussion
The interest of this study was to research people’s perceptions of other people. The research question was constructed to investigate whether and how old versus young men and women with an accomplished or an unaccomplished career would be evaluated differently in terms of competence, status, success, agency, and communality ratings. Overall, the results showed that there were no differences in competence, status, and success evaluations of accomplished older and younger employees. Unaccomplished older employees were evaluated the same on competence and status as unaccomplished younger employees but received lower success evaluation ratings than their younger counterparts. Furthermore, no differences in the evaluation criteria competence, status, success, agency, and communality were found for accomplished older and younger women. Unaccomplished older women were evaluated the same on competence, status, success, and agency as unaccomplished younger women but were evaluated less communal than their younger counterparts. Lastly, no differences were found for both the accomplished older and younger men, and the unaccomplished older and younger men on all five evaluation criteria.
Literature on old age stereotyping has mainly focused on pointing out the descriptive stereotypes associated with age (see Posthuma & Campion, 2009). There is substantially less literature on the prescriptive stereotypes of age and even less on the prescriptive stereotypes of old employees in the workplace (North & Fiske, 2013). The literature addresses people of old age in a group perspective (Cuddy, et al., 2005; Fiske, et al., 2002), generalizing that all old people fall victim to the same stereotypes that are associated with old age. This means that people are generally assumed to become less competent and successful and get assigned less status as they age. Promising results of this research were that older employees who had accomplished careers were evaluated the same as their younger accomplished counterparts on competence, status and success, whereas the two unaccomplished age groups were evaluated
33
the same on all but one dimension, namely success. These findings provide support for the belief that people perceive differences between the two old age groups, meaning that the group approach literature currently uses to address old age stereotypes is not sufficient. The findings of this research were important for two reasons. Firstly, they contribute to a field of study which has not yet been studied extensively. Secondly, it suggests the need of a new line of work in the literature on old age stereotypes.
This research also supports the upcoming trend in the literature which argues that agentic women with accomplished careers are receiving less backlash for deviating from their gender norms (Diekman, 2007). The results of this research contributed to this movement, because both older and younger accomplished women were evaluated the same on all five evaluation criteria. However, even though it was assumed that unaccomplished older and younger women would also be evaluated the same on all five evaluation criteria,
unaccomplished older women were evaluated lower on communality than their younger counterparts. This is a remarkable finding since literature argues that people are perceived as losing agency as they age, such results are not found nor expected for communality ratings (Kite, et al., 1991).
A possible explanation could be that this result is assigned to internal and external causal forces people assign to a person’s career accomplishment. This literature states that women who are successful in male-dominated positions are disadvantaged in comparison to men because people are more likely to attribute their successes to external causal forces (i.e. the reason she is successful is because of luck, or a necessity or staff changes, or she got help from others) (Swim & Sanna, 1996; Taylor, Newman, Mangis, Swiander, Garibaldi, Ismael, et al., 1993). Failures, however, are assigned to both internal (e.g. the reason she is successful is because she owns the right skills and attributes) and external causal forces. So, it could be that when women fail in their careers, people assign the failure to lacking internal forces, e.g. lacking communality
34
(Garcia-Retamero, López-Zafra, 2006). However, this is a mere assumption, future researchers could consider investigating this further.
For men, no differences were found in the evaluation between the accomplished old and young age groups. This supports what was already known: men who do not violate gender norms will not receive negative evaluation ratings (Eagly & Diekman, 2005), but it also confirms that age does interfere in evaluations when a person has an accomplished career. Again, this could affirm that not all older employees are affected by the same decreasing performance ratings associated with aging people. In line with this, older unaccomplished men were not evaluated any different from their younger counterparts. This finding goes against the argumentation of Kite, et al. (1991), e.g. aging results in lower agency ratings, and Ruggs, et al. (2014) who found support that older men with no status were evaluated the worst out of all other age groups. This finding, together with the finding that unaccomplished older women lose agency as they age are remarkably contradictory to the current literature on the subjects. I would recommend future researchers to investigate these findings further.
5.2 Limitations
During the writing of this thesis, I encountered some limitations. Firstly, there could
be a problem with the manipulation of accomplishment. Having an accomplished career is an
abstract term, which means that its meaning is different to everybody. All employees in the
vignettes had finished University and had attended a traineeship which people might already
perceive as accomplishments. The construct of this experiment was fine to collect people’s
sincere judgment about other people, however, in reality we have a lot more material to
compare others with. Future research could try to find a way to minimize this manipulation
error by, for example, performing a comparative study. Participants could then be given two
35
The agency and communality scales in this research did not contain many items. The
communality scale was constructed of two items. Even though the scale had a high reliability,
it would probably have been a good idea to include more items in the scale. This could also be
a reason why unaccomplished old women were rated lower on communality than
unaccomplished young women. If someone were to repeat this research, I would suggest
adding more items to the communality scale to test whether there was an actual difference
between the group ratings, or if it was due to errors in the chosen communality scale.
Lastly, the experiment of the study took place in the form of a field study, meaning
that participants could record their answers whenever and wherever they wanted. This way, I
had no control over under what circumstances participants filled in their responses. Even
though I tried to filter out the incorrect responses using the attention checks, the dataset
probably contained more contaminations of people who got distracted whilst filling in the
survey. Future research could execute this experiment as a lab study. This way you can
minimize distraction factors and gather more accurate data. However, a downside to these is
that they can be quite expensive and time consuming.
5.3 Practical implications
Investigating the effect of stereotyping can be fruitful because we all engage in
stereotyping both consciously and unconsciously. It is important to be aware of this so that we can actively work on minimizing its effects. The findings of this study show that for both older and younger men and women, the evaluation barriers are fading. For example, an interesting result of this research is that it seems that society is shifting away from the assumption that older employees are all categorizable in one group. When employees are accomplished, their age does not matter, people will not evaluate them differently than young successful employees. The same goes for agentic women, who are no longer punished for pursuing a career and being agentic. This all a positive note because it means that we are
36
evaluating people less on the group to which we assume he or she belongs in and more based on their qualities. This means that the workforce is not only changing, but also that society is able to adapt to these changes which could result in more equality in the workforce.
6. Conclusion
This research aimed at finding a suitable answer to the research question:
How do career accomplishments affect the evaluation of old versus young men and
women?
The results showed that both accomplished men and women of all ages were not evaluated differently on the evaluation criteria which could imply that agentic women are getting less victimized by backlash. There were also no evaluation differences between unaccomplished older and younger men, indicating that career accomplishment does not affect their evaluations. Lastly, for unaccomplished older and younger women, older women were evaluated as less communal which could be an effect of their unaccomplished career. However, further research should elaborate on this difference further. Overall, the results of this research seemed promising, men and women of all groups were in most cases not evaluated differently from their counterparts.
37
7. Bibliography
Abele, A. E., & Wojciszke, B. (2007). Agency and communion from the perspective of self
versus others. Journal of personality and social psychology, 93(5), 751.
Armstrong-Stassen, M., & Templer, A. (2005). Adapting training for older employees: The
Canadian response to an aging workforce. Journal of management development, 24(1),
57-67.
Arthur, M. B., Hall, D. T., & Lawrence, B. S. (1989). Handbook of career theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Arthur, M. B., & Rousseau, D. M. (Eds.). (2001). The boundaryless career: A new
employment principle for a new organizational era. Oxford University Press on
Demand.
Arthur, M. B., Khapova, S. N., & Wilderom, C. P. (2005). Career success in a boundaryless
career world. Journal of organizational behavior, 26(2), 177-202.
Avolio, B. J., & Barrett, G. V. (1987). Effects of age stereotyping in a simulated
interview. Psychology and aging, 2(1), 56.
Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: An essay on psychology and religion.
Biernat, M., & Deaux, K. (2012). 22 A history of social psychological research on
gender. Handbook of the history of social psychology, 475.
Bongiorno, R., Bain, P. G., & David, B. (2014). If you're going to be a leader, at least act like
it! Prejudice towards women who are tentative in leader roles. British Journal of
Social Psychology, 53(2), 217-234.
Burgess, D., & Borgida, E. (1999). Who women are, who women should be: Descriptive and
prescriptive gender stereotyping in sex discrimination. Psychology, public policy, and
38
Carli, L. L., & Eagly, A. H. (1999). Gender effects on social influence and emergent
leadership.
Catalyst (2017, February 7). New York: Women in management. Retrieved from
http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-management.
Cooper, D. R., Schindler, P. S., & Sun, J. (2006). Business research methods (Vol. 9). New
York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Cota, A. A., Reid, A., & Dion, K. L. (1991). Construct validity of a diagnostic ratio measure
of gender stereotypes. Sex Roles, 25(3-4), 225-235.
Cottrell, C. A., & Neuberg, S. L. (2005). Different emotional reactions to different groups: a
sociofunctional threat-based approach to" prejudice". Journal of personality and social
psychology, 88(5), 770.
Cuddy, A. J., & Fiske, S. T. (2002). Doddering but dear: Process, content, and function in
stereotyping of older persons. Ageism: Stereotyping and prejudice against older
persons, 3-26.
Cuddy, A. J., Norton, M. I., & Fiske, S. T. (2005). This old stereotype: The pervasiveness and
persistence of the elderly stereotype. Journal of social issues, 61(2), 267-285.
Davidson, M. J., & Burke, R. J. (Eds.). (2000). Women in management: Current research
issues (Vol. 2). Sage.
DeArmond, S., Tye, M., Chen, P. Y., Krauss, A., Apryl Rogers, D., & Sintek, E. (2006). Age
and gender stereotypes: New challenges in a changing workplace and
workforce. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(9), 2184-2214.
Deaux, K., & Lewis, L. L. (1984). Structure of gender stereotypes: Interrelationships among
components and gender label. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 46(5),
991.
39
Eagly, A. H., & Diekman, A. B. (2005). What is the problem? Prejudice as an
attitude-in-context. On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport, 19-35.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female
leaders. Psychological review, 109(3), 573.
Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of
leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 111(1), 3.
Eagly, A. H., & Sczesny, S. (2009). Stereotypes about women, men, and leaders: Have times
changed?. American Psychological Association.
Eurostat (2017, June 10). 80% of graduated in the field of education are women. Retrieved
from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/DDN-20170710-1
Finkelstein, L. M., King, E. B., & Voyles, E. C. (2015). Age metastereotyping and cross-age
workplace interactions: A meta view of age stereotypes at work. Work, Aging and
Retirement, 1(1), 26-40.
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(6), 878.
Fiske, S. T., & Stevens, L. E. (1993). What's so special about sex? Gender stereotyping and
discrimination. Sage Publications, Inc.
Foschi, M., & Foddy, M. (1988). Standards, performances, and the formation of self-other
expectations.
Fullerton Jr, H. N. (1999). Labor force participation: 75 years of change, 1950-98 and
1998-2025. Monthly Lab. Rev., 122, 3.
Gaucher, D., Friesen, J., & Kay, A. C. (2011). Evidence that gendered wording in job
advertisements exists and sustains gender inequality. Journal of personality and social
