CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 999Gender Diversity and InequalitySocial and Intergroup PsychologyGender and Feminist Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Why are women penalized for success at male tasks?: the implied communality deficit

Heilman, Madeline E., Okimoto, Tyler G.·2007·Journal of Applied Psychology
DOI 10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.81
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In 3 experimental studies, the authors tested the idea that penalties women incur for success in traditionally male areas arise from a perceived deficit in nurturing and socially sensitive communal attributes that is implied by their success. The authors therefore expected that providing information of communality would prevent these penalties. Results indicated that the negativity directed at successful female managers--in ratings of likability, interpersonal hostility, and boss desirability--was mitigated when there was indication that they were communal. This ameliorative effect occurred only when the information was clearly indicative of communal attributes (Study 1) and when it could be unambiguously attributed to the female manager (Study 2); furthermore, these penalties were averted when communality was conveyed by role information (motherhood status) or by behavior (Study 3). These findings support the idea that penalties for women's success in male domains result from the perceived violation of gender-stereotypic prescriptions.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.81

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 35 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 901–998 of 998

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Heilman, M. E., & Okimoto, T. G.
Affiliations
  • New York University (US)
  • Flinders University (AU)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Applied Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2007
Volume
92
Issue
1
Pages
81-92
ISSN
  • 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1854
DOI
10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.81
OpenAlex
W1984444903
Cited by
999
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 64 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 69 · 2023: 60 · 2022: 68 · 2021: 51 · 2020: 73 · 2019: 94 · 2018: 46 · 2017: 78 · 2016: 59 · 2015: 49 · 2014: 43 · 2013: 43 · 2012: 35
FWCI
68.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Applied Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Diversity and Inequality
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Feminist Studies
Keywords
women in male-dominated fields, gender stereotypes, nurturing, social sensitivity, women in management, likeability, interpersonal hostility
MeSH terms
Achievement, Adult, Female, Gender Identity, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Prejudice, Stereotyping

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review