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
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Female leaders often find themselves in a double bind: highly communal women are criticized for being deficient leaders, and highly agentic women experience backlash for not being female enough (Eagly et al., 2014;Heilman, 2001;Heilman & Okimoto, 2007;Heilman, Wallen, Fuchs, & Tamkins, 2004;Rudman & Glick, 1999, 2001).”
From Managing to clear the air: Stereotype threat, women, and leadership (2016) · cites this paper as Heilman & Okimoto, 2007
Citations
Cites
DeLamater, J., & Ward, A. (2013) · Handbooks of sociology and social research · doi:10.1007/978-94-007-6772-0 · Cited by 7,590
Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037//0033-295x.109.3.573 · Cited by 7,300
(1998) · Cited by 2,641
Heilman, M. E. (2001) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00234 · Cited by 2,482
Self-citationFiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991) · Cited by 2,341
Prescriptive Gender Stereotypes and Backlash Toward Agentic Women
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00239 · Cited by 1,881
Rudman, L. A. (1998) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.629 · Cited by 1,511
Penalties for Success: Reactions to Women Who Succeed at Male Gender-Typed Tasks.
Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tamkins, M. M. (2004) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.416 · Cited by 1,390
Self-citationA Global Look at Psychological Barriers to Women's Progress in Management
Schein, V. E. (2001) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00235 · Cited by 1,123
Sex bias in work settings: The Lack of Fit model.
Heilman, M. E. (1983) · Research in Organizational Behavior · Cited by 1,018
Self-citationHostile and Benevolent Sexism: Measuring Ambivalent Sexist Attitudes Toward Women
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1997) · Psychology of Women Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00104.x · Cited by 905
Beyond attribution theory: Cognitive processes in performance appraisal.
Feldman, J. M. (1981) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.66.2.127 · Cited by 889
When Professionals Become Mothers, Warmth Doesn't Cut the Ice
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2004) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00381.x · Cited by 880
Gender-Stereotypic Images of Occupations Correspond to the Sex Segregation of Employment
Cejka, M. A., & Eagly, A. H. (1999) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167299025004002 · Cited by 866
Cognitive processes in the revision of stereotypic beliefs.
Weber, R., & Crocker, J. (1983) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.5.961 · Cited by 805
Gender Stereotypes and Attitudes Toward Women and Men
Eagly, A. H., & Mladinic, A. (1989) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167289154008 · Cited by 785
Has anything changed? Current characterizations of men, women, and managers.
Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., Martell, R. F., & Simon, M. C. (1989) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.74.6.935 · Cited by 689
Self-citationGender and Managerial Stereotypes: Have the Times Changed?
Powell, G. N., Butterfield, D. A., & Parent, J. D. (2002) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920630202800203 · Cited by 666
Gender, language, and influence.
Carli, L. L. (1990) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.941 · Cited by 646
Burgess, D., & Borgida, E. (1999) · Psychology Public Policy and Law · doi:10.1037/1076-8971.5.3.665 · Cited by 609
Nieva, V. F., & Gutek, B. A. (1980) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1980.4288749 · Cited by 454
Heilman, M. E., & Haynes, M. C. (2005) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.905 · Cited by 372
Self-citationNonverbal behavior, gender, and influence.
Carli, L. L., LaFleur, S. J., & Loeber, C. C. (1995) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.6.1030 · Cited by 338
Joan McKay versus John McKay: Do gender stereotypes bias evaluations?
Swim, J. K., Borgida, E., Maruyama, G. M., & Myers, D. G. (1989) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.409 · Cited by 315
Are Women Evaluated More Favorably Than Men?: An Analysis of Attitudes, Beliefs, and Emotions
Eagly, A. H., Mladinic, A., & Otto, S. (1991) · Psychology of Women Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1991.tb00792.x · Cited by 306
Sex stereotypes: Do they influence perceptions of managers?
Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., & Martell, R. F. (1995) · Journal of social behavior and personality · Cited by 283
Self-citationSex effects in evaluating leaders.
Bartol, K. M., & Butterfield, D. A. (1976) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.61.4.446 · Cited by 243
(1995) · Journal of social behavior and personality · Cited by 232
Self-citationSome Neglected Variables in Research on Discrimination in Appraisals
Dipboye, R. L. (1985) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1985.4277365 · Cited by 205
Heilman, M. E., Martell, R. F., & Simon, M. C. (1988) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(88)90049-0 · Cited by 179
Self-citationTHE EFFECTS OF THE TYPE AND AMOUNT OF INFORMATION IN SEX DISCRIMINATION RESEARCH: A META-ANALYSIS.
Tosi, H. L., & Einbender, S. W. (1985) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256127 · Cited by 165
Special issue: Gender in the workplace. Sex stereotypes:: Do they influence perceptions of managers?
Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., & Martell, R. F. (1995) · Journal of social behavior and personality · Cited by 160
Self-citationSex differences in the incidence and evaluation of participative leader behavior.
Jago, A. G., & Vroom, V. H. (1982) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037//0021-9010.67.6.776 · Cited by 111
Beyond the Maternal Wall: Relief for Family Caregivers Who Are Discriminated Against on the Job
Williams, J. C., & Segal, N. L. (2003) · bepress Legal Repository · Cited by 108
Sex differences in the incidence and evaluation of participative leader behavior.
Jago, A. G., & Vroom, V. H. (1982) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.67.6.776 · Cited by 108
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Women Directors on Corporate Boards: A Review and Research Agenda
Terjesen, S. A., Sealy, R. H. V., & Singh, V. (2009) · Corporate Governance An International Review · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8683.2009.00742.x · Cited by 1,792
Gender stereotypes and workplace bias
Heilman, M. E. (2012) · Research in Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.riob.2012.11.003 · Cited by 1,840
Self-citationRudman, L. A., Moss‐Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Nauts, S. (2011) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.008 · Cited by 1,336
Taking gender into account: theory and design for women's leadership development programs
Ely, R. J., Ibarra, H., & Kolb, D. M. (2011) · Academy of Management Learning & Education · doi:10.5465/amle.2010.0046 · Cited by 1,003
Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny
Manne, K. (2017) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190604981.001.0001 · Cited by 791
Metadata
- Authors
- Heilman, M. E., & Okimoto, T. G.
- Affiliations
- New York University (US)
- Flinders University (AU)
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Psychology
- Published
- 2007
- Volume
- 92
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 81-92
- ISSN
- 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1854
- 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
