You've Come a Long Way…Maybe: How Moral Emotions Trigger Backlash Against Women Leaders
Abstract
Despite the progress American women have made in other arenas, they still remain underrepresented in top leadership positions in both the public and private sectors, thus contributing to their marginalized status in these domains. Although people do not expect to encounter women in positions of power, a solely cognitive process cannot fully account for the negative interpersonal characterizations and poor leadership evaluations (i.e., backlash) that female leaders disproportionately receive. Rather, recent evidence suggests that because female leaders are seen as gender norm deviants who threaten the gender status hierarchy, the backlash they encounter more likely constitutes a motivated process whereby perceivers’ negative evaluations stem from a desire to maintain the status quo (i.e., gender inequality). Here, we expand on this work by proposing that a desire to defend the gender hierarchy causes people to feel negative moral emotions when encountering powerful women who display dominance and/or agency which, in turn, causes backlash effects against such individuals. Study 1 finds that morally laden negative affect explains why evaluators penalize dominant female leaders, but not dominant male leaders. Studies 2 and 3 then manipulate this mediator via the use of use disgust primes. Given that embodied disgust amplifies moral judgment severity, we hypothesized that if moral emotions underlie gender backlash, enhanced feelings of disgust should result in harsher penalties for leaders in gender‐ in congruent roles than those in gender‐congruent roles as only the former violate core gender norms that undermine the status quo. Indeed, compared to a neutral prime, disgust primes (taste in Study 2, visual in Study 3) resulted in lower leadership evaluations and liking of only the gender deviant targets. We discuss the implications of these findings for organizational interventions and female leaders’ impression management strategies.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
Gender stereotypes have negative implications in business and political spheres, leading to disqualification of women and undermining their dignity.
“Such stereotypes have had negative implications in both business and political spheres (Alcaraz Marin & Vásquez Parra, 2020;Brescoll et al., 2018;Lozano Suárez, 2018;Zaragoza, 2020), often leading to the disqualification of women and the undermining of their dignity (Cook & Cusack, 2009).”
From Barriers to Leadership: Experiences of Women Leaders in Business and Politics (2024) · cites this paper as Brescoll et al., 2018
When women step outside their traditionally assigned roles of care and reproduction, they are regarded as a threat to the traditional figure of authority, commonly provoking attitudes of disdain and aversion.
“These beliefs imply that when women step outside their traditionally assigned roles of care and reproduction (Brescoll et al., 2018), they are regarded as a threat to the traditional figure of authority, commonly provoking attitudes of disdain and aversion.”
From Barriers to Leadership: Experiences of Women Leaders in Business and Politics (2024) · cites this paper as Brescoll et al., 2018
Cites
Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms
Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., & Ristikari, T. (2011) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0023557 · Cited by 1,748 · see citing works
Hypnotic Disgust Makes Moral Judgments More Severe
Wheatley, T., & Haidt, J. (2005) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01614.x · Cited by 851 · see citing works
Brescoll, V. L. (2016) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.005 · Cited by 426 · see citing works
Self-citationWilliams, M. J., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2016) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000039 · Cited by 374 · cited 3× · see citing works
“However, a recent meta-analysis of backlash effects (Williams & Tiedens, 2016)—and the public examples of prejudice that prominent female leaders, such as Hillary Clinton, have experienced in recent years—do not bear out this prediction.”
BackgroundInfluentialLueke, A., & Gibson, B. (2015) · Social Psychological and Personality Science · doi:10.1177/1948550614559651 · Cited by 265 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Barriers to Leadership: Experiences of Women Leaders in Business and Politics
Lasso Quintero, M. I., Galeano Trilleras, H., & Valencia Mosquera, M. C. (2024) · Revista CEA · doi:10.22430/24223182.2866 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Brescoll, V. L., Okimoto, T. G., & Vial, A. C.
- Affiliations
- Yale University (US)
- The University of Queensland (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Brescoll, Victoria L.
- Venue
- Journal of Social Issues
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2018-03
- Volume
- 74
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 144-164
- ISSN
- 0022-4537 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-4560
- OpenAlex
- W2795930881
- Cited by
- 110
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 8
- FWCI
- 14.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Social Issues (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Diversity and Inequality
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
- Keywords
- moral emotions, disgust, gender norms, gender hierarchy, women in leadership, leadership assessment, dominance, agency, gender inequality, status quo maintenance, impression management
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