CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 217Social and Intergroup PsychologyGender and Feminist StudiesGender Diversity and Inequality

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Motivated to Penalize: Women's Strategic Rejection of Successful Women

Parks-Stamm, Elizabeth J., Heilman, Madeline E., Hearns, Krystle A.·2008·Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
DOI 10.1177/0146167207310027
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Two studies tested the hypothesis that females penalize women who succeed in male gender-typed jobs to salvage their own self-views regarding competence. The authors proposed that women are motivated to penalize successful women (i.e., characterize them as unlikable and interpersonally hostile) to minimize the self-evaluative consequences of social comparison with a highly successful female target. Results supported the hypothesis. Whereas both male and female participants penalized successful women, blocking this penalization reduced female—but not male—participants' self-ratings of competence (Study 1). Moreover, positive feedback provided to female participants about their potential to succeed (Study 2) weakened negative reactions to successful women without costs to subsequent self-ratings of competence. These results suggest that the interpersonal derogation of successful women by other women functions as a self-protective strategy against threatening upward social comparisons.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0146167207310027

Cites

57 of 57 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Heilman, M.E., 2007, Men as wimpy and women as bitchy: Penalties for managers whose success violates gender stereotypic norms
  2. Lyness, K.S. (2002). Finding the key to the executive suite: Challenges for women and people of color. In R. Silzer (Ed.), The 21st century executive: Innovative practices for building leadership at the top (pp. 229-273). San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
  3. Martell, R.F., 1998, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 13, 127

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 217

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Parks-Stamm, E. J., Heilman, M. E., & Hearns, K. A.
Affiliations
  • New York University,
  • New York University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2007-12-04
Volume
34
Issue
2
Pages
237-247
ISSN
  • 0146-1672 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7433
DOI
10.1177/0146167207310027
OpenAlex
W2026070355
Cited by
217
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 12
FWCI
16.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Feminist Studies
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Diversity and Inequality
Keywords
perceived competence, upward social comparison, self-protection strategies, gender stereotypes, positive feedback, interpersonal hostility, women's self-concept
MeSH terms
Achievement, Attitude, Career Mobility, Female, Hostility, Humans, Male, Motivation, New York City, Prejudice, Self Concept, United States, Universities

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