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
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
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
“For example, exposure to highly successful female business leaders has been shown to decrease women's selfratings of competence (Parks-Stamm, Heilman, & Hearns, 2008).”
From Managing to clear the air: Stereotype threat, women, and leadership (2016) · cites this paper as Parks-Stamm, Heilman, & Hearns, 2008
Citations
Cites
(1994) · Journal of the American Dietetic Association · doi:10.1016/0002-8223(94)92216-0 · Cited by 46,726
A theory of social comparison processes
Festinger, L. (1954) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/001872675400700202 · Cited by 20,926
The case for motivated reasoning.
Kunda, Z. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 · Cited by 9,022
DeLamater, J., & Ward, A. (2013) · Handbooks of sociology and social research · doi:10.1007/978-94-007-6772-0 · Cited by 7,587
Journal of social behavior and personality
(1986) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/0191-8869(86)90025-5 · Cited by 6,751
Social psychology: handbook of basic principles
Higgins, E., & Kruglanski, A. (2008) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.45-3496 · Cited by 5,535
The role of stereotyping in system‐justification and the production of false consciousness
Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994) · British Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x · Cited by 3,558
Bronfenbrenner, U. (2000) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1037/10518-046 · Cited by 3,166
Heilman, M. E. (2001) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00234 · Cited by 2,482
Self-citationBasking in reflected glory: Three (football) field studies.
Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thorne, A., Walker, M. R., Freeman, S., & Sloan, L. R. (1976) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.34.3.366 · Cited by 2,361
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Heilman, M.E., 2007, Men as wimpy and women as bitchy: Penalties for managers whose success violates gender stereotypic norms
- 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.
- Martell, R.F., 1998, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 13, 127
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research
Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Holcombe Ehrhart, K., & Singh, G. (2011) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206310385943 · Cited by 2,135
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
“For example, the SIH may explain why women who are merely described as successful managers are viewed as interpersonally abrasive (e.g., hostile and manipulative; Heilman, Block, & Martell, 1995; Heilman et al., 2004; Parks-Stamm et al., 2008).”
BackgroundDown Girl: The Logic of Misogyny
Manne, K. (2017) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190604981.001.0001 · Cited by 791
The queen bee phenomenon: Why women leaders distance themselves from junior women
Derks, B., van Laar, C., & Ellemers, N. (2016) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.12.007 · Cited by 710
Metadata
- Authors
- Parks-Stamm, E. J., Heilman, M. E., & Hearns, K. A.
- Affiliations
- New York University,
- New York University (US)
- 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
- 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
- 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
