The DOI matches its Crossref record; 100 of the 100 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Gender Bias, Social Impact Framing, and Evaluation of Entrepreneurial Ventures
Abstract
Recent studies find that female-led ventures are penalized relative to male-led ventures as a result of role incongruity or a perceived “lack of fit” between female stereotypes and expected personal qualities of business entrepreneurs. We examine whether social impact framing that emphasizes a venture’s social–environmental welfare benefits, which research has shown to elicit stereotypically feminine attributions of warmth, diminishes these penalties. We initially investigate this proposition in a field study of evaluations of early-stage ventures and find evidence of lessened gender penalties for female-led ventures that are presented using a social impact frame. In a second study, we experimentally validate this effect and show that it is mediated by the effect of social impact framing on perceptions of the entrepreneur’s warmth. The effect of social impact frames on venture evaluations did not apply to men, was not a result of perceptions of increased competence, and was not conditional on the gender of evaluators. Taken together, our findings demonstrate that social impact framing increases attributions of warmth for all entrepreneurs but with positive consequences on business evaluation only for female-led ventures, for which increased perceptions of warmth attenuate female entrepreneurs’ gender role incongruity. The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1172 .
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415 · Cited by 18,567
Addressing Moderated Mediation Hypotheses: Theory, Methods, and Prescriptions
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1080/00273170701341316 · Cited by 9,973
Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment
Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.611 · Cited by 9,953
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878 · Cited by 7,364
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
The theory and practice of corporate finance: evidence from the field
Graham, J. R., & Harvey, C. R. (2001) · Journal of Financial Economics · doi:10.1016/s0304-405x(01)00044-7 · Cited by 5,939
(2004) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.41-3182 · Cited by 4,690
Dimensions of Brand Personality
Aaker, J. L. (1997) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224379703400304 · Cited by 4,033
Inequality Regimes: Gender, Class, and Race in Organizations
Acker, J. (2006) · Gender & Society · doi:10.1177/0891243206289499 · Cited by 3,401
Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60317-2 · Cited by 3,323
Cited by
Clauss, T., Kraus, S., Kallinger, F. L., Bican, P. M., Brem, A., & Kailer, N. (2021) · Journal of Innovation & Knowledge · doi:10.1016/j.jik.2020.07.003 · Cited by 363
Huang, L., Joshi, P., Wakslak, C., & Wu, A. (2021) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2018.1417 · Cited by 116
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Lee, M., & Huang, L.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2018-02
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-16
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2792656269
- Cited by
- 286
- References
- 100
- FWCI
- 27.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Gender Bias, Social Impact Framing, and Evaluation of Entrepreneurial Ventures. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/orsc.2017.1172
- The paper
- Lee, M., & Huang, L. (2018). Gender Bias, Social Impact Framing, and Evaluation of Entrepreneurial Ventures. Organization Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1172
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.