Competence-Questioning Communication and Gender: Exploring Mansplaining, Ignoring, and Interruption Behaviors

Competence-questioning communication at work has been described as gender-linked (e.g., mansplaining) and as impacting the way women perceive and experience the workplace. Three studies were conducted to investigate how the specific communication behaviors of condescending explanation (i.e., mansplaining), voice nonrecognition, and interruption can be viewed as gender-biased in intention by receivers. The first study was a critical incident survey to describe these competence-questioning behaviors when enacted by men toward women in the workplace and how women react toward them. Studies 2 and 3 used experimental paradigms (in online and laboratory settings, respectively) to investigate how women and men perceive and react to these behaviors when enacted by different genders. Results demonstrated that when faced with condescending explanation, voice nonrecognition, or interruption, women reacted more negatively and were more likely to see the behavior as indicative of gender bias when the communicator was a man. Implications for improving workplace communications and addressing potential gender biases in communication in organizations are discussed.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10869-022-09871-7.

The effects of social vs. personal power on universal dimensions of social perception

The present study expands previous research on the effects of power on stereotyping by investigating the impact of two types of power (social power and personal power) on two universal dimensions of social perception; warmth and competence. Results from an experiment (N = 377) in which participants were randomly assigned to provide their impression of either (1) poor people or (2) rich people, suggest that the two types of power produce different effects on perceptions of warmth and competence. Personal power increased stereotype consistent perceptions of warmth whereas social power increased stereotype consistent perceptions of competence as well as agency, which was identified as a separate dimension. The pattern of results is discussed in view of previous work on power effects and stereotyping, and potential explanations and suggestions for future research are outlined.

The influence of androgynous streamers on consumers’ product preferences

Since the rapid development of network technology, the rise of live-streaming shopping platforms has followed. Some streamers influence consumers’ preferences for products through their gender role attributes, thus generating great commercial value. Based on attachment theory and using an experimental approach, this study explored the impact of streamers’ gender roles (single gender/androgyny) on consumers’ preferences through 2 studies. Study 1 shows the androgynous streamer elicits a higher product preference than the single-gender (masculine and feminine) streamer. Study 2 demonstrates the moderating effect of gender stereotypes through 2 experiments to construct clear boundary conditions for the main effect and the results show that regardless of whether the streamer is male or female when individuals have a high gender stereotype, the single-gender streamer leads to a higher product preference than the androgynous streamer. When individuals have a low gender stereotype, the androgynous streamer promotes a higher product preference than the single-gender streamer.

Power and lie detection

Social power undermines focus on others and increases reliance on stereotype-consistent information. Thus, power may enhance focus on stereotypical cues to deception, thereby decreasing lie detection accuracy. In three studies, we tested whether having power affects lie detection accuracy. Participants (overall N = 502) were asked to identify truthful and lying candidates (N = 12) during mock job interviews. Study 1 was a field experiment involving employees who held managerial and non-managerial positions (N = 88). In the following laboratory experiments, we manipulated power and asked participants to imagine themselves as managers (Study 2, N = 214) or provided them with control over resources and the ability to reward others (Study 3, N = 200). In Studies 2 and 3, we additionally manipulated the method of lie detection (direct vs. indirect). In contrast to the original hypotheses, we found that power led to increased veracity assessment accuracy. Having power over others enhances the accuracy of one’s veracity assessment, although this increase is small and limited to lie detection (Study 1) or direct judgments (Studies 2 & 3). Together, power affects the processing of social information and what aspects of this information are taken into account.

Does receipt of unemployment benefits change recruiter perceptions of candidates’ personality, work relevant skills and employability?

BACKGROUND: Growing experimental evidence shows that unemployment benefit recipients are generally perceived negatively in terms of their personality and employability by the general public. Welfare stigma tied to unemployment or receipt of income support may disproportionately negatively impact individuals who have been out of work due to disability, or chronic health conditions. OBJECTIVE: The current study examined whether welfare stigma and/or unemployment stigma, translate to perceptions and hiring decisions made by individuals working in recruitment, potentially creating barriers to re-employment for those without work and relying on unemployment benefits. METHODS: We used a vignette-based experiment (N = 213) where participants working in recruitment rated personality and employment capabilities of characters who were described as employed, unemployed or unemployed and receiving benefits. RESULTS: Characters who were employed were generally rated more positively on employability and work-relevant skills, compared to the unemployed and unemployed benefit recipients, but these differences did not translate into a binary hiring decision (would you hire this person for the job). There were few differences in ratings of personality characteristics between the employed, the unemployed and those who were receiving unemployment benefits. CONCLUSIONS: These results add to knowledge about the determinants of welfare stigma showing that potential bias towards the unemployed and benefit recipients held by recruiters differs from that held by the general public.

Beyond Observation: Manipulating Circumstances to Detect Affordances and Infer Traits

Social perceivers seek to understand the opportunities and threats others potentially afford-for example, whether a teammate will behave tenaciously or a romantic partner, faithfully. We typically detect affordances and draw trait inferences by observing behaviors that reveal or predict others' likely intentions and characteristics. However, detection and inference from simple observation are often difficult (e.g., even dishonest people are frequently honest, people often mask unpopular beliefs). In such cases, we propose that people test, actively manipulating others' circumstances to reveal hard-to-observe affordances and characteristics. The Observation-Testing Model is a framework predicting circumstances under which testing is more likely to happen, which affordances and characteristics are more likely to be tested for, and which people are more likely to test and be tested. We identify preliminary support for the model from a range of literatures (e.g., employment assessment, coming-of-age rituals, dating processes) and identify areas needing further research.

Measuring social desirability bias: Do the full and short versions of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability scale matter?

Given the sensitive nature of ethics research, the presence of social desirability bias (SDB) threatens the validity of research findings. As ethics studies often overlook this bias, we aimed to provide evidence that SDB varies across individual and situational factors. We thus investigated the influence of socio-demographic factors and survey modes on SDB. A total of 348 working adults were randomly chosen to participate in either an on-line or off-line survey containing eight versions of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability (MCSD) scale. The reliabilities for the eight versions ranged from 0.35 to 0.81. Statistical tests revealed that different socio-demographic factors influence different versions of the MCSD scale. The results also showed that using on-line surveys minimizes SDB. This study provides practical implications and suggestions for future research.

How vertical elevation affects self-other integration as measured by the joint Simon effect

Earlier findings suggest that positions of power decrease self-other integration and increase psychological distance to others. Until now, however, evidence for this relation rests exclusively on subjective measures. The current research instead employed a vertical joint Simon task to measure self-other integration. This task assesses the extent to which people represent their own actions in reference to their co-actor's, also referred to as the joint Simon effect. Building on cultural associations between power and vertical elevation, we manipulated whether participants were in an elevated (high-power) or lower (low-power) seating position. Experiments 1a and 1b reanalyzed existing datasets and found that elevated (vs. lower) seating position decreased the joint Simon effect, consistent with predictions. Experiment 2 provides a high-powered replication of this finding. Yet, further analyses revealed that feelings of power - measured as a manipulation check and indeed demonstrating that the manipulation was successful - did not mediate or moderate the effect of seating position on the joint Simon effect. Therefore, it is possible that the effect of seating elevation was driven through other aspects of that manipulation than feelings of power. We discuss these and suggest ways to test these alternative explanations.

Thanks, but No Thanks: Unpacking the Relationship Between Relative Power and Gratitude

Power and gratitude are universal features of social life and impact a wide range of intra- and interpersonal outcomes. Drawing on the social distance theory of power, we report four studies that examine how relative power influences feelings and expressions of gratitude. An archival analysis of author acknowledgements in published academic articles (N = 1,272) revealed that low-power authors expressed more gratitude than high-power authors. A pre-registered experiment (N = 283) involving live conversations online found that having relatively low power caused increased feelings and expressions of gratitude after benefiting from a favor. Another pre-registered experiment (N = 356) demonstrated that increased interpersonal orientation among lower power individuals and increased psychological entitlement among higher power individuals drove these effects. Finally, an archival analysis of conversational exchanges (N = 136,215) among Wikipedia editors revealed that relational history moderated the effect of relative power on gratitude expression. Overall, our findings highlight when and why relative power influences feelings and expressions of gratitude.

The effects of socioeconomic status and situational power on self-other processing in the automatic imitation task

Previous work using physiological measures has shown that socioeconomic status and social power both influence the degree to which people are attuned to the actions of others. However, it is unclear whether such effects on brain activity translate into behaviourally significant outcomes. Here, we examined differences in automatic imitation between individuals varying in SES and power from the local community population. The automatic imitation task involves participants making actions in response to a symbolic cue while simultaneously being exposed to an action that is incongruent or congruent with the cued response. Patterns of interference in reaction time and error rate reveal the extent to which a person is susceptible to influence from the actions of other-what we refer to as "the degree of social attunement". We found that individuals from low SES backgrounds and those in the low power priming group exhibited more interference than individuals from high SES backgrounds and those in the high power priming group. However, we did not observe an interaction between chronic status and the power group. We discuss our results in relation to broader behavioural patterns exhibited by individuals at varying levels of a social structure.

The role of status and power inequalities in leader-member exchange

Demographically diverse leader-member relationships are predominantly studied based on similarity-attraction theory. However, empirical research examining the effect of similarity and dissimilarity on leader-member exchange (LMX) quality has resulted in inconsistent findings. I propose a new theoretical model which suggests that the LMX quality of demographically diverse leader-member dyads is affected by informal and formal status and power inequalities. My propositions, which lead to different outcomes than those of similarity-attraction theory, draw primarily upon social dominance theory and show how inequalities in demographic status and power and in positional status and power intertwine to affect LMX quality. Theoretical contributions and future research opportunities are discussed.

Effects of high and low power on the visual encoding of faces

The experience of power is typically associated with social disengagement, yet power has also been shown to facilitate configural visual encoding - a process that supports the initial perception of a human face. To investigate this apparent contradiction, we directly tested whether power influences the visual encoding of faces. Two experiments, using neural and psychophysical assessments, revealed that low power impeded both first-order configural processing (the encoding of a stimulus as a face, assessed by the N170 event-related potential) and second-order configural processing (the encoding of feature distances within configuration, assessed using the face inversion paradigm), relative to high-power and control conditions. Power did not significantly affect facial feature encoding. Results reveal an early and automatic effect of low power on face perception, characterized primarily by diminished face processing. These findings suggest a novel interplay between visual and cognitive processes in power's influence on social behavior.

Similarities in client-clinician perceptions of subjective social status and its association to similarities in the quality of working alliance and client anxiety symptoms

Subjective social status (SSS) has largely been ignored within psychotherapy literature. We investigated the association between similarities in client-clinician perceptions of SSS, similarities in their report of the quality of working alliance, and resultant anxiety symptoms.

Participants represented a primarily low-income, culturally diverse sample of 312 clients receiving care from 68 clinicians at 13 outpatient mental health clinics in the Northeastern United States between September 2013 and August 2016. As part of a larger randomized controlled trial, clients and clinicians completed the MacArthur Scale of subjective social status and the Working Alliance Inventory (WAI), and clients completed the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item Scale (GAD-7).

At the within-clinician level, client-clinician dyads with less similar perceptions of the client's SSS were characterized by less similar perceptions of their alliance, which in turn resulted in worsening anxiety symptoms.

Clinicians' correct perception of their clients' social status might be important for sharing a similar view of the client-clinician level of alliance, which can, in turn, contribute to lowering the client's anxiety symptoms.

The revealing effect of power: Popularity moderates the associations of personal values with aggression in adolescence

OBJECTIVE

Values have been found to predict aggressive behavior in adolescents. Adolescents who endorse self-enhancement values typically exhibit more aggressive behaviors, while adolescents who endorse self-transcendent values are less likely to behave aggressively. The associations between values and aggression are low to moderate, suggesting that other factors might moderate them. The study examined whether these associations were moderated by adolescent popularity, an indication of social power.

METHOD

The study included 906 adolescents from three cultures: Brazilians (N = 244), Jewish citizens of Israel (N = 250), and Arabic citizens of Israel (N = 409). Personal values were assessed using the Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ). Peer nominations were used to assess direct aggression and popularity.

RESULTS

Popularity moderated the associations between values and aggression: while the aggressive behavior of popular adolescents was highly associated with their personal values, the behavior of unpopular adolescents was unrelated to their values. This effect consistently emerged across samples, with specific variations for gender and culture.

CONCLUSION

Popularity enables adolescents to act according to their personal values: aggressive behaviors increase or decrease according to personal value priorities. The strength of this effect depends on cultural expectations and gender roles.

Power and Personality Perception in Real–Life Hierarchical Relationships

The present study examined how Big Five personality ratings of the same target individuals differ as a function of the power relation between the target and the judge. Our targets were 37 employees with leadership duties from two large organizations. The targets‘ subordinates (N = 352), peers (N = 186), and superiors (N = 62) constituted our groups of judges. The targets and judges also provided self–reports of personality. Subordinate judges showed higher consensus but not higher self–other agreement than peer or superior judges. Furthermore, the targets were judged as more extraverted, more emotionally stable, less agreeable, and less open to experience by their subordinates than by their superiors. The results suggest that (i) observer consensus, but not self–other agreement or assumed similarity varies as a function of real–life power; (ii) the effects of power on mean trait scores are mostly congruent with the previously observed effects of power on behaviour and on stereotypes. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Implicit and Explicit Gender Stereotypes at the Bargaining Table: Male Counterparts’ Stereotypes Predict Women’s Lower Performance in Dyadic Face-to-Face Negotiations

In every major occupational group and at every level of educational attainment, U.S. women earn less than men (Carnevale et al. 2018). Besides a component explained by objective factors (e.g., hours worked, occupation, experience), the gender wage gap includes a large component unexplained by objective factors. This latter component may be attributed, at least in part, to factors such as gender stereotyping and discrimination. In one study, we focus specifically on negotiation partners’ gender stereotypes by investigating mock face-to-face negotiations around salary and benefits mimicking real world job settings. We specifically investigated whether U.S. women’s (n = 83) negotiation performance was predicted by their negotiation counterparts’ implicit and explicit gender stereotypes and whether these effects depended on the gender of the negotiation counterpart and their randomly assigned power role in the negotiation (recruiter vs. candidate). Overall, our findings suggest that regardless of women’s power role in negotiations, women’s lower performance is predicted by their male counterparts’ higher implicit stereotypes. For female recruiters, this effect is further qualified by their male counterparts’ explicit stereotypes. Our discussion explores how temporary power roles contribute to the expression of implicit and explicit gender stereotypes in negotiations. We also discuss practice implications for reducing negative effects of stereotypes on women’s negotiation performance.

Power and social information processing

We review the scientific evidence concerning the relation between power and social information processing. Does having or obtaining power affect how we perceive and judge our social interaction partners and how accurately we do this? High power individuals perceive others as more agentic and tend to project characteristics of themselves onto others. People in power tend to stereotype others more and see them as less human and generally in a more negative way. Powerholders are not more or less accurate in assessing others; rather, the way they understand their power (as responsibility or opportunity) seems to make the difference: Power as responsibility results in better interpersonal accuracy. Our analysis shows that it is not so much being high or low in power that explains how we perceive others, but rather how we understand our power, whether our high power position is stable, and what our current interaction goals are.

Replication of Study 1 in “Differentiating Social and Personal Power” by Lammers, Stoker, and Stapel (2009)

Abstract. We performed an independent, direct, and better powered ( N = 295) replication of Study 1, an experiment ( N = 113) by Lammers, Stoker, and Stapel (2009) . Lammers and colleagues distinguished between social power (influence over others) and personal power (freedom from the influence of others), and found support for their predictions that the two forms of power produce opposite effects on stereotyping, but parallel effects on behavioral approach. Our results did not replicate the effects on behavioral approach, but partially replicated the effects on stereotyping. Compared to personal power, social power produced less stereotyping, but neither form of power differed significantly from the control condition, and effect sizes were considerably lower than the original estimates. Potential explanations are discussed.

Power and moral thinking

This review synthesizes research on how feelings of power affect the processing of moral information. Although power is typically viewed as a potentially corruptive force that reduces our morality, we propose that power amplifies moral thinking - but does so in different ways that potentially run in opposite directions. Building on the Moral Orientation Scale framework [1^•], we propose that power increases the tendency to deliberate about moral questions, increases the tendency to integrate feelings and cognitions, and increases the adherence to principles and rules. Feelings of power do not corrupt, but lead to a more rich, mature, and multifaceted form of morality.

Higher social power increases occupational gender stereotyping in Chinese culture

Prior studies have used the perspective of the social function of social power (such as how power affects interpersonal interaction between the powerful and the powerless) to explore how powerful people stereotype powerless people. In the present research, we further explored how high and low levels of social power affect occupational gender stereotyping from the perspective of how social power affects cognitive processing, that is, social categorization. We proposed that higher social power-primed participants, compared to low social power-primed participants, would be more inclined to use category-based representation and thus use stereotyping. In two studies, we investigated these effects and found that high social power, compared to low social power, increased occupational gender stereotyping in Chinese culture.

Category-Based Learning About Deviant Outgroup Members Hinders Performance in Trust Decision Making

The present research examines whether individuation and categorization processes influence trust decisions about strangers at first and across repeated interactions. In a partial replication of the study reported by Cañadas et al. (2015), participants played an adaptation of the multi-round trust game paradigm and had to decide whether or not to cooperate with unknown partners. Gender (Study 1a) and ethnicity (Studies 1b, 2, and 3) served to create distinct social categories among the game partners, whose reciprocation rates were manipulated at group and individual levels. At the group level, two social groups (i.e., ingroup vs. outgroup) were associated with opposite reciprocation rates (i.e., high vs. low reciprocation rate). At the individual level, consistency was manipulated by altering the reciprocation rate of one out of four members of each social group. That is, there was one inconsistent individual in each group showing a pattern of reciprocation opposite to the group reciprocation rate. Our data, contrary to Cañadas et al.'s (2015) findings, suggested that ingroup partners were individuated given that participants made their decisions to cooperate with the trustees according to their individual reciprocation rate and independently of the group reciprocation rate. In contrast, decisions about outgroup partners (i.e., men in Study 1a and Blacks in Studies 1b, 2, and 3) were affected by category-based thinking. At the same time, in comparison with ingroup, greater cooperation was observed with ethnic outgroups but not with gender outgroups. The consistency of our results with the previous literature on social categorization and across the three experiments seems to indicate they are reliable, supporting the hypothesis that categorization and individuation processes guide trust decision-making, promoting individuation mainly for ingroup and categorization among outgroup members.

Power Corrupts, but Control Does Not: What Stands Behind the Effects of Holding High Positions

People seek high positions not to gain influence over others but to satisfy their need for personal control. Personal control tends to have positive interpersonal consequences. If this is the case, does power indeed corrupt? We argue that holding a high position is associated both with perceptions of power (influence over others) and personal control (influence over one's life). Three studies showed that these two aspects might have opposite consequences: Power over others positively predicted aggressiveness (Study 1, N = 793) and exploitativeness (Study 2, N = 445), whereas personal control predicted these outcomes negatively. In Study 3 ( N = 557), conducted among employees at various organizational positions, the effects of holding a high position on exploitativeness and aggressiveness were differentially mediated by power over others and personal control. We discuss these findings in light of contradicting evidence on the corruptive effects of power.

The effects of skin tone, height, and gender on earnings

Using a theoretical approach grounded in implicit bias and stereotyping theories, this study examines the relationship between observable physical characteristics (skin tone, height, and gender) and earnings, as measured by income. Combining separate streams of research on the influence of these three characteristics, we draw from a sample of 31,356 individual-year observations across 4,340 individuals from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth (NLSY) 1997. We find that skin tone, height, and gender interact such that taller males with darker skin tone attain lower earnings; those educated beyond high school, endowed with higher cognitive ability, and at the higher income level (>75^th percentile) had even lower levels of earnings relative to individuals with lighter skin tone. The findings have implications for implicit bias theories, stereotyping, and the human capital literature within the fields of management, applied psychology, and economics.

Paradoxical Effects of Power on Moral Thinking: Why Power Both Increases and Decreases Deontological and Utilitarian Moral Decisions

The current research explores the role of power in moral decision-making. Some work suggests that power increases utilitarianism; other work suggests power increases deontological judgments. Conversely, we propose that power can both increase and decrease both deontological and utilitarian decisions by building on two recent insights in moral psychology. First, we utilize the moral orientation scale to assess four thinking styles that jointly predict moral dilemma decisions. Second, we employ process dissociation to assess deontological and utilitarian judgments as orthogonal rather than opposite constructs. We conducted two preregistered confirmatory studies that replicated exploratory findings. In Study 1, power increased three moral thinking styles: integration, deliberation, and rule orientation. In Study 2, these decision-making styles simultaneously mediated the effects of power on utilitarian and deontological responses in opposing ways, leading to null effects overall. These results reconcile previous findings and demonstrate the complex yet systematic effects power has on moral decision-making.