Women are penalized if they do not behave in a
stereotype-congruent manner (Heilman, 1983,2001; Eagly and Carli, 2007).
For example, because women are not expected to be agentic they incur an “agency
penalty” for expressing anger, dominance or assertiveness (Rudman, 1998; Rudman and Glick, 1999, 2001; Eagly and Karau, 2002; Rudman and Fairchild, 2004; Brescoll and Uhlmann, 2008; Livingston et al., 2012).
Yet, all women are not equally penalized (Livingston et al., 2012).
We make a novel contribution by examining how both White and Black evaluators
respond to displays of Black women’s dominance, in this case, whether Black
women choose to wear Afrocentric or Eurocentric hairstyles.
We conducted three experimental studies to examine the
influence of target hairstyle and participant race on ratings of the target’s
professionalism (Studies 1, 2, and 3) and dominance (Study 2). Study 1 was an
online experimental study with 200 participants (112 females, 87 males, 1
missing gender; 160 Whites, 19 Blacks, 11 Latinos, 7 Asian Americans and 3 who
identify as “other”; Mage = 35.5,SD = 11.4). Study 2 was an online
experimental study with 510 participants (276 women, 234 males; 256 Blacks, 254
Whites; Mage = 41.25 years, SD =
12.21). Study 3 was an online experimental study with 291 participants (141
Blacks, 150 Whites, Mage = 47.5 years, SD =
11.66).
Black, as compared to White, evaluators gave higher agency
penalties to Black employment candidates when they donned Afrocentric versus
Eurocentric hair, rating them as more dominant and less professional.
The present research illustrates the significance of
considering both target and evaluator race when examining the influence of
agency, and specifically dominance, on ratings of professionalism.
Read more at: http://ht.ly/SpDwV
By: Tina R. Opie1,* and Katherine W. Phillips2
1Management Division, Babson College, Babson Park, MA, USA
2Management Division, Columbia Business School, New York, NY, USA
No comments:
Post a Comment