Women’s performance at the bargaining table: Why stereotypically feminine negotiation topics may act against women

By: RIPS - IRSP Blog on 5:45 AM

     A widespread stereotype about women is that they are less performant at the bargaining table than men. For example, when it comes to vehicle purchases, popular wisdom suggests that women should be accompanied by a man at the concession so that they can be ‘taken seriously’ and can make a good deal. Indeed, the study of Ayres & Siegelman (1995) showed that car dealers offered women significantly higher initial and final prices than men, although the negotiators (men and women) used exactly the same scripted negotiation strategies. This shows that negotiation outcomes vary by gender in part because negotiation partners are influenced by expectations about the opponent. But, even assuming that they were not, women are still likely to be disadvantaged (compared to men) at the bargaining table because negotiation partners are also influenced by expectations about themselves—which, in this case, does not help women. Here, the widespread stereotype about women’s inferior negotiating ability may affect women themselves through a process called “stereotype threat” (Steele & Aronson, 1995). This phenomenon refers to the risk of confirming a negative stereotype about a stigmatized group due to awareness of the stereotype itself. As a woman, being aware that women are generally not considered as effective negotiators (less than men anyway) can increase performance impairment, even if the woman does not personally adhere to this stereotype.

Source: shutterstock

If this gender gap at the bargaining table seems deeply ingrained in the societal gender roles, one can wonder if such a phenomenon can be reduced (or even reversed) when the topic of the negotiation is typically feminine. Indeed, would a woman feel more expert and comfortable when negotiating feminine topics (compared to gender neutral ones), which would lead her to achieve better performances than men in these circumstances? Or would she perform worse in stereotypically feminine negotiations than in neutral ones? To examine this question, Demoulin and Teixeira (2016) designed an experiment, published in the International Review of Social Psychology, to analyze gender effects in negotiations involving typically female-related topics.

Gender effects in traditionally feminine negotiation tasks

        Fictitious negotiations were organized between a man and a woman who did not live in the same house and who were not in a romantic relationship with each other. For the stereotypically feminine condition, the authors used data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) regarding “Time used for work, care and daily household chores”—which revealed an asymmetry between men and women. Indeed, among the 18 founding countries of the OECD, women spend on average 15.8% of their time on household chores compared to 8% for men. In this case, participants had to imagine that they lived together with their negotiation partner. The negotiation consisted in sharing household duties. In the « gender-neutral » condition, participants had to imagine that they lived together with their negotiation partner and were part of the same association. The negotiation consisted in sharing the different tasks related to the organization of a debate for this association. A pre-negotiation questionnaire assessed first-offer intentions, participants’ aspirations and limits, and perceptions of the negotiation. Then, participants were given 10 minutes to negotiate with each other. Finally, participants filled a post-negotiation questionnaire designed to assess objective outcomes, satisfaction with the process and results, self- and other-stereotypes of warmth and competence, and demographics. The results showed that women had lower aspirations when negotiating a feminine topic, and consequently, were less performant than both men, and women who negotiated in the gender-neutral condition. In both negotiation contexts, women perceived their masculine negotiation partners as more competent than themselves, and perceived themselves as warmer than their partners (this was not observed for men).

Source: shutterstock

Gender gap in negotiation outcomes: Gender-specific social and psychological barriers

        Rather than an innate incapacity, women’s worse negotiation outcomes are largely attributable to a set of gender-specific psychosocial barriers. Indeed, according to the authors, the “feminine” negotiation topic would implicitly activate gender stereotypes—especially as the topic of household duties is likely to highlight gender discrepancies—and, in line with the stereotype threat phenomenon, generate performance impairment for women. Overall, this study leads us to consider the impact of gender differences and inequities that sustain institutionalized social practices: Gender is likely to affect how negotiators behave at the bargaining table. Ultimately, a negative stereotype regarding negotiation skills of women may impact negotiation over pay, workplace conditions, work-life balance, access to promotion, and can keep them from reaching leadership positions. Very concretely, the gender gap in negotiation may in part explain why women in the United States earned only about 77.4% of men’s median annual earnings in 2011, according to the Institute for Women’s Policy Research. The same goes in France: According to INSEE in 2013, at equal age, activity area, job and conditions of employment, men still earn 10% more than women.

Source: shutterstock    

References:

Ayres, I., & Siegelman, P. (1995). Race and gender discrimination in bargaining for a new car. The American Economic Review, 304-321.

Demoulin, S., & Teixeira, C. (2016). “I Do the Dishes; You Mow the Lawn”: Gender Effects in Stereotypically Feminine Negotiation Tasks. International Review of Social Psychology / Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 29(1). 

Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797.

-

To know more about Wage differentials between men and women in France: 

http://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2015/09/22/salaires-les-ecarts-hommes-femmes-se-reduisent-sauf-pour-les-hauts-revenus_4767045_4355770. Html # 2ul2mAekdViXWi70.99

Related Topics published in the IRSP:

Find the special issue of the IRSP on “Stereotype threat in children: Past and present” on Cairn at: http://www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-psychologie-sociale-2014-3.htm

Download the article of Demoulin & Teixeira from the link: 

http://www.rips-irsp.com/articles/10.5334/irsp.83/

-

Qui sont les plus romantiques, les hommes ou les femmes ? Les personnes célibataires ou en couples ?

By: RIPS - IRSP Blog on 5:21 AM

Se pourrait-il que les hommes soient plus romantiques que les femmes ? Cela peut sembler difficile à croire quand nous sommes confrontés de façon régulière aux magazines de mariage, aux comédies romantiques et romans à l’eau de rose commercialisés pour les femmes. Et pourtant …

Source: shutterstock

Le romantisme, tel que défini par les psychologues sociaux, consiste à envisager l'amour comme le critère le plus important dans le choix d'un partenaire. L’orientation romantique de l’amour comporte un ensemble de croyances au sujet de la puissance et la perfection de l'amour : il abat toutes les difficultés, surmonte tous les obstacles. L’échelle de croyances romantiques (Romantic Beliefs Scale ; Sprecher & Metts, 1989) a été conçue spécifiquement pour évaluer l’orientation romantique de l’amour chez les individus. Celle-ci demande aux individus d'évaluer dans quelle mesure ils sont d'accord avec des propositions telles que « Si j'aime quelqu'un, je sais que je peux faire fonctionner la relation en dépit de tous les obstacles » ou « Je ne connaîtrai qu’un seul véritable amour ». L’échelle de croyances romantiques comprends 4 dimensions : la puissance du véritable amour (il surmonte les obstacles), l’unicité du vrai amour (nous ne pouvons aimer véritablement qu’une seule personne), l'idéalisation de la relation (la relation avec son véritable amour frôle la perfection),  le coup de foudre pour le partenaire (l’amour véritable peut frapper immédiatement, et au premier regard).

Qui, entre les hommes ou les femmes, les célibataires ou les couples, sont les plus romantiques ? La recherche actuelle suggère que ce n’est pas forcément qui nous croyons …

Source: shutterstock

Des différences de sexes dans l’adhésion à des croyances romantiques

Une recherche menée par Adamczyk et Metts, publiée dans la RevueInternationale de Psychologie Sociale (RIPS) en 2015, montre que ce ne sont pas les femmes qui sont les plus romantiques. En effet, indépendamment de leur statut relationnel, les 128 hommes interrogés par le biais de l’échelle de croyances romantiques partagent plus fortement des croyances qui idéalisent la relation romantique que les 140 femmes qui ont participé à l’étude. Les chercheurs qui ont développé l'échelle de croyances romantiques (Romantic Beliefs Scale ; Sprecher & Metts, 1989) parviennent d’ailleurs à des conclusions similaires : en moyenne, les hommes obtiennent de scores plus élevés que femmes.

Adamczyk et Metts font référence à différents facteurs pour expliquer ces résultats (2015). D’après les théories évolutionnistes, les femmes ont tendance à être plus pragmatiques dans la recherche de leur partenaire, dans la mesure où, biologiquement parlant, elles investissent davantage en tant que parents. En conséquence, les femmes seraient plus susceptibles de se montrer sélectives et prudentes (ce qui contredit une vision romantique de l’amour), dans le but de veiller à ce que le partenaire choisi soit susceptible d’assurer un rôle parental stable. Les différences de sexe dans l’adhésion aux croyances romantiques peuvent aussi être expliquées par certains facteurs sociaux et culturels, qui permettaient aux hommes d'être plus idéalistes et plus romantiques par leur plus grande liberté économique et leur meilleur accès aux ressources que les femmes. Ainsi, les hommes pourraient se permettre de choisir un partenaire sur la seule base de l'amour, tandis que les femmes devraient se montrer plus terre-à-terre dans le choix de celui-ci.

En tout état de cause, que les raisons de cette disparité entre les sexes soient évolutionnistes ou sociétales, la recherche actuelle dissipe clairement l'idée souvent répandue selon laquelle les hommes ne sont pas romantiques, ou moins que les femmes. Peut-être que tous ces hommes qu’on entraîne à aller voir des comédies romantiques les apprécient plus que ce qu'ils n’aimeraient l’admettre…

Source: shutterstock

Statut relationnel et croyances romantiques

La recherche menée par Adamczyk et Metts (2015) montre également que les célibataires partagent moins fortement les croyances à propos de la puissance du véritable amour et les croyances qui idéalisent la relation romantique que les individus engagés dans des relations sérieuses (de nature non conjugales). Il semble donc que les individus célibataires sont moins susceptibles que les individus en couples de croire que l'amour peut surmonter tous les obstacles et que l’amour véritable peut s’apparenter à la perfection. Comme le soulignent les auteurs, il se peut d’ailleurs que ces croyances participent justement au développement et au maintient de leurs propres statuts relationnels.

-------

Vous pouvez accéder au site de la RIPS à partir de l’adresse : http://www.rips-irsp.com

Suivez également les actualités de la revue à partir des comptes Facebook et Tweeter de la revue !

-------

Références 

Adamczyk, K., & Metts, S. (2015). Romantic beliefs and Polish young adults’ relationship status. International Review of Social Psychology / Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale,  28(3), 7-28. 

Sprecher, S., & Metts, S. (1989). Development of the 'Romantic Beliefs Scale' and examination of the effects of gender and gender-role orientation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6(4), 387-411. doi:10.1177/0265407589064001

When age-based and gender-based discrimination are expressed differently: explicit and implicit prejudice bias the recruitment process

By: RIPS - IRSP Blog on 5:25 AM

       Every workplace consists of people coming from various social, cultural, ethnic or religious backgrounds, to name only a few human differences at the origin of a potential discrimination. Regardless of the fact that the law prohibits employers to make decisions based on such criteria, discrimination remains a pervasive force in the workplace. Indeed, discriminatory treatments continue to occur in many different forms, based on characteristics such as age, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or even weight.

Source: shutterstock

       Whereas a number of actions regarding the battle for gender equality have been implemented, the rights of elders are comparatively accorded less attention, at least by non-specialists. Whether due to outdated skills or prejudicial attitudes towards them, older job seekers often find themselves being forced to withdraw from the labor market or accepting much lower job salaries than they were able to earn. Despite the fact that it is illegal to discriminate against a person because of his or her age with respect to any term of employment (hiring, firing, promotion, layoff, compensation, job assignments…), the inhibiting power of the legislations acting upon gender-based discrimination seems greater than the inhibiting power of the legislations acting upon ageist treatment. Does it have an impact on the expression of discrimination in a recruitment situation? 

       To deal with these concerns, a new article published by Alice Faure and André Ndobo (2015) in the International Review of Social Psychology examines the discourse and responses from 140 recruiters and managers about applicants who were either male or female and younger or older. 

Source: shutterstock

Gender-based and age-based discrimination: overt or covert processes?

       Participants were asked to examine and evaluate an application file submitted for a Customer Relationship Officer position in a bank. They received a booklet containing a recap note about the job offer and a description of required skills and daily tasks. They also received an applicant's resume, describing either a man or a woman, either a highly qualified or a poorly qualified person, and either a 27 years old or a 52 years old person. Then, participants were asked to assess the hiring chances of the described candidate and to provide a written justification for their answer. Thus, the task used by the authors allows access to explicit assessments as well as discursive markers in the discourse, which could reveal a possible discriminatory attitude.

Implicit attitudes revealed by the discourse: the “yes-but” strategy

       To determine if the recruiters’ discourse hide potential discriminatory aspects, the authors conducted a qualitative analysis of the written statements provided by the participants. Two independent coders examined the discursive markers contained in the discourse: the presence of positive or negative evaluative components (e.g., competent, poorly qualified), markers of uncertainty or distance (e.g., maybe, however, but), aspects conveying conviction (e.g., I think that, I believe that) and intensifiers (e.g., absolutely, very much). The authors were then able to compare the explicit evaluations of recruiters with such characteristics detected in their discourses, according to the applicant profile. The results showed that recruiters did not explicitly express sexist prejudices in their evaluation of the applicants, considering men and women as equally eligible for the offered position when they were qualified. Nonetheless, gender-based discrimination was sometimes expressed in a more subtle way. Indeed, an analysis comparing younger women and younger men showed a more extensive use of doubt markers in discourses about women than men. If gender-based discrimination is not explicitly expressed, markers in the discourse appear to convey some pro-masculine bias for younger applicants.

Source: shutterstock

       Besides, further results pointed out that older applicants were penalized by their age.  At the same level of qualification, an older applicant is given less hiring chances than a younger one by recruiters. And this is not getting better when analyzing the discourse markers. Negative components were more frequent for older than younger applicants, and recruiters displayed more doubt markers about them. Apparently, aged-based discrimination is both covert and overt.

Source: shutterstock

       Non-sexist policies seem to fulfill their intended inhibiting function, better than non-ageist policies at least. Sexism seems to manifest itself more implicitly than explicitly, although this does not prevent the “glass ceiling” for women executives, and no real “equal-pay for equal-work” to exist. In both cases, these deeply entrenched biased dynamics can directly impact hiring decisions, promotions, or salaries and can be the trigger for a psychological disengagement process.

            Reference:

Faure, A., Ndobo, A. (2015). On gender-based and aged-based discrimination: when the social ingraining and acceptability of non discriminatory norms matter. International Review of Social Psychology / Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 28(4), 7-43.

Related topics, in the IRSP

Delroisse, S., Herman, G., & Yzerbyt, V. (2012). La justification au cœur de la discrimination: vers une articulation des processus motivationnels et cognitifs. International Review of Social Psychology / Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 25(2), 73-96.

Lagacé, M., Tougas, F., Laplante, J., & Neveu, J. F. (2010). Communication âgiste au travail: une voie vers le désengagement psychologique et la retraite des infirmières d'expérience?. International Review of Social Psychology / Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 23(4), 91-121. 

Ndobo, A. (2009). Biais sexistes et marques d'inégalité de genre dans le discours des recruteurs: un effet de la persistance des discriminations sexistes dans l'accès au travail. International Review of Social Psychology / Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 22(1), 107-136.

Ndobo, A. (2014). Attractiveness effect and the hidden discourse of discrimination in recruitment: the moderating role of job types and gender of applicants. International Review of Social Psychology / Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale,, 27(1), 127-144.

“Boys are better at math”: a longstanding myth with effective and damaging consequences from childhood.

By: RIPS - IRSP Blog on 11:53 AM

There is a longstanding myth of a gender gap between boys’ and girls’ math ability, suggesting some biological differences in how the two genders care and approach math and science. From the toys kids play with, the TV shows they watch, the attitudes of their parents, teachers and peers, girls and boys progressively internalize the idea of a male “math gene” that girls don’t have, and the message that math isn’t for girls. One can remember for example the first talking Barbie saying “Math class is tough!” (sold and retracted in 1992) or the T-shirts made by the clothing company David & Goliath just a few years ago that read “I’m too pretty to do math” (sold in 2011). From an early age, kids are taught that math performance comes from an innate ability that males possess but females lack and that being a girl and being good at science are mutually exclusive. It is not surprising that in the end, women are still underrepresented in STEM fields (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math). Indeed, according to the French Observatory of Inequalities, 75% of students in humanities are women in 2015, while they account for 25% of students in the STEM field in France.

To explain this enduring gender gap in STEM careers like engineering, a growing body of literature provided strong evidence for the role of stereotypes and its powerful impact on women themselves through a process called “stereotype threat” (for a recent review, see Régner et al., 2014). This phenomenon refers to the risk of confirming a negative stereotype about a stigmatized group due to awareness of the stereotype itself. For example, being aware that women are considered as bad drivers (another gendered ability) can increase performance impairment for women drivers. Beyond gender asymmetries, Steele and Aaronson showed in 1995 that African-American students performed worse than their Caucasian peers when they were asked to indicate their race before completing an exam. When race wasn’t a salient factor, everyone performed the same.

       Although the power of stereotypes emerged repeatedly in numerous studies to explain the gender gap in STEM, one can wonder when stereotype threat starts affecting the performance of girls in this domain. To examine this question, Shenouda and Danovitch (2015) designed an experiment, published in a special issue of the IRSP on stereotype threat among children, to test the effect of stereotype threat on girls’ and boys’ performances on a spatial task in kindergarten and elementary school.

Source: shutterstock

Does gender identity begins to threat gendered performances in kindergarten?

       Twenty-two preschool girls took part in a first study. To make gender identity salient, half of them colored a picture of a girl holding a doll. The other half colored a picture of trees. Then, they were asked to perform a task requiring spatial skills, which have been shown to relate to math and science performance. This task consisted of a block-construction task, in which LEGO blocks had to be assembled as quickly and accurately as possible. To find out if girls implicitly believed that boys were more skilled at block-construction than girls, the authors employed an implicit stereotype measure. A story was told to participants about a child who won a block-construction competition, but whose gender was not specified. When participants were asked to repeat the story, the experimenter noted whether they referred to the child in the story using a masculine, feminine, or neutral pronoun. The authors investigated whether gender identity threatened girls’ performance to this spatial task. The results showed that coloring a picture of a girl holding a doll increases performance impairment at an activity related to math and science, suggesting that gender-identity affected girl’s performance in this domain. Moreover, even though girls did not express explicit gender stereotypes about blocks, they implicitly associated superior block competence with boys. 

       A second study conducted among girls and boys in pre-school and first grade children (using a similar procedure) examined whether their performance on the block-construction task could be predicted from implicit and explicit stereotyping levels, the child’s favorite toy as reported by parents (blocks or not), and how often children played with LEGO blocks. 

Attitudes, not aptitudes, contribute to the performances

       The results showed that, after controlling for the effects of age and gender, both boys and girls were slower on the LEGO task if they thought boys were more skilled at block-construction than girls, if LEGO blocks were not their favorite toy, and if they did not frequently play with LEGO blocks. To explain that both genders were slower if they believed that boys were more skilled at block-construction than girls, the authors proposed that boys who believed their group was better at this task may have develop anxiety about meeting this expectation. Overall, study 2 showed that children’s performance on a spatial task was predicted by their preferences for and explicit stereotypes about block-construction, suggesting a link between children’s attitudes and performance. 

Source: shutterstock

Bridging the gap: encouraging girls in STEM starts early

       As this study shows, gender stereotypes, and threats that accompany them, begin to form in an early age. This study highlights the danger that stereotypes constitute from childhood a “hidden barrier” to girls’ future advancement in scientific domains. Stereotypes about who is good at math and science mean that boys are more often praised for being inherently good in this domain, which can affect boys’ and girls’ orientation toward learning. Encouraging girls with activities related to the development of STEM skills could help bridging this gender gap.

_

Here you can see a post on this topic from G. Sundem’s blog at “Psychology Today”:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brain-candy/201306/girls-and-math-study-combats-stereotype-threat

_

            References

Régner, I., Steele, J. R., Ambady, N., Thinus-Blanc, C., & Huguet, P. (2014). Our future scientists: A review of stereotype threat in girls from early elementary school to middle school. International Review of Social Psychology / Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 27(3-4), 13-51.

Shenouda, C. K., & Danovitch, J. H. (2015). Effects of gender stereotypes and stereotype threat on children’s performance on a spatial task. International Review of Social Psychology / Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 27(3-4), 53-77.

Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797.

-

Find the special issue of the IRSP on “Stereotype threat in children: Past and present” on Cairn at: http://www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-psychologie-sociale-2014-3.htm

Download the article from the link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByqQsjszcV2jZ2hnbVpIM1N1ems/view?usp=sharing