Brilliance as gender deviance: Gender-role incongruity as another barrier to women's success in academic fields

IF 3.2 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Boglarka Nyul , Inna Ksenofontov , Alexandra Fleischmann , Rotem Kahalon
{"title":"Brilliance as gender deviance: Gender-role incongruity as another barrier to women's success in academic fields","authors":"Boglarka Nyul ,&nbsp;Inna Ksenofontov ,&nbsp;Alexandra Fleischmann ,&nbsp;Rotem Kahalon","doi":"10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104680","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>“Brilliance,” a state of extreme intellectual ability, is stereotypically associated with men but not women. Research finds that portrayals of brilliance as a prerequisite for success contribute to women's underrepresentation in certain academic fields and high-level positions. In this work, we examined whether gender roles contribute to the perception of women as less brilliant. In four preregistered experimental studies (<em>N</em> = 920), we tested whether brilliance deviates from ascribed and prescribed gender roles more for women than for men and whether such deviation places women who display their brilliance at a higher risk of experiencing backlash. In Study 1, an average intelligent and a brilliant man were rated as more similar on gender-specific traits than an average intelligent and a brilliant woman. In Study 2, while intelligence and gender individually influenced prescriptions of masculinity and femininity, their interaction did not support larger differences for female targets, indicating a lack of differential expectations by gender and intelligence. Study 3 showed that brilliant women are more likely to experience backlash at work than brilliant men, while Study 4 demonstrated that while brilliance enhances professional desirability across genders, it decreases social desirability, suggesting social costs that could affect workplace dynamics. Our results support that brilliance can be considered a form of gender-role deviance for women and might lead to a backlash. This underscores the need for policies to counteract gendered stereotypes of brilliance, which hinder women's career advancement and contribute to the gender gap in the workplace.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48441,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","volume":"116 ","pages":"Article 104680"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103124000933/pdfft?md5=7745bcb725d9007a38dbbea990157348&pid=1-s2.0-S0022103124000933-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103124000933","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

“Brilliance,” a state of extreme intellectual ability, is stereotypically associated with men but not women. Research finds that portrayals of brilliance as a prerequisite for success contribute to women's underrepresentation in certain academic fields and high-level positions. In this work, we examined whether gender roles contribute to the perception of women as less brilliant. In four preregistered experimental studies (N = 920), we tested whether brilliance deviates from ascribed and prescribed gender roles more for women than for men and whether such deviation places women who display their brilliance at a higher risk of experiencing backlash. In Study 1, an average intelligent and a brilliant man were rated as more similar on gender-specific traits than an average intelligent and a brilliant woman. In Study 2, while intelligence and gender individually influenced prescriptions of masculinity and femininity, their interaction did not support larger differences for female targets, indicating a lack of differential expectations by gender and intelligence. Study 3 showed that brilliant women are more likely to experience backlash at work than brilliant men, while Study 4 demonstrated that while brilliance enhances professional desirability across genders, it decreases social desirability, suggesting social costs that could affect workplace dynamics. Our results support that brilliance can be considered a form of gender-role deviance for women and might lead to a backlash. This underscores the need for policies to counteract gendered stereotypes of brilliance, which hinder women's career advancement and contribute to the gender gap in the workplace.

Abstract Image

作为性别偏差的聪明才智:性别角色不协调是女性在学术领域取得成功的另一个障碍
在人们的刻板印象中,"聪明 "是一种极端的智力状态,与男性相关,而与女性无关。研究发现,"聪明 "是成功的先决条件,这种刻板印象导致女性在某些学术领域和高级职位上的代表性不足。在这项研究中,我们研究了性别角色是否会导致人们认为女性不那么聪明。在四项预先登记的实验研究(N = 920)中,我们测试了女性的聪明才智是否比男性更容易偏离被赋予和规定的性别角色,以及这种偏离是否会使展示自己聪明才智的女性面临更高的遭受反击的风险。在研究 1 中,在性别特质上,智力一般的男性和才华横溢的男性比智力一般的女性和才华横溢的女性更相似。在研究 2 中,虽然智力和性别各自影响着对男性和女性特质的描述,但它们之间的相互作用并不支持女性目标的更大差异,这表明性别和智力缺乏不同的期望。研究 3 表明,与出色的男性相比,出色的女性在工作中更有可能遭遇反弹,而研究 4 则表明,虽然出色会提高不同性别的职业理想度,但却会降低社会理想度,这表明社会成本可能会影响职场动态。我们的研究结果表明,对于女性来说,才华可以被视为一种性别角色偏差,并可能导致反弹。这突出表明,有必要制定政策来抵制对聪明才智的性别刻板印象,因为这种刻板印象阻碍了女性的职业发展,并导致了职场中的性别差距。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
2.90%
发文量
134
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Social Psychology publishes original research and theory on human social behavior and related phenomena. The journal emphasizes empirical, conceptually based research that advances an understanding of important social psychological processes. The journal also publishes literature reviews, theoretical analyses, and methodological comments.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信