Kray,
Galinsky, & Thompson, 2002
Two experiments examine the role of masculine and
feminine traits in performance of women and men in
negotiation situations. In Experiment 1,
male-female dyads of MBA students were told that an
upcoming negotiation exercise was highly diagnostic of
negotiating ability. In addition, participants
were told either that excellent verbal skills, listening
skills, and insight into other's feelings assist in
negotiation (female stereotype benefit condition) or
that well-prepared, humorous, open-minded individuals do
well in negotiations (control). Men expected to do
better than women in the control condition, but women
expected to do better in the condition in which
stereotypical female traits were tied to negotiating
success. Actual negotiation success mirrored these
results as did post-negotiation measures of
effectiveness. In Experiment 2, male-female
negotiation dyads were told about traits that supposedly predicted
poor performance in negotiation. Half of the
participants were told that assertiveness,
self-interest, rationality, and limited emotional
expression predicted poor negotiating skills (male
stereotypic disadvantage condition), and the other half
were told that passivity, reliance on listening,
reliance on intuition, and emotional display (female
stereotypic disadvantage condition) were associated with
poor negotiation skills. Women's performance was
better in the male disadvantage condition but men's
performance was better in the female disadvantage
condition. These results show the malleability of
stereotype threat effects, changing the group
experiencing stereotype threat by modifying the
attributes that are believed to produce success in a
given domain.
Back to top | Previous
Page
|
