Madeline Heilman, from New York University, has a real lemon
on her hands. It's research she carried out to reveal
conclusions she had already made. Such research does not
advance our knowledge unless it stumbles upon a new finding,
and that's what happened with Ms. Heilman's study.
Heilman began innocently enough with the observation that
women are not well represented at the executive level in
major corporations. It's a legitimate problem. We need the
unique contribution that women can make. It's a squandering
of a valuable resource, and it reveals a human cost of lost
opportunity for individuals whose potential is thwarted.
Unfortunately, Ms. Heilman designed a research study
guaranteed to discover the findings she was hoping would
emerge.
Her first step was to select people whose gender stereotypes
she could explore. She chose Intro to Psych university
students, average age: 19.5. Teenagers! Cowed,
away-from-home-for-the-first-time undergraduates who think
obsessively about who they are and what kind of adults they
will become. Not surprisingly, she found clear differences
in this group between the kind of people they think women
should be and the kind of people they think men should be.
Women, she found, should be socially sensitive, service
oriented, and should value supporting community and family
needs. Men should be self-assertive, tough, and achievement
oriented. Further, women should not display behaviors
typically associated with men, and men should not display
behaviors typically associated with women.
With these stereotypes clearly in mind, Ms. Heilman's next
step was to describe hypothetical people and situations to
these students and instruct them to answer questions. The
hypothetical people in her descriptions were assistant vice
presidents in an aircraft manufacturing company, and their
jobs involved supervising junior executives. Most were male,
but she mixed in a few women to see how these students would
react to a woman in a clearly male job. The questions she
asked involved rating performance and also describing their
personal feelings about these hypothetical people. The
students were asked to describe how likely it was that they
would like these job holders. They were also asked to rate
how abrasive, conniving, manipulative, trustworthy, selfish,
and pushy they thought these job holders were. Not
surprisingly, the students reported higher negative ratings
for the women in these jobs. They had, after all, violated
the stereotyped gender norms these students had just finished
describing, and since the hypothetical people weren't real,
the students had only their stereotypes to examine to form
these judgments.
Most people would not answer such silly questions, but
Ms. Heilman's subjects gave her enough data, so she could
support the conclusions she had already formed: Women
are victimized in the workplace by gender stereotypes that
punish them with social sanctions such as dislike for being
clearly successful in male-dominated occupations.
But a funny thing happened on the way to these conclusions.
A second study intended to repeat the findings of the first
included situations that placed men in hypothetical positions
that are dominated by women and require stereotypical female
qualities to be successful. Once again, women succeeding in
male dominated roles were punished by Heilman's teenagers
imagining negative qualities about them, but their strongest
invective was reserved for the men. When hypothetical men
filled roles dominated by women, then the students reacted so
strongly that their negativity carried over to a third role
intended to display neutral, middle ground. No negative
reactions were expected for this role, but for men, there
they were.
Heilman believes she stumbled upon a general prejudice
against men, and this definitely intruded into her agenda to
expose prejudice punishing successful women occupying
male-dominated roles. She promised a future study to explore
it.
Heilman's research urged undergraduates to reveal their
gender stereotypes and then to form judgments based on them,
but her work begs the question of wider applicability. She
would have us believe that her undergraduates are
representative of the population at large. I doubt that. I
think mature people are appreciative of the positive
qualities they find in others regardless of their gender. I
am, however, troubled by the impact of such research on women
who are invited by it to be suspicious of men and to expect
social punishment if they dare to be successful in a
male-dominated role. Such expectations, too often, become
self-fulfilling prophesies.
Reference: Heilman, Madeline E., Aaron Wallen, Daniella
Fuchs, and Melinda Tamkins (2004) Penalties for Success:
Reactions to Women Who Succeed at Male Gender-Typed Tasks.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89 (3), 416-427.
Supervision Findings, by James Larsen, Ph.D.
Punishment for Success
New research reveals how to correct a common employee disappointment.