Search

Would relatively subtle signals that women are devalued in performance environments have interpersonal consequences for women? My dissertation tests this question across three experiments. In Experiment 1, women (N = 109) completed a mock job interview with a subtly sexist (vs. neutral) interviewer while under stereotype threat or no threat. Women under any form of threat (either stereotype threat or interacting with a subtly sexist interviewer) reported greater feelings of threat and more negative evaluations of the interviewer relative to women under no threat at all (neutral interviewer, no stereotype threat). In Experiment 2, male and female naïve observers (N = 185) viewed videos of interviewees from Experiment 1 without sound. Interviewees under no threats at all were evaluated quite favorably; however, interviewees under either form of threat (stereotype threat or interacting with a subtly sexist interviewer) were evaluated as less competent and hireable than interviewees under neither threat. In Experiment 3 (N = 277), women watched a video of and rehearsed interacting with the subtly sexist or neutral interviewer from Experiment 1 after being subtly excluded (vs. equally included; a manipulation of belonging threat) during an online game with three male players. Exposure to the subtly sexist interviewer led to greater expected threat in the interview, which in turn decreased the perceived identity safety of the work environment, but only for women whose belonging had previously been threatened. Exposure to the subtly sexist interviewer also increased women’s desire to be evaluated as physically attractive but decreased their motivations to approach the interviewer; these effects were not moderated by belonging threat, however. The results of these three experiments suggest that experiences of social identity threat from the environment and from social interactions not only impact women’s self-concepts, motivations, and behavior, but can also lead outside observers to evaluate these women as less capable and less qualified.

Contains fulltext : 228242.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) Drawing on the concept of a gale of creative destruction in a capitalistic economy, we argue that initiatives to assess the robustness of findings in the organizational literature should aim to simultaneously test competing ideas operating in the same theoretical space. In other words, replication efforts should seek not just to support or question the original findings, but also to replace them with revised, stronger theories with greater explanatory power. Achieving this will typically require adding new measures, conditions, and subject populations to research designs, in order to carry out conceptual tests of multiple theories in addition to directly replicating the original findings. To illustrate the value of the creative destruction approach for theory pruning in organizational scholarship, we describe recent replication initiatives re-examining culture and work morality, working parents’ reasoning about day care options, and gender discrimination in hiring decisions. Significance statement It is becoming increasingly clear that many, if not most, published research findings across scientific fields are not readily replicable when the same method is repeated. Although extremely valuable, failed replications risk leaving a theoretical void - reducing confidence the original theoretical prediction is true, but not replacing it with positive evidence in favor of an alternative theory. We introduce the creative destruction approach to replication, which combines theory pruning methods from the field of management with emerging best practices from the open science movement, with the aim of making replications as generative as possible. In effect, we advocate for a Replication 2.0 movement in which the goal shifts from checking on the reliability of past findings to actively engaging in competitive theory testing and theory building. Scientific transparency statement The materials, code, and data for this article are posted publicly on the Open Science Framework, with links provided in the article. 19 p.