Digital Document (pdf, doc, ppt, txt, etc.)

Glick, P., Lameiras, M., Fiske, S. T., Eckes, T., Masser, B., Volpato, C., … Wells, R. (2004). Bad but bold: Ambivalent attitudes toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(5), 713–28.

A 16-nation study involving 8,360 participants revealed that hostile and benevolent attitudes toward men, assessed by the Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory (P. Click & S.T. Fiske, 1999), were (a) reliably measured across cultures, (b) positively correlated (for men and women, within samples and across nations) with each other and with hostile and benevolent sexism toward women (Ambivalent Sexism Inventory, P. Click & S.T. Fiske, 1996), and (c) negatively correlated with gender equality in cross-national comparisons. Stereotype measures indicated that men were viewed as having less positively valenced but more powerful traits than women. The authors argue that hostile as well as benevolent attitudes toward men reflect and support gender inequality by characterizing men as being designed for dominance.

Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878–902.

Stereotype research emphasizes systematic processes over seemingly arbitrary contents, but content also may prove systematic. On the basis of stereotypes' intergroup functions, the stereotype content model hypothesizes that (a) 2 primary dimensions are competence and warmth, (b) frequent mixed clusters combine high warmth with low competence (paternalistic) or high competence with low warmth (envious), and (c) distinct emotions (pity, envy, admiration, contempt) differentiate the 4 competence-warmth combinations. Stereotypically, (d) status predicts high competence, and competition predicts low warmth. Nine varied samples rated gender, ethnicity, race, class, age, and disability out-groups. Contrary to antipathy models, 2 dimensions mattered, and many stereotypes were mixed, either pitying (low competence, high warmth subordinates) or envying (high competence, low warmth competitors). Stereotypically, status predicted competence, and competition predicted low warmth.

DiTomaso, N., Post, C., Smith, D. R., Farris, G. F., & Cordero, R. (2007). Effects of Structural Position on Allocation and Evaluation Decisions for Scientists and Engineers in Industrial R&D. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(2), 175–207.

This paper examines the influence of the structural positions of different demographic groups in the science and engineering labor force on their access to the allocation of favorable work experiences and their effect on decisions about the evaluation of their performance. Our hypotheses challenge assumptions in the management literature that each group will necessarily express ingroup bias and outgroup derogation. Instead, we call attention to the status hierarchy that develops from status construction processes, the prototypicality that emerges from social categorization processes, and a framework of stereotype content that is based on an analysis of structural positions among groups in the society. Using hierarchical linear modeling with survey data from scientists and engineers in research and development in 24 major corporations, we find that U.S.-born white males, who constitute the normative ingroup, receive advantages in both allocation and evaluation decisions from all evaluators, not just from other white men. We also find that normative outgroups (non-male, non-whites, and/or non-U.S. born) receive ambivalent or indifferent more than discriminatory or biased treatment, depending on their structural position in relation to U.S.-born white men, and that these effects are independent of who is doing the rating.

Joshi, A., & Knight, A. P. (2015). Who Defers to Whom and Why? Dual Pathways Linking Demographic Differences and Dyadic Deference to Team Effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 58(1), 59–84.

We develop and test predictions about how demographic differences influence dyadic deference in multidisciplinary research teams, and how differential patterns of dyadic deference emerge to shape team-level effectiveness. We present a dual pathway model that recognizes that two distinct mechanisms—task contributions and social affinity—account for how team members' demographic attributes contribute to deference. Furthermore, we propose that the extent to which these different mechanisms are prevalent in a team has implications for the team's research productivity, with deference based on social affinity detracting from it and deference based on task contributions enhancing it. Using longitudinal data from a sample of 55 multidisciplinary research teams comprising 619 scientists, we found general support for our conceptual model. Our findings underscore the importance of accounting for multiple interpersonal mechanisms to understand the complex, multilevel nature of deference in teams.