Theresa K. Vescio

Power and the creation of patronizing environments: the stereotype-based behaviors of the powerful and their effects on female performance in masculine domains.

This work tested the following hypothesis: When powerful men stereotype their female subordinates in masculine domains, they behave in patronizing ways that affect the performance of their subordinates. Experiment 1 examined the stereotyping tendencies and patronizing behaviors of the powerful. Findings revealed that powerful men who stereotyped their female subordinates (i.e., those who were weakness focused) gave female subordinates few valued resources but much praise. In Experiment 2, low-power participants received resources (valued or devalued positions) and praise (high or low) from a powerful man. Subordinates who were assigned to a devalued position but received high praise (i.e., the patronizing behavior mirrored from Experiment 1) were angry. However, men performed better in the anger-inspiring situation, whereas women performed worse.

Intergroup Anxiety: A Person × Situation Approach

A person × situation approach to the study of intergroup anxiety is offered in which anxiety in intergroup encounters is viewed as a transaction between the individual and the environment. An individual difference measure of intergroup anxiety toward African Americans is developed, and studies assessing the scales reliability and validity are presented. The utility of a person × situation approach is shown in an experiment in which participants high or low in intergroup anxiety were told they would interact with either a European American or an African American. Participants high in intergroup anxiety who were supposed to interact with an African American evidenced the highest state anxiety, perceived the interaction as most difficult, and viewed their partners as most dissimilar from themselves. Issues surrounding sources of intergroup anxiety and the relationship between intergroup anxiety and prejudice are discussed.

She Swings, She Hits, She’s Great, She’s Benched: Implications of Gender-Based Shifting Standards for Judgment and Behavior

The implications of the shifting standards model for understanding behavior toward stereotyped groups were examined in two studies on gender and athleticism. Participants played the role of co-ed softball team managers, who made team selections, position assignments, and judgments about a series of male and female players. The data supported three hypotheses: (a) Stereotypes of male superiority as athletes lead to the use of shifting standards to judge athletic performance; (b) zero-sum behaviors (allocation of limited resources) show evidence of pro-male bias, whereas non-zero-sum behaviors (verbal and nonverbal reactions) show evidence of pro-female bias; and (c) objective judgments are somewhat better predictors of zero-sum behaviors, whereas subjective judgments are better predictors of non-zerosum behaviors.

When what you see is what you get: The consequences of the objectifying gaze for women and men

This research examined the effects of the objectifying gaze on math performance, interaction motivation, body surveillance, body shame, and body dissatisfaction. In an experiment, undergraduate participants (67 women and 83 men) received an objectifying gaze during an interaction with a trained confederate of the other sex. As hypothesized, the objectifying gaze caused decrements in women’s math performance but not men’s. Interestingly, the objectifying gaze also increased women’s, but not men’s, motivation to engage in subsequent interactions with their partner. Finally, the objectifying gaze did not influence body surveillance, body shame, or body dissatisfaction for women or men. One explanation for the math performance and interaction motivation findings is stereotype threat. To the degree that the objectifying gaze arouses stereotype threat, math performance may decrease because it conveys that women’s looks are valued over their other qualities. Furthermore, interaction motivation may increase because stereotype threat arouses belonging uncertainty or concerns about social connections. As a result, the objectifying gaze may trigger a vicious cycle in which women underperform but continue to interact with the people who led them to underperform in the first place. Implications for long-term consequences of the objectifying gaze and directions for future research are discussed.

Power in stereotypically masculine domains: A social influence strategy x stereotype match model

This work examines the hypothesis that stereotypes of groups to which low-power people belong should influence the perceptions and behavior of powerful people only when those stereotypes are both contextually relevant (e.g., women in masculine domains) and provide information of relevance given powerful peoples beliefs about the relation between subordinates and goal attainment. Findings across two studies supported predictions. In a masculine domain, when high-power men were attentive to subordinate weaknesses that may produce thwarts to goal attainment, stereotypes of women defined the contextually relevant shortcomings of women, and stereotype-consistent high-power behaviors ensued. In contrast, when powerful men were attentive to subordinate strengths that may enhance goal strivings, stereotypes of women were uninformative (i.e., did not contain information about relevant strengths); female and male employees were responded to and, in turn, performed and reacted similarly. The implications of these findings for theorizing on the relation between power and stereotyping are discussed.

When are people interchangeable sexual objects? The effect of gender and body type on sexual fungibility

The purpose of this research was to empirically examine the fungibility hypothesis derived from sexual objectification theory. Sexual objectification theorists have suggested that like objects, people, typically women, may be fungible or interchangeable with similar others. Despite its provocative nature and potential adverse psychological consequences, the fungibility hypothesis has yet to be empirically examined. We suggested that women, regardless of body types, but also men with body types that resemble the cultural ideal of attractiveness (e.g., large arms and chests and narrow waists), would be more fungible than men with body types that resemble the cultural average. Participants (n = 66) saw images of average and ideal women and men once before they completed a surprise matching task requiring that they match the bodies and faces that appeared together in the original images. Consistent with hypotheses, we found that women with ideal bodies, women with average bodies, and men with ideal bodies were more fungible (perceivers made more body-face pairing errors) than men with average bodies. Furthermore, it appears that when people are fungible they are interchangeable with people with similar body types. Implications and directions for future research on objectification and fungibility are discussed.

The effects of suppressing thoughts and images about worrisome stimuli

Several investigations have examined the potential role of mentation suppression in various psychological disorders. Existing studies do not, however, differentiate between the effects of suppressing imagery- versus thought-based mentation. This distinction is an especially important one for worry, given the predominantly thought-based nature of the worry process. The present study sought to distinguish between the effects of suppressing thoughts versus images about worrisome versus neutrally valenced topics. Consistent with past studies of worry suppression, results failed to find a rebound effect regardless of valence (worrisome, neutral) or mentation content (thoughts, images). However, results did indicate that a decrease in worrisome mentation across two consecutive expression periods was more pronounced when the worrisome material was imagery-based rather than thought-based in nature. Implications of these findings as they pertain to the perpetuation of worrisome activity and to treatment of generalized anxiety disorder are discussed.

When stereotype‐based expectancies impair performance: the effect of prejudice, race, and target quality on judgments and perceiver performance

High- and low-prejudiced participants were presented with a lecture segment in which the race of the professor (White or Black) and lecture quality (high or low) were manipulated. Consistent with predictions, low-prejudiced participants were more extreme in their evaluations (more negative) and performed more poorly on test items when presented with an expectancy-violating low-quality Black lecturer. High-prejudiced participants were more extreme in their evaluations (more positive) and performed more poorly when presented with an expectancy-violating high-quality Black lecturer. Copyright