Think women, think warm - MBA Program Web...

Think women, think warm 1

Running head: Think women, think warm

Think Women, Think Warm: Stereotype Content Activation in Women With a Salient Gender

Identity, Using a Modified Stroop Task

Judith B. White1

Wendi L. Gardner2

Address correspondence to Judith B. White

Post 100 Tuck Hall, Hanover, NH 03755

Email [email protected]

Fax 603.646.1308

Voice 603.646.9054

in press, Sex Roles

1 Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire 2 Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois


ABSTRACT

We examined whether a salient gender identity activates gender stereotypes along the

dimensions of sociability and ability (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002). A sample of US

undergraduates (40 men, 38 women) instructed to think about women subsequently took longer

to name the colors of words associated with sociability than ability on a modified Stroop task.

Solo women in another sample of US undergraduates (45 women) showed the same response

pattern. Women in a third sample of US adults (20 men, 16 women) showed a similar pattern.

Meta-analysis of the three samples suggests women with a salient gender identity experience

relative activation of only the positive dimension of a stereotype (e.g. "woman" equals warm).

KEYWORDS: stereotype content, stereotype activation, gender, Stroop task, solo status


Sugar and spice and all things nice, that's what little girls are made of.

Mother Goose

Introduction

Professional success is a challenge for men and women alike. It takes hard work to earn

respect and status regardless of whether one is male or female. Yet researchers have long

theorized and even shown that women may have a slightly harder time achieving this success,

because competent and powerful are attributes not consistent with the widely held stereotype of

women (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Glick & Fiske, 1996). As in the nursery rhyme, women are

considered warm and nice, not necessarily able and competent.

An additional barrier for women is that as they advance in their careers, they are

increasingly likely to be outnumbered by men in the executive suite (Helfat, Harris, & Wolfson,

2006). Being outnumbered heightens one’s self-consciousness with regard to minority status, and

makes minority identity, e.g., being a woman, salient (Cota & Dion, 1986). Being in the minority

places added pressure on women to conform to the female stereotype (Kanter, 1977), and raises

the fear of backlash from male and female colleagues alike if they are not sufficiently "nice"

(Rudman & Glick, 1999). We tend to think of these pressures as being directed toward a woman

from her colleagues. However, stereotypes can have a negative effect on a woman's ability to

advance in her career regardless of whether her colleagues are overtly sexist, whether or not they

discriminate against women. This is because stereotypes can create an internal cognitive problem

for women who aspire to high status positions in a male-dominated organization.


Stereotypes are part of our cultural knowledge. The content of gender stereotypes is both

explicit (people can tell us what they are) and implicit (people apply the information

automatically when making judgments). Men and women alike learn the content of stereotypes

and are affected by the information. When the female stereotype is cognitively activated, it

affects how women view themselves, a phenomenon called self-stereotyping (Sinclair,

Huntsinger, Skorinko, & Hardin, 2005). It may also cause women to behave in a manner more

consistent with the stereotype, called an ideomotor (Wheeler & Petty, 2001) or active-self

(DeMarree, Wheeler, & Petty, 2005) response. Research has shown that being in the minority

results a women's gender stereotype being activated (Inzlicht, Aronson, Good, & McKay, 2006).

Thus, when a woman works in a male-dominated environment, stereotype activation could affect

her self-views and her behavior, and consequently her performance, even when her colleagues

are not overtly sexist or discriminatory.

The purpose of the present research was to take the first look at how the positive

(sociability) and negative (ability) dimensions of the female gender stereotype as described in

stereotype content model (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002) are activated in women who work

in male-dominated environments. We used a modified version of a Stroop test (1935) to measure

stereotype activation. Words associated with the underlying dimensions of gender stereotypes

(sociability, ability) were presented along with non-trait words in colored fonts on a computer

screen. Participants were instructed to ignore the word meaning, and to respond to the font color

as quickly as possible by pressing a color-coded key. In this implicit measure of stereotype

activation, a measurable delay in response times is an indication that stereotype words are

associated with an activated construct which is interfering with the assigned task of color

identification. Three studies used the modified Stroop test to examine the pattern of gender


stereotype activation. Gender category salience was manipulated in Study 1 by explicitly

instructing participants to think about men or women. Gender identity salience was manipulated

in Study 2 by giving some women solo gender status. Gender identity salience was then assumed

in Study 3 by testing a sample of adult women in the workplace.

This paper extends previous work in two ways. First, we examine both the positive and

negative content of gender stereotypes (e.g., women are good at nurturing but bad at math) and

test whether one or both dimensions are activated when a woman's gender identity is salient.

Second, we use a modified Stroop task (Stroop, 1935) to measure cognitive interference in

contrast to previous research that has used implicit measures such as the IAT (Greenwald,

McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998) or word-stem completion tasks (e.g., Steele & Aronson, 1995) that

measure facilitation effects of stereotype activation. The results of these studies are important

because they suggest that women who work in male-dominated environments may

subconsciously think and possibly automatically conform to the "women-are-warm" positive

stereotype dimension even when they do not face explicit stereotype threat.

Identity Salience and Stereotype Activation

Social identities are parts of the self-concept that arise from the knowledge that we share

membership in a social group or category (Tajfel, 1981). Woman and man are social identities. It

is generally accepted that the social context can make a particular social identity salient (Shih,

Pittinsky, & Ambady, 1999). For example, being the only woman in a group makes that

distinctive gender identity salient (Cota & Dion, 1986). Women who are in the numeric minority

in their work environment report that they are strongly conscious of their gender identity and

how it differentiates them from their co-workers (MacCorquodale & Jensen, 1993; Theberge,


1993). A salient identity has a greater influence on our cognition and behavior, on "who we are"

at any given moment (Gardner, Gabriel, & Lee, 1999).

One way to think of a social identity is as a cognitive schema that contains identity-

relevant information (Greenwald, 1980). Gender schemas contain gender-relevant information,

including the content of gender stereotypes. Therefore, when a gender identity is salient, the

associated gender stereotype is activated. An activated stereotype causes self-judgments,

attitudes, and behavior to become more consistent with the stereotype. In the case of self-

judgments, Sinclair, Hardin & Lowery (2006) show that Asian-American women describe

themselves as better at math when their ethnic identity is salient, and better at verbal ability when

their gender identity is salient. They also find that European-American men describe themselves

as being better at math when their gender identity is salient, and better at verbal ability when

their ethnic identity is salient. Female students who expect to meet with men at a later date

describe themselves as more feminine than when they expect to meet with other women (Chiu et

al., 1998). A salient gender identity also makes women's attitudes more stereotypical: more

positive toward arts and more negative toward math (Steele & Ambady, 2006). Finally, an

activated self-stereotype also affects behavior. Shih, Pittinsky and Ambady (1999) find that

Asian-American women perform better on a math test when their Asian-American identity is

salient, and worse when their gender identity is salient. The nature and direction of effects of

stereotype activation in these studies depend explicitly on which social identity is salient (e.g.,

Asian or female), but implicitly on which dimension of the relevant stereotype is activated (e.g.,

good at math or socially reserved, versus bad at math or sociable). Understanding which

dimension of the stereotype is activated is thus key to predicting the impact stereotype activation

will have on an individual.


Research has demonstrated that the same social identity can have opposite effects on

behavior, depending on what part of the stereotype is activated. Consider that the stereotype of

old people contains positive information about wisdom but also negative information about

forgetfulness. When the positive dimension is primed elderly people show memory

improvements, but when the negative dimension is primed they show memory deficits (Levy,

1996). Stone, Lynch, Sjomeling, and Darley (1999) find that white men perform well on an

athletic assessment when it is presented as a test of intelligence, but poorly when the same

assessment is presented as a test of athletic ability. In these studies, researchers control whether a

positive (e.g., wise, intelligent) or negative (e.g. forgetful, un-athletic) dimension of a stereotype

is activated, and consequently control how the stereotype activation affects performance. But we

know little about what particular aspects or dimensions of gender stereotypes are activated when

a woman's gender identity is salient in a work context. Researchers therefore lack crucial

information necessary to formulate hypotheses about how ideomotor effects might influence the

behavior of women who work in male-dominated environments. It is thus important, as a first

step, to examine what content of the gender stereotype is activated in women with a salient

gender identity.

Stereotype Content

The stereotype content model (SCM) posits that stereotypes have two dimensions, ability

(competence) and sociability (warmth; Fiske et al., 2002; Fiske, Xu, Cuddy, & Glick, 1999). A

particular group may be stereotyped as high or low on either dimension, which means there are

four subtypes of stereotypes: high ability/high sociability, high ability/low sociability, low

ability/high sociability, and low ability/low sociability. As an example, the stereotype of Asian

Americans in the United States is high ability/low sociability (Lin, Kwan, Cheung, & Fiske,


2005). If a group is stereotyped as being high on a dimension, that dimension is assumed to be a

"positive" stereotype of the group. For women in many cultures including the U.S., the positive

stereotype is warmth or sociability, while the negative stereotype is low competence or ability

(Fiske & Cuddy, 2006). This suggests that stereotype activation could have positive (i.e., more

sociable) and/or negative (i.e., less competent) ideomotor effects, depending on whether content

associated with the positive or negative dimension is activated.

One might assume that a salient female identity will activate both stereotype dimensions,

e.g., positive sociability and negative ability. A second, more intuitive assumption is that only

the negative dimension will be activated as a precursor to stereotype threat (Spencer, Steele, &

Quinn, 1999). For example, the word-fragment completion task used by Steele and Aronson

(1995) and Inzlicht, Aronson, Good & McKay (2006) consists only of negative word fragments.

However, there is some reason to expect that absent the conditions required to elicit stereotype

threat, only the positive dimension of a stereotype is activated by a salient gender identity. The

rationale for this expectation comes from Rudman, Greenwald and McGhee (2001). They find

that people implicitly associate only the positive dimension of a gender stereotype with the self.

In their studies, Rudman et al. use a version of the Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald,

McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998) to measure whether gender is implicitly associated with one or both

dimensions of the stereotype. They find that women tend to associate the category women with

the positive stereotype dimension of warmth (similar to sociability) but not with the negative

stereotype dimension of low potency (similar to ability). Men, on the other hand, show an

implicit association between the category men and the positive stereotype of potency, but not

between men and the negative stereotype dimension of low warmth. In other words, women


implicitly associate the category women with sociability, while men implicitly associate the

category men with ability.

Each dimension has two poles representing a positive (e.g. high ability) and a negative

(e.g. low ability) valence. There is evidence that both poles of the relevant positive dimension are

associated one's gender identity. For example, Flynn and Levine (2007) document that both

positive (warm, nice) and negative traits (bitchy, back-stabbing) related to sociability are

perceived as stereotypically female. Rudman et al. (2001) report that women implicitly associate

the category women with positive sociability words like warm, nurture, and nice, but also with

negative sociability words like cold, abandon, and distant. Men associate the category men with

positive potency words like power and strong, but also with negative potency words like weak

and surrender. Therefore, it appears that while only the positive dimension of a stereotype is

implicitly associated with the self, both positive and negative traits (e.g., warm, cold) that

describe that positive dimension (sociability) are implicitly associated with one's gender identity.

Stereotype Interference

Our premise is that a salient gender identity automatically activates the associated

stereotype and that once activated, the stereotype can interfere with a solo woman's cognition,

attitudes, and behavior. While the IAT gives a measure of the implicit association between

stereotype dimensions and gender identity, a Stroop task (Stroop, 1935) measures cognitive

interference. In the original Stroop task, participants name the font color of words printed in red,

blue, green or yellow font. The words themselves are color words that either do or do not

correspond with the font color. The dominant response to the stimuli is to read the word and not

to name the font color, so when they are inconsistent (i.e., blue letters that spell red), participants

take longer to name the font color. The longer response time is a measure of the cognitive


interference caused by the dominant response to say "red" when the correct response is to say

"blue" (MacLeod, 2005). The Stroop task has been modified to take advantage of the fact that it

takes longer to name the color of any word that is associated with an activated construct. The

longer response time relative to other words is an indirect measure that the associated construct

is activated.

Two studies provide relevant examples of how a modified Stroop task measures construct

activation. Geller and Shaver (1976) prime the self by having participants face both a mirror and

a camera. This manipulation increases the time it takes participants to name the colors of self-

relevant words, compared to other words. A similar methodology is used to measure how a

category prime activates a stereotype. Kawakami, Dion & Dovidio (1999) modify the Stroop

task by inserting a category prime before each trial. A prime of "Black" increases the time it

takes participants to name the color of the word that follows when the word is associated with

the Black stereotype. Neither of these studies codes words either according to their valence or

according to their association with a particular dimension of the stereotype. Nevertheless, based

on this research, we presume that longer response times to a category of words such as capable

and clever, are an indication that the category of ability is activated.

Gender

Gender stereotypes are different for men than for women, so we expect men and women

to respond differently to words associated with the two dimensions of the Stereotype Content

Model (Fiske, et al., 2002). As we alluded to above, there are two competing hypotheses that

could be generated from existing theory and research regarding stereotype interference based on

a salient gender identity. Hypothesis 1, consistent with Rudman et al.'s (2001) results, is that a

salient gender identity activates only the positive dimension of the gender stereotype (sociability


for women, ability for men) and therefore participants thinking of women or of a female identity

will take longer to name the colors of words associated with the sociability (e.g., warm and rude)

than ability (e.g., capable and clumsy), while participants thinking of men or of a salient male

identity will take longer to names the colors of words associated with ability than sociability.

Hypothesis 2, consistent with the assumptions underlying literature on stereotype threat (Steele,

Spencer, & Aronson, 2002) is that a salient gender identity activates the entire stereotype, not

just the positive dimension, and therefore participants thinking of women or of a salient female

identity will take longer to name the colors of words associated with positive sociability (warm)

and negative ability (clumsy), while participants thinking of men or of a salient male identity will

take longer to name the colors of words associated with positive ability (capable) and negative

sociability (rude).

Study 1

Our first study tested these hypotheses by manipulating gender category salience and

having participants complete a modified Stroop task. The independent variable in Study 1 was

gender category salience, which we manipulated by asking participants to think either about men

or about women (gender salience manipulation, described below). The dependent variables in

Study 1 were the mean response times to six categories of words in a modified Stroop task. The

six categories were incompetent, competent, negative non-trait, positive non-trait, cold, and

warm. Hypothesis 1 stated that thinking about women would activate the sociability dimension,

resulting in longer response times to sociability words (cold, warm) than to ability words

(incompetent, competent), while thinking about men would activate the ability dimension,

resulting in longer response times to ability words than to sociability words. The competing

Hypothesis 2 stated that thinking about women would activate the content of the gender


stereotype, resulting in longer response times to positive sociability (warm) and negative ability

words (incompetent) than to negative sociability (cold) and positive ability (competent) words,

while thinking about men would activate the opposite content. Because men and women received

the same instructions to make either the category women or the category men salient, we did not

predict any effects or interactions associated with participants' gender in Study 1.

Method

Participants. Participants were students at a small, private American university. They

were recruited as they passed through a college library lounge and asked to complete a brief

study in exchange for a travel mug and two packets of instant cocoa. Forty men and 38 women,

ages 18-27, M = 20.78, SD = 1.58, agreed to participate. Participants were randomly assigned to

a male or female gender salience condition. Participants in all four cells completed the modified

Stroop task described below.

Gender salience. In the female salience condition, participants were asked to identify by

their initials four women: one they knew well and wanted to be more like, one they didn't know

well yet wanted to be more like, one they knew well and did not want to be more like, and one

they did not know well and did not want to be more like. In addition, participants were asked to

describe one thing they had in common with each woman they identified. The male salience

condition was exactly the same, except that participants were asked to think of four men rather

than four women.

Modified Stroop task. To create the word list for the Stroop task, we used a thesaurus to

generate first-order synonyms for the underlying trait words of competent and warm, and their

antonyms incompetent and cold. From each first-order synonym, we generated a set of second-

order synonyms. From these lists we chose 10 words for each category such that the mean word


length for the words in each category was nearly equal. In addition to these four categories of

competent, incompetent, warm and cold, we added two categories of positive and negative non-

trait words adapted from Greenwald, McGhee & Schwartz (1998). Because positive words in all

categories generally appear more frequently in written English than negative words, it was not

possible to balance word frequency at the same time as word length between categories. The

words are listed in Appendix 1.

A computer graphics program was used to create the stimuli. Each word was capitalized

in Arial Black font 48 point, centered on the screen against a black background. Four font colors

were used: red, yellow, green, and blue. DirectRT (Empirisoft, 2004a) was used to program and

administer the Stroop task on IBM Thinkpad 570e laptop computers. Each trial was preceded by

a mask of grey X's appearing in the center of the screen for 500 milliseconds. When a word

appeared, it stayed on the screen until the participant pressed one of four color-coded keys. The

function keys F6, F7, F8 and F9 were colored red, yellow, green and blue, respectively. After 8

practice words, the 60 critical words were presented to each participant. Words were

programmed to appear in random order, and with an equal chance of being in any of the four

colors.

Dependent measures. Response times to the Stroop task were processed as follows. First,

all incorrect responses were dropped. Remaining responses were subjected to a log

transformation to reduce skew. Finally, all trials that exceeded a participants' mean response time

plus or minus 3 standard deviations were dropped from the analysis. The number of remaining

valid responses ranged from 52 to 60, M = 58.06, SD = 1.80. For each participant there were six

mean log-transformed response times, one each for the categories incompetent, competent,

negative non-trait, positive non-trait, cold, and warm. These were the dependent measures.


Procedure. After completing the gender salience manipulation, participants completed

the modified Stroop task. Participants then reported their gender and age. MediaLab (Empirisoft,

2004b) software recorded these responses.

Results

Descriptive results. Cell sizes were 22 men and 18 women in the women salience

condition, and 18 men and 20 women in the men salience condition. Results were analyzed with

a dimension (ability, non-trait, sociability) by valence (negative, positive) repeated-measures

ANOVA with salience (men, women) and participant gender as between-subjects factors. There

were no main effects between subjects, either of salience condition, participant's gender, or the

Salience X Gender interaction (Table 1). There was an unexpected Valence X Participant's

Gender interaction. Means of men's and women's response times in each word category show

that men tended to show longer response times to words with a negative valence, while women

tended to show a longer response time to words with a positive valence. Means, transformed

back to milliseconds, appear in Table 2.

Hypotheses tests. Hypothesis 1 stated that participants in the women salience condition

would have longer response times to sociability words than to ability words, while participants in

the male salience condition would show the opposite pattern. We tested this hypothesis with

planned pairwise tests within the overall Dimension X Salience interaction, F(2, 148) = 2.73, p =

.07, η2 = .04. Participants in the women salience condition took longer to name the colors of

sociability words (M = 648) than either ability words (M = 628), t(39) = 2.73, p = .009, d = .198,

or non-trait words (M = 633), t(39) = 2.58, p = .014, d = .187. But participants in the male

salience condition did not take longer to name the colors of ability words than sociability words.


Hypothesis 1 was supported for participants who thought of women, but not for those who

thought of men.

The competing Hypothesis 2 stated that participants in the women salience condition

would have longer response times to warm and incompetent words than to cold and competent

words, while participants in the male salience condition would show the reverse. We tested this

hypothesis with a linear contrast on the Dimension (ability, non-trait, sociability) X Salience

(think of men, think of women) X Valence (negative, positive) interaction. This contrast was not

significant, F(1, 74) = 1.10, p = 30, η2 = .02. Hypothesis 2 was not supported.

Discussion

When the category women was activated, participants took longer to name the colors of

sociability words, both positive (warm) and negative (cold), but they did not take longer to name

the colors of negative ability words (incompetent). Activating the category men did not result in

longer response times to any one category. Hypothesis 1 thus received partial support, and

Hypothesis 2 received no support.

This result is consistent with Rudman, Greenwald and McGhee's (2001) finding that

groups tend to associate their gender group with only traits that are associated with the positive

dimension of the relevant gender stereotype. Even men who thought about women apparently

associated the category with only the positive dimension of the gender stereotype. This suggests

that women with a salient gender identity may show interference from only the positive

dimension of the gender stereotype. However, there are several limitations to this study. First, we

had no control condition. Participants thought either about men or about women. Second, Study

1 did not manipulate gender identity salience, but gender category salience. To test whether the


same pattern would occur in women with a salient gender identity, we conducted two further

studies.

Study 2

Study 1 established a baseline response pattern for the modified Stroop task, showing that

people take longer to name the colors of words associated with sociability than ability when the

category women is salient. Previous research has shown that being the only woman in a group

makes gender identity salient (Cota & Dion, 1986). The purpose of Study 2 was to investigate

whether a salient gender identity activates only the positive dimension of the female gender

stereotype, or whether it activates both the positive and negative dimensions. Accordingly,

Hypothesis 1 stated that having solo status would activate the sociability dimension of the female

gender stereotype, and therefore solo woman would have longer response times to sociability

than to ability words (cold and warm) than to ability words (incompetent, competent), compared

to women in either the all female or individual conditions. The competing Hypothesis 2 stated

that solo women would have relatively longer response times to stereotypical warm and

incompetent words than to counter-stereotypical cold and competent words, compared to women

in the all female or individual conditions.

Method

Participants and design. Undergraduate women at a private American university were

recruited through flyers posted on bulletin boards to take part in a psychology study. A total of

45 women ages 18-21, M = 8.80, SD = 0.76, participated. Twenty-six received course credit and

19 women who were not eligible for course credit were paid $10 for their participation.

Modified Stroop task. The Stroop task was the same as in Study 1.


Solo status. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: a solo female

condition, an all-female group control condition, or an individual control condition. In the group

conditions, participants were scheduled as part of a group study, either with three male

participants (solo female condition) or three other female participants (all female condition). In

the individual control condition, they were scheduled and arrived at the laboratory individually.

Dependent measures. Response times to the Stroop task were prepared in the same way

as in Study 1. The number of valid responses ranged from 56 to 60, M = 58.80, SD = 1.32.

Additional measures collected after the Stroop task included several items to measure gender

identity salience, measured on a 5 point Likert scales from 1 (not at all or strongly disagree) to 5

(extremely or strongly agree): During the study today I felt like the only woman participant; I

worried about being categorized and seen as a woman rather than as a unique person, by the

experimenter and by the other participants; and I identify with being a woman.

Procedure. Participants arrived at the laboratory and followed posted instructions to be

seated in the hallway. In the group conditions, they waited until the other participants had

arrived, and then they were brought into the lab. In the individual condition, women were

brought into the lab after they had waited a moment in the hall. In the lab, a male experimenter

explained that the study was on group interaction (group conditions only), and that they should

look around the room at the other people with whom they would complete a group task later in

the session. After participants signed a consent form, he handed each of them a manila envelope

and explained that the envelope contained the individual tasks that would be scored and

discussed during the group meeting. He then led each of the participants individually past a

conference room, where they should come for the group meeting (group conditions only) when

they had finished their individual tasks. Each participant was then shown to a small private room


equipped with a table, chair, and laptop computer and instructed to open the envelope and begin

working on the assigned task. The participant's envelope always contained a sheet of paper

instructing her to complete the tasks on the computer. The instructions for the first task were

displayed on the computer screen. In the group conditions, the other participants were either

naïve participants (male participants completed measures for another study), or confederates.

When participants had finished their tasks they came to the conference room, where they were

fully debriefed, thanked, and dismissed.

Results

Descriptive results. Cell sizes were 15 women in the solo female condition, 14 women in

all female condition, and 16 women in the individual condition. Results were analyzed with a

dimension (ability, non-trait, sociability) X valence (negative, positive) repeated measures

ANOVA with condition (individual, all female, solo female) as a between-subjects factor. There

were no overall differences between conditions. Results are summarized in Table 3. Means of

participants' response times in each word category, transformed back to milliseconds, appear in

Table 4.

Identity salience. Women in the solo female condition strongly agreed that they felt they

were the only woman in the study (M = 4.27, SD = .33) compared to women in the all-female (M

= 1.43, SD = .35) or individual (M = 2.00, SD = .32) conditions, F(2, 42) = 19.88 , p < .01 , η2 =

.49. They also agreed more that they were worried about being categorized as a woman rather

than seen as a unique individual by the experimenter (M = 1.73, SD = .18) than women in the all-

female (M = 1.29, SD = .19) or individual (M = 1.06, SD = .18) conditions, F(2, 42) = 3.63 , p =

.04 , η2 = .15. Women in the solo female condition worried about being categorized as female by

the other participants (M = 2.00, SD = 1.13) more than women in the all-female condition (M =


1.07, SD = .27), t(27) = 2.98, p < .01, r = .50.There were no differences in strength of gender

identification between conditions F(2, 42) = 0.37, p = .69, η2 = .02.

Hypotheses tests. Hypothesis 1 stated that women in the solo condition would have

longer response times to sociability than to ability words, compared to women in either the all

female or individual conditions. We tested this hypothesis with planned pairwise tests within the

overall Dimension X Condition interaction. Solo women took longer to name the colors of

sociability words than ability words, t(2.51) = 2.505, p = .025, d = .271, but not non-trait words, t

< 1. There were no significant differences between ability and sociability words for women in

the other two conditions. Hypothesis 1 was supported.

Hypothesis 2 stated that women in the solo condition would have relatively longer

response times to warm and incompetent words than to cold and competent words, compared to

women in the all female or individual conditions. We tested this hypothesis with a focused linear

contrast on the Dimension (ability, non-trait, sociability) X Valence (negative, positive)

interaction among women in the solo status condition. This was not significant, F(1, 14) = 0.74,

p = .41. Hypothesis 2 was not supported, as there was no evidence that solo women took longer

to name the colors of negative ability words.

Discussion

Women with solo gender status took longer to name the colors of sociability words than

ability words, though not non-trait words. Hypothesis 1 thus received partial support, while

Hypothesis 2 received no support. Study 2 provides clearer evidence that women with a salient

gender identity experience activation of and cognitive interference from only the positive

dimension of their gender stereotype. As in Study 1, both positive and negative sociability words

caused interference in the Stroop task. Although they completed all measures in private, women


with solo status reported that they worried at least a little about being categorized and seen as a

woman, rather than as a unique person, by both the experimenter and the other participants. This

could explain why participants in the other conditions did not show a similar pattern of

stereotype activation.

In Study 2, gender identity salience was manipulated by having women participate as the

only woman in an experimental session. The manipulation of solo status we used in this study

was relatively weak. After sitting opposite the other group members, participants moved to a

private office to complete the measures. While this may seem to be a conservative test of our

hypothesis, it approximates the working conditions of women in top-level positions in male-

dominated work settings. However, despite our attempt to create a situation analogous to one

faced by women in the workplace, Study 2 is only suggestive that women in the workplace might

show a similar pattern of cognitive interference to words related to the positive dimension of the

gender stereotype. Therefore, Study 3 was designed to extend these findings beyond college

undergraduates to examine working adults in a career relevant context.

Study 3

Studies 1 and 2 suggested that having a salient gender identity at work will activate

words associated with the positive dimension of a person's gender stereotype: warm and cold for

woman, and competent and incompetent for men. The purpose of Study 3 was to test this

hypothesis in a sample of women at work. Accordingly, Hypothesis 1 stated that women would

take longer to respond to sociability than to ability words, while men would take longer to

respond to ability than to sociability words.

Method


Design and participants. Participants were employed adults who attended a vendor fair

on a college campus to learn about opportunities to contract to provide goods and services to the

college. They were recruited as they passed through the fair and asked to complete a brief study

in exchange for a ceramic coffee mug. Twenty men and 16 women, ages 24-58, M = 37.25, SD =

9.95, agreed to participate.

Modified Stroop task. The Stroop task was the same as in Studies 1 and 2.

Dependent measures. Response times to the Stroop task were prepared in the same way

as Studies 1 and 2. Number of valid responses ranged from 52 to 60, M = 59.39, SD = 1.44. For

each participant there were six mean log-transformed response times, one each for the categories

incompetent, competent, negative non-trait, positive non-trait, cold, and warm. In addition,

participants responded to the following question: How often are you the only one of your gender

at work by choosing "rarely," "sometimes," or "often."

Procedure. Participants completed the Stroop task on one of three laptop computers set

up at a table in a corner of the hall. After the Stroop task, they completed the other dependent

measure and gave their age and gender.

Results

Descriptive results. Most women (75%) reported that they were often a gender solo at

work, while three reported they were sometimes, and one reported she was never a gender solo.

Few men (10%) said they were often a gender solo, while 11 reported they were sometimes, and

four reported they were never a gender solo. A gender by response (rarely, sometimes, often)

chi-square test found that the answers given by women and men were significantly different, χ2

(df=2) = 8.92, p = .01. Responses to the Stroop test were analyzed with a dimension (ability, non-

trait, sociability) X valence (negative, positive) repeated measures ANOVA with participant's


gender as a between-subjects factor. These results are summarized in Table 5. There were no

overall differences between men's and women's response times, nor did we observe a Valence X

Gender interaction as we did in Study 1. Mean response times, transformed back into

milliseconds, appear in Table 6.

Hypothesis test. Hypothesis 1 stated that female participants would take longer to name

the colors of sociability words than ability words, and that male participants would show the

reverse pattern. We tested this hypothesis with planned pairwise comparisons within the

Dimensions X Gender interaction, F(2, 68) =3.29, p = .04, η2 = .09. As shown in Table 6, the

means for men and women were in the predicted direction, and although the overall interaction

was significant the pairwise tests for women did not reach significance, t(15) = 1.527, p = .148, d

= .128. Hypothesis 1 was partially supported.

Discussion

Adult women who were sampled in a work context took longer to name the colors of

words associated with sociability (positive and negative) than non-trait words. Most of these

women (75%) reported that they were often the only woman in their work group. This evidence

further supports the hypothesis that women with a salient gender identity show a pattern of

stereotype activation that consists only of interference from words associated with the positive

dimension of the female gender stereotype, sociability. Importantly, consistent with Studies 1

and 2, no evidence for interference was found for words representing the negative dimension of

the stereotype, ability. Interestingly, in this study, some adult men showed a corresponding

pattern of stereotype interference. They took longer to name the colors of words associated with

ability, the positive dimension of the male stereotype, than to non-trait words. Most of these men

(55%) reported they were sometimes the only man in their work group.


General Discussion

In the present research, we used a modified Stroop task to examine how ability and

sociability, the dimensions of gender stereotypes as described in the Stereotype Content Model

(Fiske et al., 1999), are activated when women have a salient gender identity. Study 1 found that

activation of the category women resulted in Stroop interference to words associated with

sociability, relative to words associated with ability and to non-trait words. Both positive and

negative sociability words caused greater interference. Studies 2 and 3 found that women with a

salient gender identity showed a similar pattern of Stroop interference, such that they had longer

response times to sociability words than to ability words.

These three studies complement one another by testing the same effect with different

manipulations of gender identity salience. The mean effect size for participants who were

instructed to think about women (Study 1, n = 40, d = .20), who were assigned to solo female

status, (Study 2, n = 15, d = .27) or who happened to be women in a work context (Study 3, n =

16, d = .13) is d = .20. (Cohen's d was estimated using a formula to correct for within-subject

correlation; Dunlap, Cortina, Vaslow, & Burke, 1996.) The probability of finding the associated

one-tailed p-values is p = .0001 (Rosenthal, 1991). Taken together, these results provide clear

evidence of a pattern of longer response times to sociability than to ability words when a female

gender identity is salient.

Our results extend previous work on stereotype activation by examining stereotype

content. Our Stroop task separated dimension as well as valence to allow us to measure how a

self-stereotype is activated when a particular social identity is salient. Certainly, the positive

dimension of a stereotype may comfortably coexist with the negative dimension (Murphy, 1998).

However, our results suggest that only the positive dimension of a self-stereotype is


automatically activated when a gender identity is salient. For women, the positive dimension of

the self-stereotype is sociability. This is consistent with Rudman et al. (2001) who find that men

and women tend to implicitly associate their own gender category with only the positive

dimension of the relevant gender stereotype. Also, like previous researchers (Perkins &

Forehand, 2006), we find that the semantic association of words with the underlying construct

determines whether they will be activated with the construct, rather than their valence. We also

extend previous work by showing that the negative dimension of a self-stereotype (in this case,

women are stereotypically perceived as not able) is potentially inhibited by stereotype activation,

consistent with research that finds stereotype-inconsistent traits are inhibited when a stereotype is

activated (Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg, 1996).

Our results suggest that women who work in male-dominated environments may be

implicitly thinking "women are warm" while inhibiting thoughts of "math is hard." This has

implications for research on solo gender status. We could speculate, for example, that a salient

gender identity might make women behave more sociably via an active-self effect (DeMarree et

al., 2005) and at the same time shift their performance goals away from technical expertise

toward relational expertise though unconscious goal pursuit (Moskowitz, 2002). We might

expect, therefore, that solo status might make women warmer than they might otherwise be, and

they might focus their attention on having successful social interactions and not on tasks related

to more traditional measures of job performance. However, the behavioral effects of stereotype

activation are not necessarily unidirectional; they can involve contrast as well as assimilation

(Biernat, 2003; Kray, Thompson, & Galinsky, 2001). Further research is necessary to test the

conditions in which gender identity salience will promote assimilation or contrast to both the

positive and negative dimensions of a stereotype, respectively.


Coping with Self-Stereotypes: Think Different, Do Different

The content of gender stereotypes cannot be unlearned. But current theory and research

suggest that women who work in a male-dominated environment can cope with self-stereotypes

by thinking of themselves as unique and different from the typical woman. Ambady et al. (2004)

find that women who are encouraged to think of themselves as individuals do not show the

automatic effects of a stereotype prime. Moreover, acting counter-stereotypically can change

one's self-image to be less consistent with the stereotype (von Hippel, Hawkins, & Schooler,

2001). Even thinking counter-stereotypically can weaken implicit associations between the self

and a stereotype (Blair, Ma, & Lenton, 2001). Work by Sinclair and colleagues (Lowery, Hardin,

& Sinclair, 2001) suggests that others' expectations can affect self-stereotyping. So in addition to

thinking and behaving counter-stereotypically, perhaps women should try to see themselves

through the eyes of their least prejudiced colleagues and avoid taking the perspective of their

more prejudiced colleagues.

Limitations and Future Directions

These studies provide a first look at stereotype content activation in women with a salient

gender identity. We must note two important limitations, however. The first is that neither study

gives reliable insight into the nature of stereotype activation in men with a salient gender

identity. In Study 1, the results for the category men were not as easily interpretable as the results

for women. In Study 2, we did not have male participants. Future research should more carefully

address how stereotype content is activated in men with a salient gender identity. And while

research has traditionally focused on women with solo status, our predictions would be similar

for men with solo status in such professions as bookkeeping, dental hygiene, and childcare.


The second limitation concerns the relevance of our results to the phenomenon of

stereotype threat. Stereotype threat, defined as the fear of confirming a negative stereotype

(Steele & Aronson, 1995) or broadly as a form of identity threat (Steele, Spencer, & Aronson,

2002) can affect women with solo status (Inzlicht & Ben-Zeev, 2000; Sekaquaptewa &

Thompson, 2003). We believe that we did not create the conditions necessary to induce

stereotype threat in our studies. Our task was not presented as diagnostic of a stereotype-relevant

ability, nor was it presented as able to differentiate between men and women. We would predict

that stereotype threat would result in a different pattern of stereotype activation. In particular,

future research should examine whether stereotype threat activates the negative dimension of the

female stereotype, particularly negative words associated with ability like failure and

incompetence. We found that solo status results in a salient gender identity and automatic

stereotype activation, which is consistent with earlier work that finds that solo status can affect

performance through additional mechanisms, other than stereotype threat (Inzlicht et al., 2006;

Sekaquaptewa & Thompson, 2003).

Conclusion

In this paper, we take a step toward trying to understand how stereotypes can affect

people with a salient gender identity, particularly women who work in male-dominated

environments. Having a distinctive identity in a social context activates the associated group

stereotype, and the solo or token must cope with the consequent effects on his or her attitudes,

cognition and behavior. Even though participants in our studies showed activation of only the

positive dimension of the stereotype, this may still carry consequences for those who want to

succeed. If women find themselves thinking "women are warm" they should remind themselves

that women are competent as well.


References

Ambady, N., Paik, S. K., Steele, J., Owen-Smith, A., & Mitchell, J. P. (2004). Deflecting

negative self-relevant stereotype activation: The effects of individuation. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 401-408.

Biernat, M. (2003). Toward a broader view of social stereotyping. American Psychologist, 58,

1019-1027.

Blair, I. V., Ma, J. E., & Lenton, A. P. (2001). Imagining stereotypes away: The moderation of

implicit stereotypes through mental imagery. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 81, 828-841.

Chiu, C. Y., Hong, Y. Y., Lam, I. C. M., Fu, J. H. Y., Tong, J. Y. Y., & Lee, V. S. L. (1998).

Stereotyping and self-presentation: Effects of gender stereotype activation. Group

Processes & Intergroup Relations, 1, 81-96.

Cota, A. A., & Dion, K. L. (1986). Salience of gender and sex composition of ad hoc groups: An

experimental test of distinctiveness theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

50, 770-776.

DeMarree, K. G., Wheeler, S. C., & Petty, R. E. (2005). Priming a new identity: Self-monitoring

moderates the effects of nonself primes on self-judgments and behavior. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 657-671.

Dijksterhuis, A., & van Knippenberg, A. (1996). The knife that cuts both ways: Facilitated and

inhibited access to traits as a result of stereotype activation. Journal of Experimental

Social Psychology, 32, 271-288.


Dunlap, W. P., Cortina, J. M., Vaslow, J. B., & Burke, M. J. (1996). Meta-analysis of

experiments with matched groups or repeated measures designs. Psychological Methods,

1, 170-177.

Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.

Psychological Review, 109, 573-598.

Empirisoft. (2004). DirectRT (v. 2004). New York: Author.

Empirisoft. (2004). MediaLab (v. 2004). New York: Author.

Fiske, S. T., & Cuddy, A. J. C. (2006). Stereotype content across cultures as a function of group

status. In (S. Guimon, Ed.), Social comparison and social psychology: Understanding

cognition, intergroup relations, and culture (pp. 249-263). New York: Cambridge

University Press.

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, 878-902.

Fiske, S. T., Xu, J., Cuddy, A. C., & Glick, P. (1999). (Dis)respecting versus (dis)liking: Status

and interdependence predict ambivalent stereotypes of competence and warmth. Journal

of Social Issues, 55, 473-489.

Flynn, F., & Levine, R. (2007). Dr. Jekyll or Ms. Hyde? Exploring the dark side of female

stereotypes. Unpublished manuscript.

Gardner, W. L., Gabriel, S., & Lee, A. Y. (1999). "I" value freedom, but "We" value

relationships: Self-construal priming mirrors cultural differences in judgment.

Psychological Science, 10, 321-326.


Geller, V., & Shaver, P. (1976). Cognitive consequences of self-awareness. Journal of


Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and

benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491-512.

Greenwald, A. G. (1980). The totalitarian ego: Fabrication and revision of personal history.

American Psychologist, 35, 603-618.

Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual

differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and


Helfat, C. E., Harris, D., & Wolfson, P. J. (2006). The pipeline to the top: Women and men in the

top executive ranks of U.S. corporations. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20, 42-

64.

Inzlicht, M., Aronson, J., Good, C., & McKay, L. (2006). A particular resiliency to threatening

environments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 323-336.

Inzlicht, M., & Ben-Zeev, T. (2000). A threatening intellectual environment: Why females are

susceptible to experiencing problem-solving deficits in the presence of males.

Psychological Science, 11, 365-371.

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.

Kawakami, K., Dion, K. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1999). Implicit stereotyping and prejudice and the

primed Stroop task. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 58, 241-250.

Kray, L. J., Thompson, L., & Galinsky, A. (2001). Battle of the sexes: Gender stereotype

confirmation and reactance in negotiations. Journal of Personality and Social



Levy, B. (1996). Improving memory in old age through implicit self-stereotyping. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1092-1107.

Lin, M. H., Kwan, V. S. Y., Cheung, A., & Fiske, S. T. (2005). Stereotype content model

explains prejudice for an envied outgroup: Scale of anti-Asian American stereotypes.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 34-47.

Lowery, B. S., Hardin, C. D., & Sinclair, S. (2001). Social influence effects on automatic racial

prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 842-855.

MacCorquodale, P., & Jensen, G. (1993). Women in the law: Partners or tokens? Gender &

Society, 7, 582-593.

MacLeod, C. M. (2005). The Stroop task in cognitive research. In A. Wenzel & D. C. Rubin

(Eds.), Cognitive methods and their application to clinical research (pp. 17-40).

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Moskowitz, G. B. (2002). Preconscious effects of temporary goals on attention. Journal of


Murphy, S. T. (1998). The impact of factual versus fictional media portrayals on cultural

stereotypes. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 560, 165-

178.

Perkins, A. W., & Forehand, M. R. (2006). Decomposing the implicit self-concept: The relative

influence of semantic meaning and valence on attribute self-association. Social

Cognition, 24, 387-408.

Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research (Rev. Ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications.


Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (1999). Feminized management and backlash toward agentic

women: The hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle managers.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1004-1010.

Rudman, L. A., Greenwald, A. G., & McGhee, D. E. (2001). Implicit self-concept and evaluative

implicit gender stereotypes: Self and ingroup share desirable traits. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1164-1178.

Sekaquaptewa, D., & Thompson, M. (2003). Solo status, stereotype threat, and performance

expectancies: Their effects on women's performance. Journal of Experimental Social


Shih, M., Pittinsky, T. L., & Ambady, N. (1999). Stereotype susceptibility: Identity salience and

shifts in quantitative performance. Psychological Science, 10, 80-83.

Sinclair, S., Hardin, C. D., & Lowery, B. S. (2006). Self-stereotyping in the context of multiple

social identities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 529-542.

Sinclair, S., Huntsinger, J., Skorinko, J., & Hardin, C. D. (2005). Social tuning of the self:

Consequences for the self-evaluations of stereotype targets. Journal of Personality and


Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women's math

performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4-28.

Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of

African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797-811.

Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Aronson, J. (2002). Contending with group image: The

psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in

experimental social psychology, vol. 34 (pp. 379-440). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.


Steele, J. R., & Ambady, N. (2006). "Math is hard!" The effect of gender priming on women's

attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 428-436.

Stone, J., Lynch, C. I., Sjomeling, M., & Darley, J. M. (1999). Stereotype threat effects on black

and white athletic performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1213-

1227.

Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental


Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Theberge, N. (1993). The construction of gender in sport: Women, coaching, and the

naturalization of difference. Social Problems, 40, 301-313.

von Hippel, W., Hawkins, C., & Schooler, J. W. (2001). Stereotype distinctiveness: How

counterstereotypic behavior shapes the self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social


Wheeler, S. C., & Petty, R. E. (2001). The effects of stereotype activation on behavior: A review

of possible mechanisms. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 797-826.


Table 1 Repeated Measures ANOVA, Study 1 Source df F p η2 Within-subjects

Dimensions 2 2.31 .10 .03 Dimensions X Gender salience 2 2.73 .07 .04 Dimensions X Participant's gender 2 1.31 .27 .02 Dimensions X Gender salience X Participant's gender 2 1.02 .37 .01 Error (Dimensions) 148 Valence 1 0.06 .81 .00 Valence X Gender salience 1 0.08 .78 .00 Valence X Participant's gender 1 6.75 .01 .08 Valence X Gender salience X Participant's gender 1 0.07 .80 .00 Error (Valence) 74 Dimensions X Valence 2 1.07 .35 .01 Dimensions X Valence X Gender salience 2 1.43 .24 .02 Dimensions X Valence X Participant's gender 2 1.31 .27 .02 Dimensions X Valence X Gender salience X Participant's gender 2 0.18 .84 .00 Error (Dimensions X Valence) 148

Between-subjects Gender salience 1 0.23 .63 .00 Participant's gender 1 0.69 .41 .01 Gender salience X Participant's gender 1 0.91 .34 .01 Error 74

Note. Dimensions (ability, non-trait, sociability); valence (negative, positive); gender salience (think of men, think of women); participant's gender (male, female).


Table 2 Response Times, Study 1 Ability Non-trait Sociability Condition Participants Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive "Think of men" Men 621 618 637 618 635 620 Women 626 639 617 635 620 627 M = 626a M = 627a M = 625a,b "Think of women" Men 650 643 667 628 668 676 Women 607 612 617 621 617 631 M = 628a M = 633a M = 648b Note. Untransformed means (milliseconds) are rounded and presented in table for ease of interpretation. Means in same row (within subjects) or column (between subjects) that do not share a superscript differ at p < .05.



Dimensions 2 0.94 .39 .02 Dimensions X Condition 4 2.30 .07 .10 Error (Dimensions) 84 Valence 1 0.97 .33 .02 Valence X Condition 2 0.41 .67 .02 Error (Valence) 42 Dimensions X Valence 2 0.16 .85 .00 Dimensions X Valence X Condition 4 0.47 .75 .02 Error (Dimensions X Valence) 84

Between-subjects Condition 2 0.41 .68 .02 Error 42

Note. Dimensions (ability, non-trait, sociability); valence (negative, positive); condition (individual, solo female, all female).


Table 4 Response Times, Study 2 Ability Non-trait Sociability Condition Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive Individual 579 579 589 573 589 575 M = 579a M = 581a,b M = 582a,b

All female 585 581 573 567 575 584 M = 583a,b M = 570a,b M = 580b

Solo female 594 581 606 609 606 609 M = 588a M = 607b M = 608b

Note. Untransformed means (milliseconds) are rounded and presented in table for ease of interpretation. Means in same row (within subjects) or column (between subjects) that do not share a superscript differ at p < .05.



Dimensions 2 3.05 .05 .08 Dimensions X Gender 2 3.29 .04 .09 Error (Dimensions) 68 Valence 1 0.75 .39 .02 Valence X Gender 1 1.46 .24 .04 Error (Valence) 34 Dimensions X Valence 2 0.58 .56 .02 Dimensions X Valence X Gender 2 0.36 .70 .01 Error (Dimensions X Valence) 68

Between-subjects Gender 1 1.41 .24 .04 Error 34

Note. Dimensions (ability, non-trait, sociability); valence (negative, positive); gender (male, female).


Table 6 Response Times, Study 3 Ability Non-trait Sociability Gender Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive Men 779 777 770 729 763 745 M = 778a M = 750b M = 754a,b

Women 821 826 813 814 841 846 M = 824a,b M = 814b M = 843a

Note. Untransformed means (milliseconds) are rounded and presented in table for ease of interpretation. Means in same row (within subjects) or column (between subjects) that do not share a superscript differ at p < .05.


Appendix 1

Stereotype Content Stroop Word List

Negative Positive Incompetent Word Length Competent Word Length bungling 8 adroit 6 clumsy 6 capable 7 failing 7 clever 6 helpless 8 competent 9 ignorant 8 expert 6 inept 5 genius 6 stupid 6 gifted 6 unable 6 handy 5 unfit 5 qualified 9 useless 7 smart 5 M 6.6 M 6.5 Negative non-trait Positive non-trait accident 8 diamond 7 agony 5 health 6 assault 7 heaven 6 crash 5 happy 5 disaster 8 lucky 5 divorce 7 miracle 7 filth 5 peace 5 jail 4 pleasure 8 pollute 7 rainbow 7 poverty 7 vacation 8 M 6.3 M 6.4 Cold Warm abusive 7 amicable 8 blunt 5 cordial 7 careless 8 friendly 8 hostile 7 gracious 8 impolite 8 humane 6 rude 4 intimate 8 sarcastic 9 kind 4 stern 5 obliging 8 sullen 6 social 6 uncivil 7 warm 4 M 6.6 M 6.7

Date post:	18-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Think women, think warm - MBA Program Web...

Documents