Affirming Women
1
Running head: AFFIRMING WOMEN IN BUSINESS
Facilitating Women’s Success in Business: Interrupting the Process of Stereotype Threat
through Affirmation of Personal Values
Zoe Kinias
INSEAD
Jessica Sim
University of Wisconsin, La Crosse
This manuscript is currently under review for publication at the Journal of Applied
Psychology. Please do not cite or circulate without the first author’s written permission.
Affirming Women
2
Abstract
Two field experiments examined if and how values affirmations can ameliorate
stereotype threat-induced gender performance gaps in an international competitive business
environment. Based on self-affirmation theory (Steele, 1988), we predicted that writing about
personal values unrelated to the perceived threat would attenuate the gender performance gap.
Study 1 found that an online assignment to write about one’s personal values (but not a similar
writing assignment including organizational values) closed the gender gap in course grades by
89.0% among 423 Masters of Business Administration students (MBAs) at an international
business school. Study 2 replicated this effect among 396 MBAs in a different cohort with
random assignment and tested three related mediators (self-efficacy, self-doubt, and selfcriticism). Personal values reflection (but not reflecting on values including those of the
organization or writing about others’ values) reduced the gender gap by 66.5%, and there was a
significant indirect effect through reduced self-doubt. These findings show that a brief personal
values writing exercise can dramatically improve women’s performance in competitive
environments where they are negatively stereotyped. The results also demonstrate that stereotype
threat (Steele & Aronson, 1995) can occur within a largely non-American population with work
experience and that affirming one’s core personal values (without organizational values) can
ameliorate the threat.
Keywords: Stereotype threat; gender; performance; self-affirmation; international
Affirming Women
3
Facilitating Women’s Success in Business: Interrupting the Process of Stereotype Threat through
Affirmation of Personal Values
Thirty years after the term “Glass Ceiling” was introduced, women’s progress to the
highest levels of international business achievement remains limited (Barreto, Ryan, & Schmitt,
2008). Even as the Financial Times celebrated that the United Kingdom’s top 100 company
boards include 20% women in 2014 (though still not 50%), they noted that only four of the
companies had female Chief Executive Officers (Groom, 2014). There are many explanations for
the underrepresentation of women at the top of competitive business, including gender
differences in networks (Brass, 1985), organizational practices that favor men and masculinity
(Ely & Meyerson, 2000), and stereotypes that women are insufficiently competent or ineffective
leaders (Heilman, 2001; Koenig, Eagly, Mitchell, & Ristakari, 2011). A particularly subtle yet
robust consequence of these stereotypes has been hypothesized to manifest through a process
called stereotype threat (Roberson & Kulik, 2007). Stereotype threat theory (Steele & Aronson,
1995) suggests that psychological threat resulting from negative stereotypes about women’s
professional ability can lead highly competent and motivated women to underperform relative to
equally competent men.
To ameliorate gender gaps in performance and enable organizations to capitalize on their
entire talent pool, organizations can strive to prevent the deleterious effects of stereotype threat.
To this end, we build on self-affirmation theory (Sherman & Hartson, 2011; Steele, 1988) to
propose a values affirmation intervention that can increase women’s performance by reducing
the psychological experience of stereotype threat. We test this theory with two field experiments
in a highly international and competitive business school environment. We chose this context
because the conditions of competitive business schools are ripe for women to experience
Affirming Women
4
stereotype threat (see Kantor, 2013; Schmader & Hall, 2014), and negative performance in these
settings likely has long-term consequences on both self-views and career trajectories (see
Aronson, Quinn, & Spencer, 1998; Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1998). Study 1 tested whether
writing about core personal values attenuates a gender gap in grades, and Study 2 tested this
intervention in another sample and examined the mechanisms through which it eliminated the
gender gap.
By empirically examining stereotype threat in an international business school context,
we contribute to the gender literature by showing that gender stereotypes can indirectly cause
objective gender differences in professional performance. Our field experiments combined
experimental control and real-world consequences, contributing richly to both theory and
practice (King, Hebl, Morgan, & Ahmad, 2013). We also explored the effectiveness of
affirmations including organizational values, which can be appealing to organizations striving to
maximize the benefits of organizational socialization (Bauer, Morrison, & Callister, 1998).
Establishing this boundary condition is important for both self-affirmation theory (see Sherman
& Hartson, 2011) and the design of effective self-affirmation interventions to attenuate threat in
business settings.
Stereotype Threat in Organizations
The potential impact of stereotype threat on women in business is founded on a rich
psychological literature focused primarily on ethnic minority performance on intellectual tests
and undergraduate women’s performance on mathematics tests (Nguyen & Ryan, 2008). For
example, Steele and Aronson (1995) found a significant racial gap in performance controlling for
SAT scores when Black and White college students took a difficult intellectual test described as
diagnostic of intellectual ability; but no racial differences in performance when the same test was
Affirming Women
5
described as non-diagnostic of intellectual ability. This finding suggests that the threat of
confirming negative stereotypes about one’s intellectual ability undermines the performance of
African Americans. The effects of stereotype threat on both women and minorities have been
reliably documented, along with moderating factors (Nguyen & Ryan, 2008). For instance, a
meta-analysis of 116 laboratory studies with test performance as the dependent variable revealed
that stereotype threat effect sizes were smaller for women than for ethnic/racial minorities, and
that subtle sexism cues (e.g., making gender salient) trigger women’s underperformance more
strongly than do overt cues (e.g., telling women that men perform better on a test; Nguyen &
Ryan, 2008).
Because most of the research has taken place in laboratory settings, we know relatively
less about stereotype threat in organizational settings (see Kalokerinos, von Hippel, & Zachler,
2014). Theory and a few studies suggest that stereotype threat may emerge in the workplace
(Schmader & Hall, 2014). Women make less assertive opening offers and claim less value in a
simulated negotiation when it is described as diagnostic of negotiation ability (Kray, Thompson,
& Galinsky, 2001). Survey and diary study results show that women can experience social
identity threat in masculine work environments (i.e., engineering and finance), increasing
burnout and reducing workplace wellbeing (Hall, Schmader, & Croft, 2015; von Hippel,
Sekaquaptewa, & McFarlane, 2015). Furthermore, one study suggests the presence of race-based
stereotype threat on promotion exams among police and firefighters (Chung, Ehrhart, Ehrhart,
Hattrup, & Solamon, 2010), although the robustness of this finding has been debated (Gillespie,
Converse, & Kriska, 2010). So although there is theory (Roberson & Kulik, 2007; Schmader &
Hall, 2014) and indirect evidence that stereotype threat could potentially influence women’s
Affirming Women
6
performance in competitive business settings, to our knowledge this question has not been fully
explored.
Hypothesis 1. Stereotype threat leads to existing gender gaps in objective professional
performance.
Intervening on Stereotype Threat
Because stereotype threat is a form of self-threat, efforts toward eliminating its
deleterious effects have included self-affirmation (Steele, 1988; see Sherman & Hartson, 2011).
Self-affirmation refers to a process through which self-regard is restored or protected in
situations that threaten the integrity of the self (Steele, 1988). Self-affirmation can buffer against
both individual self-threats (e.g., cognitive dissonance, threatening health information) and
group-relevant identity threats (e.g., attributions for group failure, evidence that one’s ethnic
group is privileged; see Sherman & Cohen, 2006), and have been shown to protect college
women against stereotype threat in controlled laboratory settings and introductory college
physics classes (Martens, Johns, Greenberg, & Schimel, 2006; Miyake, Kost-Smith, Finkelstein,
Pollock, Cohen, & Ito, 2010).
One way to affirm people’s selves is through the use of a personal values intervention.
This intervention involves writing about one’s own core personal values for about 15 minutes.
For example, someone might select having a “sense of humor” from a list of possible values, and
write about how she jokes with her friends and often notices how things around her are
sometimes funny. In a potentially threatening context then, the whole self (not only the part
under threat) becomes relevant, providing more psychological resources from which to draw and
buffer against the challenge. Versions of this values affirmation intervention have consistently
reduced racial, ethnic, and gender achievement gaps in North American educational settings
Affirming Women
7
where negative stereotypes about performance exist. The performance gaps are attenuated by
random assignment to the core personal values writing exercise (relative to a control activity),
demonstrating that the gap is due, at least in part, to the self-threat caused by negative
stereotypes about one’s group. Alternative explanations for academic underperformance (such as
access to tangible and intangible resources or biased teachers) can be ruled out, as random
assignment to the personal values intervention is unlikely to covary with these potential
alternative causes.
Application of the personal values intervention in professional settings is less clear (the
one prior attempt to use this at a medical school was unsuccessful; see Cohen & Sherman, 2014).
Although there are distinct differences between established adult women at high levels of
international business and youth and young adults in America, we propose that if gender-based
stereotype threat exists at the professional level, a values affirmation intervention can mitigate its
effects on women in competitive business. Indeed, a values affirmation intervention could be
both particularly effective and well suited to the competitive business context because
organizations could administer it seamlessly as a part of the onboarding process.
Hypothesis 2. A personal values affirmation attenuates the performance gap caused by
stereotype threat in competitive business.
Values Affirmations in Organizations
Values affirmations can be particularly appealing to organizations as many strive to
emphasize their corporate values in the process of organizational socialization (Bauer et al.,
1998). However, there is reason to believe that including organizational values in a personal
values affirmation could undermine the intervention’s effectiveness. Self-affirmation theory
suggests that affirming values relevant to the performance domain (for our purposes,
Affirming Women
8
professional success or organizational values) can backfire as it exacerbates the threatening
experience (Sherman & Hartson, 2011). In identity-threatening organizational settings then,
fostering one’s organizational identity can undermine performance compared to bolstering one’s
personal identity. During onboarding in an Indian call center, Cable and colleagues (2013) found
that encouraging employees to take pride in their organizational identity led to lower
performance and higher turnover compared to encouraging employees to express their best
authentic selves. Personally endorsing organizational values may not buffer against stereotype
threat because of the direct significance of these values to the threatening context. Even
including organizational values among personal values may undermine the effectiveness of the
values writing intervention as it changes the nature of the affirmation process due to the
association of the organizational values to the source of threat (Blanton, Cooper, Silurnik, &
Aronson, 1997; Sivanathan, Molden, Galinsky, & Ku, 2008).
Hypothesis 3. A personal values affirmation intervention is more effective than a values
affirmation including organizational values at attenuating stereotype threat-induced
gender gaps.
The Nature of Self Threat and the Intervening Processes
Although closing performance gaps with a core personal values affirmation intervention
implies a reduction in stereotype threat (Cohen & Sherman, 2014), the inference of threat
reduction is somewhat indirect. Measuring the experience of self-threat directly is difficult
because participants may be unwilling or unable to admit that they feel threatened even when
they are (Bosson, Haymovitz, & Pinel, 2004; Scheepers & Ellemers, 2005; c.f., Chung et al.,
2010; Osborne, 2001).
Affirming Women
9
Thus, instead of asking participants directly how threatened they feel in competitive
business contexts, we examine three psychological constructs – self-doubt, self-criticism, and
self-efficacy – that are likely to influence the performance of women under conditions of
stereotype threat and to be attenuated by a values affirmation. Laboratory experiments have
shown that race-based stereotype threat leads to self-doubt (Steele & Aronson, 1995; Stone,
2002), and gender-based stereotype threat causes self-criticism (Cadinu, Maas, Rosabianca, &
Kiesner, 2005), which mediate the effects on performance (Cadinu et al., 2005; Stone, 2002).
Further, there is both simulation and organizational evidence that stereotype threat reduces selfefficacy and the performance of women and minorities (Hoyt & Blascovich, 2007; Chung et al.,
2010). Therefore, self-doubt, self-criticism, and self-efficacy all potentially undermine the
performance of women under conditions of stereotype threat, while self-affirmation has the
potential to influence the proposed processes, as affirmations reduce negative self-thoughts
(Koole, Smeets, van Knippenberg, & Dijksterhuis, 1999) and increase self-efficacy in the face of
self-threats (Harris, Mayle, Mabbott, & Napper, 2007).
Hypothesis 4. Stereotype threat contributes to, and a core personal values affirmation
attenuates, one or more self-relevant process that influences performance (i.e., selfefficacy, self-criticism, and/or self-doubt).
Description of the Research Context and Overview of the Present Research
To examine the hypotheses, we conducted two field experiments in which Masters of
Business Administration students (MBAs) at an international business school completed values
writing assignments during orientation, which is an ideal context for this research. First, business
schools set trajectories for prestigious careers, and women MBAs are awarded lower salaries and
less prestigious job titles than men in their first jobs following graduation (Palin, 2014; Carter &
Affirming Women 10
Silva, 2010). Reducing the gender gap in MBA performance can make a substantial difference in
gender gaps going up the pipeline. Second, business schools mirror the climate that makes
competitive business particularly challenging for women and gender performance gaps have
been observed in these institutions (Kantor, 2013). Third, the business school we studied is truly
international, with MBA cohorts on campuses in Europe and Asia. Thus, the international and
highly competitive context provides an ideal opportunity to examine stereotype threat and the
efficacy of values affirmation interventions in the field.
Study 1 tested Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 by comparing male and female MBAs’
performance in their first term of core courses after completing a core personal values writing
exercise or a similar writing exercise including organizational values during orientation
activities, using a quasi-experimental design with random assignment at the campus level. Study
2 again tested the same hypotheses with an additional control condition and random assignment
to condition at the individual level (across both campuses). This study also investigated
Hypothesis 4 by measuring the self-relevant processes near the end of the academic term.
Study 1
Method
Participants and design
Participants were recruited from a cohort of 538 (348 male, 190 female; mean age =
28.94 years) MBAs at an internationally diverse business school with campuses in Europe and
Asia. As is normative at this school, this cohort had substantial (5.6 years) professional work
experience, often in prestigious positions in highly competitive industries prior to joining (e.g.,
associates at top investment banks and multinational consulting firms). 446 incoming MBAs
(82.9% of the cohort; 291 male, 155 female; mean age = 28.94 years) voluntarily participated in
Affirming Women 11
the study as part of a class exercise during orientation week. Of the 446 MBAs who participated,
one did not have course grades available, 12 did not have Quantitative Graduate Management
Admission Test (GMATQuant) scores available, and six did not have Gender Inequality Index1
(GII) scores available for their nationality (specifically, Nigeria). The study sample, therefore,
consisted of 427 MBAs (278 male, 149 female; mean age = 28.94 years). Four additional
participants were removed from the analysis for failure to follow task instructions (see
Manipulation Check). This left a final sample of 423 MBAs (275 male, 148 female; mean age =
28.93 years) on which the reported analyses were based.
As is typical at this business school, participants were divided into seven sections, four
located on the Europe campus and three located on the Asia campus. This group included 61
nationalities from the continents of Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, and South
America,2 with no more than 13.7% from any given country on each campus (Table 1).3
---------------------------------Insert Table 1 about here
----------------------------------
1
Published by the United Nations Development Programme, the Gender Inequality Index (GII)
is a composite measure of gender inequality in three dimensions: (1) reproductive health,
measured by maternal mortality ratio and adolescent birth rates; (2) empowerment, measured by
proportion of parliamentary seats occupied by females and proportion of adult females and males
aged 25 years and older with at least some secondary education; and (3) economic status,
measured by labor force participation rate of female and male populations aged 15 years and
older. The GII yields insights on the position of women in over 150 countries, where the higher
the GII value, the more disparities between females and males. In 2013, the United States’ value
was .262, the highest values were .709 and .707 (Niger and Chad), and the lowest values were
.021 and .030 (Slovenia and Switzerland).
2
In both studies, we included a seventh category for countries spanning Asia and Europe (e.g.,
Russia, Turkey). Egypt was in the Africa category.
3
We also ran our primary analysis with dummy codes for participants’ nationality with codes for
Asia (0 = not Asian, 1 = Asian) and Europe (0 = not European, 1 = European) as well as
interactions with the independent variables. Neither main effects nor interactions with gender
and experimental condition were found for region of origin (ps > .147), so they were not
included in the reported analyses.
Affirming Women 12
During orientation, participants were assigned by campus to complete one of two values
affirmation writing tasks: Standard Affirmation (SA) values condition or Including
Organizational (IO) values condition. MBAs on the Asia campus were assigned to the SA
condition and MBAs on the Europe campus were assigned to the IO condition. After orientation
week, all MBAs completed five required core courses in their first eight-week academic term,
called “Period 1 (P1)”. At the end of P1, participants’ grades were obtained for their core
courses. Thus, this was a 2 (writing condition: SA vs. IO) x 2 (gender: male vs. female) betweenparticipants design with P1 core course grades as the dependent variable.
Materials and procedure
The intervention was administered as part of orientation activities, wherein all MBAs
attended a one-day “Introduction to General Management” (IGM) module in their assigned
sections. IGM is a required, ungraded introductory course, and is taught by one of two instructors
(both male), one in Asia and the other in Europe. A few days before the class, participants
received an online survey link from the school’s Dean, who incidentally was also this cohort’s
IGM instructor on the Asia campus. Participants on both campuses were asked to “spend
15 to 20 minutes reflecting and writing about your values” in preparation for IGM, and they
received a specific link to their assigned values writing condition.
Values writing task. In the online survey, participants were presented with a list of ten
values – the specific value options differed by condition and were adapted from prior research
(McQueen & Klein, 2006) to be appropriate for this context based on discussions with the MBA
Dean and recent MBA graduates. In both the SA condition and the IO condition, participants
were asked to select two or three values that were most important to them with the following
instructions, “As you join the [institution name] community it is important for you to reflect on
Affirming Women 13
your personal values. Below there is a list of ten values. Some of these values will be more
important to you than others. Please select the two or three values that are most important to
you.” Participants were then told, “Please take a moment to reflect upon these values. Please tell
us why these values are important to you, and how you have demonstrated these values in your
life. Feel free to provide details, examples and/or explanations in your response.”
The Standard Affirmation (SA) condition list was comprised of ten values: protecting the
environment/issues of sustainability; helping people in need/participating in charitable
organizations; participating in civil society, social movements, NGOs; relationships with family;
relationships with friends; enjoying life/living in the moment; sharing and participating in my
culture; learning about other cultures; health and fitness; and spirituality or religion.
The Including Organizational (IO) condition list was also comprised of ten values, but
included organizational values to test our prediction that affirmation interventions are only
effective when they focus solely on personal values (Sherman & Hartson, 2011). Two of the
values were relevant to the organizational domain (78.4% of participants in this condition
selected one or both of the values): specifically, “building a global professional network” and
“intellectual pursuits (learning, knowledge, creative thinking).” The other eight values were
similar to the SA condition list: protecting the environment/issues of sustainability; helping
people in need/participating in charitable organizations; participating in civil society, social
movements, NGOs; relationships with family and friends; enjoying life/living in the moment;
embracing diversity/sharing and participating in my culture; health and fitness; and spirituality or
religion.
Manipulation check. In both experimental conditions, participants were asked to select
values that were important to them. After completing the writing task, participants reported the
Affirming Women 14
importance of the values they selected and wrote about, following procedures established by
Cohen, Garcia, Apfel, & Master (2006). On a 1-6 scale (endpoints labeled strongly disagree to
strongly agree), participants reported the extent to which, “These values have influenced my
life,” “In general, I try to live up to these values,” “These values are an important part of who I
am,” and “I care about these values.” The four items had acceptable internal reliability
(Cronbach’s α = .71), and were averaged to create an index of value importance. Three
participants who answered, on average, “disagree” or “strongly disagree” on the value
importance ratings, and one participant who did not complete the ratings, were excluded from the
analyses, as they did not follow task instructions. Participants in the analyzed sample indicated
that the values they wrote about were very important to them (M = 5.509, SD = .462), and the
importance ratings did not differ between conditions, t(421) = .325, p = .745.
During IGM, the instructors presented the overall values selected by the cohort and
facilitated a brief (approximately 5 minute) discussion on values and priorities. Then, in the 5th
week of P1, the IGM instructors sent participants by email sample excerpts from the value
writings submitted by their cohort (1-2 excerpts per value).
Core course mean. All participants took the same five core courses in P1: Financial Accounting;
Financial Markets and Valuation; Organisational Behaviour 1; Prices and Markets; and
Uncertainty, Data, and Judgment. The professors or graders for each of these five courses
standardize the grades for evaluation purposes before submitting them to the MBA office. We
averaged the standardized grades from each of the five courses to create the performance
measure (Cronbach’s α = .75).Analytical strategy
We analyzed this 2 (Writing condition: SA vs. IO) x 2 (Gender: male vs. female)
between-participants design using multiple regression. Mean core course grades were regressed
Affirming Women 15
on (a) the coded contrast for the main effect of Writing condition (SA = 1, IO = -1), (b) the
coded contrast for the main effect of Gender (male = -1, female = 1), and (c) the Writing
condition × Gender interaction. The analysis also controlled for participants’ GMATQuant score4
and the GII score (United Nations Human Development Report, 2014) for their nationality5, both
centered at their means. The control variables were entered in the first step, Writing condition
and Gender were entered in the second step, and the interaction was entered in the third step.6
Results
Core course mean. We predicted that a gender gap in performance resulting from
stereotype threat (Hypothesis 1) in the IO condition would be eliminated in the SA condition
(Hypotheses 2 and 3). Results supported these predictions (Figure 1). Men outperformed women
in the IO condition (b = -.136, SE = .042, t(417) = -3.268, p = .001, ηp2 = .025) but not in the SA
condition (b = -.015, SE = .051, t(417) = -.302, p = .763, ηp2 = .0002). These differences are
reflected in a significant main effect for gender (b = -.076, SE = .033, t(417) = -2.292, p = .022)
4
In this study, we used GMATQuant scores as a means of equating the skill levels of male and
female MBAs. Among the standardized scores available for this sample (i.e., GMATQuant,
GMATVerbal, and GMATTotal), only GMATQuant scores revealed a significant gender difference,
t(239.037) = 3.064, p = .002 (equal variances not assumed; Levene’s test for equality of
variances: F(1, 421) = 17.374, p < .001).
5
Because gender roles differ dramatically across the national cultures represented among
participants, we sought to control for potential national level differences in women’s and men’s
performance with GII scores. This covariate did significantly predict MBA performance in Study
1 but not in Study 2, but it was included in all reported analyses with performance as the
dependent variable across both studies for consistency.
6
Following best practices for multiple regression analysis (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken,
2003), we also tested covariate assumptions. This separate regression model regressed mean core
course grades on the main effects of GMATQuant , GII, Writing Condition, and Gender, as well as
all two-way and higher order interactions. In this analysis, only GMATQuant was found to violate
the covariate assumption, as it interacted with Writing Condition, b = .006, t(407) = 2.027, p =
.043. However, this was not hypothesized and in this regression model, the hypothesized
interaction between Writing condition and Gender was significant, b = .074, t(407) = 2.204, p =
.028.
Affirming Women 16
and a marginally significant interaction effect (b = .060, SE = .032, t(417) = 1.857, p = .064).
The main effect of the writing intervention was not significant, p > .361.7
---------------------------------Insert Figure 1 about here
---------------------------------Discussion
Study 1 showed a gender gap in performance among MBAs assigned to complete a
values writing task including organizational values, but not among MBAs assigned to complete a
writing task focused only on their core personal values. This provides initial support for
Hypotheses 1 and 2, in that there was a gender gap in performance that was eliminated by a
standard values affirmation. These findings are also consistent with Hypothesis 3, which
predicted that a significant gender gap in performance among MBAs assigned to a values
affirmation that included organizational values would be eliminated among MBAs assigned to a
values affirmation including only their core personal values.
Study 2
Study 2 was designed to extend Study 1 in three ways. First, to eliminate any potential
confounds, it used random assignment to value affirmation conditions within campuses rather
than between campuses. Second, because the MBAs in Study 1 all wrote about values they
identified as important to them, Study 2 included a more traditional values affirmation control
condition. Third, Study 2 measured self-efficacy, self-criticism, and self-doubt to investigate the
importance of self-relevant processes (Hypothesis 4).
Method
7
The pattern of results did not differ when all 427 MBAs were analyzed (i.e., including those
who failed the manipulation check). Affirming Women 17
Participants and design
Participants were recruited from a different cohort of 503 (342 male, 161 female; mean
age = 28.52 years) MBAs at the same international business school. 422 incoming MBAs (83.9%
of the cohort; 283 male, 139 female; mean age = 28.51 years) participated in this study, again as
part of a class exercise during orientation week. Of the 422 MBAs who participated, seven did
not have Total Graduate Management Admission Test (GMATTotal) scores available, and 10 did
not have GII scores available for their nationality (namely, Belarus, Fiji, Nigeria, Serbia, and
Taiwan). The study sample, therefore, consisted of 405 MBAs (274 male, 131 female; mean age
= 28.48 years) who completed the study. Nine additional participants were removed from the
analysis for failure to follow task instructions (see Manipulation Check).
This left a final sample of 396 MBAs (266 male, 130 female; age = 28.47 years) on
which the reported analyses were based. These participants were also drawn from seven sections,
four located on the Europe campus and three located on the Asia campus, and they were
demographically similar to those in Study 1 (Table 1). This group included 65 nationalities from
Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, and South America, with no more than 12.2%
from any given country on each campus.8
During orientation, participants were randomly assigned to complete one of three writing
tasks: Standard Affirmation (SA) values condition, Including Organizational (IO) values
condition, or Least Important (LI) values condition. The LI condition is a standard control
condition in experimental values affirmation research (Cohen & Sherman, 2014). Similar to an
8
As in Study 1, to ensure that this difference did not influence the results, we ran our focal
analysis with dummy codes for Asia (0 = not Asian, 1 = Asian) and Europe (0 = not European, 1
= European) as well as interactions with the independent variables. Neither the Asia dummy
code nor the Europe dummy code moderated the effect of the intervention (ps > .514), so they
were not included in the reported analyses.
Affirming Women 18
established method for field experimentation (Miyake et al., 2010), 60% of participants were
randomly assigned to the SA condition, 20% to the IO condition, and 20% to the LI condition.
This method allowed us to test and extend the potential benefits of the SA condition – consistent
with Hypothesis 3 – to as many as possible without sacrificing experimental rigor. Random
assignment in this study was done at the individual level, such that MBAs on both campuses
were equally likely to be assigned to the different conditions. As writing task condition and
campus location were orthogonal, they were included as separate factors in this study design.
After orientation, all MBAs completed the same five required core courses in P1 as the
participants in Study 1. At the end of P1, participants’ standardized grades were obtained for
their core courses. Thus, this was a 3 (Writing condition: SA vs. IO vs. LI) x 2 (Gender: male vs.
female) x 2 (Campus: Asia vs. Europe) between-participants design with P1 core course grades
as the dependent variable.
Materials and procedure
As part of orientation, all MBAs attended the one-day IGM module in their assigned
sections. The same two instructors taught IGM again, one in Asia and the other in Europe. A few
days before the class, participants received an online survey link to their assigned writing task
from the school’s Dean, who taught IGM on the Europe campus for this cohort. Participants
were asked to “spend 15 to 20 minutes reflecting and writing about your values” before attending
IGM.
Values writing. In the online survey, all participants were presented with a list of ten
values. The instructions and values in the SA and the IO condition were exactly the same as in
Study 1. The LI condition was modeled after control conditions in prior values affirmation
research (Cohen et al., 2006; Miyake et al., 2010; Sherman et al., 2013). Participants in this
Affirming Women 19
condition were presented with the SA list and asked to select two or three values that were least
important to them. They were then instructed to “Please take a moment to reflect on how these
values might be important to someone else, and then describe why these values might be
important to this person. Feel free to provide details, examples and/or explanations in your
response.”
Manipulation check. Following Cohen et al.’s procedure (2006), after completing the
writing task, participants reported the importance of these values for themselves or for others,
depending on their assigned condition. On a 1-6 scale (endpoints labeled strongly disagree to
strongly agree), participants reported the extent to which, “These values have influenced my life
[some people],” “In general, I [some people] try to live up to these values,” “These values are an
important part of who I am [some people are],” and “I [Some people] care about these values.”
The four items had acceptable internal reliability (Cronbach’s α = .77), and were averaged to
create an index of value importance. Participants who, on average, answered “strongly disagree”
or “disagree” to the questions of value importance were excluded from the analyses as they did
not follow task instructions.9 Participants in the analyzed sample indicated that the values they
wrote about were very important to them or others (M = 5.513, SD = .511), although participants
in the SA (M = 5.538, SD = .517) and IO (M = 5.611, SD = .444) conditions had higher means
than participants in the LI condition (M = 5.340, SD = .522), F(2, 393) = 6.671, p = .001, ηp2 =
.033.
During IGM, the instructors presented the overall values selected by the cohort and
facilitated a brief (approximately 5 minute) discussion on values. Then, in the 5th week of P1
9
The pattern of results did not differ when all 405 MBAs were analyzed (i.e., including those
who failed the manipulation check).
Affirming Women 20
(recall this is an 8-week term), participants’ IGM instructor sent them excerpts from their
cohort’s values writings (1-2 excerpts per value) by email.
Core course mean. All participants took the same five core courses in P1 as the
participants in Study 1. Again, their standardized grades from each of the five courses were
averaged to create the performance measure (Cronbach’s α = .77).
Process variables. In the sixth week of P1, participants received a second survey link
from one of their course instructors, which measured the three potential mediators. Seeking to
utilize the most appropriate measures of self-efficacy, self-doubt, and self- criticism for
international business professionals under conditions of stereotype threat, we selected items from
well-established scales. We measured general self-efficacy with a scale validated for use with
international professionals (Chen, Gully, & Eden, 2001; Zhao, Seibert, & Hills, 2005). Because
the scientist-practitioners in Clinical Psychology are recognized for their expertise on self-doubt
and self-criticism (Blatt, 1995), we selected items from their published scales that best fit our
conceptual constructs and were most appropriately worded for individuals in competitive
international business contexts. Specifically, for the self-doubt scale we selected the 4-item
Doubts about Actions subscale of the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (Frost, Marten,
Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990) and one additional item from the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale
(Leary, 1983). Four of the self-criticism items were taken from self-criticism subscales of The
Attitudes Toward Self Scales also developed for use in clinical contexts (Carver & Ganellen,
1983; Carver, 2013) and the final self-criticism item was taken from the Concern over Mistakes
subscale of the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (Frost et al., 1990).10
10
Before use in Study 2, we also examined these three scales (among other self scales; please
contact the authors for further details) in a pilot study with 163 Amazon Mechanical Turk
workers in the United States as participants (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011). Exploratory
Affirming Women 21
Roughly two-thirds of Study 2 participants (66.7%; 187 male, 77 female; mean age =
28.53 years) completed this online questionnaire. Participants indicated, on a 1-5 scale
(endpoints labeled strongly disagree to strongly agree), the extent to which they agreed with the
five self-criticism items (e.g., “I get angry with myself if my efforts don’t lead to the results I
wanted”); the five self-doubt items (e.g., “I usually have doubts about the simple everyday things
I do”); and the eight self-efficacy items (e.g., “In general, I think that I can obtain outcomes that
are important to me”).
To assess the validity of the three subscales in this sample, we first performed
exploratory factor analysis using varimax rotation in SPSS on the 18 scale items. As expected,
exploratory factor analysis produced three discrete components based on our theoretical
constructs of interest (Stevens, 2002), explaining 47.68% of the variance. The factor loadings of
the eight self-efficacy items ranged from .60 to .73 with no loading value greater than .26 on the
other components. The factor loadings of the five self-criticism items ranged from .60 to .79 with
no loading value greater than .16 on the other constructs. The third construct pertained to selfdoubt. One item (“I often worry that I will say or do the wrong things”) loaded similarly on two
components (loadings of .38 and .41); thus, it was excluded from the final measure. The factor
loadings of the remaining four items ranged from .56 to .77 with no loading value greater than
.19 on the other constructs. The three subscales were reliable for both female and male
participants (self-efficacy: αfemale = .83, αmale = .81; self-criticism: αfemale = .76, αmale = .75; selfdoubt: αfemale = .71, αmale = .66). Bivariate correlations are presented in Table 2.
factor analysis with varimax rotation (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955) revealed three factors
explaining 66.76% of the variance, and the factor loadings were clean, such that each item
loaded well its own factor (> .64) and not on the other factors (< .40). The three scales also had
strong internal reliabilities for both female and male participants (self-doubt: αfemale = .88, αmale =
.85; self-criticism: αfemale = .86, αmale = .86; self-efficacy: αfemale = .93, αmale = .93).
Affirming Women 22
---------------------------------Insert Table 2 about here
---------------------------------To further verify the factor structure in this sample, we also conducted confirmatory
factor analysis using structural equation modeling in STATA. We first ran this with the 8 items
measuring self-efficacy loaded on a latent self-efficacy factor, the 5 items measuring selfcriticism on a latent self-criticism factor, and the 4 items measuring self-doubt on a latent selfdoubt factor. The model was specified with inter-correlations among the latent factors and the
first item loaded on each latent variable constrained to 1. This measurement structure yielded
good model fit following standard guidelines (Brown, 2015), χ2(116, N = 264) = 158.552, p =
.005, SRMR = .051, RMSEA = .037, CFI = .957, TLI = .949, AIC = 10956.301, BIC =
11149.402. Although the chi-square was statistically significant as can occur due to large sample
size, the SRMR, RMSEA, CFI, and TLI were all well within the ranges that indicate good fit
(Brown, 2015). We also compared this to the alternative two-factor and one-factor models, and
these models yielded clearly poorer fits (e.g., all χ2 > 243.453, p < .001). Thus, we ultimately
utilized the best measurement scales for this sample (see Appendix A).
Results
Initial analytical strategy
We began by analyzing the 3 (Writing condition: SA vs. IO vs. LI) x 2 (Gender: male vs.
female) x 2 (Campus: Asia vs. Europe) between-participants design using multiple regression.
Mean core course grades were regressed on (a) two orthogonal contrasts for the main effects of
Writing condition: one contrast compared the SA condition against the other two conditions
(Contrast1: SA = 2, IO = -1, LI = -1) and the second contrast compared the IO condition to the
LI condition (Contrast2: SA = 0, IO = -1, LI = 1), (b) the coded contrast for the main effect of
Affirming Women 23
Gender (male = -1, female = 1), and (c) the coded contrast for the main effect of Campus
(Europe = -1, Asia = 1), as well as (d) all two-way and three-way interactions. This analysis also
controlled for participants’ GMATTotal score11 and the GII for their nationality, both centered at
their means. The control variables, main effects, and interactions were entered simultaneously.
Core course mean. We predicted that a gender gap in performance resulting from
stereotype threat (Hypothesis 1) would be eliminated in the SA condition (Hypotheses 2), but not
in the IO condition (Hypothesis 3). Results supported predictions, with the gender gap in
performance moderated by whether or not participants engaged in SA values writing, b = .049,
SE = .024, t(382) = 2.033, p = .043. The second value writing contrast (IO vs. LI conditions) did
not impact the gender gap, b = -.063, SE = .057, t(382) = -1.115, p = .266. There was a main
effect of Gender, b = -.178, SE = .041, t(382) = -4.348, p < .001, and the other condition effects
and interactions were not significant (see Table 3).
---------------------------------Insert Table 3 about here
---------------------------------Focal analytical strategy
The foregoing analysis suggests combining the IO condition with the LI condition for
clarity of presentation and to leverage statistical power for the simple effects and mediation
analyses. Thus, mean core course grades were regressed on (a) the coded contrast for the main
effect of Writing condition (SA = 1, combined IO and LI conditions = -1), (b) the coded contrast
for the main effect of Gender (male = -1, female = 1), (c) the coded contrast for the main effect
11
In this study, GMATQuant scores did not reveal a significant gender difference, t(394) = .86, p =
.390. However, male and female MBAs did differ marginally on the remaining standardized
scores: GMATVerbal, t(394) = 1.774, p = .077, GMATTotal, t(394) = 1.627, p = .10. Ultimately,
GMATTotal scores were used as a means of equating the skill levels of male and female MBAs. In
both the initial and focal analyses, GMATTotal was a significant predictor of grades, b = .007, SE
= .001, t(382) = 7.741, p < .001, and b = .007, SE = .001, t(386) = 7.665, p < .001, respectively.
Affirming Women 24
of Campus (Europe = -1, Asia = 1), as well as (d) all two-way and three-way interactions. Again,
we controlled for participants’ GMATTotal score and the GII for their nationality, both centered at
their means.
---------------------------------Insert Figure 2 about here
---------------------------------Core course mean. This analysis tested Hypotheses 1 and 2, which predicted that the
gender gap in performance caused by stereotype threat would be eliminated in the SA condition,
and results were consistent with predictions (see Figure 2). The typical gender gap in the
combined control condition emerged (b = -.233, SE = .057, t(386) = -4.118, p < .001, ηp2 = .042),
with male MBAs (Madj = 3.205, SD = .694) on average scoring higher grades than female MBAs
(Madj = 2.739, SD = .763). This gender gap was eliminated in the SA condition, b = -.081, SE =
.046, t(386) = -1.750, p = .081, ηp2 = .008, where male (Madj = 3.109, SD = .688) and female
MBAs (Madj = 2.948, SD = .654) performed similarly. As in the initial analysis, this analysis
revealed a main effect of Gender (b = -.157, SE = .037, t(386) = -4.269, p < .001) and a
significant gender by SA vs. combined control interaction (b = .076, SE = .036, t(386) = 2.095, p
= .037. There were no main effects or interactions with Campus (see Table 4).
---------------------------------Insert Table 4 about here
---------------------------------Mediation analysis
To investigate the process underlying how the SA condition reduces the gender gap in
performance, we began by investigating the extent to which self-affirmation moderated gender
differences in self-efficacy, self-criticism, and self-doubt in separate regression analyses. These
analyses followed the focal analytical strategy outlined above, with mean-centered self-efficacy,
self-doubt, and self-criticism as the outcome variables in place of core course grades. Based on
Affirming Women 25
Hypothesis 4, we predicted Gender by Writing condition (SA vs. combined controls) interactions
on one or more of the self measures.
---------------------------------Insert Figure 3 about here
---------------------------------Self-efficacy. There was not a significant Gender by Writing condition interaction on selfefficacy, b = .054, SE = .035, t(254) = 1.570, p = .118 (see Table 5).12
Self-doubt. This analysis did reveal a significant interaction between Gender and Writing
condition, b = -.118, SE = .052, t(254) = -2.270, p = .024 (see Table 5). In the combined control
condition, the gender gap in self-doubt was non-significant (b = .125, SE = .079, t(254) = 1.584,
p = .114, ηp2 = .010), but in the expected direction. On average, male MBAs (Madj = -.069, SD =
1.365) had lower self-doubt than female MBAs (Madj = .182, SD = 2.19). The gender gap in selfdoubt was reversed in the SA condition, also to a non-significant level, b = -.111, SE = .068,
t(254) = -1.636, p = .103, ηp2 = .010. Female MBAs (Madj = -.148 , SD = 1.852) had less selfdoubt than male MBAs (Madj = .073, SD = 1.170) when they affirmed their core personal values.
Self-criticism. There was not a significant Gender by Writing condition interaction on
self-criticism, b = -.014, SE = .052, t(254) = -.262, p = .794 (see Table 5).
---------------------------------Insert Table 5 about here
---------------------------------Also based on Hypothesis 4, we predicted that one or more of the three self measures
would influence performance. Thus, we regressed MBA grades on self-efficacy, self-doubt, and
self-criticism simultaneously, controlling for GMATTotal score and the GII for their nationality,
all centered at their means, as well as the same dummy codes for Gender, Writing condition, and
12
As represented in Table 5, there were unexpected effects of Campus on self-efficacy. Because
there was no higher order interaction with gender (i.e., campus did not moderate the effects of
interest), we did not explore this further.
Affirming Women 26
Campus included in the focal analysis reported above. Self-doubt had a significant effect on
grades, b = -.154, SE = .056, t(251) = -2.739, p = .007, but self-efficacy (b = .038, SE = .082,
t(251) = .461, p = .645) and self-criticism (b = .044, SE = .054, t(251) = .814, p = .461) did not.
---------------------------------Insert Figure 3 about here
---------------------------------To assess the significance of the indirect effects (Hypothesis 4), we then entered all three
of the proposed mechanisms (self-efficacy, self-doubt, self-criticism) in a bootstrapping
mediation analysis. This analysis focused on the indirect effect of the Gender by Writing
condition interaction on core course grades through the three self measures, and included the
main effects of Writing condition, Gender, and Campus, as well as mean-centered GMATTotal
and GII as covariates. Using the INDIRECT macro for SPSS (Preacher & Hayes, 2008),
bootstrapping with 5000 resamples revealed self-doubt as a significant mediator (95% CI = .0026
to .0473) of the Gender by Writing condition interaction, as the 95% confidence interval did not
include zero. Neither self-efficacy (95% CI = -.0056 to .0181) nor self-criticism (95% CI = .0128 to .0045) emerged as significant mediators of the interaction of experimental condition and
gender on performance, as their 95% confidence intervals included zero.
Discussion
Study 2 provided support for Hypotheses 1-4 with random assignment to condition at the
individual level. As predicted by Hypotheses 1 and 2, there was a gender gap in performance in
the control conditions that was attenuated by an affirmation of core personal values. Consistent
with Hypothesis 3, the affirmation including organizational values led to similar results as did
writing about other people’s values, which is a control condition established to not affirm the self
(McQueen & Klein, 2006). Further, of the three related self-processes stated in Hypothesis 4,
Affirming Women 27
self-doubt emerged as the significant process of stereotype threat that was intervened upon by the
affirmation of core personal values. Thus, this study supports the theory that self-doubt is a
consequence of stereotype threat (Steele & Aronson, 1995; Stone, 2002), and that it leads to real
world performance decrements. The study also demonstrates that this process can be interrupted
with a personal values affirmation.
On a methodological level, the campus on which participants were studying was a nonsignificant factor in all of the analyses, both as a main effect and interaction with gender. If the
findings of Study 1 were due to a difference in the gender climate or type of students on the two
campuses, we should have observed a two-way interaction between gender and campus or a
three-way interaction between gender and campus and writing condition. Thus, the findings of
Study 2 also help to justify the use of random assignment at the campus level in Study 1.
General Discussion
Demonstrating robust generalizability across two field experiments, the standard values
affirmation intervention substantially reduced the course performance gender gap among
international cohorts of MBAs located in Asia and Europe. In both studies, we hypothesized and
found that a standard values affirmation, but not a similar affirmation including organizational
values, eliminated the gender gap in performance. Indeed, a meta-analysis of the two field
studies using Lipsey and Wilson’s macro for SPSS showed a significant Homogeneity Q (i.e.,
interaction effect), Q(1) = 4.491, p = .034. The mean effect size of the gender gap in the control
conditions (including organizational values and least important values) was .5374 (95% CI .2753
to .7884), z = 4.019, p = .001. In contrast, the mean effect size in the standard affirmation
intervention condition was .1380 (95% CI -.1223 to .3983), z = 1.039, p = .299. Further, among
Affirming Women 28
the potential manifestations of gender-based stereotype threat examined as process, self-doubt
emerged as the significant mediator in Study 2.
Theoretical Contributions
Our findings provide several clear contributions to psychological and organizational
theory. Most importantly, these studies provide evidence consistent with the occurrence of
stereotype threat for women in competitive business on a meaningful, objective performance
outcome. These findings provide the first empirical evidence that stereotype threat can lead to
real world performance gender gaps beyond the college setting. Our research speaks to Roberson
and Kulik (2007) and Schmader and Hall (2014)’s organizationally relevant stereotype threat
hypotheses as well as Steele and Aronson’s (1995) theory of stereotype threat. It also answers
Kalokerinos and colleagues’ (2014) call for attention to stereotype threat in organizational
research in light of the paucity of prior work.
These findings also provide evidence against the proposition that stereotype threat is a
North American phenomenon (see Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010). Although stereotype
threat was not presented as a culture-dependent phenomenon, much of the research has been
conducted in North America. Further, meta-analysis has revealed that the effects of stereotype
threat on college women’s mathematics performance are less reliable in the few laboratory
studies conducted outside the United States, for reasons that are not entirely clear (Picho,
Rodriguez, & Finnie, 2013). The fact that we found evidence consistent with stereotype threat in
samples vastly different from prior work speaks powerfully to the generalizability of the
experience of stereotype threat for women.
The fact that self-doubt, but not self-efficacy and self-criticism, emerged as the most
powerful process informs both the stereotype threat and gender differences literatures. To our
Affirming Women 29
knowledge this is the first study to demonstrate the role of self-doubt in explaining a gender
performance gap. Because self-doubt is more likely to manifest over time as a consequence of
chronic exposure to subtle cues that one’s group is negatively stereotyped rather than as a result
of acute exposure in a laboratory setting, it might not have emerged as a significant mediator in
laboratory experiments (e.g., Brown & Pinel, 2003). Our demonstration provides compelling
evidence for the role of self-doubt in real world gender performance gaps.
We are, however, hesitant to conclude that self-efficacy and self-criticism are unrelated to
women’s experience with stereotype threat as prior findings in the laboratory and field have
linked self-efficacy and stereotype threat (Chung et al., 2010; Hoyt & Blascovich, 2007), and
have offered evidence for the potential role of self-criticism (Beyer, 1998; Cadinu et al., 2005).
The present research also speaks to the cross-cultural generalizability of self-affirmation
theory by demonstrating that a standard values affirmation can be effective among groups that
are largely non-American. This is noteworthy because self-affirmation theory is predicated on
the notion of the self as striving to maintain individual self-worth. Because self-construals vary
by culture (Markus & Kitayama, 1991), we might expect cultural differences in the efficacy of
self-affirmation (Hoshino-Browne et al., 2005). Thus, finding that a standard values affirmation
intervention was effective in such a culturally diverse context expands our knowledge of the
generalizability of self-affirmation theory.
Our findings also suggest a critical boundary condition for the effects of affirmation on
performance. Self-affirmations should be most effective when they involve facets of the self that
are unrelated to the threat (Sherman & Hartson, 2011). This aspect of self-affirmation theory had
only previously been examined with respect to positive feedback influencing judgments and
decisions (Blanton et al., 1997; Sivanathan et al., 2008), but not with value affirmations or
Affirming Women 30
performance. In the present study, we show that the standard values affirmation, excluding
organizational values, effectively reduced the gender gap in performance. This provides
important evidence for self-affirmation theory by showing that self-affirmation interventions
most effectively eliminate performance gaps when their content is entirely unrelated to the
potential source of threat.
Implications, Applications, and Future Research
Conventional wisdom and scholarly knowledge suggest that gender gaps in competitive
business are too deeply rooted in society or in women’s own psychology to be altered
substantively with a short writing assignment (Eagly & Carli, 2007). Prior approaches to
reducing gender gaps in representation and performance have focused on encouraging women to
change themselves or mandating institutions to change (as in the case of board quotas in Europe).
Given this context, our intervention is noteworthy because we introduced it institutionally to
influence women’s psychological experience (namely with respect to self-doubt) and managed to
dramatically impact their performance.13
This intervention can be thoughtfully adapted to work effectively in many organizational
contexts in which women are at risk of underperforming due to stereotype threat. The most
obvious application would be other competitive business schools, both inside and outside the
United States. Because the intervention originated in America and succeeds in an international
(non-American) context, it should generalize to anywhere women are underperforming due to
gender-based stereotype threat, as evidenced by an existing gender gap in objective performance
13
Does the closing of the gender gap reflect improvement in women’s performance or
deterioration of men’s performance (Walton & Cohen, 2003)? The present data do not allow for
a fair test of whether self-affirmation interferes with stereotype boost for men as the original
course grades obtained for the analyses had been standardized.
Affirming Women 31
controlling for ability (e.g., GMAT scores). The intervention could also be used during
onboarding or promotion periods in businesses in contexts where stereotype threat might
interfere with women’s performance (e.g., banking, technology). Adapting the methodology
would mean implementing the intervention during transitions just before most women begin to
experience threat associated with their gender in their particular industry, organization, or role
(see Cohen et al., 2006).
Our research implies that careful thought should be given to the affirmation of particular
values at different life and career stages. For example, working mothers are stereotyped to be
less competent and committed than childless women (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2004; Ely, 1995).
Thus, the “relationships with family” value might pose a threat to working mothers, rather than
inoculate against gender stereotype threat. However, relationships with family are important,
perhaps especially for working mothers, so we hesitate to suggest replacing this value
prematurely and encourage future research to empirically investigate this.
Readers may note that we inferred that stereotype threat caused the gender gap that was
eliminated through self-affirmation. Although we did not measure self-reports of the subjective
experience of stereotype threat, it is the most parsimonious explanation for why bolstering both
men’s and women’s feelings of self-worth eliminated gender gaps in performance. We
encourage future research to examine precisely when and where women become aware of the
more subtle forms of sexism they encounter (i.e., second generation sexism; Eagly & Carli,
2007; Ely & Meyerson, 2000) and how this awareness relates to their performance and
representation in business (Hall et al., 2015; von Hippel et al., 2015).
Timely interventions can have robust downstream consequences as the deleterious effects
of stereotype threat on women in competitive business are a part of a vicious cycle. Women who
Affirming Women 32
do not perform to their potential due to stereotype threat may reinforce negative beliefs about
women’s abilities, which in turn creates a context for increased stereotype threat. Thus,
intervening on this vicious cycle by bolstering women’s psychological resources through values
affirmations may have far-reaching consequences for women who receive the affirmation during
critical transition periods, and for other women who witness their peers and potential role models
performing on par with men.
A similar standard values affirmation should also bolster the resiliency of other groups at
risk of underperforming due to stereotype threat in professional contexts (e.g., Chung et al.,
2010). Although there are circumstances in which members of high status groups (e.g., White
men in the United States) are negatively stereotyped (O’Brien, Kinias, & Major, 2008; Stone,
Lynch, Sjomeling, & Darley, 1999), members of chronically disadvantaged groups (e.g., women,
racial/ ethnic minorities) would likely benefit the most from our intervention in work contexts.
Conclusion
The ease of administering this intervention in business settings makes it highly practical,
and its subtlety makes it less prone to reactance and minimizes the risk of alienating female
employees or further undermining their talent (Brehm, 1966). Our findings contribute to Pfeffer
and Sutton’s (2006) proposal for evidence-based management, by providing clear evidence of
how organizations should implement this tool. Further, it can be administered seamlessly in
MBA program orientations and during corporate onboarding or promotion periods, neither
calling attention to the fact that there is a diversity problem as women or minorities arrive in the
new professional context nor waiting until they are disheartened or frustrated to attempt to
remedy the problem. It immunizes against the first disparaging wave of threat in the new
professional context.
Affirming Women 33
References
Aronson, J., Quinn, D. M., & Spencer, S. J. (1998). In prejudice: The target’s perspective, J. K.
Swim, C. Stangor, Eds. San Diego: Academic Press, 83-103.
Barreto, M., Ryan, M.K., & Schmitt, M.T. (2008). The glass ceiling in the 21st century:
Understanding barriers to gender equality. American Psychological Association,
Washington, DC.
Bauer, T. N., Morrison, E. W., & Callister, R. R. (1998). In Research in Personnel and Human
Resource Management , G. R. Ferris, K. M. Rowland Eds., JAI, Greenwich, CT.
Beyer, S. (1998). Gender Differences in Self-Perception and Negative Recall Biases. Sex Roles,
38, 103-133.
Blanton, H., Cooper, J., Slkurnik, I., & Aronson, J. (1997). When bad things happen to good
feedback: Exacerbating the need for self-justification with self-affirmations. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 684-692.
Blatt, S. J. (1995). The destructiveness of perfectionism: Implications for the treatment of
depression. American Psychologist, 50, 1003-1020.
Bosson, J. K., Haymovitz, E. L., & Pinel, E. C. (2004). When saying and doing diverge: The
effects of stereotype threat on self-reported versus non-verbal anxiety. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 247-255.
Brass, D. J. (1985). Men’s and women’s networks: A study of interaction patterns and influence
in an organization. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 327-343.
Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press, New York.
Brown, R. P., & Pinel, E. C. (2003). Stigma on my mind: Individual differences in the
experience of stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 626-633.
Affirming Women 34
Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. Second edition. New
York: Guilford Press.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of
inexpensive, yet high quality data? Perspectives in Psychological Science, 6, 3-5.
Cable, D. M., Gino, F., & Staats, B. (2013). Breaking them in or revealing their best? Reframing
socialization around newcomer self-expression. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58, 136.
Cadinu, M., Maass, A., Rosabianca, A., & Kiesner, J. (2005). Why do women underperform
under stereotype threat?: Evidence for the role of negative thinking. Psychological
Science, 16, 572-578.
Carter, N. M., & Silva, C. (2010). Pipeline's broken promise. Catalyst, New York.
Carver, C. S. (2013). Attitudes Toward Self Scale, available at
http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/ccarver/sclATS.html
Carver, C. S., & Ganellen, R. J. (1983). Depression and components of self-punitiveness: High
standards, self-criticism, and overgeneralization. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 92,
330-337.
Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy
scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 62-83.
Chung, B. G., Ehrhart, M. G., Ehrhart, K. H., Hattrup, K., & Solamon, J. (2010). Stereotype
threat, state anxiety, and specific self-efficacy as predictors of promotion exam
performance. Group & Organization Management, 35, 77-107.
Cohen, G. L., Garcia, J., Apfel, N., & Master, A. (2006). Reducing the racial achievement gap: A
social-psychological intervention. Science, 313, 1307-1310.
Affirming Women 35
Cohen, G. L., & Sherman, D. K. (2014). The psychology of change: Self-affirmation and social
psychological intervention. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 333-371.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multivariate
regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Third edition. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, London.
Cronbach, L. J., Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological
Bulletin, 52, 281-302.
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2004). When professionals become mothers, warmth
doesn’t cut the ice. Journal of Social Issues, 60, 701-718.
Eagly, A. H. & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become
leaders. Harvard Business Press, Boston.
Ely, R. J. (1995). The power in demography: Women’s social constructions of gender identity at
work. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 589-634.
Ely, R. J., & Meyerson, D. E. (2000). Theories of gender in organizations: A new approach to
organizational analysis and change. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 103-151.
Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of
perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy Research, 14, 449-468.
Gillespie, J. Z., Converse, P. D., & Kriska, S. D. (2010). Applying recommendations from the
literature on stereotype threat: Two field studies. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25,
493-504.
Groom, B. (2014). Proportion of women on FTSE 100 boards tops 20%, Financial Times,
January 17th, available at http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/e981f88c-7eb0-11e3-86420144feabdc0.html#axzz2qvUay2iJ, accessed September 2014.
Affirming Women 36
Hall, W. M., Schmader, T., & Croft, E. (2015). Engineering exchanges: Daily social identity
threat predicts burnout among female engineers. Social Psychological and Personality
Science, 6, 528-534.
Harris, P. R., Mayle, K., Mabbott, L., & Napper, L. (2007). Self-affirmation reduces smokers’
defensiveness to graphic on-pack cigarette warning labels. Health Psychology, 26, 437446.
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61-83.
Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women's
ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 657-674.
Hoshino-Browne, E. et al. (2005). On the cultural guises of cognitive dissonance: the case of
easterners and westerners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 294-310.
Hoyt, C. L., & Blascovich, J. (2007). Leadership efficacy and women leaders’ responses to
stereotype activation. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10, 595-616.
Kalokerinos, E. K., von Hippel, C., & Zachler, H. (2014). Is stereotype threat a useful construct
for organizational psychology research and practice? Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 7, 381-402.
Kantor, J. (2013). Harvard business school case study: Gender equity, New York Times,
September 7th, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/08/education/harvard-casestudy-gender-equity.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0, accessed September 2014.
King, E. B., Hebl, M. R., Morgan, W. B., & Ahmad, A. S. (2013). Field experiments on sensitive
organizational topics. Organizational Research Methods, 16, 501-521.
Affirming Women 37
Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., & Ristikari, T. (2001). Are leader stereotypes
masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 137,
616-642.
Koole, S. L., Smeets, K., van Knippenberg, A., & Dijksterhuis, A. (1999). The cessation of
rumination through self-affirmation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77,
111-125.
Kray, L., Thompson, L., & Galinsky, A. D. (2001). Battle of the sexes: gender stereotype
confirmation and reactance in negotiations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 80, 942-958.
Leary, M. R. (1983). A brief version of the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale. Personality and
Social Psychological Bulletin, 9, 371-375.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion,
and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
Martens, A., Johns, M., Greenberg, J., & Schimel, J. (2006). Combating stereotype threat: The
effect of self-affirmation on women's intellectual performance. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 42, 236-243.
McQueen, A., & Klein, W. M. (2006). Experimental manipulations of self-affirmation: A
systematic review. Self and Identity, 5, 289-354.
Miyake, A., Kost-Smith, L.E., Finkelstein, N. D., Pollock, S. J., Cohen, G. L., & Ito, T. (2010).
Reducing the gender achievement gap in college science: A classroom study of values
affirmation. Science, 330, 1234-1237.
Affirming Women 38
Nguyen, H. H. D., & Ryan, A. M. (2008). Does stereotype threat affect test performance of
minorities and women? A meta-analysis of experimental evidence. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93, 1314-1334.
O’Brien, L. T., Kinias, Z., & Major, B. (2008). How status and stereotypes impact attributions to
discrimination: The stereotype-asymmetry hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 44, 405-412.
Osborne, J. W. (2001). Testing stereotype threat: Does anxiety explain race and sex differences
in achievement? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 291-310.
Palin, A. (2014). Aiming for the stars  .  .  .  then get a top MBA, Financial Times, January 19th,
available at http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/28a39f02-7c31-11e3-917900144feabdc0.html#axzz2qtNmNwkL, accessed September 2014.
Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., Walker, L. S., & Woehr, D. J. (2014). Gender and perceptions of
leadership effectiveness: A meta-analysis of contextual moderators. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 99, 1129-1145.
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2006). Hard facts, dangerous half-truths, and total nonsense: profiting
from evidence-based management. Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston.
Picho, K., Rodriguez, A. & Finnie, L. (2013). Exploring the moderating role of context on the
mathematics performance of females under stereotype threat: A meta-analysis. The
Journal of Social Psychology, 153, 299-333.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavioral Research
Methods, 40, 879-891.
Affirming Women 39
Roberson, L., & Kulik, C. T. (2007). Stereotype threat at work. Academy of Management
Perspectives, 21, 24-40.
Scheepers, D., & Ellemers, N. (2005). When the pressure is up: The assessment of social identity
threat in low and high status groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 192200.
Schmader, T., & Hall, W. (2014). Stereotype threat in school and at work: Putting science into
practice. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1, 30-37.
Sherman, D. K., & Cohen, G. L. (2006). The psychology of self-defense: self-affirmation theory.
In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, M. P. Zanna, Ed. San Diego: Academic.
183-242
Sherman, D. K., & Hartson, K. A. (2011). In Handbook of Self-Enhancement and SelfProtection, M. D. Alicke and C. Sedikides, Eds., The Guilford Press. 128-151.
Sherman, D. K. et al. (2013). Deflecting the trajectory and changing the narrative: How selfaffirmation affects academic performance and motivation under identity threat. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 591-618.
Sivanathan, N., Molden, D. C., Galinsky, A. D., & Ku, G. (2008). The promise and peril of selfaffirmation in de-escalation of commitment. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 107, 1-14.
Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1998). Stereotype threat and women’s math
performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4-28.
Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 261-302.
Affirming Women 40
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of
African-Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 797–811.
Stevens, J. P. (2002). Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences. Fourth Edition,
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Stone, J. (2002). Battling doubt by avoiding practice: The effects of stereotype threat on selfhandicapping in white athletes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 16671678.
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, 12131227.
United Nations Human Development Report, Gender Inequality Index (GII), available at
http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/gender-inequality-index-gii), accessed January 2014.
Von Hippel, C., Sekaquaptewa, D., & McFarlane, M. (2015). Stereotype threat among women in
finance: Negative effects on identity, workplace well-being, and recruiting. Psychology
of Women Quarterly, 39, 405-414.
Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2003). Stereotype lift. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 39, 456-467.
Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E., Hills, G. E. (2005). The mediating role of self-efficacy in the
development of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 12651272.