We conducted preregistered replications of 28 classic and contemporary published findings, with protocols that were peer reviewed in advance, to examine variation in effect magnitudes across samples and settings. Each protocol was administered to approximately half of 125 samples that comprised 15,305 participants from 36 countries and territories. Using the conventional criterion of statistical significance ( p < .05), we found that 15 (54%) of the replications provided evidence of a statistically significant effect in the same direction as the original finding. With a strict significance criterion ( p < .0001), 14 (50%) of the replications still provided such evidence, a reflection of the extremely high-powered design. Seven (25%) of the replications yielded effect sizes larger than the original ones, and 21 (75%) yielded effect sizes smaller than the original ones. The median comparable Cohen’s ds were 0.60 for the original findings and 0.15 for the replications. The effect sizes were small (< 0.20) in 16 of the replications (57%), and 9 effects (32%) were in the direction opposite the direction of the original effect. Across settings, the Q statistic indicated significant heterogeneity in 11 (39%) of the replication effects, and most of those were among the findings with the largest overall effect sizes; only 1 effect that was near zero in the aggregate showed significant heterogeneity according to this measure. Only 1 effect had a tau value greater than .20, an indication of moderate heterogeneity. Eight others had tau values near or slightly above .10, an indication of slight heterogeneity. Moderation tests indicated that very little heterogeneity was attributable to the order in which the tasks were performed or whether the tasks were administered in lab versus online. Exploratory comparisons revealed little heterogeneity between Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) cultures and less WEIRD cultures (i.e., cultures with relatively high and low WEIRDness scores, respectively). Cumulatively, variability in the observed effect sizes was attributable more to the effect being studied than to the sample or setting in which it was studied.

During the past 30 years, women’s participation in the workforce, in athletics, and in professional education has increased, while men’s activities have been more stable. Have gender stereotypes changed over this time period to reflect the new realities? And, to what extent does gender stereotyping exist today? We address these questions by comparing data collected in the early 1980s to new data collected in 2014. In each study, participants rated the likelihood that a typical man or woman has a set of gendered characteristics (traits, role behaviors, occupations, and physical characteristics). Results indicate that people perceive strong differences between men and women on stereotype components today, as they did in the past. Comparisons between the two time periods show stability of gender stereotypes across all components except female gender roles, which showed a significant increase in gender stereotyping. These results attest to the durability of basic stereotypes about how men and women are perceived to differ, despite changes in the participation and acceptance of women and men in nontraditional domains. Because gender stereotypes are apparently so deeply embedded in our society, those in a position to evaluate women and men, as well as women and men themselves, need to be constantly vigilant to the possible influence of stereotypes on their judgments, choices, and actions. Online slides for instructors who want to use this article for teaching are available on PWQ's website at http://pwq.sagepub.com/supplemental

We investigated the influence of gender and parental status on employment decisions. The shifting standards model predicts that parenthood polarizes judgments of women and men such that mothers are held to stricter employment standards than fathers. Social role theory predicts that parenting role, rather than gender, guides judgments of mothers and fathers. One hundred ninety-six undergraduates at two universities evaluated a job applicant; the applicant was either male or female and was either single or married with two children. Results showed that parents were judged less agentic and less committed to employment than non-parents. Parental status also interacted with gender, indicating that fathers were held to more lenient standards than mothers and childless men. We discuss theoretical and practical implications.Considerable research on stereotyping shows that an individual's gender affects the judgments that are made about him or her. Consistent with stereotypes,

We conducted preregistered replications of 28 classic and contemporary published findings with protocols that were peer reviewed in advance to examine variation in effect magnitudes across sample and setting. Each protocol was administered to approximately half of 125 samples and 15,305 total participants from 36 countries and territories. Using conventional statistical significance (p &lt; .05), fifteen (54%) of the replications provided evidence in the same direction and statistically significant as the original finding. With a strict significance criterion (p &lt; .0001), fourteen (50%) provide such evidence reflecting the extremely high powered design. Seven (25%) of the replications had effect sizes larger than the original finding and 21 (75%) had effect sizes smaller than the original finding. The median comparable Cohen’s d effect sizes for original findings was 0.60 and for replications was 0.15. Sixteen replications (57%) had small effect sizes (&lt; .20) and 9 (32%) were in the opposite direction from the original finding. Across settings, 11 (39%) showed significant heterogeneity using the Q statistic and most of those were among the findings eliciting the largest overall effect sizes; only one effect that was near zero in the aggregate showed significant heterogeneity. Only one effect showed a Tau &gt; 0.20 indicating moderate heterogeneity. Nine others had a Tau near or slightly above 0.10 indicating slight heterogeneity. In moderation tests, very little heterogeneity was attributable to task order, administration in lab versus online, and exploratory WEIRD versus less WEIRD culture comparisons. Cumulatively, variability in observed effect sizes was more attributable to the effect being studied than the sample or setting in which it was studied.

Science is undergoing rapid change with the movement to improve science focused largely on reproducibility/replicability and open science practices. This moment of change—in which science turns inward to examine its methods and practices—provides an opportunity to address its historic lack of diversity and noninclusive culture. Through network modeling and semantic analysis, we provide an initial exploration of the structure, cultural frames, and women’s participation in the open science and reproducibility literatures (n = 2,926 articles and conference proceedings). Network analyses suggest that the open science and reproducibility literatures are emerging relatively independently of each other, sharing few common papers or authors. We next examine whether the literatures differentially incorporate collaborative, prosocial ideals that are known to engage members of underrepresented groups more than independent, winner-takes-all approaches. We find that open science has a more connected, collaborative structure than does reproducibility. Semantic analyses of paper abstracts reveal that these literatures have adopted different cultural frames: open science includes more explicitly communal and prosocial language than does reproducibility. Finally, consistent with literature suggesting the diversity benefits of communal and prosocial purposes, we find that women publish more frequently in high-status author positions (first or last) within open science (vs. reproducibility). Furthermore, this finding is further patterned by team size and time. Women are more represented in larger teams within reproducibility, and women’s participation is increasing in open science over time and decreasing in reproducibility. We conclude with actionable suggestions for cultivating a more prosocial and diverse culture of science.

Men and women are persistently associated with breadwinning and caregiving roles and related stereotypes. A role prioritization model (RPM) is presented that accounts for the conditions under which penalties and benefits arise due to perceived fulfillment or neglect of communal/caregiving roles (typically associated with women) and agentic/breadwinning roles (typically associated with men). Our model makes unique contributions to understanding gender stereotyping and negative evaluations for stereotype violation (i.e., backlash). First, behaviors suggesting low prioritization of one's traditional gender role—when women appear to neglect caregiving and men neglect breadwinning—produce particularly harsh judgments. Second, behaviors indicating successful balancing of role prioritization (e.g., men who augment breadwinning with communal behavior and women who augment childrearing with agentic behavior) allow avoidance of backlash. The RPM is useful for organizing existing research on gendered perceptions and for understanding perceptions of men and women who violate gender norms to create greater gender equality.

Women's self-identification with social power was assessed in three studies using the Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998). In Experiment 1, women held weaker implicit and explicit associations between self and power than did men. Experiment 2 demonstrated that women assigned to a high power group have stronger implicit self-power associations than do women in a low power group. Experiment 3 showed that women assigned to a high power role have stronger implicit self-masculine associations than do women assigned to a low power role, but social power did not affect explicit associations with masculinity. These studies suggest that gender differences in implicit self-concept may be malleable depending on context and social roles. Copyright A casual look at the gender breakdown in politics, law, and business suggests that men and women differ in the degree to which they hold powerful positions. Although the distribution of power between men and women in the United States has shifted dramatically over the last half century, men continue to hold a distinct power advantage over women. The central question that we address in this paper is how power derived from social roles and positions affects the degree to which people identify with power as a personal trait. In this research, we define social power as the perceived asymmetrical control over outcomes (Fiske, 1992). Although many definitions of power exist (e.g. French & Raven, 1959;Ng, 1980), this definition allows for an assessment of how perceptions of power, not only actual power advantages, affect self-concept.In this paper we explore the relationship between gender and identification with power. Feminist psychologists often argue that differential access to social power is the source of observed gender differences in behaviour and achievement (e.g.

Implicit measurement using latencies is proposed as a complement to conventional measurement to assess organizational constructs (e.g., job satisfaction), to assist in personnel decisions (e.g., selection), and to assess outcomes (e.g., diversity training). Latency-based measurements (i.e., the Implicit Association Test) use categorization tasks to measure attitudes, stereotypes, and self-concepts. Its routine inclusion in organizational research can address measurement limitations, enrich theoretical understanding of organizational phenomena, and inform practice by better predicting behavior.