The Primacy of Nurturance and Dominance/Assertiveness: Unidimensional Measures of the Big Two Mask Gender Differences in Subdimensions

Abstract

Agency and Communion, the Big Two of social perception, appear to have unique subdimensions, but they have differed across studies and not all may be relevant for understanding gender stereotypes. Across two sets of studies (Total N = 1,648), we examined self-and group gender stereotypes using Abele and colleagues' (2021) conceptualization of agency as a vertical dimension that conveys information about social status and communion as a horizontal dimension that conveys information about approaching groups and individuals. Group stereotype analyses suggested that the vertical dimension comprised assertiveness/dominance and ability subdimensions, whereas the horizontal dimension was unidimensional. In contrast, self-stereotype analyses suggested that the vertical dimension comprised assertiveness/dominance and independence subdimensions and the horizontal dimension comprised a single nurturance subdimension-a unique morality subdimension did not emerge. As expected, women were perceived and rated themselves as higher on the horizontal dimension (group stereotypes), more nurturing (self-stereotypes), and less assertive/ dominant (both group and self-stereotypes) than men. Gender differences in nurturance and assertiveness/dominance were stronger, as expected, among individuals whose gender was salient. We discuss implications for examining gender stereotypes and the potential consequences of misspecifying the Big Two as unidimensional.

Viewing entrepreneurship through a goal congruity lens: The roles of dominance and communal goal orientations in women’s and men’s venture interests

“…We also examine the role of agentic and communal goal orientations (i.e., male-stereotypic and female-stereotypic goals, respectively) in participants’ entrepreneurial interests, answering calls to apply goal congruity theory more to non-STEM fields (Diekman et al, 2020). Finally, we examine subdimensions of agentic and communal goal orientations, extending research examining subdimensions of gender stereotypes ( Hentschel et al, 2019 ; Folberg et al, 2022 ) and stereotype-related constructs ( Folberg et al, 2020 ).…”

“…Research on stereotypes and goal orientations has traditionally treated agency and communion as two unidimensional constructs ( Diekman et al, 2010 ; Eagly et al, 2020 ), although both may comprise distinct subdimensions ( Hentschel et al, 2019 ; Folberg et al, 2020 , 2022 ). Further, not all dimensions of gender stereotypes and goal orientations are useful for understanding gender differences, likely because aspects of agency and communion are judged differently.…”

“…Further, not all dimensions of gender stereotypes and goal orientations are useful for understanding gender differences, likely because aspects of agency and communion are judged differently. For example, perceived dominance drives perceptions of gender differences in agentic traits ( Hentschel et al, 2019 ; Folberg et al, 2022 ), and women are penalized for displaying dominance, whereas men benefit from displaying dominance ( Rudman and Glick, 2001 ; Okimoto and Brescoll, 2010 ). Further, women are encouraged to be communal, warm, and nurturing ( Prentice and Carranza, 2002 ), men are often encouraged to eschew communal qualities ( Vandello et al, 2013 ), and men perceived as communal may lose status ( Rudman and Glick, 2001 ).…”

“…Women and men might therefore be perceived as most distinct in communion and dominance. Indeed, Folberg et al (2022) , using bifactor structural equation modeling, found that gender differences in self- and group-stereotypes most consistently emerged in communion and dominance. Further, gender differences in communion and dominance self-stereotypes were stronger among individuals who viewed their gender identity as more salient.…”

“…We view the focus on dominance goals as particularly important because goal congruity theory has traditionally focused almost exclusively on the role of communal goals in STEM interest and persistence ( Diekman et al, 2017 , 2020 ). The role of agentic goals in facilitating gender differences in career interests is less well-examined ( Diekman et al, 2017 ), likely because misspecifications of agency and agentic goals as unidimensional obscured the substantial effects of dominance goals and stereotypes ( Folberg et al, 2020 , 2022 ).…”