This document summarizes research on gender stereotypes and their influence on social interaction. It discusses how gender stereotypes develop from a young age and influence self-esteem and expectations. It also explores how stereotypes can negatively impact women in academics, careers, and relationships through stereotype threat. Women who defy stereotypes by having untraditional gender identities, like lesbian women, may face additional disapproval and pressure to conform to traditional gender norms. The purpose is to understand how gender stereotypes can limit women's potential and influence how women with untraditional identities interact socially.

1. Gender Stereotypes and Social Interaction
Gabrielle Knight
Psych 421
1

2. Gender Stereotypes and Social Interaction
People have a tendency to associate specific attributes with being female that they often
do not associate with being male. These are known as gender stereotypes, which identify
acceptable or expected characteristics and behaviors for women and for men (Kessels, 2005). As
described by Bigler & Liben (2007), social stereotypes are rooted in categorizations of salient
characteristics such as age, race and gender. This categorization arises as a result of cognitive
maturity and environmental influences. Stereotypes create expectations and predictions about
women’s ability compared to men’s and they transcend a wide range of domains including,
academics, professional achievement, and social interaction, including intimate relationships. In
each of these domains people may feel pressure to conform to traditional gender stereotypes so
that they are able to fit in, thus gaining the approval of their peers (Sanchez, 2005). For instance,
consider the double standard that girls can wear pants or dresses but boys can only wear pants
(Basow, 2006). Failure to adhere to this standard could cause an individual to face rejection
and/or negative reactions from their peers.
Women who display characteristics or behaviors that are considered unfeminine are
pressured to conform to gender norms by the negative reactions of their peers (Basow, 2006).
Such stereotypic expectations may influence educational, professional and social experiences.
For instance, women with unique gender identities such as lesbian women defy gender
expectations and therefore are more vulnerable to the claim that they must be unfeminine
(Moore, 2006). Although they do not necessarily stereotype themselves this way, they may be
influenced by other people’s perception of them, especially when such opinions are made salient
(Bosson, Haymovitz, & Pinal , 2004).
The purpose of this paper is to describe how stereotypes about gender and sexuality may
2

3. limit women’s potential in the academic, professional, and social experiences, including in their
intimate relationships. In particular, it seeks to understand how women with untraditional gender
identities are affected by stereotypes in interpersonal settings, which can extend to all of three
domains: academics, professional, and intimate relationships. To do this we will first explore
negative stereotypes by discussing the development of gender schemas, self-esteem, and the
effect of stereotype threat. Then we will explore consequences of these three factors in each
domain. Finally we will propose a study that could test the influence of gender stereotypes on
social interaction among lesbian women.
Development of Prescribed Gender Roles
Research has shown that children as young as 18-23 months understand whether they are
male or female (Basow, 2006). Beginning at age four, children begin to rely on stereotypes,
which are rooted in their categorization of individuals and lead to generalizations about those
categories (Bigler & Liben, 2007). Further, individuals have a tendency to associate more
positive attributes with members of their “in-group,” who are more similar to themselves and
people around them (Bigler & Liben, 2007). In contrast, they tend to assign negative attributes to
individuals who are different from them, often referred to as “out-group” members (Bigler &
Liben, 2007). This gives rise to prejudice, or negative out-group attitudes.
Gender labeling provides children with language that they can use to describe what types
conduct, interests, clothing, and occupations girls and boys are expected to participate in (Basow,
2006). For instance, there is the popular practice of girls wearing pink and/or barrettes, while
boys instead wear blue and have short hair (Basow, 2006). At a young age, children learn that it
is not appropriate for boys to wear pink or have barrettes in their hair (Basow, 2006). This
process of categorization becomes intensified with age and may be influenced by many external
3

4. factors including cognitive maturity, environmental factors, and cultural influences such as how
girls and boys are dressed (Bigler & Liben, 2007). For example, women are expected to pursue a
mate while men are expected to pursue a career (Basow, 2006).
However it isn’t until sometime between age seven and puberty that children are able to
develop gender schemas, which define appropriate behavior for males and females based on
social norms and traditional conception of gender identity (Basow, 2006). Although children are
often exposed to gender separation at a young age, such as things that are for girls and things that
are for boys, their development of gender schemas has to do with how they respond to cultural
norms (Basow, 2006). Children may become acquainted with these gender norms, which are
defined by gender-typed traits, in a variety of ways. For example, children may encounter gender
norms at school where teachers often divide students into groups separated by gender, or at home
where children may observe the behavior of adults in their family (Basow, 2006). For example,
children in elementary school are often instructed to divide into two lines: one of girls and ones
of boys (Basow, 2006). Additionally, in middle school females are often encouraged to take
home education, where they will learn how to cook and how to do crafts, while men are
encouraged to take shop, where they will learn to build and fix things using tools.
Women are often limited to being labeled as incompetent yet warm, while men can be
both competent and warm (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2004). As described by England, Descartes,
& Collier-Meek (2011), women are also often described using adjectives such as weak,
inadequate, naive, needing a man, domesticated, victimized, highly emotional, and inferior to
men. On the other hand, men are often described using adjectives such as strong, heroic,
masculine, and not emotional (England et al, 2011). Instantly these adjectives apply more
submissive and less capable characteristics to women than to men. For example, Heilman (2001)
4

5. describes the tendency for women to be characterized using more passive adjectives such as
helpful, kind, sympathetic, and concerned with feelings of others, wheras men are usually
classified as aggressive, independent, forceful, and decisive. People use a combination of
descriptive expectations, meaning how women usually are, and prescriptive expectations,
defining how women should behave to be perceived positively by others (Heilman, 2001). These
stereotypes provide individuals with a way to categorize people on the basis of gender, rather
than actual ability or character.
Development of Self-Esteem
Gender norms and gender stereotypes can also influence women’s conceptions of gender
identity by dictating how should present themselves and how they should behave (Heilman,
2001). Gender norms and gender stereotypes may ultimately influence an individual’s self-
esteem, because women often internalize the opinions of other people and use them to construct
their own identity, such as perceptions about their physical appearance (Fredrickson & Roberts,
1997). Since women have a greater tendency than men to internalize social and cultural factors,
it seems reasonable that they are more susceptible to stereotypes, especially those regarding their
sexuality (Diamond & Butterworth, 2008). This can lead to negative behaviors such as, habitual
body monitoring, anxiety, depression, sexual dysfunction, and eating disorders, all of which have
a negative impact of their self-esteem (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997).
As Charles Horton Cooley (1902) explains in “The Looking-Glass Self,” we often
validate our sense of self-based on how we believe other people perceive us. Individuals who
adhere to society’s traditional gender norms value the opinions of others and have a tendency to
base their self-worth on how other people perceive them (Sanchez, Crocker, & Boike, 2005).
Women in particular experience negative outcomes in social domains as a result of the gender
5

6. roles that are prescribed to them (Sanchez et al., 2005). As Fredrickson & Roberts (1997)
describe, there is a common tendency for females to view themselves as objects that must behave
femininely in order to be appreciated by others. Furthermore, research shows that the more
women invest in the evaluations external sources from other people, the more sensitive they are
to traditional gender norms and the judgments they may face because of them (Tolman, Impett,
& Michael, 2006)
This persistent tendency of women to be influenced by traditional gender norms
regarding how they should behave, has a great deal of influence on the choices that they may
make throughout their lives (Sanchez et al, 2005). In the academic atmosphere women may be
limited by stereotypes that, because they are female they should not pursue math (Nosek &
Greenwald, 2001). While in the work atmosphere women receive messaged about what types of
professions are okay for then to pursue (Basow, 2006). Subsequently these messages from
external sources dictate how women should and should not behave and they also interfere with
their social experiences and thereby the quality of their intimate relationships (Sanchez et al,
2005).
Stereotype Threat
Stereotype threat research demonstrates that mere awareness of negative assumptions
about a woman’s ability compared to a man’s can negatively influence women’s performance,
self-esteem, and personal interests (Betz, Ramsey, & Sekaquaptewa, 2012). Spencer et al. (1999)
provided the first empirical evidence for the effects of this type of stereotype threat on women
using a math test. In the threat condition women were presented with the information that there
were gender differences in performance on the math task, while in the control condition the test
was described as showing no resulting gender differences. In the stereotype threat condition
6

7. female participants performed significantly worse than equally qualified male peers, because
they were influenced by the stereotype that women are less mathematically inclined and gifted
than men (Spencer et al. 1999; Nosek & Greenwald, 2002). Since then numerous studies have
documented the powerful influence of stereotype threat in a wide range of domains and its ability
to change an individual’s behavior by unintentionally conforming to negative stereotypes
(Bosson et al., 2004; Goff, Steele & Davies, 2008; Fredrickson, Roberts, Noll, Quinn, &
Twenge, 1998; Saguy, Quinn, Dovidio, & Pratto, 2010).
In a study by Fredrickson and colleagues (1998), the researchers concluded that women’s
psychological well-being, such as self-esteem and intellectual performance, measured by
performance on a standardized math test, are negatively influenced by the threat of being viewed
as a sexual object. For example, in one condition men and women were tested wearing a
swimsuit, and in another they were tested wearing normal attire (Fredrickson et al.1998).
Women’s but not men’s performance on the standardized math task, decreased in the condition
where they were asked to where a swimsuit versus their performance in the condition where they
were wearing their normal clothing (Fredrickson et al., 1998). The results revealed that although
men and women both felt uncomfortable, women experienced significantly more negative
emotions than men while wearing a swimsuit, such as feeling disgusted and ashamed
(Fredrickson et al. 1998). This makes sense, because research has confirmed that women place a
greater emphasis on their physical appearance than men (Tolman et al., 2006; Fredrickson &
Roberts, 1997).
Saguy and colleagues (2010) further supported the objectification theory posited by
Fredrickson and colleagues (1998), which explains women’s tendency to internalize the idea that
women are sexual objects. Additionally Saguy and colleagues (2010), took Fredrickson and
7

8. colleagues (1998)’s findings a step further by demonstrating that when women suspected that
men were objectifying them, both their behavior and social interactions changed. The subjects
unknowingly conformed to the stereotype that women are sexual objects that do not voice
opinions and they narrowed their presence by talking less (Saguy et al., 2010). These findings
provide powerful evidence for the implications for the influence of stereotype threat on women’s
behaviors across a wide range of domains. Specifically these domains are related to academic
performance, professional goals and/or achievement and social interaction in intimate
relationships.
Academics
The presence of stereotypes causes women to respond to negative environmental
influences, which decrease their performance in academic domains (Steele, 2010). In school
women often learn hear negative stereotypes regarding their math ability, which say that they are
less mathematically capable than men (Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999). In a study by Pronin,
Steele & Ross (2004) the researchers found that when female participants pursuing math were
reminded of negative stereotypes about women and math, they became less likely to identify as
emotional and/or flirtatious. These characteristics are stereotyped as female weaknesses that are
incompatible with being good at math (Pronin et al., 2004). As Nosek & Greenwald (2002) point
out, these negative stereotypes cause women to disassociate with math and likely contribute to
the fact that fewer women participate in math related fields. The results of Nosek & Greenwald
(2002) provide evidence that there is a negative relationship between female gender identity and
attitude towards math. In further support of this, Kessels (2005) proposes that gender
stereotyping extends to the academic atmosphere where students may use social norms to decide
appropriate personal pursuits. Merely seeing that there are fewer women pursuing math related
8

9. fields than men gives female students a model to abide by in addition to the gender stereotypes
of which they may already be aware.
Professional Outcomes
In the professional atmosphere gender stereotyping has negative consequences for
women because of the persistent belief rooted in American culture that women are generally less
qualified and therefore less suitable for a leadership positions than men (Dasgupta & Asgari,
2004; Heilman, 2001). Furthermore traditional occupations of women generally have smaller
salaries and are generally inferior to the traditional occupations of men (Basow, 2006). As
Heilman (2001) explains, women in the work atmosphere are viewed as less efficient and less
capable than men because of their gender. One example of this is how women and men talking
on the phone at work are judged differently (Heilman, 2001). Women more likely to be
perceived as gossiping, while men are more likely to be perceived as doing something
constructive (Heilman, 2001). In general men are assumed to be more productive than women
(Heilman, 2001).
An individuals gender provokes expectations, automatic evaluations, and predictions
regarding their capabilities (Dasgupta & Asgari, 2004). When women obtain leadership positions
they are faced with biased evaluations that because of their professional achievement, they must
have fewer feminine attributes than the average woman or else, they are less capable for the job
than a man would be (Heilman, 2001). For example research shows that female managers are
perceived as more competent and more active than the average woman (Heilman, 2001).
Working mothers are less likely to be hired than working fathers, because men are seen as
leaders while women are seen as followers (Cuddy et al., 2004). Additionally, when working
mothers are successful, they are forced to trade being liked for being respected, because
9

10. successful women are perceived as more cold and less warm (Cuddy et al., 2004).
Personal Relationships
The influence of traditional gender roles extends to social interaction, acceptable
behaviors, and thereby the quality of personal relationships. As Tolman and colleagues (2006)
describe, women are highly invested in their relationships with other people and these
relationships are often central to feminine identity. However this tendency to invest in the
opinions of others can cause women to internalize gender stereotypes about how they should
behave, and this may lead to negative outcomes in their social life (Heilman, 2001). For
example, in a study by Sanchez colleagues (2005) the data revealed that participants who based
their self-esteem on the internal opinions of themselves experienced more sexual autonomy and
sexual satisfaction than the participants who based their self-esteem on external perceptions,
such as what their peers thought of them. This provides empirical suggesting that putting a heavy
emphasis on the opinions of other people, can cause decreased sexual autonomy and thereby
decreased sexual satisfaction (Sanchez et al., 2005).
Women with unique gender identities whose gender identities challenge traditional
gender norms, such as lesbians may experience disapproval because their failure to conform to
gender norms induces the negative reaction of other people (Basow, 2006). Interestingly women
are more likely than men to report sexual desires and behaviors that conflict with their gender
identity (Diamond & Butterworth, 2008). Thus it makes sense that females with untraditional
gender identities often prefer to be discreet, because they may feel reluctant to identify with
characteristics that society sees as negative and deviant (Moore, 2006). By denying their true
gender identity and conforming to society’s gender roles they are avoiding conflict (Impett,
Schooler, Tolman, 2006). As described by Blashill & Powlishta (2009), attitudes towards
10

11. homosexual individuals are in some way influenced by these negative responses to gender
atypicality.
In a study by Bosson and colleagues (2004), the researchers found that when exposed to
the negative stereotype that homosexual men were less efficient childcare providers than
heterosexual men, homosexual male participants’ behavior became more anxious, as rated by
hypothesis-blind observers. Although it has yet to be confirmed by empirical research, it seems
likely that lesbian women would be negatively impacted by stereotype threat just as women in
previous studies have been confirmed (Fredrickson Roberts, Noll, Quinn, & Twenge, 1998;
Saguy et al., 2010; Bosson et al., 2004). Since lesbian women do not fit conventional gender
categorizations, they are vulnerable to the claim that since they are lesbian they must be less
feminine (Moore, 2006).
Gender stereotypes regarding femininity extend across many domains of a woman’s life
including their academic, professional, and personal experiences. Stereotypes that attack
lesbians’ femininity may impact multiple important aspects of their life. The present research
measures how stereotype threat about sexuality can influence both homosexual and heterosexual
subjects in interpersonal settings. Measuring both heterosexual and homosexual participants
allows us to assess whether or not gender stereotypes cause different responses based on a
participant’s sexual orientation. The stereotype threat evoked in this study should impact how a
participant will interact in social settings when they believe the experimenter has judged their
sexuality. Given the results of past research involving stereotype threat, the hypothesis for the
current research is that in the threat condition, where women’s sexuality is made salient,
homosexual women will display more anxious behaviors and appear more uncomfortable than
heterosexual participants (Bosson et al., 2004; Goff, Steele & Davies, 2008; Fredrickson et al.,
11

12. 1998; Saguy et al., 2010).
Methods
Participants
Female college students will be recruited to participate in the current study in exchange
for class credit. Hypothetically, 30 students per cell should be recruited for the study, which will
use a 2 (sexual orientation) by 2 (threat) factorial design. This study should thus require 120
subjects.
Procedure
Students at the University of Michigan could be recruited for the study in exchange for
introductory course credit or cash compensation. Since the current study is interested in the
experience of both homosexual and heterosexual women, subjects could be recruited by sending
emails to students involved in gay/lesbian student groups inviting them to participate (Bosson et
al., 2004). Borrowing methods from Bosson and colleagues (2004), upon arriving at the lab an
experimenter will greet the subjects and then will explain that unfortunately due to technical
difficulties the original study had been canceled. This information will reduce awareness for
homosexual participants who may believe they were targeted because of their sexuality (Bosson
et al., 2004). Subjects will then be invited to participate in another study that will measure social
interaction.
Upon consenting to participation, students will be lead into an entirely different room
where they will receive information that they will engage in conversation with another
participant while being videotaped. Subjects will be randomly assigned to one of two conditions:
threat or no-threat. They will then be paired with a confederate with whom they will be asked to
converse. They will be instructed to talk for twenty minutes about subjects relating to each of
12

13. three domains, such as academic interests, professional goals, and intimate and/or personal
relationships. Finally they will be debriefed regarding the true purpose of the study and
dismissed.
Materials:
Threat Manipulation. Using a control condition and an experimental condition, the
effect of stereotype threat could be tested by measuring the social interaction between two
individuals, a subject and a confederate. Borrowing methods from Bosson and colleagues (2004),
the participant would be instructed to pursue a conversation with a confederate, posing as
another participant. In the control condition subjects would be asked to complete demographic
information that did not include their sexual orientation, while in the threat condition the
participants would be asked to indicate their sexual orientation. After completing their
demographic information the researcher will collect the information. In the experimental
condition evoking stereotype threat, the researcher will take a moment to glance at the paper, that
will cause the subject to believe that their sexual orientation is known, and therefore it has been
judged.
Interpersonal comfort and anxiety. Then each pair subject and confederate, will be
given three topics concerning their academic experiences, professional goals, and the quality of
their intimate and/or personal relationships. The pair will be asked to talk for about twenty
minutes. Their conversation would be recorded and then a group of blind coders would rate the
body behavior of the participant using behaviors associated with discomfort and/or anxiety.
Consistent with Richeson & Shelton (2003), blind coders would look for the following
behaviors: anxiousness, facial rigidity, and avoidant/fearful behaviors. Body language would be
measured by participant’s body language in their physical distance from their partner, which
13

14. would indicate how uncomfortable the stereotype made them overall (Goff et al., 2008).
Additionally, blind coders could look for nervous behaviors such as, fidgeting, lip chewing,
nervously smiling, stiff postures, and avoiding eye contact (Bosson et al., 2004). According to
our hypotheses’
Results
We would run three 2 by 2 factorial ANOVAs comparing the impact of participant’s
sexuality, presence of stereotype threat, and the interaction of these two factors on three
outcomes variables. The dependent variables would be the number of anxious behaviors, as
recorded by hypothesis-blind coders, physical distance, indicating discomfort, and overall
warmth, and anxiousness ratings. We would expect to find that the threat condition would cause
lesbian women to display more anxiety and further physical distance, while heterosexual women
would display fewer anxious behaviors and would sit closer in either condition (Bosson et al.,
2004; Goff et al., 2008). We would also expect the same pattern using the dependent variable of
the coders’ rating overall participant anxiety in their conversation with their partner (Goff et al.,
2008).
Discussion
This paper proposes a hypothetical study that could test the effect of stereotype threat on
both heterosexual and homosexual woman. It would assess woman’s responses to stereotype
threat related to their sexuality on interpersonal interaction quality, a behavior relevant to three
life domains: academics, professional, and intimate relationships. Since heterosexual women
often face obstacles in these three domains because of their gender identity, the current study
intends to look at whether or not women with nonconforming feminine identities, such as lesbian
women face similar obstacles. This type of research has yet to be addressed and assessing the
14

15. obstacles of heterosexual and homosexuality women experiencing stereotype threat has
interesting implications in many social domains.
To look at this interaction between stereotype threat and sexuality, three domains in
which gender stereotypes often manifest were incorporated into a measurement of social
interaction. We expect to find that in accordance with past research regarding the influence of
stereotype threat, homosexual women in the threat condition will show increased symptoms of
anxiety and discomfort compared to heterosexual subjects (Bosson et al., 2004; Goff et al., 2008;
Fredrickson, et al., 1998; Saguy et al., 2010). Additionally we would anticipate finding that
homosexual subjects who are not exposed to stereotype threat will be noticeably less anxious
than those in the threat condition, equivalent to heterosexual participant’s relatively low anxiety
in both threat and non-threat conditions (Goff et al., 2008)
Given that lesbian women are often perceived as unfeminine, whether or not they would
internalize these gender stereotypes about their sexuality presents an interesting research
question that has not yet been answered by empirical research. Providing an answer to this
question in future research would create a more detailed picture of the gender identity and the
experience of homosexual women versus heterosexual women. According to Ambady, Steele,
Owen-Smith, and Mitchell (2004) women who do not conform to gender stereotypes and instead
embrace their individuality by thinking about their unique qualities as a woman do not fall victim
to stereotype threat. Therefore, lesbian women may or may not respond to stereotype threat
depending on the degree to which they internalize gender stereotypes. Although Schmader
(2002) provided evidence that strong feminine identity made women more sensitive to
stereotypes regarding their gender, we do not know if the effects are as robust among
homosexual women.
15

16. If we find that lesbian women come off as less warm, less comfortable, and more anxious
when they believe they are being judged by lesbian stereotypes this may have interesting
implications for the performance of lesbian women at school or at work. These results could
suggest that when lesbian women face stereotypes at school or at work, their performance is
negatively impacted and their behavior causes them to be perceived as less friendly. Therefore
because of stereotypes about their sexuality, their social interactions are negatively impacted.
This type of data would substantiate much of the existing research about women’s reactions to
stereotype threat and might also lead in the direction of more solutions for women with unique
gender identities.
Dasgupta & Asgari (2004) have already provided evidence that exposure to positive
examples, such as counter-stereotypes of successful woman can help combat the negative
influences of gender stereotypes in academic and professional domains. However the results of
Dasgupta & Asgari (2004) do not differentiate between the outcomes for heterosexual women
compared to homosexual women. Therefore their findings may not be representative of or take
into account of the experiences of lesbian women (Dasgupta & Asgari, 2004). Given that lesbian
and heterosexual women may have distinct gender identities, it is possible that lesbian women
would identify less with heterosexual role models than heterosexual women would. Once we
know how homosexual women might respond to stereotype threat in academic, professional, and
intimate relationship contexts, we will have a better idea of how their experience does or does
not differ from the experience of heterosexual women.
The present study could provide a unique perspective of homosexual women that has not
yet been addressed by empirical research, however there are some limitations of this particular 2
by 2 design. For instance, it is possible that we may not observe the same result in the
16

17. experimental environment that would be observed in a more natural setting. Although the current
study provides relevant information about how homosexual and heterosexual participants
respond in a lab setting, future research could enhance our methods using a less structured and
more realistic setting. Since the results of this study may not be generalized to how stereotype
would actually influence social interaction in a real academic setting, professional setting or
intimate relationship setting, the present study lacks some external validity. However, since it
videotapes an actual conversation with a partner, it has better external validity many studies of
stereotype threat that relied merely on self-reported anxiety or comfort. Therefore the results of
this study could enhance stereotype threat research by showing external behaviors that can be
provoked by lesbian stereotypes in many everyday social settings.
17

18. 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.
Basow, S.A. (2006). Gender role and gender identity development. In J. Worell & C.D.
Goodheart (Eds.), Handbook of Girls’ and Women’s Psychological Health, 242-251.
Oxford University Press: Oxford, England.
Betz, D. E., Ramsey, L. R., & Sekaquaptewa, D. (in press). Gender stereotype threat among
women and girls. In M. Ryan & N. R. Branscombe (Eds.), for upcoming Sage Handbook
of Gender and Psychology.
Bigler, R. S., & Liben, L. S. (2007). Developmental intergroup theory: Explaining and reducing
children’s social stereotyping and prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 16, 162-166.
Blashill, A. J., & Powlishta, K. K. (2009). Gay stereotypes: The use of sexual orientation as a
cue for gender-related attributes. Sex Roles, 61,783–793.
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
Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human Nature and the Social Order. New York: Scribner's, (pp. 179-
185).
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.
Dasgupta, N., & Asgari, S. (2004). Seeing is believing: Exposure to counterstereotypic women
18

19. leaders and its effect on the malleability of automatic gender stereotyping. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 642-658.
Diamond, L. M, & Butterworth, M. (2008). Questioning Gender and Sexual Identity: Dynamic
Links Over time. Sex Roles, 59, 365-376.
England, D. E., Descartes, L., & Collier-Meek, M. A. (2011). Gender Role Portrayal and the
Disney Princesses. Sex Roles, 64, 555-567.
Fredrickson, B. L. & Roberts, T. A. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding
women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21,
173-206.
Fredrickson, B. L., Roberts, T.-A., Noll, S. M., Quinn, D. M., & Twenge, J. M. (1998). That
swimsuit becomes you: Sex differences in self-objectification, restrained eating, and math
performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 269-284.
Gervais, S. J., Vescio, T. K., & Allen, J. (2011). When what you see is what you get: The
consequences of the objectifying gaze for women and men. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 35, 5-17.
Goff, P. A., Steele, C. M., & Davies, P. G. (2008). The space between us: Stereotype threat and
distance in interracial contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 91-
107.
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 .
Impett, E. A., Schooler, D., & Tolman, D. L. (2006) To be seen and not heard: Femininity
ideology and adolescent girls’ sexual health. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 131-144.
Kiefer, A. K., & Sanchez, D. T. (2007). Scripting sexual passivity: A gender role perspective.
19

20. Personal Relationships, 14, 269–290.
Kurdek, L. A. (2005). What do we know about gay and lesbian couples? Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 14, 251-254.
Moore, M. R. (2006). Lipstick or Timberlands? Meanings of Gender Presentation in Black
Lesbian Communities. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 32, 113-129.
Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M., & Greenwald, A. (2002). Math = male, me = female, therefore math ≠
me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 44–59.
Pronin, E., Steele, C. M., & Ross, L. (2004). Identity bifurcation in response to stereotype threat:
Women and mathematics. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 152-168.
Saguy, T., Quinn, D. M., Dovidio, J. F., & Pratto, F. (2010). Interacting like a body:
Objectification can lead women to narrow their presence in social interactions.
Psychological Science, 21, 178-182.
Sanchez, D. T., Crocker, J. & Boike, K. R. (2005). Doing gender in the bedroom: Investing in
gender norms and the sexual experience. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31,
1445-1455.
Schmader, T. (2002). Gender identification moderates the effects of stereotype threat on
women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 194–201.
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. (2010). Whistling Vivaldi: And other clues to how stereotypes affect us. New York:
Norton.
Swim J, Hyers L, Cohen L, Ferguson M. Everyday sexism: Evidence for its incidence, nature,
and psychological impact from three daily diary studies. Journal Of Social Issues [serial
20

21. online]. 2001;57(1):31-53.
Tolman, D. L., Impett, E. A., Tracy, A. J. & Michael, A. (2006). Looking good, sounding good:
Femininity ideology and adolescent girls’ mental health. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 30, 85–95.
Trawalter, S., & Richeson, J. A. (2008). Let’s talk about race, Baby! When Whites’ and Blacks’
interracial experiences diverge. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1214-
1217.
21