Are women penalized for showing pride at work? Gender disparities in the competence‐warmth tradeoff
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Showing pride at work clearly communicates personal success (i.e., high competence) and boosts status; yet some evidence suggests it can also signal self‐focus and insensitivity to others (i.e., low warmth). Prior scholars have proposed gender differences explain mixed findings, but with limited support. We propose that the benefit‐cost tradeoff depends on the displayer's gender in conjunction with the social context of the display. We test the contextualized dual‐signaling model of employee pride displays, uniquely assessing how the signaler's gender and receiver's social motives (between‐person comparisons) change first‐impressions of competence and warmth after one or repeated exposures (i.e., within‐person comparisons). Study 1 was a 2 (signaler gender) by 2 (signal context) design obtaining judgments before and after seeing a dynamic pride display. Pride displays increased competence similarly across employee gender, but women saw significantly greater costs to warmth when displays were public (i.e., coworkers present), a violation of gender norms. In Study 2, we replicate this finding regardless of whether coworkers were collaborators or competitors (between‐person), and found repeated displays increase the warmth cost for women and the competence gains for men. In Study 3, we compare the costs for women of confirming gender norms for warmth (i.e., happiness display) or violating gender norms for warmth but conforming to leader norms for competence (i.e., pride display). Results suggest “happy” women are preferred as leaders over “proud” women despite higher competence. We clarify mixed findings and confirm the need for contextualized theory to understand gender differences in pride displays and career trajectories.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".