Femininity Is Favorable: Sexually Dimorphic Facial Features Affect Assessments of White Women's Leadership Abilities
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Women remain underrepresented in leadership positions traditionally held by men. Research on role congruity and backlash has shown that aspiring women versus men leaders are more negatively evaluated when they enact agentic behaviors. We examined whether sexually dimorphic facial features, which are associated with agentic and communal trait impressions, constitute a nonverbal barrier to White women's leadership in a college setting. Manipulated masculinized versus feminized facial features elicited, respectively, higher dominance and lower warmth impressions. Aspiring women leaders with masculinized versus feminized facial features received less favorable evaluations for several leadership roles, whereas men's evaluations were unaffected by varying features. Contrasting past work, aspiring women leaders were overall more favorably evaluated. This difference related to beliefs that college-aged White women versus men are more competent, responsible, and warm. These findings provide novel evidence that feminized facial features offer a unique advantage to aspiring college-aged White women leaders.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it