How Culturally Prevalent Patterns of Nonverbal Behavior Can Influence Discrimination Against Women Leaders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose that people learn biases against women leaders through patterns of nonverbal behavior depicted in media. Specifically, we hypothesized that (a) people encounter culturally prevalent patterns of nonverbal behavior that favor men leaders over women leaders and (b) seeing patterns of nonverbal behavior favoring men leaders causes people to prefer working under men than women. An analysis of nonverbal behavior directed by and at leaders in 18 popular TV shows revealed that interactions between women leaders and their subordinates were more negative than those between men leaders and their subordinates. In two experimental studies, participants ( N = 193: 53% women, 47% men, 78% White, M age = 19.5 and N = 237: 75% women, 25% men, 77% White, M age = 18.45) exposed to this nonverbal bias favoring men (vs. a nonverbal bias favoring women) were more likely to choose to work for a White man than a White woman leader. This work has implications for understanding one mechanism through which gender stereotypes of leadership are transmitted and upheld in social groups. Additional online materials for this article are available on PWQ’s website at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/03616843251318964.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".