Sexism in the workplace, in its hostile and benevolent forms, is an important topic of continued study and its predominant manifestation is of male sexism toward females. Hostile sexism occurs when women are viewed in a blatantly disparaging manner (Christopher & Wojda, 2008); it suggests negative reactions to women who challenge male dominance and justifies male objectification of women, endorsement of traditional gender roles, and an unequal distribution of power (Glick & Fiske, 1996). Benevolent sexism supports an unequal status quo through positive reactions toward women who comply to traditional gender roles (Becker & Wright, 2011); it casts doubt on women’s competence (Taylor et al., 2018) and manifests as subtle encouragement for traditional gender roles coupled with discouragement for nontraditional roles (Sacco et al., 2003). When sexism is hostile, women who challenge traditional gender roles are punished and, with benevolent sexism, women who embrace those types of roles are rewarded (Glick & Fiske, 2012).

Women who experience sexism in the workplace report more negative job perceptions and poorer health outcomes compared to women who do not have this experience (Manuel et al., 2017). Sexism relates negatively to women’s mental health and job satisfaction (Ruben et al., 2017) and women exposed to sexism internalize it, undermining their own job performance (Koch et al., 2014). Given the breadth of scope of issues that stem from workplace sexism, the core topic addressed in literature continues to revolve around women’s equitable advancement in organizations where sexism is a factor. In the current study we contribute to addressing sexism in this context by focusing on the effect of sexism during job selection and evaluation interviews with female candidates.

Sexist attitudes and resulting problems are most visibly and materially observed during periods of evaluation and selection. According to Salvaggio and colleagues (2009), in this context the effects of sexism begin as judgments made based on application forms and résumés, and trickle into interviews, which are the most frequently used method of employment selection (Segrest Purkiss et al., 2006). The mechanisms through which sexism embeds in organizational systems are complex, and researchers have noted that decision makers’ own sexism reinforces systemic sexism in organizations and undermines women’s advancement (Stamarski & Son Hing, 2015). For example, Latu et al. (2015) found that the higher the men’s implicit unfavorable bias is, the lower they rate women’s competence; subsequently, women assimilated these biased impressions. Good and Rudman (2009) examined whether observers penalized a woman subjected to hostile or benevolent sexism during interviews conducted by a man, and found that the interviewer’s sexism propagated into lower assessment of female candidates by participating observers.

Good and Rudman (2009) designed a study in which participants listened to a recording of one of three interview scenarios where either hostile, benevolent, or no sexism was present, and were asked to assess the female candidate based on attributes such as competence and hireability. They were also asked to assess the likeability of, or association with the male interviewer, and how favorably the observer felt toward the interviewer. The authors found that when a male interviewer demonstrated sexism, this propagated into lower assessments of female candidates by participating observers. Notably, the authors found interactions between hostile and benevolent sexism. When an observing participant self-reported hostile sexist tendencies, but observed a benevolently sexist interviewer, the observer recorded a particularly harsh rating of the female candidate. This demonstrates not only the negative impact of sexism in the workplace, but how observers’ self-assessments and perceptions can amplify and propagate sexism in organizations.

Sacco et al. (2003) have noted the importance of perceived similarity in interview assessments. By asking participants to evaluate the likeability of the male interviewer, it is possible that observing participants’ preconceived notions of their role inherently shifted. Rather than assessing an interview situation as a third-party observer, they joined the interviewer in assessing a potential candidate. Juodvalkis and colleagues (2003) argued that evaluations of applicants are not based solely on applicant ability or characteristics, but more on the degree to which applicant characteristics align with the interviewer’s preconceived stereotypes. Stereotypes are both traditional and static, and are designed to preserve the status quo (Jost & Kay, 2005). We note here the effects of traditional stereotypes, but we argue that the notion of what is considered an “appropriate” response in an interview setting is more contextually fluid. For example, it has been found that observers evaluated men’s sexist statements less negatively when they were made in response to a perceived female threat, such as losing to a woman in a competitive context (Michniewicz & Vandello, 2015). Also, when evaluating evidence of sexual harassment, third-party observers assessed evidence differently based on whether the female plaintiff was aggressive, submissive, or neutral (Wiener et al., 2010). These researchers found that participants who scored high on hostile sexism found less evidence of harassment in the scenario of an aggressive female plaintiff, and female participants who observed a complaint made in a submissive tone reported less evidence of harassment compared to that in a neutral condition. This suggests that the tone of the actors within a context interacts with the preexisting biases of observers and serves as a cue to determine which stereotype the observer will adopt.

In the workplace, sexist behavior is, indeed, observed by colleagues and managers whose attitudes and behaviors are influenced when their stereotypes are activated (Hideg & Ferris, 2016). Such stereotypes are quite powerful and can influence the behaviors of individuals who claim not to endorse them (Jost & Kay, 2005). Asking participants to what extent they identify with an actor frames their assessments in that actor’s point of view (e.g., Good & Rudman, 2009). In the present study, we argue that shifting that identification, asking observers to assess the candidate’s likeability as opposed to the interviewer’s, will reveal potentially different insights.

Likeability has been characterized both as the extent to which someone is friendly and cooperative (Pinto et al., 2015) and as a persuasion tactic and a scheme of self-presentation (Kenrick et al., 2002). When these characterizations are combined, likeability is both proactive and relational; it is an assessment of how someone interacts with others, rather than an inherent personal trait. In contrast, warmth is a trait that is often considered to be in a trade-off with competence (Fiske et al., 2002, Hideg & Ferris, 2016). As a relation-level construct, likeability may imply some level of competence. To assess likeability, an individual’s interactions in a dyad or a group situation would be necessary. This differs from making an individual assessment of competence, for example, from a résumé or curriculum vitae.

In this study we emphasized the relational aspect of likeability, which differs from trait-based constructs like warmth. In particular, we examined how likeability is perceived by participants who observe interactions and make assessments. This work contributes by clarifying this construct and empirically demonstrating how it differs from individual traits with regard to competence.

Hostile Sexism in Interview Situations

Hostile sexist conditions are created when people are subjected to offensive, hostile, or intimidating conditions because of their gender (Woodzicka & LaFrance, 2005). For example, women would be penalized when perceived as attempting to challenge male dominance (Good & Rudman, 2009). Masser and Abrams (2004) found that hostile sexism is associated with less favorable employment recommendations. The authors asked participants to evaluate curricula vitae of male and female candidates for a management position, and found that higher levels of hostile sexism were associated with less positive evaluations of women. We therefore hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 1a: Hostile sexist interview conditions will predict negative observer assessments of the female candidate’s hireability.

Hostile sexism by an interviewer can impair female candidates’ task performance (Koch et al., 2014); that is, exposure to hostile sexist behavior during selection causes a reduction in the candidate’s assessed competence. Women who are confronted with hostile sexism become more introspective, and often ask fewer work-related questions during an interview (Woodzicka & LaFrance, 2005), which the interviewer perceives as lack of competence. We therefore expected that the female candidate’s perceived neutrality in the face of hostile sexism would be interpreted as lack of competence. Thus, we proposed:
Hypothesis 1b: Hostile sexist interview conditions will predict negative observer assessments of the female candidate’s competence.

Benevolent Sexism in Interview Situations

Hideg and Ferris (2016) observe that unlike hostile sexism, perceptions of benevolent sexism are somewhat mixed; the most common pattern of ambivalence for a sexist observer is to perceive a candidate as displaying warmth while being less competent, or the reverse. We argue that the compassion felt by benevolent sexists is qualified by a sense of protectionism that implies an assessment of weakness or incompetence. Good and Rudman (2009) suggest that benevolent sexists would want to help or protect women in a stressful situation. Thus, benevolent sexists would actually provide greater support to help a woman to secure a job while, at the same time, evaluating the woman as low in competence.
Hypothesis 2a: Benevolent sexist interview conditions will predict positive observer assessments of the female candidate’s hireability.

Reilly et al. (2017) found women were perceived as having lower aptitudes than men on a test of technological, engineering, mathematical, and science ability in conditions of high benevolent sexism. Good and Rudman (2009) argue that when men patronize women, this may undermine the perception of the women’s intellect, and Good and Rudman suggest that observers may interpret the benevolence of the men as a form of favoritism and seek to penalize the women who experience it. Thus, with respect to assessments of competence, we anticipated the following:
Hypothesis 2b: Benevolent sexist interview conditions will predict negative observer assessments of the female candidate’s competence.

Likeability Mitigating the Effects of Sexism

Schneider et al. (2010) argue that our workplace culture expects women to be either likeable or competent, but not both. Women who adopt intimidation tactics similar to those used by men are often viewed more negatively than men who use these same tactics (Bolino & Turnley, 2003). We argue that the converse of this phenomenon is also true. Given the contrast effect, women who are exposed to heightened levels of intimidation from interviewers may be perceived as more likeable. Maintaining composure while facing hostility will be considered an admirable trait. We expected that in the context of the interview dyad, a hostile male interviewer and composed female candidate, would alter the stereotypes used by the observer, resulting in the candidate’s being perceived as more likeable. This will result in a more favorable assessment of the candidate.
Hypothesis 3a: Negative observer assessments of a female candidate’s professional attributes (hireability and competence) will be moderated (reduced) by the observers’ assessments of the candidate’s personal attributes (likeability).

Schneider et al. (2010) argue that the tradeoff between competence and likeability is the norm in most organizations; however, that does not hold true among lawyers. The authors suggest that being an outsider with externally conferred status may mitigate any potential tradeoffs. Pinto et al. (2015) found that likeability is often assessed to be greater among women than men, and that being likeable was not associated with negative assessments of women’s qualifications or performance. Thus, we argue that likeability does not operate in the same way as benevolent sexism, but that it is fully independent and has positive effects.
Hypothesis 3b: Positive observer assessments of a female candidate’s professional attributes (hireability and competence) will be further enhanced by their assessments of the candidate’s personal attributes (likeability).

Method

Procedure

Our proposal for this study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Research Board at California State University. The sample included 266 participants randomized across three different interview scenarios (83 in the hostile condition, 87 in the benevolent, and 96 in the neutral condition). Participants were students at a southwestern university in the United States, within a school of business. Professors volunteered to leave 20 min at the end of a class and students volunteered to stay to participate in the study with the opportunity to earn one of the two 50-dollar gift cards upon completion of the survey. Before listening to the audio, a preinterview script gave participants a mock context for the interview to be played; they were informed that they would be listening to an interview scenario between a male interviewer and a female applicant, and that they would later be asked to fill out a survey about what they heard. Participants were then given two copies of the consent form and asked to sign one of them if they chose to stay and participate; they were reminded that, if they should feel uncomfortable, they could leave at any time with no repercussion. Once all consent forms were filled out and returned, survey packets were distributed.

Professional studio recording equipment was used to record audio for three different interview scenarios, each of which was roughly 4 to 5 min long. A laptop computer and sound system were used during sessions to play the previously recorded audio scenarios for groups of participants. A sound check was performed to ensure that all participants could hear the audio. Participants were read a short postscript telling them how to fill out the surveys. Professors provided information about participants’ right to leave at any point.

Each of the three interview scenarios took place between a male interviewer, played by a professional manager with 10 years of hiring experience, and a female candidate, played by a professional actress from the Screen Actors’ Guild. The female candidate’s responses were identical across all three conditions and the male interviewer’s questions varied to reflect the applicable sexism condition.

Measures

We included demographic data as self-reported by participants. We used a modified version of the Interview Evaluation Scale originally developed by Jussim et al. (1987) to assess participants’ perceptions of the candidate’s hireability and competence. We included the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (Glick & Fiske, 1996), which is a 22-item, self-report measure comprising two 11-item subscales designed to assess hostile sexism and benevolent sexism. Finally, we adapted Reysen’s (2005) scale of likeability, which includes 10 items. Items related to attractiveness were omitted because of the potential confounds in assessing attractiveness in addition to likeability. All three scales are rated on a 6-point Likert scale.

All documents (consent forms, scripts, postscripts, and survey instruments) are available from the authors upon request. The following list indicates the specific variables constructed from the collected material.
Gender: coded 0 for female and 1 for male.
Age: in years. The mean age across the entire sample was 23.4 years, ranging from 19 to 58.
Ethnicity: coded to include Native American, Asian, Black, Hispanic, Pacific Islander, White, and other.
Work experience: years in paid employment combining both part-time and full-time experience. The mean value for work experience was 6 years, with a range from 0 to 42.
Hireability: Item 7 from the Interview Evaluation Scale (“How likely is it that this applicant will be hired for this position?”). This is rated on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = extremely unlikely to 6 = extremely likely.
Competence: Items 1, 2, and 3 from the Interview Evaluation Scale (e.g., Item 3: “How competent is the applicant for the position?”). This is rated on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = extremely incompetent to 6 = extremely competent. These items combine with a Cronbach’s alpha of .81.
Hostile sexism condition: coded 1 if participants observed the hostile sexism interview scenario, and 0 otherwise.
Benevolent sexism condition: coded 1 if participants observed the benevolent sexism interview scenario, and 0 otherwise.

Hostile Sexist Self-Report
The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory is scored using averaged values of 11 measures of hostile sexism (e.g., “Women are too easily offended”). This is rated on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 0 = disagree strongly to 5 = agree strongly. We also combined the measures to ensure they were assessing a single construct (Cronbach’s alpha = .91).

Benevolent Sexist Self-Report
Averaged values of 11 measures of benevolent sexism are used (e.g., “Women should be cherished and protected by men.”). This is rated on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 0 disagree strongly to 5 = agree strongly. We also combined the measures to ensure they were assessing a single construct (Cronbach’s alpha = .86).

Reysen Likeability
Likeability, a summative scale, combines 10 items (e.g., “This person is likeable.”) to capture the impressions of likeability that the observing participants have of the candidate. This is rated on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 0 = disagree strongly to 5 = agree strongly. (Cronbach’s alpha = .92).

Estimation

A pilot test of the interview scenarios was assessed to ensure that there were significant differences among the three conditions. A one-way analysis of variance was used to assess the differences in the script and interviewer for each of the three interview scenarios. The main effect of group condition (neutral, benevolent, hostile) on the perception of the interviewer was significant, where the interview content was perceived to be complimentary F(2, 113) = 91.34, p < .01 and insulting F(2, 112) = 95.01, p < .001. Bonferroni post hoc tests showed that participants in the benevolent sexism condition rated the interviewer to be significantly more complimentary (M = 3.16, SD = 0.68) than those in the neutral condition (M = 2.54, SD = 0.60) and the hostile condition (M = 1.28, SD = 0.60). Bonferroni post hoc tests also showed that participants in the hostile sexism condition rated the interviewer to be significantly more insulting (M = 3.43, SD = 0.75) than those in the benevolent condition (M = 2.05, SD = 0.77) and neutral condition (M = 1.21, SD = 0.47).

Ordinary least squared (OLS) regression was used to test the hypotheses, with t tests reported by gender and group to characterize each condition. Given that conditions are represented as dummy variables, the OLS model is a simple test of differences between groups that allows for multivariate controls and the use of the full sample size. A significant coefficient value means that the people who are in that group have a significantly different evaluation of the candidate from those in the neutral condition.

Results

In Table 1 differences are reported across the full sample by gender. Data for continuous variables are reported using mean plus or minus standard deviation, and count data are reported with the actual count and the sample percentage. Significant differences according to gender are in bold. In our sample, the men were an average of about 1 year older and had about 1 more year of work experience than the women. There were no significant differences according to ethnicity. In univariate tests, the women evaluated the interviewee as being significantly more promotable than the men did. The men also self-reported significantly higher ratings than the women did for both hostile and benevolent sexism (men reporting 2.8 and 2.6 on 5.0 scales, and women reporting 2.1 and 2.4, respectively, see Table 1).

Table 2 includes four regression models, of main and interaction effects of the conditions (neutral, hostile, and benevolent) on participants’ perceptions of the candidate’s hireability and competence. Models 1 and 2 refer to perceptions of hireability and differ only in adding the interaction effects of likeability. Models 3 and 4 follow the same pattern. All models include full data, with dummy variables indicating the condition effects, so that when the hostile sexism condition equals one, the benevolent condition equals zero. When both treatment conditions equal zero, the base value is for the neutral condition.

In Hypothesis 1a we predicted that exposure to the hostile sexism condition would adversely influence observers’ evaluations of candidate hireability. Consistent with our hypothesis, the hostile sexism condition did have a significant and negative effect on evaluation of hireability. Inconsistent with Hypothesis 1b, the effect of the hostile sexism condition on evaluation of competence, although negative, was not significant (see Table 2, Model 3).

In Hypothesis 2a we predicted that benevolent sexism would positively influence observer assessments of the candidate’s hireability. Consistent with this hypothesis, benevolent sexism had a positive significant coefficient for hireability (0.47, p < .01). This finding persists in both Models 1 and 2, regardless of the effect of likeability.

In Hypothesis 2b we predicted that benevolent sexism would negatively influence observer perceptions of the candidate’s competence. In contrast to our hypothesis, the coefficient for benevolent sexism in Model 3 of Table 2 had a significant positive value. Therefore, Hypothesis 2b was not supported.

In Hypothesis 3a we predicted that the observers’ negative assessments of the candidate’s hireability and competence would be moderated by their perceptions of her likeability. The interaction of the hostile condition and likeability is significant and positive in Model 4 of Table 2. Thus, Hypothesis 3a is supported with regard to competence. Likeability is a continuous variable. A two unit change in the significant positive effect is large enough to outweigh the overall negative effect of the hostile sexism condition. When candidates received a high rating in likeability from observing participants, this completely reversed the negative effect of the hostile sexism condition on observer perceptions of competence.

In Hypothesis 3b we predicted greater enhancement of positive effects of likeability on observer perceptions of the candidate’s hireability and competence. Combining the significant effects for the benevolent sexism condition group to compare Model 1 to Model 2, the average rating for the benevolent sexism condition in Model 1 is 4.46 (0.14 + 0.57 + 0.38 + 3.38), and in Model 2 is 4.95 (2.42 + .67 − 0.52 + 2.38). Even with a negative interaction coefficient, the full effect of likeability can enhance the overall perception of hireability in the benevolent sexism condition. There is a similar pattern in the hostile sexism condition, with a negative interaction but positive overall main effect. With respect to perceived competence, the interaction between the benevolent sexism condition and likeability is not significant. Overall, as shown in Figure 2, the full effect of likeability does positively enhance observer perception of the conditions when assessing hireability, but not when assessing competence.

Discussion

In the present study we investigated how observers perceive and assess female job candidates who experience different forms of sexism during an interview with a male interviewer. We found that hostile sexism decreased the participant observers’ perception of the hireability of the female job candidates; however, we found that benevolent sexism could enhance their perception of her hireability. Good and Rudman (2009) found a tradeoff between likeability and perceptions of competence and we also found a similar trade-off; our analysis also suggests that the overall effect of the observers’ perception of the likeability of the woman candidate was a net improvement in their assessment of her competence.

In prior studies, scholars have argued that those who are benevolently sexist will view women as warm but incompetent (e.g., Fiske et al., 2002). Although we found some evidence of this, our results in the study suggested that the interrelationship of observers’ perceptions is much more complex. Specifically, when observers are rating competence, benevolence, and likeability, they may confound the items. What is designed to be benevolent sexism may be perceived by the observer simply as benevolence.

Consistent with the idea of complex interrelations, Latu et al. (2011, p. 258) found that generally both men and women held a favorable implicit bias toward their own gender, and argued “the relationship between [hostile sexism] and implicit stereotypes of successful managers is not highly reliable.” The issue of reliability, and the importance of the constructs involved, underscores the importance of our study’s methodological contribution. Although many have explored these ideas using very interesting measures and theoretical arguments in their research (as outlined by Stamarski and Son Hing, 2015), in most studies the researchers rely on analyses of variance or simple t tests to argue for the validity of specific nuanced constructs. Our modest addition of use of multiple controls helps establish the reliability of the concepts of likeability and benevolent sexism in a complex model of interrelated constructs.

Our study findings demonstrate the moderating effect of likeability in the interrelationships of hostile and benevolent sexism with perceptions of hireability, competence, and likeability of women candidates. Reysen (2005) argued that likeability, specifically, was useful when attempting to change attitudes of participants, with more likeable communicators being more likely to change perceptions of others. Notably, in our study the woman candidate did not vary based on condition, remaining neutral regardless of a hostile, benevolent, or neutral interviewer. Perceptions of her likeability by observers did vary and did so in a way that moderated the overall condition. Thus, although benevolent and hostile sexism appeared to determine assessments of her hireability, they did not have the same influence on the perception of her competence. Likeability appears to outweigh any tradeoff-related stigma caused by benevolent sexism.

In addition, our results on likeability suggest that more intricate study designs may be needed; in our study a neutral response by the female candidate to hostile sexism appeared to mean something different to the observer from an identical response to a benevolent-sexism situation. Researchers have previously found that in hostile situations, women tend to react to hostility with diminished performance (Woodzicka & LaFrance, 2005); thus, it is possible that remaining neutral in the presence of hostility is viewed positively by observers.

Dick (2013) argues that sexism can be a controversial category of experience, where activities are subject to multiple interpretations. Ruben et al. (2017) explored the idea of differing between organizational sexism and interpersonal sexism, noting that both may have differing effects on job satisfaction and mental health. Although findings of prior work have shown that experiencing sexism can have direct negative effects on women (Koch et al., 2014), our results in this study suggest that sexism at the dyadic level can influence perceptions of sexism at a broader, organizational level.

Limitations and Implications for Future Research

In the current study we relied primarily on an undergraduate sample. Although the undergraduate student body sampled did have some age variation and the results showed some significant effects of age on perceptions of competence, we did not have a large enough sample across the different age ranges to draw strong conclusions. Our results suggest that perceptions of competence are influenced by age and, potentially, by experience.

On a pragmatic note, future work could include examining whether a neutral response to sexism is the best strategy for enhancing organizational perceptions of the individual who is the target of the sexism. Exploring the possible combinations of candidate responses would allow a greater toolkit for professional women in determining what is their best approach for establishing perceptions of competence when faced with benevolent sexism in job interviews. However, focusing on a neutral reaction could potentially place the onus on women to “manage men” or manage sexism. Composure as a construct may require further study, possibly comparing sexism with composure under crisis, short deadlines, fierce competition, or sexism encountered in a setting where traditional gender roles are reversed, for example, when a woman is taking a leadership role in a male-dominant industry.

Conclusion

Our inclusion of the likeability scale sheds light on the intricate relationships between likeability and benevolent sexism. Clear, empirically supported guidelines for mitigating the negative effects of sexism can help female professionals directly. Further, these results provide support for the importance of such behavior on influencing the assessments of others, which could lead to positive organizational change outside of the individual career.

Our results indicate that the connection between likeability and benevolent sexism needs to be discussed further and better addressed in workplaces and communities. The apparent overlap that we identified between these concepts, and their ability to be influenced by the subtleties of framing, suggest a need for more awareness around the distinctions and interpretation of each.

References

Becker, J. C., & Wright, S. C. (2011). Yet another dark side of chivalry: Benevolent sexism undermines and hostile sexism motivates collective action for social change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(1), 62–77.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022615

Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2003). More than one way to make an impression: Exploring profiles of impression management. Journal of Management, 29(2), 141–160.
https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630302900202

Christopher, A. N., & Wojda, M. R. (2008). Social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, sexism, and prejudice toward women in the workforce. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32(1), 65–73.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00407.x

Dick, P. (2013). The politics of experience: A discursive psychology approach to understanding different accounts of sexism in the workplace. Human Relations, 66(5), 645–669.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726712469541

Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878–902.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20, 491–512.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2012). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. In J. Dixon & M. Levine (Eds.), Beyond prejudice: Extending the social psychology of conflict, inequality and social change (pp. 70–88). Cambridge University Press.

Good, J. J., & Rudman, L. A. (2009). When female applicants meet sexist interviewers: The costs of being a target of benevolent sexism. Sex Roles, 62(8), 481–493.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9685-6

Hideg, I., & Ferris, D. L. (2016). The compassionate sexist? How benevolent sexism promotes and undermines gender equality in the workplace. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(5), 706–727.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000072

Jost, J. T., & Kay, A. C. (2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: Consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 498–509.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.498

Juodvalkis, J. L., Grefe, B. A., Hogue, M., Svyantek, D. J., & DeLamarter, W. (2003). The effects of job stereotype, applicant, gender, and communication style on ratings in screening interviews. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11(1), 67–84.
https://doi.org/10.1108/eb028963

Jussim, L., Coleman, L. M., & Lerch, L. (1987). The nature of stereotypes: A comparison and integration of three theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 536–546.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.536

Kenrick, D. T., Neuberg, S. L., & Cialdini, R. B. (2002). Social psychology: Unraveling the mystery (2nd ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

Koch, S. C., Konigorski, S., & Sieverding, M. (2014). Sexist behavior undermines women’s performance in a job application situation. Sex Roles, 70(3–4), 79–87.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-014-0342-3

Latu, I. M., Mast, M. S., & Stewart, T. L. (2015). Gender biases in (inter)action: The role of interviewers’ and applicants implicit and explicit stereotypes in predicting women’s job interview outcomes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39(4), 539–552.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684315577383

Latu, I. M., Stewart, T. L., Myers, A. C., Lisco, C. G., Estes, S. B., & Donahue, D. K. (2011). What we “say” and what we “think” about female managers: Explicit versus implicit associations of women with success. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35(2), 252–266.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684310383811

Manuel, S. K., Howansky, K., Chaney, K. E., & Sanchez, D. T. (2017). No rest for the stigmatized: A model of organizational health and workplace sexism (OHWS). Sex Roles, 77(9), 697–708.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0755-x

Masser, B. M., & Abrams, D. (2004). Reinforcing the glass ceiling: The consequences of hostile sexism for female managerial candidates. Sex Roles, 51(9–10), 609–615.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-004-5470-8

Michniewicz, K. S., & Vandello, J. A. (2015). People judge male sexism more leniently when women emasculate men. Social Psychology, 46(4), 197–209.
https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000227

Pinto, J. K., Patanakul, P., & Pinto, M. B. (2015). Gender biases in hiring project managers: Perceptions of trust and likeability. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 62(3), 325–334.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2015.2415251

Reilly, E. D., Rackley, K. R., & Awad, G. H. (2017). Perceptions of male and female STEM aptitude: The moderating effect of benevolent and hostile sexism. Journal of Career Development, 44(2), 159–173.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845316641514

Reysen, S. (2005). Construction of a new scale: The Reysen Likability Scale. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 33(2), 201–208.
https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2005.33.2.201

Ruben, M., Subasic, E., Giacomini, A., & Paolini, S. (2017). An exploratory study of the relations between women miners’ gender-based workplace issues and their mental health and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 47(7), 400–411.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12448

Sacco, J. M., Scheu, C. R., Ryan, A. M., & Schmitt, N. (2003). An investigation of race and sex similarity effects in interviews: A multilevel approach to relational demography. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 852–866.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.852

Salvaggio, A. N., Streich, M., & Hopper, J. E. (2009). Ambivalent sexism and applicant evaluations: Effects on ambiguous applicants. Sex Roles, 61(9–10), 621–633.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9640-6

Schneider, A. K., Tinsley, C. H., Cheldelin, S., & Amanatullah, E. T. (2010). Likeability v. competence: The impossible choice faced by female politicians, attenuated by lawyers. Marquette University Law Faculty Publications (Paper 529). https://bit.ly/2Wa4GaF

Segrest Purkiss, S. L., Perrewé, P. L., Gillespie, T. L., Mayes, B. T., & Ferris, G. R. (2006). Implicit sources of bias in employment interview judgements and decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101(2), 152–167.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.06.005

Stamarski, C. S., & Son Hing, L. S. (2015). Gender inequalities in the workplace: The effects of organizational structures, processes, practices, and decision maker’s sexism. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 1400.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01400

Taylor, E. A., Smith, A. B., Welch, N., & Hardin, R. (2018). “You should be flattered!”: Female sport management faculty experiences of sexual harassment and sexism. Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal, 26(1), 43–53.
https://doi.org/10.1123/wspaj.2017-0038

Wiener, R. L., Reiter-Palmon, R., Winter, R. J., Richeter, E., Humke, A., & Maeder, E. (2010). Complainant behavioral tone, ambivalent sexism, and perceptions of sexual harassment. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(1), 56–84.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018434

Woodzicka, J., & LaFrance, M. (2005). The effect of subtle sexual harassment on women’s performance in a job interview. Sex Roles, 53(1/2), 67–77.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-4279-4

Becker, J. C., & Wright, S. C. (2011). Yet another dark side of chivalry: Benevolent sexism undermines and hostile sexism motivates collective action for social change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(1), 62–77.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022615

Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2003). More than one way to make an impression: Exploring profiles of impression management. Journal of Management, 29(2), 141–160.
https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630302900202

Christopher, A. N., & Wojda, M. R. (2008). Social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, sexism, and prejudice toward women in the workforce. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32(1), 65–73.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00407.x

Dick, P. (2013). The politics of experience: A discursive psychology approach to understanding different accounts of sexism in the workplace. Human Relations, 66(5), 645–669.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726712469541

Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878–902.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20, 491–512.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2012). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. In J. Dixon & M. Levine (Eds.), Beyond prejudice: Extending the social psychology of conflict, inequality and social change (pp. 70–88). Cambridge University Press.

Good, J. J., & Rudman, L. A. (2009). When female applicants meet sexist interviewers: The costs of being a target of benevolent sexism. Sex Roles, 62(8), 481–493.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9685-6

Hideg, I., & Ferris, D. L. (2016). The compassionate sexist? How benevolent sexism promotes and undermines gender equality in the workplace. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(5), 706–727.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000072

Jost, J. T., & Kay, A. C. (2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: Consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 498–509.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.498

Juodvalkis, J. L., Grefe, B. A., Hogue, M., Svyantek, D. J., & DeLamarter, W. (2003). The effects of job stereotype, applicant, gender, and communication style on ratings in screening interviews. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11(1), 67–84.
https://doi.org/10.1108/eb028963

Jussim, L., Coleman, L. M., & Lerch, L. (1987). The nature of stereotypes: A comparison and integration of three theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 536–546.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.536

Kenrick, D. T., Neuberg, S. L., & Cialdini, R. B. (2002). Social psychology: Unraveling the mystery (2nd ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

Koch, S. C., Konigorski, S., & Sieverding, M. (2014). Sexist behavior undermines women’s performance in a job application situation. Sex Roles, 70(3–4), 79–87.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-014-0342-3

Latu, I. M., Mast, M. S., & Stewart, T. L. (2015). Gender biases in (inter)action: The role of interviewers’ and applicants implicit and explicit stereotypes in predicting women’s job interview outcomes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39(4), 539–552.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684315577383

Latu, I. M., Stewart, T. L., Myers, A. C., Lisco, C. G., Estes, S. B., & Donahue, D. K. (2011). What we “say” and what we “think” about female managers: Explicit versus implicit associations of women with success. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35(2), 252–266.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684310383811

Manuel, S. K., Howansky, K., Chaney, K. E., & Sanchez, D. T. (2017). No rest for the stigmatized: A model of organizational health and workplace sexism (OHWS). Sex Roles, 77(9), 697–708.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0755-x

Masser, B. M., & Abrams, D. (2004). Reinforcing the glass ceiling: The consequences of hostile sexism for female managerial candidates. Sex Roles, 51(9–10), 609–615.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-004-5470-8

Michniewicz, K. S., & Vandello, J. A. (2015). People judge male sexism more leniently when women emasculate men. Social Psychology, 46(4), 197–209.
https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000227

Pinto, J. K., Patanakul, P., & Pinto, M. B. (2015). Gender biases in hiring project managers: Perceptions of trust and likeability. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 62(3), 325–334.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2015.2415251

Reilly, E. D., Rackley, K. R., & Awad, G. H. (2017). Perceptions of male and female STEM aptitude: The moderating effect of benevolent and hostile sexism. Journal of Career Development, 44(2), 159–173.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845316641514

Reysen, S. (2005). Construction of a new scale: The Reysen Likability Scale. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 33(2), 201–208.
https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2005.33.2.201

Ruben, M., Subasic, E., Giacomini, A., & Paolini, S. (2017). An exploratory study of the relations between women miners’ gender-based workplace issues and their mental health and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 47(7), 400–411.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12448

Sacco, J. M., Scheu, C. R., Ryan, A. M., & Schmitt, N. (2003). An investigation of race and sex similarity effects in interviews: A multilevel approach to relational demography. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 852–866.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.852

Salvaggio, A. N., Streich, M., & Hopper, J. E. (2009). Ambivalent sexism and applicant evaluations: Effects on ambiguous applicants. Sex Roles, 61(9–10), 621–633.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9640-6

Schneider, A. K., Tinsley, C. H., Cheldelin, S., & Amanatullah, E. T. (2010). Likeability v. competence: The impossible choice faced by female politicians, attenuated by lawyers. Marquette University Law Faculty Publications (Paper 529). https://bit.ly/2Wa4GaF

Segrest Purkiss, S. L., Perrewé, P. L., Gillespie, T. L., Mayes, B. T., & Ferris, G. R. (2006). Implicit sources of bias in employment interview judgements and decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101(2), 152–167.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.06.005

Stamarski, C. S., & Son Hing, L. S. (2015). Gender inequalities in the workplace: The effects of organizational structures, processes, practices, and decision maker’s sexism. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 1400.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01400

Taylor, E. A., Smith, A. B., Welch, N., & Hardin, R. (2018). “You should be flattered!”: Female sport management faculty experiences of sexual harassment and sexism. Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal, 26(1), 43–53.
https://doi.org/10.1123/wspaj.2017-0038

Wiener, R. L., Reiter-Palmon, R., Winter, R. J., Richeter, E., Humke, A., & Maeder, E. (2010). Complainant behavioral tone, ambivalent sexism, and perceptions of sexual harassment. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(1), 56–84.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018434

Woodzicka, J., & LaFrance, M. (2005). The effect of subtle sexual harassment on women’s performance in a job interview. Sex Roles, 53(1/2), 67–77.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-4279-4

Mona Zanhour, California State University, 1250 Bellflower Boulevard, Long Beach, CA, 90840, United States of America. Email: [email protected]