We conducted three studies to examine the relationship between gender and persuasion. We tested the notion that making gender roles salient affects the strength of individuals’ attitudes and the way they respond to persuasive information. In Studies 1 and 2, we found that priming women with the female gender role reduced the strength of their attitudes (Study 1, N = 50) and increased their susceptibility to persuasion through a low-thought process (Study 2, N = 98). In Study 3, we manipulated the salience of both the female and male gender roles among men and women and assessed persuasion to a counter-attitudinal message (N = 185). We found that the female and male primes affected men and women similarly, with the female prime causing participants to process messages superficially and the male prime leading to thoughtful message processing. These findings help to explain women’s slightly greater persuadability in meta-analyses and provide evidence of harms that stereotypes about women can cause. Moving forward, we urge researchers to be wary of gender salience in the research context, especially when conducting persuasion research.
ApplegateB. K.CullenF. T.FisherB. S. (2002). Public views toward crime and correctional policies: Is there a gender gap?Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 89–100. doi:10.1016/S0047-2352(01)00127 -1
2.
AusterC. J.OhmS. C. (2000). Masculinity and femininity in contemporary American society: A reevaluation using the Bem Sex-Role Inventory. Sex Roles, 43, 499–528. doi:10.1023/A:1007119516728
3.
BeckerB. J. (1986). Influence again: Another look at studies of gender differences in social influence. In HydeJ. S.LinnM. C. (Eds.), The psychology of gender: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 178–209). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
4.
BemS. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162. doi:10.1037/h0036215
5.
BemS. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354–364. doi:10.1037/0033_295X.88.4.354
6.
BlairJ.CzajaR. F.BlairE. A. (2014). Designing surveys: A guide to decisions and procedures (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7.
BriñolP.PettyR. E. (2005). Individual differences in persuasion. In AlbarracínD.JohnsonB. T.ZannaM. P. (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes and attitude change (pp. 575–616). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8.
BriñolP.PettyR. E.ValleC.RuckerD. D.BecerraA. (2007). The effects of message recipients’ power before and after persuasion: A self-validation analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 1040–1053. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.6.1040
9.
CarliL. L. (2001). Gender and social influence. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 725–741. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00238
10.
CarliL. L.AlawaL.LeeY.ZhaoB.KimE. (2016). Stereotypes about gender and science: Women ≠ scientists. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40, 244–260. doi:10.1177/0361684315622645
11.
CesarioJ.PlaksJ. E.HigginsE. T. (2006). Automatic social behavior as motivated preparation to interact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 893–910. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.6.893
12.
ChaikenS. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752–766. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752
13.
ColeE. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist, 64, 170–180. doi:10.1037/a0014564
14.
CollinsA. M.LoftusE. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82, 407–428. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.82.6.407
15.
CollinsA. M.QuillianM. R. (1969). Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 8, 240–247. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(69)80069-1
16.
CooperH. M. (1979). Statistically combining independent studies: A meta-analysis of sex differences in conformity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 131–146. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.37.1.131
17.
CrenshawK. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 140, 139–167.
18.
CrenshawK. (1993). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241–1299. doi:10.2307/1229039
19.
DansoH. A.EssesV. M. (2001). Black experimenters and the intellectual test performance of White participants: The tables are turned. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 158–165. doi:10.1006/jesp.2000.1444
20.
DardenneB.DumontM.BollierT. (2007). Insidious dangers of benevolent sexism: Consequences for women’s performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 764–779. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.764
21.
DépretE. F.FiskeS. T. (1993). Social cognition and power: Some cognitive consequences of social structure as a source of control deprivation. In WearyG.GleicherF.MarshK. (Eds.), Control motivation and social cognition (pp. 176–202). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-8309-3_7
22.
DijksterhuisA.van KnippenbergA. (1998). The relation between perception and behavior or how to win a game of Trivial Pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 865–877. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.865
23.
EaglyA. H. (1978). Sex differences in influenceability. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 86–116. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.85.1.86
24.
EaglyA. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25.
EaglyA. H.CarliL. L. (1981). Sex of researchers and sex-typed communications as determinants of sex differences in influenceability: A meta-analysis of social influence studies. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 1–20. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.90.1.1
26.
EaglyA. H.KarauS. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573
27.
EaglyA. H.WoodW.FishbaughL. (1981). Sex differences in conformity: Surveillance by the group as a determinant of male nonconformity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 384–394. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.40.2.384
28.
EatonA. A.MajkaE. A.VisserP. S. (2008). Emerging perspectives on the structure and function of attitude strength. European Review of Social Psychology, 19, 165–201. doi:10.1080/10463280802383791
29.
EatonA. A.VisserP. S. (2008). Attitude importance: Understanding the causes and consequences of passionately held views. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 1719–1736. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00125.x
30.
EatonA. A.VisserP. S.KrosnickJ. A.AnandS. (2009). Social power and attitude strength over the life course. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1646–1660. doi:10.1177/0146167209349114
31.
FabrigarL. R.NorrisM. E. (2012). Conformity, compliance, and obedience. In DunnD. S. (Ed.), Oxford bibliographies online: Psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/obo/9780199828340-0075
32.
GhavamiN.PeplauL. A. (2013). An intersectional analysis of gender and ethnic stereotypes: Testing three hypotheses. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, 113–127. doi:10.1177/0361684312464203
33.
HallN. R.CrispR. J. (2008). Assimilation and contrast to group primes: The moderating role of ingroup identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 344–353. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2007.07.007
34.
HansenJ.WänkeM. (2009). Think of capable others and you can make it! Self-efficacy mediates the effect of stereotype activation on behavior. Social Cognition, 27, 76–88. doi:10.1521/soco.2009.27.1.76
35.
HeblM. R.MannixL. M. (2003). The weight of obesity in evaluating others: A mere proximity effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 28–38. doi:10.1177/0146167202238369
36.
HeilmanM. E.WallenA. S.FuchsD.TamkinsM. M. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 416–427. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.416
37.
HerekG. (1998). Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding prejudice against lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
38.
HilliardL. J.LibenL. S. (2010). Differing levels of gender salience in preschool classrooms: Effects on children’s gender attitudes and intergroup bias. Child Development, 81, 1787–1798. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01510.x
39.
JonasK. J.SassenbergK. (2006). Knowing how to react: Automatic response priming from social categories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 709–721. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.709
40.
KawakamiK.DovidioJ. F.DijksterhuisA. (2003). Effect of social category priming on personal attitudes. Psychological Science, 14, 315–319.
41.
KawakamiK.PhillsC. E.SimardD.PontieroJ.BrnjasA.KhanB.DovidioJ. F. (2012). In perfect harmony: Synchronizing the self to activated social categories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 562–575. doi:10.1037/a0025970
42.
LatuI. M.StewartT. L.MyersA. C.LiscoC. G.EstesS. B.DonahueD. 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, 252–266. doi:10.1177/0361684310383811
43.
LemmK. M.DabadyM.BanajiM. R. (2005). Gender picture priming: It works with denotative and connotative primes. Social Cognition, 23, 218–241. doi:10.1521/soco.e005.23.3.218
44.
LevesqueC.PelletierL. G. (2003). On the investigation of primed and chronic autonomous and heteronomous motivation orientation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1570–1584. doi:10.1177/0146167203256877
45.
LoerschC.PayneB. K. (2011). The situated inference model: An integrative account of the effects of primes on perception, behavior, and motivation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 234–252. doi:10.1177/1745691611406921
46.
LorberJ. (1998). Guarding the gates: The micropolitics of gender. In AnselmiD. L.LawA. L. (Eds.), Questions of gender: Perspectives and parodoxes (pp. 607–628). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
47.
MadsonL. (2000). Inferences regarding the personality traits and sexual orientation of physically androgynous people. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 148–160. doi:0.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb00196.x
48.
MaggardS. R.PayneB. K.ChappellA. T. (2012). Attitudes toward capital punishment: Educational, demographic, and neighborhood crime influences. The Social Science Journal, 49, 155–166. doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2011.08.016
49.
MahalikJ. R.GoodG. E.Englar-CarlsonM. (2003). Masculinity scripts, presenting concerns, and help-seeking: Implications for practice and training. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34, 123–131. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.34.2.123
50.
MoldenD. C. (2014). Understanding priming effects in social psychology. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
51.
MorrisonK. R.JohnsonC. S.WheelerS. C. (2012). Not all selves feel the same uncertainty: Motivated assimilation to primes among individualists and collectivists. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 118–126. doi:10.1177/1948550611411310
52.
MorrisonM. M.ShafferD. R. (2003). Gender-role congruence and self-referencing as determinants of advertising effectiveness. Sex Roles, 49, 265–275. doi:10.1023/A:1024604424224
53.
Moss-RacusinC. A.DovidioJ. F.BrescollV. L.GrahamM.HandelsmanJ. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 16474–16479. doi:10.1073/pnas.1211286109
54.
NealT. M. S. (2014). Women as expert witnesses: A review of the literature. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 32, 164–179. doi:10.1002/bsl.2113
55.
NealeL.RobbieR.MartinB. (2016). Gender identity and brand incongruence: When in doubt, pursue masculinity. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 24, 347–359. doi:10.1080/0965254X.2015.1011203
56.
NelsonM. R.VilelaA. M. (2012). Is the selectivity hypothesis still relevant? A review of gendered persuasion and processing of advertising messages. In OtnesC. C.ZayerL. T. (Eds.), Gender, culture, and consumer behavior (pp. 111–138). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
57.
ParentM. C.DeBlaereC.MoradiB. (2013). Approaches to research on intersectionality: Perspectives on gender, LGBT, and racial/ethnic identities. Sex Roles, 68, 639–645. doi:10.1007/s11199-013-0283-2
58.
PettyR. E.BriñolP. (2012). The elaboration likelihood model. In Van LangeP. A. M.KruglanskiA.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 224–245). London, England: Sage.
59.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.
60.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123–205). New York, NY: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2
61.
PettyR. E.WegenerD. T. (1999). The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In ChaikenS.TropeY. (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology (pp. 41–72). New York, NY: Guilford.
62.
PrenticeD. A.CarranzaE. (2002). What women should be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to be, and don’t have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 269–281. doi:10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00066
63.
RadelR.SarrazinP.LegrainP.GobanceL. (2009). Subliminal priming of motivational orientation in educational settings: Effect on academic performance moderated by mindfulness. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 695–698. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.02.011
64.
RandelA. E. (2002). Identity salience: A moderator of the relationship between group gender composition and work group conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 749–766. doi:10.1002/job.163
65.
ShermanS. J.BeikeD. R.RyallsK. R. (1999). Dual-processing accounts of inconsistencies in responses to general versus specific cases. In ChaikenS.TropeY. (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 203–227). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
66.
ShieldsS. A. (2008). Gender: An intersectionality perspective. Sex Roles, 59, 301–311. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9501-8
67.
ShihM.PittinskyT. L.AmbadyN. (1999). Stereotype susceptibility: Identity salience and shifts in quantitative performance. Psychological Science, 10, 80–83. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00111
68.
SpenceJ. T.HelmreichR. L.StappJ. (1974). The personal attributes questionnaire: A measure of sex-role stereotypes and masculinity and femininity. JSAS: Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 4, 43–44.
69.
StajkovicA. D.LockeE. A.BlairE. S. (2006). A first examination of the relationships between primed subconscious goals, assigned conscious goals, and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1172–1180. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1172
70.
SteeleJ. R.AmbadyN. (2006). “Math is Hard!” The effect of gender priming on women’s attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 428–436. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.06.003
71.
StiffJ. B.MongeauP. A. (2003). Receiver characteristics. In StiffJ. B.MongeauP. A. (Eds.), Persuasive communication (2nd ed., pp. 165–188). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
72.
UnneverJ. D.CullenF. T. (2007). Reassessing the racial divide in support for capital punishment: The continuing significance of race. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 44, 124–158. doi:10.1177/0022427806295837
73.
VisserP. S.BizerG.KrosnickJ. A. (2006). Exploring the latent structure of strength-related attitude attributes. In ZannaM. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 38, pp. 1–67). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38001-X
74.
VisserP. S.KrosnickJ. A. (1998). The development of attitude strength over the life cycle: Surge and decline. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1389–1410. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.75.6.1389
75.
WatsonD.ClarkL. A.TellegenA. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
76.
WegenerD. T.DowningJ.KrosnickJ. A.PettyR. E. (1995). Strength-related properties of attitudes: Measures, manipulations, and future directions. In PettyR. E.KrosnickJ. A. (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 455–487). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
77.
WheelerS. C.DeMarreeK. G. (2009). Multiple mechanisms of prime-to-behavior effects. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3, 566–581. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00187.x
78.
WheelerS. C.DeMarreeK. G.PettyR. E. (2008). A match made in the laboratory: Persuasion and matches to primed traits and stereotypes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1035–1047. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.03.007
79.
WheelerS. C.DeMareeK. G.PettyR. E. (2014). Understanding prime-to-behavior effects: Insights from the active-self account. Social Cognition, 32, 109–123. doi:10.1521/soco.2014.32.supp.109
80.
WheelerS. C.JarvisW. B.PettyR. E. (2001). Think unto others: The self-destructive impact of negative racial stereotypes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 173–180. doi:10.1006/jesp.2000.1448
81.
WhitingS. W.MaynesT. D.PodsakoffN. P.PodsakoffP. M. (2012). Effects of message, source, and context on evaluations of employee voice behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 159–182. doi:10.1037/a0024871
82.
WilliamsM. T.TurkheimerE.MageeE.GuterbockT. (2008). The effects of race and racial priming on self-report of contamination anxiety. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 746–757. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.10.009
83.
WoodW.StagnerB. (1994). Why are some people easier to influence than others? In ShavittS.BrockT. C. (Eds.), Persuasion: Psychological insights and perspectives (pp. 149–174). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
